Family Economics Review [1979, Number 3]

              3 /06. {1: 77f
SUMMER 1979
[ For BuiJd:ng Use Only l
HIGHLIGHTS OF THIS ISSUE:
USERS' GUIDE TO THE COST OF
RAISING A CHILD
CLOTHING BUDGETS FOR FARM ADULTS
FROZEN-PREPARED PLATE DINNERS AND
ENTREES-COST VS. CONVENIENCE
~ilv.J
PROPERTY OF THE
LIBRARY
JUN 26 1979
University of North Carolina
at Greensboro
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Science and Education Administration
2
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. 207 82
Science and Education Administration, Family Economics Review, Summer 1979
Published Ly Science and Education Administration- Agricultural Research,
Northeast Region, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, Md. 20705
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
USERS' GUIDE TO
COST OF
USDA ESTIMATES
RAISING A CHILD
OF THE
By Carolyn S. Edwards1
Estimates of t he cost of raising a child,
developed in the Family Economics Research
Group of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA), have received a great deal of atten­tion.
These figures have been used not only as a
budgetary aid for individual families as original­ly
intended, but have been applied in legal,
social welfare, educational, and research situ­ations
as well. The estimates have been used,
for example, to provide guidelines for judges,
attorneys, and expert witnesses in setting sup­port
payments for children in divorce cases
(25) and in estimating damages arising from
personal injury, wrongful death, and mal­practice
claims. They have been applied by
State, county, and municipal social welfare
agencies in setting public support levels for
families and children, and by educators, finan­cial
advisers, and other professionals who work
with families or who train those who will.
Researchers have used the estimates in analyses
on particular family situations, fertility behav­ior,
and other demographic and population
topics (23, 24, 26, 28, 29). The estimates have
also been quoted widely in newspapers and
popular publications.
This interest and diversity of uses, however,
has generated numerous questions and some
confusion with regard to what estimates are
available and how they may be used. This arti­cle
describes what estimates are available, pro­vides
the most widely requested estimates
updated to current price levels, answers the
most frequently asked questions about their
use and interpretation, and describes infor­mation
on additional materials of interest to
users of the estimates.
AVAILABLE ESTIMATES
The cost estimates of raising a child were
developed as a result of two separate but
1 Economist, Family Economics Research Group,
Science and Education Administration, USDA.
SUMMER 1979
related research efforts. In both, total and
annual costs from birth to age 18 were deter­mined
for eight items in the budget: Food at
home, food away from home, housing, trans­portation,
medical care, education, clothing,
and all other items. The estimates do not
include costs for the birth of the child or for
higher education.
The first of the studies ( 3, 4, 5, 6) was based
on data from the 1960-61 Consumer Expendi­ture
Survey (CES), a cooperative project of the
USDA and the U.S. Department of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Estimates
reflected average expenditure patterns of fami­lies
with husband and wife present and with no
more than five children. Costs were developed
separately for families living in the North Cen­tral,
Northeast, South, and West and for those
living in urban, rural farm, and rural nonfarm
settings. The estimates were developed at three
cost levels-economy, low, and moderate.
Table 1 shows cost estimates for raising urban
children in each of the four regions, updated to
1978 price levels. 2
The second study (1), based on data from
the 1973 Farm Family Living Expenditure Sur­vey
(FFLES) and on procedures modified from
the first study, provides new estimates of the
cost of raising farm children. Unlike the earlier
estimates, these are not limited to families of a
particular type or size, nor are they specific to.
regions. The estimates provide costs by sex as
well as age of the child at four cost levels­thrifty
(similar to the economy level), low,
moderate, and liberal. These estimates, updated
to 1977 price levels, were printed in the Winter
1979 issue ofF AMIL Y ECONOMICS REVIEW.
2 Estimates from this study for rural nonfarm chil­dren,
updated to 1978 price levels, are available from
the Family Economics Research Group (see page 2 of
this issue for address).
3
USE AND INTERPRETATIOW
The estimates are expressed in terms of
average costs for a child at a given age. They
are based on families with children at those
ages and take into account the needs, expendi­ture
patterns, and family characteristics related
to the age of the child. Estimates for children
in specific circumstances, for example, children
in foster care and in single-parent families, are
not available; neither are estimates specific to
birth order or spacing of children. A part of the
first study that focused on the costs of raising
children in families of different sizes indicated
that the cost differences between 2- and 3-child
families ranged from 7 to 12 percent (5). Cost
differences between 3- and 4-child families also
ranged from 7 to 12 percent. Costs per child
decreased only 4 or 5 percent between 4- and
5-child families. A complete set of estimates
specific to family size, however, has not been
developed.
Most of the data on expenditures were
reported in terms of the family unit in which
the child lived. These expenditures had to be
allocated to reflect each family member's
share. To the extent possible, the allocation
methods took into account both the portion of
family expenditures which is related to family
size and accompanying economies of scale and
the portion which is attributable to individual
family members based on their age and sex.
For example, although per person housing and
transportation costs do not increase directly in
proportion to family size, these costs are more
influenced by family size than by the age and
sex of the family member. Per person food [In<}
clothing costs, on the other hand, are more
nearly related to physiological and social needs
that are tied to age and sex. Althougl1 there are
some economies of scale in feeding larger fami­lies,
there is not much savings associated with
an increase in family size.
The estimates place emphasis on direct costs,
or out-of-pocket expenditures, and therefore,
3 The information i.n this section is general and appli­cable
to the estimates from both studies. Users should
realize, however, that although a similar overall
approach was applied to both data bases ( 2), changes in
data collection, variable definition, and estimation pro­cedures
were inevitable and, in some cases, desirable.
The estimates from the two studies are therefore not
directly comparable. Users needing more specific detail
should refer to the original papers (1, 4), available from
the Family Economics Research Group.
4
do not represent the total consumption costs
involved in raising a child. For example, they
generally do not reflect family consumption
that might be attributed to stocks of durables,
past expenditures, income-in-kind, gifts, or the
value of community services. Similarly, no
account is made for the value of personal ser­vices
performed by family members or earnings
given up while raising children.
The CES and the FFLES provide cross-sec­tion
data that present a detailed picture of the
spending patterns of the population at one
point in time-the early sixties for the urban
and rural nonfarm estimates, and the early
seventies for the farm estimates. The cost
figures from birth to age 18 as presented in
table 1, therefore, do not reflect the change in
level and mix of goods and services available to
or consumed by one household as a result of
changes in prices, income, or preferences
experienced as the child grows up. Instead, the
estimates represent the experience and behav­ior
of different families with children at various
ages and expenditure patterns prevalent at the
time the data were collected.
Cost Levels
The levels of the estimates are based on
spending patterns associated with food con­sumption
at the levels of the USDA food plans
(7, 9). The families whose expenditures formed
the basis of the estimates reported food
expenditures equal to the food plan costs. Esti­mates
for clothing at the low cost level, for
example, were based on clothing expenditures
of families whose food expenditures corre­sponded
to the low cost food plan for families
of their size and composition.
This use of the food plans as a benchmark
for the cost levels of the estimates assumes that
families who are spending at similar cost levels
on food, allowing for differences in family size
and composition, are living at similar levels.
These levels are, in turn, reflected in other
areas of consumption. An advantage of this
approach is that food is the one category of
consumption for which standards of adequacy
are available. Use of the food plans also allows
differences in family size and composition to
be taken into consideration, which is not
possible with income, the more common indi­cator
of level of living.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Users of the estimates often ask which cost
level they should use and how these levels
relate to family income. Table 2 may be used
to help select the appropriate cost level (8).
This table is designed for use in conjunction
with the food plans, however, and provides
only general guidance for selecting child rearing
cost estimates. The relationship& indicated in
the table were developed on a different data
base, using different methods than the esti­mates
of the cost of raising a child.
Region and Urbanization
The estimates developed in the first study
were specific to region and to urbanization.
The four regions were those used by the U.S.
Bureau of the Census, and include these States:
North Central
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
Ohio
South Dakota
Wisconsin
Alabama
Arkansas
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Mississippi
North Carolina
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
West Virginia
Northeast
Connecticut
Delaware
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Vermont
Arizona
California
Colorado
Idaho
Montana
Nevada
New Mexico
Oregon
Utah
Washington
Wyoming
Alaska and Hawaii were not represented. The
District of Columbia was included in the
South. Estimates for a U.S. average were not
developed in the first study. If such an indi­cator
is necessary, use of the estimates for the
North Central region is most appropriate.
The definition of urbanization used in the
CES data and reflected in the estimates from
the first study included urban, rural nonfarm,
and rural farm. Urban included incorporated
places of a population of 2,500 or more or the
SUMMER 1979
densely settled areas immediately adjacent to
cities of a population of 50,000 or more. Rural
nonfarm included those areas outside urban
areas but not classified as farm. To be a rural
farm, a 10-acre parcel needed sales of at least
$50 per year; a parcel of less than 10 acres
needed sales of at least $250. This definition of
farm was also used in the FFLES data base.
Price Level Adjustments
Users may wish to make adjustments to the
price levels so that the estimates will suit their
particular needs. The estimates may be updated
or backdated using appropriate subindexes of
the Consumer Price Index provided in table 3.
Each budget category must be adjusted indi­vidually
to reflect differential price-level
changes between budget items over time.
Before adjusting the price levels, users
should determine whether constant or current
dollar figures are more suitable to their needs.
The estimates in table 1 are expressed in con­stant
1978 dollars and assume that the child
progresses through 18 years at 1978 price
levels. Constant dollar estimates are appropri­ate
when interest is with the present costs of
raising children of different ages. They are not
appropriate for determining the total cost of
raising one child; they are too high for the
child who reaches age 18 in 1978, and too low
for the child born in 1978.
When concern is with past or future costs of
raising an individual child or a cohort of chil­dren
of a particular age, however, current dol­lar
estimates that reflect prices actually
incurred should be used. Current dollar esti­mates
may be calculated by applying price
indexes for the different budget items for the
calendar year corresponding to the child's age
(table 3) to the cost estimates for that age
(table 1). For example, the current dollar esti­mates
to raise a child born in 1960 in the urban
South at the moderate cost level would be
$37,061 (table 4) compared with the constant
1978 dollar estimates of $60,298 (table 1).
This current dollar estimate was calculated by
applying the 1960 indexes to the estimated
costs of the infancy year, the 1961 indexes to
the age 1 estimates, and so on for the remain­ing
years and adding to arrive at the total. Such
a figure could be calculated to estimate past
costs incurred raising a particular child born in
1960. If concern were with projecting costs
5
over the life of a child, as in anticipating sup­port
costs to be incurred for a particular child,
users would want to consider projections for
future price changes. For example, for a child
born in 1976, the 1978 annual cost estimates
for the infancy year could be backdated by use
of the 1976 indexes, the annual figures for
age 1 could be adjusted by use of the 1977
indexes, the figures for age 2 could be taken as
is for 1978, and cost estimates for subsequent
ages could be inflated sequentially by use of
some projected price change assumptions for
future years. A total could then be reached
that would reflect the experienced and expect­ed
price changes over the life of the child as
well as the cost changes associated with growth
of the child.
Consideration also could be made for
changes in family level of living over the life
cycle by combining figures at different cost
levels. For example, it might be assumed that a
child was raised for several years at one cost
level and for other years at another.
ADDITIONAL MATERIALS RELATED TO
THE COST OF RAISING A CHILD
Users of the child rearing cost estimates
often inquire about additional materials to aid
in the use and interpretation of the figures. The
following materials provide supplementary
detail on particular items in the budget, or
extend the use of the estimates to other topics.
USDA Budgets for Food and Clothing
The child rearing estimates are cost budgets.
They do not provide information on the
quantity or quality of items actually purchased
or needed to attain a given cost level or
standard of adequacy. The USDA budgets for
food and clothing, however, provide this infor­mation
at comparable cost levels.
The food budgets (plans) take into account
current information on nutritional needs and
food consumption patterns as well as the nutri­ent
content and prices of food. The food plans
specify the amounts of food in 11 food groups
needed to provide nutritionally adequate diets
to persons in 20 age-sex groups at four cost
levels-thrifty, low, moderate, and liberal (7,
9). A plan for any family can be determined by
adding amounts of foods suggested for persons
of the sex and age of family members (8). The
6
costs of the plans for the U.S. average are
released monthly and published quarterly in
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW. Costs spe­cific
to the four regions are published in the
Summer issue of FAMILY ECONOMICS
REVIEW.
Cost and quantity budgets for clothing were
developed by the USDA in two studies based
on the same data used for the cost of raising a
child estimates. The 1960-61 CES data pro­vided
estimates of the annual costs of clothing
purchases for 21 categories of individuals,
based on age, sex, and marital and employment
status, and by urbanization, region, and cost
level (10, 11, 13). The 1973 FFLES data pro­vided
the basis for annual cost estimates for
farm children and adults for six clothing cate­gories
(15, 16). Estimates for farm children
were published in the Winter 1979 issue of
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW; estimates for
adults are on page 17 of this issue. Clothing
quantity budgets (12) and an Interactive Com­puter
Program for Wardrobe Replacement Plan­ning
(14) were also developed using the
1960-61 CES.
Higher Education
Costs for higher education are not included
in the child rearing cost estimates .. Estimates of
the costs of tuition, fees, and room and board
rates for institutions of higher education are
available from ·the National Center for Educa­tion
Statistics, U B. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare (17) . .l!;stimates for the
1978-79 academic year indicate that such
costs, per academic year, range from about
$1,800 to $2,350 for public institutions and
from about $3,470 to $5,610 for private,
depending on the type of institution-2-year,
4-year, or university. Detail is also available on
costs by type of charge, control and type of
institution, and by residence status of the stu­dent.
Another annual publication from the
same agency provides estimated cost figures for
the 1963-64 through 1976-77 academic years
and projections of estimated charges at three
cost levels for the 1977-7 8 through 1986-87
academic years in constant 1976-77 dollars
(18).
Cost of Having a Baby
The child rearing cost estimates also do not
include the costs involved in having a baby. A
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
recent release from the Health Insurance Insti­tute
(27) estimates this cost to be about
$2,170 to $2,220. This estimate includes $888
for hospital care, $518-568 for medical care,
and $7 62 for the layette. (This last figure
includes $397 for nursery furnishings, identi­fied
as optional.) Costs for maternity clothes
and unusual expenses such as drugs were not
included. Data sources for the re.port were sur­veys
conducted by the Health Insurance
Association of America, MEDICAL ECO­NOMICS,
the Children's Bureau of the U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
the Health Insurance Institute, and materials
from a children's clothing manufacturer.
Bureau of Labor Statistics Family Budgets
Standard budgets are also published by the
U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor
Statistics. These budgets cover all the outlays
made by a family (20, 22) . They are designed
to represent the costs of hypothetical lists of
goods and services specified to portray three
relative levels of living-lower, intermediate,
and higher. The budget costs are periodically
priced for 39 urban areas (19).
The USDA estimates differ from the BLS
budgets in that the USDA estimates focus on
specific expenditure categories. They reflect
the spending patterns of actual families at
specified cost levels, rather than a specified list
of goods and services as in the BLS budgets. In
addition, the USDA estimates focus on indi­viduals
of ,different age and sex living in urban,
rural farm, and rural nonfarm families. The
BLS budgets represent a precisely specified
urban family of four: A husband age 38, his
unemployed wife, a girl age 8, and a boy age
13. An equivalence scale may be used with the
BLS budgets to estimate the costs for families
of other sizes and composition (21).
REFERENCES
USDA Cost of Raising a Child
1. Edwards, C. S., and Gray, B. 1978. The
cost of raising farm children. Talk at
the Food and Agricultural Outlook
Conference, November 1978, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washing­ton,
D.C. (Condensed in Family Eco­nomics
Review, Winter 1979.)
2. Madden, J. P., Pennock, J. L., and Jaeger,
C. M. 1968. Equivalent levels of living:
A new approach to scaling the poverty
line to different family characteristics
and place of residence. In: Rural Pover­ty
in the United States, pp. 545-552. (A
report by the President's National
Advisory Commission on Rural Pover­ty.)
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govern­ment
Printing Office.
3. Mark, L. 1966. Cost of raising a child.
Talk at the 44th Annual Agricultural
Outlook Conference, November 1966,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wash­ington,
D.C.
4. Pennock, J. L. 1970. Cost of raising a
child. Talk at the 47th Annual Agri­cultural
Outlook Conference, February
1970, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
SUMMER 1979
5. 1970. Child-rearing costs at
two levels of living, by family size.
Family Economics Review, December
issue, pp. 16-17.
6. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricul­tural
Research Service, Consumer and
Food Economics Institute. 1971. Cost
of rru.smg a . child-Derived from
1960-61 Survey of Consumer Expendi­ture,
detail tables. CFE(Adm.)-318.
USDA Food Plans
7. Peterkin, B. 1974. USDA family food
plans, 1974. Talk at the 1975 National
Agricultural Outlook Conference,
December 1974, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, D.C. (Con­densed
in Family Economics Review,
Winter 1975 and Spring 1975 issues.)
8. 1976. Family Food Budgeting
for Good Meals and Good Nutritinn.
HG 94. U.S. Department of Agricul­ture,
Washington, D.C. (Revision due
out in 1979.)
9. Peterkin, B., Chassy, J. , and Kerr, R. 1975.
The Thrifty food Plan. CFE(Adm.)-326.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricul-
7
tural Research Service, Consumer and
Food Economics Institute. (Condensed
in Family Economics Review, Winter
1976.)
USDA Clothing Budgets
10. Britton, V. 197 3. Clothing budgets for
children from the USDA: Annual costs
at three levels in four regions. Home
Economics Research Journal 1(3):
173-184.
11. 197 4. USDA clothing budg-ets:
Annual costs. Family Economics
Review, Summer issue, pp. 3-7.
12. 1974. Clothing quantity
budgets. Family Economics Review,
Fall issue, pp. 3-7.
13. 1975. USDA clothing budg-ets:
1975 costs. Family Economics
Review, Summer issue, pp. 13-15.
14. Magrabi, F. M., Cooper, M. L., Mark,
L. F., and Gray , B. C. 1976. Wardrobe
replacement planning aid for families:
A computer program. U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Agricultural Research
Service, Consumer and Food Eco­nomics
Institute.
15. Polyzou, A., Edwards, C. S., and Wein­stein,
M. B. 1978. Clothing budgets for
farm children, 1977. Talk at the Food
and Agricultural Outlook Conference,
November 1978, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, D.C. (Con­densed
in Family Economics Review,
Winter 1979.)
16. 1979. Clothing budgets for
farm adults, 1978. Family Economics
Review, Summer issue, pp. 16-17.
U.S. Department of Health, Education
and Welfare
Estimates for Higher Education
17. Grant, W. V., and Lind, C. G. 1979. Digest
of Educational Statistics 1978-79. U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, National Center for Education
Statistics. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Gov­ernment
Printing Office. (In press.)
18. Lind, C. G. 1978. Student charges by insti­tutions
of higher education. In:
8
Frankel, M. M. (editor), Projections of
Education Statistics to 1986-87, chap-ter
6. U.S. Department of Health, Edu­cation,
and Welfare, National Center for
Education Statistics. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office,
U.S. Department of Labor
Bureau of Labor Statistics Family Budgets
19. McGraw, M. L. 1978. Family budgets.
Monthly Labor Review 101(11): 33-36.
20. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics. 1967. City Workers'
Family Budget for a Moderate Living
Standard, Autumn 1966. Bulletin
1570-1.
21. 1968. Revised Equivalence
Scale for Estimating Incomes or Budget
Costs by Family Type. Bulletin 1570-2.
22. 1969. Three Standards of
Living for an Urban Family of Four
Persons, Spring 1967. Bulletin 1570-5.
Other References
23. Culley, J. D., Settles, B. H., and Van
Name, J. B. 1977. Understanding and
Measuring the Cost of Foster Family
Care. Newark, Delaware: Bureau of
Economic and Business Research, Uni­versity
of Delaware.
24. Douthitt, R. 1977. Cost of raising a child.
Consumer Close-ups, November-Decem­ber
issue. New York State Cooperative
Extension.
25. Eden, P. 1977. Estimating Child and
Spousal Support: Economic Guidelines
for Judges and Attorneys. San Mateo,
California: Western Book Journal Press.
26. Espenshade, T. J . 1977. The value and cost
of children. Population Bulletin 32(1).
Population Reference Bureau, Inc.,
Washington, D.C.
27. Health Insurance Institute. 1978. The Cost
of Having a Baby. Washington, D.C.
28. Lindert, P. 197 8. Fertility and Scarcity in
America. Princeton, New Jersey:
Princeton University Press.
29. Reed, R. H., and Mcintosh, S. 1972. Cost
of children. In: E. R. Morss and R. H.
Reed (editors), Economic Aspects of
Population Change, Vol. III. U.S. Com­mission
on Population Growth and the
American Future, Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Table l. Annual cost of raising an urban child from birth to age 18, by age, at 3 cost levels:
1978 price levelsl
NORTH CENTRAL
Age of child
(years)
Total
Food
at
home2
Food
away
from
home
Clothing Housing-3 Mecdairceal Educa- Transpor- All
tion tation other4
ECONOMY
Under 1 ---------- 1,485 295
1 ---------------- 1,541 351
2-3 -------------- 1,403 351
4-5 -------------- 1,475 387
6 ---------------- 1,548 387
7-9 -------------- 1,622 461
10-11 ------------ 1,715 554
12 --------------- 1,770 554
13-15 ------------ 1,825 609
16-17 ------------ 1,963 683
Total---------- 29,797 8,747
LOW
Under 1 ---------- 2,017 369
1 ---------------- 2,091 443
2-3 -------------- 1,936 424
4-5 -------------- 2,047 480
6 ---------------- 2,084 480
7-9 -------------- 2,176 572
10-11 ------------ 2,287 683
12 --------------- 2,405 683
13-15 ------------ 2,478 756
16-17 ------------ 2,733 849
Total ---------- 40,619 10,831
MODERATE
Under 1 ---------- 2,668
1 ---------------- 2,760
2-3 -------------- 2,592
4-5 -------------- 2,757
6 ---------------- ?.,877
7-9 -------------- 3,006
10-11 ------------ 3,135
12 --------------- 3,3o4
13-15 ------------ 3,457
16-17 ------------ 3,823
Total ---------- 55,672
406
498
498
572
554
683
812
830
923
1,033
12,936
0
0
0
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
504
0
0
0
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
770
0
0
0
91
91
91
91
109
109
109
1,382
55
55
69
69
123
123
123
178
178
192
2,220
Dollars
596
596
511
511
494
494
494
494
494
528
9,232
82 835
82 835
123 716
123 716
192 648
192 648
192 648
260 665
260 665
356 682
3,560 12,446
110
110
178
178
247
247
247
356
356
494
4,826
1,125
1,125
988
988
937
937
937
971
971
1,005
17' 718
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
1,638
127
127
109
109
109
109
109
109
109
109
1,998
164
164
164
164
164
164
164
164
164
164
2,952
0 297 151
0 297 151
0 247 134
0 247 134
35 231 151
35 231 151
35 231 151
35 231 151
35 231 151
35 247 151
420 4,386 2,650
0 369 235
0 369 235
0 346 218
0 346 218
35 330 235
35 330 235
35 330 235
35 346 252
35 346 252
35 379 268
420 6,298 4,296
0
0
0
0
70
70
70
70
70
70
840
511
511
445
445
445
445
445
478
478
528
8,440
352
352
319
319
369
369
369
386
386
420
6,578
1Child in a family of husband and wife and no more than 5 children.
2Includes home-produced food and school lunches.
3Includes shelter, fuel, utilities, household operations, furnishings, and equipment.
4Includes personal care, recreation, reading, and other miscellaneous expenditures.
Source: Costs were updated from estimates in table 2 of CFE (Adm.)-318, 1971, USDA, Agricultural
Research Service, Cost of Raising a Child--Derived from 1960-61 Survey of Consumer Expenditures,
detail tables. Indexes used are shown in table 3. Estimates rounded to nearest $1.
SUMMER 1979 9
Table 1. Annual cost of raising an urban child from birth to age 18, by age, at 3 cost levels:
1978 price levels 1
Age of child
(years)
ECONOMY
Total
Food
at
home2
Under 1 ---------- 1,252 314
1 ---------------- 1,307 369
2-3 -------------- 1,280 369
4-5 -------------- 1,353 406
6 ---------------- 1,378 406
7-9 -------------- 1,452 480
10-11 ------------ 1,544 572
12 --------------- 1,593 590
13-15 ------------ 1,649 646
16-17 ------------ 1,811 720
Total ---------- 26,809 9,191
LOW
Under 1 ----------
1 ----------------
2-3 --------------
4-5 --------------
6 ----------------
7-9 --------------
10-11 ------------
12 ---------------
13-15 ------------
16-17 ------------
Total ----------
MODERATE
Under 1 ----------
1 ----------------
2-3 --------------
4-5 --------------
6 ----------------
7-9 --------------
10-11 ------------
12 ---------------
13-15 ------------
16-17 -----------­Total
----------
1,692
1,766
1,670
1,762
1,783
1,875
1,986
2,126
2,181
2,352
35,075
2,660
2, 770
2, 715
2,880
3,086
3,215
3,381
3,606
3, 717
4,009
58,888
387
461
461
517
517
609
720
738
793
904
11,513
480
590
572
646
646
775
941
941
1,052
1,162
14,780
Food
away
from
home
0
0
0
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
504
0
0
0
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
504
0
0
0
91
109
109
109
109
109
127
1,526
NORTHEAST
Clothing Housing'! Medical Educa- Transpor- All
care tion tation other4
55
55
96
96
137
137
137
151
151
206
2,332
82
82
123
123
178
178
178
233
233
260
3,176
110
110
192
192
260
260
260
384
384
480
5,044
-Do-lla-rs
511
511
460
460
443
443
443
460
460
477
8,314
716
716
613
613
562
562
562
579
579
579
10,730
1,142
1,142
1,039
1,039
1,022
1,022
1,022
1,056
1,056
1,074
18,944
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
73
1,314
109
109
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
1,674
164
164
164
164
164
164
164
164
164
164
2,952
0 165 134
0 165 134
0 148 134
0 148 134
17 132 134
17 132 134
17 132 134
17 132 134
17 132 134
17 148 134
204 2,538 2,412
0
0
0
0
17
17
17
17
17
17
204
0
0
0
0
87
87
87
87
87
87
1,044
247
247
231
231
214
214
214
247
247
264
4,218
445
445
412
412
412
412
412
462
462
495
7,848
151
151
151
151
168
168
168
185
185
201
3,056
319
319
336
336
386
386
386
403
403
420
6,750
!Child in a family of husband and wife and no more than 5 children.
2Includes home-produced food and school lunches.
3Includes shelter, fuel, utilities, household operations, furnishings, and equipment.
4rncludes personal care, recreation, reading, and other miscellaneous expenditures.
Source: Costs were updated from estimates in table 2 of CFE (Adm.)-318, 1971, USDA, Agricultural
Research Service, Cost of Raising a Child--Derived from 1960-61 Survey of Consumer Expenditures,
detail tables. Indexes used are shown in table 3. Estimates rounded to nearest $1.
10 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Table 1 . Annual cost of raising an urban child from birth to age 18, by age, at 3 cost levels:
1978 price levels!
SOUTH
Food Food
Age of child Total at away Clothing Housing3 Medical Educa- Transpor-
(years) home2 from care tion tat ion
home
Dollars
ECONOMY
Under 1 - --------- 1,412 277 0 69 545 73 0 297
1 --------------- - 1,467 332 0 69 545 73 0 297
2- 3 - - -------- - - -- 1 , 328 332 0 82 460 73 0 247
4- 5 -------------- 1,401 369 36 82 460 73 0 247
6 ----- - - --- - - ---- 1,439 369 18 137 443 73 17 231
7- 9 -------------- 1 , 513 443 18 137 443 73 17 231
10~11 - ------------ 1,587 517 18 137 443 73 17 231
12· --- ------------ 1,693 517 36 192 460 73 17 247
l3- l5 - ------- ---- 1,730 554 36 192 460 73 17 247
16 ~17 ------------ 1,822 646 36 192 460 73 17 247
Total- ----- ----- 28,016 8,214 396 2, 440 8,348 1,3111 204 4,450
LOW
Under 1 ---------- 1 , 973 351 0 96 801 127 0 363
1 ---- ------------ 2,046 424 0 96 801 127 0 363
2-3 ---------- ---- 1,848 406 0 137 682 109 0 313
4- 5 -------------- 1,939 461 36 137 682 109 0 313
6 ---------------- 1,944 461 36 192 596 109 35 297
7-q ------- ------- 2, 018 535 36 192 596 109 35 297
10-11 ------------ 2,110 627 36 192 596 109 35 297
12· - - ------------- 2,264 627 55 260 613 109 35 330
.13- 15 ------------ 2,338 701 55 260 613 109 35 330
16~17 - ----------- 2,522 793 55 302 630 109 35 346
Total ---------- 38 , 133 10,145 618 3,536 11,618 1,998 420 5, 772
MODERATE
Under 1 ---------- 2,905 443 0 123 1,210 182 0 544
1 ---- - - ---------- 2,997 535 0 123 1,210 182 0 544
2-3 --- - - ------ --- 2,829 517 0 192 1,074 182 0 478
4- 5 ---- - ---- ---- - 2,975 572 91 192 1,074 182 0 478
6 ------- ------ - - - 3,148 572 109 260 1,022 182 105 478
7- 9 - - ----- ----- - - 3,259 683 109 260 1,022 182 105 478
10-11 --- --------- 3,406 830 109 260 1,022 182 105 478
12 -------- ---- --- 3,648 830 127 384 1,056 182 105 511
13-15 - ------ - ---- 3,759 941 127 384 1,056 182 105 511
16- 17 - ---- - ------ 4,063 1,033 127 494 1,091 182 105 561
Total ------ - - -- 60,298 13,156 1,598 5,098 19,254 3,276 1,260 9,034
lchild in a family of husband and wife and no more than 5 children.
2Includes home- produced food and school lunches.
3rncludes shelter, fuel, utilities, household operations, furnishings, and equipment.
4Includes personal care, recreation, reading, and other miscellaneous expenditures.
Source: Costs were updated from estimates in table 2 of CFE (Adm.)-318, 1971, USDA,
Agricultural Research Service, Cost of Raising a Child--Derived from 1960-61 Survey of
Consumer Expenditures, detail tables. Indexes used are shown in table 3. Estimates
rounded to nearest $1.
SUMMER 1979
All
other4
151
151
134
134
151
151
151
151
151
151
2,650
235
235
201
201
218
218
218
235
235
252
4,026
403
403
386
386
420
420
420
453
453
470
7,622
11
Table 1. Annual cost of raising an urban child from birth
1978 price levelsl
to age 18,
WEST
Food Food
Age of child Total at away Clothing Housing3 Medical
(years) home2 from care
home
Dollars
ECONOMY
Under 1 ---------- 1,487 295 0 55 579 127
1 ---------------- 1,561 369 0 55 579 127
2-3 -------------- 1,434 351 0 82 511 109
4-5 -------------- 1,525 406 36 82 511 109
6 ---------------- 1,567 406 36 123 494 109
7-9 -------------- 1,659 498 36 123 494 109
10-11 ------------ 1,733 572 36 123 494 109
12 --------------- 1,837 590 36 192 511 109
13-15 ------------ 1,893 646 36 192 511 109
16-17 ------------ 2,019 738 36 192 511 127
Total ---------- 30,530 9,226 504 2,328 9,232 2,034
LOW
Under 1 ---------- 2,045 369 0 82 818 145
1 ---------------- 2,137 461 0 82 818 145
2-3 -------------- 2,008 443 0 123 716 145
4-5 -------------- 2,118 498 55 123 716 145
6 ---------------- 2,170 498 55 192 665 145
7-9 -------------- 2,262 590 55 192 665 145
10-11 ------------ 2,373 701 55 192 665 145
12 --------------- 2,528 720 73 260 682 145
13-15 ------------ 2,583 775 73 260 682 145
16-17 ------------ 2,795 886 91 260 699 145
Total ---------- 42,003 11,199 914 3,368 12,616 2,610
MODERATE
Under 1 ---------- 2,859 443 0 110 1,176 200
1 ---------------- 2,970 554 0 110 1,176 200
2-3 -------------- 2,833 535 0 178 1,056 200
4-5 -------------- 3,016 609 109 178 1,056 200
6 ---------------- 3,234 590 127 260 1,039 200
7-9 -------------- 3,364 720 127 260 1,039 200
10-11 ------------ 3,530 886 127 260 1,039 200
12 --------------- 3,741 886 127 370 1,074 200
13-15 ------------ 3,833 978 127 370 1,074 200
16-17 ------------ 4,228 1,107 146 466 1,125 200
Total ---------- 61,609 13,841 1,780 4,904 19,356 3,600
1Child in a family of husband and wife and no more than 5 children.
2rncludes home-produced food and school lunches.
by age, at 3 cost levels:
Educa- Transpor- All
tion tat ion other4
0 280 151
0 280 151
0 247 134
0 247 134
17 231 151
17 231 151
17 231 151
17 231 151
17 231 151
17 247 151
204 4,352 2,650
0 396 235
0 396 235
0 346 235
0 346 235
17 346 252
17 346 252
17 346 252
17 363 268
17 363 268
17 412 285
204 6;528 4,564
0 544 386
0 544 386
0 478 386
0 478 386
87 495 436
87 495 436
87 495 436
87 544 453
87 544 453
87 594 503
1,044 9,334 7,750
3rncludes shelter, fuel, utilities, household operations, furnishings, and equipment.
4rncludes personal care, recreation, reading, and other miscellaneous expenditures.
Source: Costs were updated from estimates in table 2 of CFE (Adm.)-318, 1971, USDA,
Agricultural Research Service, Cost of Raising a Child--Derived from 1960-61 Survey of Consumer
Expenditures, detail tables. Indexes used are shown in table 3. Estimates rounded to nearest $1.
12 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
00 c
s:::
s:::
txl
::0
......
tO
-.)
tO
~
""
Income
(before taxes)
$2,500 to
$5,000
$5,000 to
$10,000
$10,000 to
$15,000
$15,000 to
$20,000
$20,000 to
$30,000
$30,000 to
$40,000
$40,000 or
more
Table 2. Food plans by size and income of family, spring 1978
1-person 2-person 3-person 4-person 5-person
families families families families families
Thrifty1 or Thriftyl or Thrifty1 Thrifty1 Thrifty1
Low-cost Low-cost
Moderate-cost Low-cost or Thrifty1 or Thrifty1 Thrifty!
Moderate-cost Low-cost
Liberal Moderate-cost Low-cost or Low-cost Thrifty1 or
Moderate-cost Low-cost
Liberal Liberal Moderate-cost Low-cost or Low-cost
Moderate-cost
Liberal Liberal Moderate-cost Moderate-cost Low-cost or
or Liberal Moderate-cost
Liberal Liberal Liberal Moderate-cost Moderate-cost
or Liberal or Liberal
Liberal Liberal Liberal Liberal Liberal
1Many families of this size and income are eligible for assistance through the Food Stamp Program.
6-person
families
Thrifty1
Thrifty1
Thrifty1
Thrifty1 or
Low-cost
Low-cost
Moderate-cost
Moderate-cost
or Liberal
Source: USDA, Science and Education Administration, 1979, Family Food Budgeting--For Good Meals and Good Nutrition,
HG 94 (8).
Note: The economy level of the child rearing cost estimates (table 1) would be used wherever the thrifty plan is indicated
above.
Table 3. Annual average Consumer Price Index data for updating and backdating estimates of the
cost of raising children
Budget
category
CPI group 1
1979 (March)
1978
1977
1976
1975
1974
1973
1972
1971
1970
1969
1968
1967
1966
1965
1964
1963
1962
1961
1960
1959
1958
1957
1956
1955
1954
1953
Food
at
home
Food
at
home
230.1
209.9
190.2
179.5
175.8
162.4
141.4
121.6
116.4
113.7
108.2
103.2
100.0
100.3
95.5
93.2
92.2
91.0
90.4
89.6
88.8
91.0
87.2
84.4
84.1
85.8
86.2
Food
away
from
home
Food
away
from
home
238.1
218.3
200.3
186.1
174.3
159.4
141.4
131.1
126.1
119.9
111.6
105.2
100.0
95.1
90.9
88.9
87.3
85.4
83.2
81.4
79.3
77.2
74.9
72.2
70.8
70.1
68.9
Clothing
Apparel
and
upkeep
165.2
159.5
154.2
147.6
142.3
136.2
126.8
122.3
119.8
116.1
111 .5
105.4
100.0
96.1
93.7
92.7
91.9
90.9
90.4
89.6
88.2
87.5
87.3
85.8
84.1
84.5
84.6
(1967=100)
Housing
Housing
217.5
202.6
189.6
177 0 2
166.8
150.6
135.0
129.2
124.3
118.9
110.8
104.2
100.0
97.2
94.9
93.8
92.7
91.7
90.9
90.2
88.6
87.7
86.2
83.6
82.3
81.7
80.8
Medical
care
Medical
care
233.4
219.4
202.4
184.7
168.6
150.5
137.7
132.5
128.4
120.6
113.4
106.1
100.0
93.4
89.5
87.3
85.6
83.5
81.4
79.1
76.4
73.2
69.9
67.2
64.8
63.4
61.4
Education
Reading
and
recreation2
208.3
198.2
157.9
151.2
144.4
133.8
125.9
122.8
119.3
113.4
108.7
104.7
100.0
97.5
95.9
95.0
92.8
91.3
89.3
87.3
85.3
83.9
80.7
77.8
76.7
76.9
77.7
Transpor­tation
Transpor­tation
200.7
185.8
177.2
165.5
150.6
137.7
123.8
119.9
118.6
112.7
107.2
103.2
100.0
97.2
95.9
94.3
93.0
92.5
90.6
89.6
89 .6
86.0
83.3
78.8
77.4
78.3
79.5
All
other
Personal care
and
Reading and
recreation
(average) 2
199.9
190.1
164.4
155.8
147.6
135.6
125.6
121.3
118.1
113.3
109.0
104.5
100.0
97.3
95.6
94.8
93.1
91.8
90.0
88.7
87.0
85.4
82.4
79.5
77.3
76.8
77.0
1The Revised Consumer Price Index for urban wage earners and clerical workers (CPI-W) replaced the
unrevised CPI; use revised as shown for adjusting estimates to 1978 and on; unrevised CPI for adjusting
to 1953-1977; monthly indexes are seasonally adjusted.
2In using the revised CPI-W to adjust estimates of the cost of raising a child (table 1), the "Personal
and educational expenses" index should replace the "Reading and recreation" index; the average of the
"Personal care" and the "Personal and educational expenses" indexes should replace the average of the
"Personal care" and the "Reading and recreation" indexes.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Note: To adjust the price levels of the estimates of the cost of raising a child to specific year price
levels, multiply the 1978 estimate for each budget category by the index number for that category for the
desired year and divide the product by the corresponding index number for 1978. For example, in order to
update 1978 costs for housing to March 1979 prices, multiply the 1978 estimate for housing by 217.5 and
divide by 202.6. In order to backdate 1978 costs for housing to 1968 prices, multiply the 1978 estimate
for housing by 104.2 and divide by 202.6.
14 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
rn c::
s::
s::
tr:l
::l:l
f-'
tS:l
-l
tS:l
.....
01
Table 4. Cost of raising a child born in 1960 in the urban South at the moderate cost level; prices are current for
each year specified
Age of
Total
Food at Food away
Clothing Housing
Medical
Education
Transpor- All
Year child home from home care tat ion other
Dollars
1960 .•.•.... Under 1 1,313 189 0 69 539 66 0 262 188
1961 ........ 1 1,368 231 0 70 543 68 0 265 191
1962 ........ 2 1,313 224 0 110 486 69 0 238 186
1963 ........ 3 1,328 227 0 111 491 71 0 239 189
1964 ......•. 4 1,407 254 37 112 497 72 0 243 192
1965 ....•... 5 1,429 260 38 113 503 74 0 247 194
1966 •....... 6 1,563 273 48 157 491 77 52 250 215
1967 •....... 7 1,658 325 so 164 505 83 53 257 221
1968 ........ 8 1,727 336 53 172 526 88 55 266 231
1969 ........ 9 1,818 352 56 182 559 94 58 276 241
1970 ........ 10 2,000 450 60 190 600 100 60 290 250
1971 ........ 11 2,082 461 63 196 627 106 63 305 261
1972 ..•..... 12 2,321 481 77 295 674 110 65 330 289
1973 .....•.. 13 2,548 634 83 306 704 114 67 341 299
1974 ....•..• 14 2,832 728 93 328 785 125 71 379 323
1975 •.....•. 15 3,086 789 102 343 870 140 76 414 352
1976 ........ 16 3,522 884 109 458 954 153 80 499 385
1977 ........ 17 3,746 937 117 478 1,021 168 84 535 406
Total
1960-77 •.. 37,061 8,035 986 3,854 11,375 1, 778 784 5,636 4,613
Source: Costs were updated from estimates in table 2 of CFE (Adm.)-318, 1971, USDA, Agricultural Research Service, Cost
of Raising a Child--Derived from 1960-61 Survey of Consumer Expenditures, detail tables. Indexes used are shown in
table 3. Estimates rounded to nearest $1 .
CLOTHING BUDGETS FOR FARM ADULTS, 1978
By Annette Polyzou, Carolyn S. Edwards, and Mills B. Weinstein 1
Annual clothing budget costs for farm adults
were developed based on data from the 1973
Farm Family Living Expenditure Survey
(FFLES). The budgets include costs for unmar­ried
and married men and women in several age
categories for four cost levels-thrifty, low,
moderate, and liberal.2
Total clothing costs for unmarried men, at
1978 price levels, range from $67 to $81 at the
thrifty level, $77 to $116 at the low level, $93
to $181 at the moderate level, and $109 to
$262 at the liberal level, depending on age (see
table). Clothing costs for married men range
from $43 to $110 at the thrifty level, $54 to
$182 at the low level, $104 to $274 at the
moderate level, and $148 to $406 at the liberal
level. Total clothing costs for unmarried
women range from $34 to $68 at the thrifty
level, $44 to $148 at the low level, $73 to
$321 at the moderate level, and $95 to $459 at
the liberal level. Clothing costs for married
women range from $21 to $54 at the thrifty
level, $33 to $158 at the low level, $91 to
$304 at the moderate level, and $146 to $669
at the liberal level.
Clothing costs were generally highest in the
youngest age groups for both unmarried and
married men and women. Individuals in these
' Home economist and economist, Family Eco·
nomics Research Group, Science and Education
Administration (SEA), USDA. Mathematical statisti­cian,
Consumer and Food Economics Institute, Human
Nutrition Center, SEA, USDA.
2 For information on the sample, levels of the
budgets, age-sex and clothing categories, and methodol­ogy,
see "Clothing Budgets for Farm Children, 1977 ,"
by A. Polyzou, C.S. Edwards, and M.B. Weinstein.
Paper presented at the Food and Agricultural Outlook
Conference in November 1978 at Washington, D.C.
This paper may be ordered from the Family Economics
Research Group. See address on page 2 of this issue.
16
age groups may lead a more active social life
and may be more fashion conscious than indi­viduals
in older age groups, thus requiring a
larger and more diverse wardrobe. Clothing
costs were generally lowest in the 65 and over
age group for unmarried and married men and
women. Individuals in this age group may have
less income to spend on clothing and less cloth­ing
needs due to retirement from the labor
force. These individuals may also have pur­chased
more conservative and durable clothing
that necessitated less frequent replacement.
Separate estimates were computed for six
categories of clothing: Wraps, outerwear,
underwear and nightwear, hosiery, footwear,
and hats and all other items. The wraps cate­gory
includes light and heavy coats and jackets.
Outerwear includes suits, sweaters, pants,
shirts, dresses, skirts, and sportswear. Under­wear
and nightwear includes underpants,
undershirts, bras, slips, sleepwear, and robes.
The hats and all other category includes hats,
gloves, handbags, jewelry, and accessories. Out­erwear
costs generally accounted for the great­est
proportion of the total annual costs,
followed by footwear.
The budget costs cover purchased clothing
only. The actual inventories probably included
additional garments received as gifts, sewn at
home, or obtained from some other source
without cost. This may account for the low
clothing costs in some categories.
Cost differences between the four levels may
reflect differences in the price and number of
garments purchased by individuals as well as
the frequency of replacement. For example,
individuals spending at the liberal level may
purchase more expensive items of apparel, may
have a greater number of garments, and may
replace items more frequently than individuals
spending at the thrifty, low, or moderate levels.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
r:n c:: Farm adults' clothing budgets at 4 cost levels by age and sex: 1978 annual costs 1
a:: Cost level, Underwear and
Footwear
Hats and all a:: marital status, Total Wraps Outerwear nightwear Hosiery other
t_:l.j and age of adult
~ (years) Men Women Men lolomen Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women
..... Dollars
~ ---
-l Thrifty level:
~ Unmarried
18-24 .... ....... 81 68 7 4 30 16 6 12 3 11 24 17 11 8
25- 64 ........... 67 50 9 4 26 18 9 8 2 5 16 13 5 2
65 and over . . ... 70 34 6 5 29 9 8 6 3 2 19 11 5 1
Married
16-34 . .......... 110 54 13 3 39 20 8 9 4 7 33 14 13 1
35-44 . .. .. . •.... 97 21 8 0 35 0 8 6 3 7 30 8 13 0
45-54 .... . . . .... 73 53 8 6 15 11 9 12 4 8 23 14 14 2
55-64 ... .. ...... 59 27 2 0 28 0 9 9 2 5 18 13 0 0
65 and over . . ... 43 22 6 5 11 0 4 3 1 4 15 10 6 0
Low level:
Unmarried
18-24 .......... 116 148 12 13 53 73 7 14 4 13 28 23 12 12
25- 64 .......... 82 55 10 4 36 20 9 8 3 6 18 14 6 3
65 and over ... . 77 44 7 6 32 13 9 7 3 3 20 12 6 3
Married
16-34 .......... 182 158 17 13 85 71 10 18 6 15 46 27 18 14
35-44 .........• 175 108 17 11 84 35 11 17 5 12 40 23 18 10
45-54 .. .. .. .... 146 80 16 10 66 25 11 14 5 9 32 18 16 4
55-64 ..... .. ... 70 33 4 2 34 0 9 10 3 5 20 16 0 0
65 and over . ... 54 35 6 6 18 7 5 4 2 5 16 12 7 1
Moderate level:
Unmarried
18-24 .......... 181 321 22 33 95 196 9 18 5 18 36 36 14 20
25-64 .......... 135 73 16 6 67 27 10 11 5 9 27 17 10 3
65 and over .... 93 101 8 12 41 39 11 12 4 9 20 19 9 10
Married
16-34 .. . . . .... . 274 293 23 25 145 137 13 30 7 25 61 44 25 32
35-44 ........ .. 263 304 27 25 139 151 15 31 8 19 51 44 23 34
45-54 ....... . .. 205 214 23 28 106 96 13 24 6 15 39 35 18 16
55-64 .......... 156 159 16 20 81 64 11 19 4 12 30 33 14 11
65 and over . . .. 104 91 9 12 55 36 7 10 3 7 21 22 9 4
Liberal level:
Unmarried
18-24 .. ... .... 262 459 34 49 147 294 12 22 7 22 45 46 17 26
25-64 ......... 212 95 24 8 112 36 13 14 8 12 39 21 16 4
65 and over ... 109 141 10 16 49 57 13 16 5 13 21 24 11 15
Married
16-34 . . ... .... 406 457 32 41 228 217 17 45 10 36 84 64 35 54
35-44 ........ . 374 669 39 51 209 368 20 58 11 32 65 82 30 78
45-54 . ....... . 332 344 37 45 195 166 17 33 7 21 55 51 21 28
55-64 ..... . ... 230 242 25 32 118 108 13 24 5 16 37 44 32 18
65 and over ... 148 146 11 17 86 65 10 16 4 10 26 31 11 7
--
!Budgets were derived from expenditure data from the 1973 Farm Family Living Expenditure Survey, conducted by the Statistical Reporting
Service, USDA, now part of the Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service. Estimates were based on data from families with members of
the corresponding age-sex categories .
Thrifty, low, moderate, and liberal budget levels were computed at levels of living which corresponded to family food expenditure at the
USDA food plan levels.
The budgets cover costs for garments and footwear, but exclude clothing materials for sewing and upkeep.
Annual costs of the clothing budgets were updated to 1978 by adjusting for price changes for clothing since the survey date.
The following 1978 annual average subindexes of the Consumer Price Index, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, were used: Men 's and
...... boys' apparel, women's and girls' apparel, and footwear .
-.J Data rounded to nearest $1.
FROZEN-PREPARED PLATE DINNERS AND ENTREES­COST
VS. CONVENIENCE
By Pamela Isom 1
Consumers spent more than $2 billion on
frozen-prepared plate dinners (TV dinners) and
entrees in 1977.2 On the average this account­ed
for about 2 percent of each food dollar
spent in grocery stores. Households that rely
heavily on these foods may be using a greater
part of their food dollar for them.
A study comparing costs of selected frozen
plate dinners and entrees and their home-pre­pared
counterparts was conducted in the
Washington, D.C., area in the fall of 1978. This
study shows that some commercial plate din­ners
and entrees may cost more than twice as
much as similar home-prepared products (see
table).
To compare the cost of home-prepared and
commercially prepared plate dinners, the kinds
and amounts of component foods in home-pre­pared
meals were kept the same as in the com­mercial
products. For frozen-prepared entrees,
however, the ingredients were not necessarily
present in the same proportion as in the home­prepared
entrees. For instance, some of the
frozen entrees contained less of some ingre­dients
(meat, cheese, or vegetables) or more of
others (noodles or sauce) than similar dishes
prepared from recipes believed to be typical of
those used in home preparation. The portion
sizes of the entrees were kept identical by
weight in comparing costs. The foods labora­tory
of the Consumer and Food Economics
Institute developed the recipes for the home­prepared
foods and obtained the weights of
commercial products used in estimating the
cost of equal portions.
What the Consumer Pays
The consumer usually pays for convenience.
All the commercially frozen plate dinners were
more expensive than the home-prepared ones.
Using prices collected in the Washington, D.C.,
area in the fall of 1978, the cost of the dinners
ranged from 13 percent to 105 percent more
1 Home economist, Consumer and Food Economics
Institute, Human Nutrition Center, Science and Educa­tion
Administration, USDA.
2 31st Annual Consumer Expenditure Survey, Super­marketing,
September 1978.
18
than the cost of the comparable home-prepared
product.
Frozen entrees were also more expensive
than home-prepared with the exception of
crabcakes and deviled crab which contained
substantially less crabmeat than the home-pre­pared
products. Certain of these convenience
items, however, are better buys than others.
Chicken pie, for instance, costs only 9 percent
more than home-prepared when purchased in
the convenience form, while commercially pre­pared
lasagna costs 127 percent more. In sever­al
commercial entrees, the amount of meat,
poultry, or fish appeared to be related to
cost-the less meat, the lower the cost relative
to the home-prepared item. For example,
chicken pie, chicken chow mein, crabcakes,
and deviled crab contained smaller amounts of
poultry or fish than similar home-prepared
products.
What the Consumer Gets
Frozen-prepared dinners and entrees unde­niably
offer many advantages. A major con­sideration
is probably the reduced time and
effort expended in active food preparation.
Another is the elimination of some preprepara­tion
chores-planning, buying, and storing
ingredients, some of which may be used infre­quently.
Cleanup chores, such as dishwashing,
are also substantially reduced. Frozen dinners
and entrees may expand the variety of main
dish items served in households with inexperi­enced
cooks. In addition, these commercially
prepared foods are often portioned in amounts
appropriate for one or two persons, and their
use in small households may reduce leftovers
and decrease the chance of waste.
Frozen-prepared meals and entrees do have
some drawbacks in addition to their cost. Con­sumers
may prefer more meat, poultry, fish,
cheese, or other ingredients than is provided by
a serving of the convenience item. In addition,
persons concerned with controlling certain sub­stances
in their diet--such as fat, sugar, salt­may
have less control when using a commercial
product because they usually cannot determine
the presence and amounts of such substances in
the product from the container label.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
r:n c:
s:::
s:::
t:zj
~
......
~
-.]
~
~
(0
Cost of equal weight portions of home-prepared and commercially prepared plate dinners and entreesl
Food item Portion
size
Amount of cooked meat,
poultry, fish, or cheese
provided by portion
Cost per portion Cost relative to
home-prepared
Home­prepared
Commercial
Home­prepared
Commercial
Home­prepared
Commercial
Ounces Ounces Ounces Cents Cents Percent Percent
Frozen plate dinners2 :
Beef dinner .......•....
Meat loaf dinner •••...•
Fried chicken dinner ...
Turkey dinner .• •• ......
Haddock dinner .......•.
Frozen entrees:
Lasagna .•........••..•.
Patties, all beef
Chicken ala king ...•..
Chicken chow mein .••.•.
Fried chicken ••...•.•••
Chicken pie ........... .
Turkey tetrazzini .....•
Tuna noodle casserole •.
Crabcakes ..•...•..•..•.
Deviled crab .•.......•.
Shrimp newburg .......•.
Cheese pizza .........•.
11.3
9.1
4 9.3
12.5
11.2
9.8
2.7
5.7
6.6
4.7
7.8
8.1
7.8
2.8
3.1
4.2
8.3
3.6
3 3. 0
2.1
2.3
3.6
5.1
2.7
1.2
2.1
2.0
1.5
2.2
1.3
2.4
1.8
1.6
54.8
3.6
3 3. 0
2.1
2.3
3.6
2.1
2.7
1.3
. 2
2.0
• 9
1.1
.9
1.3
. 7
1.2
5 3.3
75
44
38
50
72
63
31
28
48
28
35
57
38
115
84
76
45
85
79
79
79
124
142
50
43
65
51
38
96
80
47
50
151
71
100
100
· 100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
113
179
205
159
171
227
160
153
135
185
109
168
209
41
59
197
159
1Prices collected in the Washington, D.C., area, fall 1978.
2All plate dinners included potatoes and a vegetable. With the exception of chicken, all had gravy or sauce;
the turkey dinner also contained bread dressing.
3The weight of the meat loaf included nonmeat items, such as celery, onion, and breadcrumbs; the commercial
dinner also contained soy protein.
4Weight is for the home-prepared dinner; weight for the commerci al dinner is 10.1. Difference in weight is
due to the higher ratio of coating to meat in the commercial product.
5Weight includes sauce and spices in addition to the cheese.
RECENT HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS
The Federal Home Loan Bank Board has
approved final regulations which will permit its
member savings and loan associations to offer
three new types of mortgages. Effective Janu­ary
1979, federally chartered savings and loan
associations were permitted to offer graduated
payment mortgages, reverse annuity mortgages,
and, in California only, variable rate mortgages.
(See FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW, Fall
1978, for a discussion of these mortgage
types.) The regulations require the lender to
disclose specific information about the new
mortgages to the borrower, and to offer the
borrower a choice between the new mortgages
and the standard, fixed-rate, level payment
mortgage. The borrower must certify that the
lender made the necessary disclosures before
offering a choice of one of the new mortgages.
The Veterans' Housing Benefits Act of 1978,
effective October 1, 1978, improves housing
benefits programs of the Veterans' Administra­tion.
Provisions include increasing the maxi­mum
home loan guarantee from $17,500 to
$25,000, expanding the loan program to pur­chases
of condominiums and mobile homes,
and encouraging energy-saving home improve­ments.
The maximum grant for specially adapt­ed
housing for severely disabled veterans is
increased from $25,000 to $30,000.
Sources : Federal Home Loan Bank Board, 1978,
Federal savings and loan system, Alternative mortgage
instruments, Federal Register, 43 FR 245, 59336-340.
Public Law 95-476, 92 Stat. 1497, Oct. 18, 1978,
Veterans' Housing Benefits Act of 1978.
RECENT REPORTS ON HOUSING
Several reports issued recently examine
issues and trends in the housing market.
The "Summary Report of Current Findings
from the Experimental Housing Allowance Pro­gram"
presents an overview of the housing
allowance research program and a synopsis of
findings to date. This research program, con­ducted
under the direction of the U.S. Depart­ment
of Housing and Urban Development,
studies the demand, supply, and administrative
issues related to the use of housing allowances.
Housing allowances are direct cash assistance
payments to lower-income households designed
to enable them to obtain adequate housing of
their own choice. The current major findings of
the research focus on who participates in the
allowance program and how they use their pay­ments,
the effects of the program on the loca­tion
and quality of participants' housing, and
the effects of the program on housing market
factors such as price and new construction. The
report also provides references for more com­prehensive
discussions of housing allowance
issues and the research methods and findings of
the program. Available free from: U.S. Depart­ment
of Housing and Urban Development,
Office of Policy Development and Research,
451 7th Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20410.
20
A U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO)
report, "Why Are New House Prices So High,
How Are They Influenced by Government
. Regulations, and How Can Prices be Reduced,"
focuses on the cost of new, single family hous­ing.
The report notes that while the price of
new housing has increased substantially in
recent years, such housing is, nevertheless,
being sold in record numbers. The GAO's
analysis of this situation includes a review of
the extent of the housing affordability prob­lem,
including an analysis of who is most
affected, and how the nature of recent new
home buyers and Government regulations have
influenced new house prices. Government
actions that already have been taken, those
presently being considered, and other possible
alternatives for reducing new house prices are
discussed. Copies of the report are available
free from: U.S. General Acccounting Office,
Room 4522, 441 G Street, N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20548.
The "Final Report of the Task Force on
Housing Costs" is the product of 52 housing
specialists appointed by the Secretary of the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Devel­opment
to represent the private sector, con­sumer
interests, academic institutions, and all
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
levels of government. Created in August 1977,
the task force was appointed for 9 months to
study factors affecting the cost of housing, and
make recommendations on actions that might
be taken to reduce these costs. Three areas of
inquiry were defined: Land supply and devel­opment;
building and technology; and financ­ing,
money markets, and marketing. The report
presents an overview of the study, tbe findings,
and recommendations in each of the three
areas, and a recommended nationwide housing
cost reduction program. Single copies available
free from: U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development, Room B-258, 451 7th
Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20410.
The Housing and Urban Development Act of
1968 required that an annual report be made
on the progress toward meeting the national
housing goal of "a decent home and a suitable
living environment for every American family."
The "Tenth Annual Report on the National
Housing Goal" contains data and descriptions
of housing developments in 1977 and those
anticipated through 1978. Production and mar­keting,
price and cost, and finance trends are
covered. Size, quality, and price characteristics
of the existing housing stock are also discussed.
Appendices include information on housing
assistance programs, public and private housing
preservation efforts, levels and predictions for
both financial and nonfinancial resources for
housing, and a comparative review of European
experiences in determining housing needs. A
limited supply of the complete report is availa­ble
free from: U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development, Legislative Reference
Office, Room 9253, 451 7th Street, SW.,
Washington, D.C. 20410.
CONSTRUCTION STATISTICS
The "Construction Statistics Data Finder" is
a 12-page publication that lists all the types of
statistics published in the Construction Reports
Series and in the Census of Construction.
Twenty publications are listed and described,
including table titles, geographic detail provid­ed,
frequency of publication, and the period
for which data are available. In addition, names
and telephone numbers of the subject-matter
specialists associated with each of the statistical
series are provided. Single copies available free
from: Data Finder, Construction Statistics
Division, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Depart­ment
of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20233.
NUTRIENT CONTENT OF THE NATIONAL FOOD SUPPLY
The caloric and nutrient content of the 1978
food supply is reported and compared with
that of 1967 in "Nutrient Content of the
National Food Supply"-an article by Ruth
Marston and Louise Page appearing in the
December 1978 issue of NATIONAL FOOD
REVIEW.
The text, accompanied by tables, includes
estimated levels for food energy (calories), pro-
SUMMER 1979
tein, fat, carbohydrate, four minerals-calcium,
phosphorus, iron, magnesium, and seven vita­mins-
thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, vitamin A
value, vitamin B6 , vitamin B1 2 , and ascorbic
acid. Trends in the amount of fat in the diet
and sources of dietary fat, with consequent
changes in fatty acid and cholesterol content,
are discussed.
21
COMMUTING TO WORI<-A COST COMPARISON
"Rideshare and Save-A Cost Comparison,"
issued by the Federal Highway Administration,
U.S. Department of Transportation, compares
the annual costs of commuting to work by
driving alone in a subcompact or standard auto­mobile
with the annual costs of carpooling or
van pooling.
The estimates include total owning and oper­ating
costs for seven commuting situations and
three commuting distances. The seven commut­ing
situations are: (1) Driving alone, (2) a
shared-driving carpool (each person shares
using his or her car) for 2 persons, (3) a
shared-driving carpool for 4 persons, ( 4) a
shared-riding carpool (one person's car is used
and everyone shares expenses) for 2 persons,
( 5) a shared-riding carpool for 4 persons, ( 6) a
vanpool for 8 persons, and (7) a vanpool for 12
persons.
According to the estimates, a shared-riding
carpool for 4 persons is the least expensive
when commuting short distances (10 miles one
way). However, vanpooling for 12 persons
becomes the most economical when the com­muting
distance is lengthened to 40 miles one
way.
A worksheet and detailed instructions are
provided to estimate individual costs of
commuting.
A copy of this publication can be obtained
free from the Federal Highway Administration,
Public Affairs, 400 7th Street, SW., Washing­ton,
D.C. 20590.
TRAVELING TO WORK
Major Modes of Travel
Among all commuters using vehicles to
travel to work in 1976, 80 percent used an
automobile or truck as their major mode of
transportation, 19 percent used public trans­portation,
and 1 percent used other means. 1 Of
those workers using the automobile or truck,
more than three-fourths drove alone, while
one-fourth traveled in carpools. Only 8 percent
of all workers using vehicles commuted by
truck, although the use of trucks was higher in
the West and Southwest-18 percent of all
workers using vehicles in Houston, Tex., and
17 percent in Oklahoma City, Okla.
1 Data taken from a survey of 20 SMSA's (Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Area).
22
The method chosen to travel to work is
often determined by the size of the metropoli­tan
area and the distance traveled-workers in
more populated areas are more likely to use
public transportation than workers in smaller
areas. For example, in the New York area 48
percent of commuters used public transporta­tion
compared with only 1 percent in the
Oklahoma City, Okla., and the Raleigh, N.C.,
areas. Larger metropolitan areas, of course,
tend to have more extensive public transporta­tion
systems that may encourage greater use.
In general, workers show a trend toward
using less public transportation. Between 1970
and 1976 the percentage of workers using
public transportation declined from 24 to 19
percent. Workers who changed their mode of
travel were more likely to go from a public to a
private means of transportation than the
reverse.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Length and Duration of Trip
In 1976, the median distance from home to
work for commuters was 7.6 miles and the
median travel time to work was 21.8 minutes
(table 1). Workers using the railroad qad the
longest median distance to travel and the long­est
median travel time. Work trips made by car­pools
were generally longer in both distance
and time than those made by commuters who
drove alone. Commuters living in the Houston,
Tex., metro area traveled the greatest median
distance to work on a typical commuting
day-9.2 miles-compared with the Allentown,
Pa., area where commuters traveled the short­est
median distance to work-4.8 miles. The
longest median time for traveling to work was
among workers living in the New York metro
area-28.7 minutes--and the shortest travel
time to work was in the Grand Rapids, Mich.,
area-15.7 minutes.
Source: Data from "Selected Characteristics of
Travel to Work in 20 Metropolitan Areas : 197 6," Cur­rent
Population Reports, Series P-23, No. 72, 1978,
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
This is one of a series of publications from the " Travel
to Work Supplement" of the Annual Housing Survey.
Median distance and time to work by major mode of transportation: 1976
Mode of travel
All workers not working at home
Workers using vehicles ...... .
Auto ...................... .
Truck .••...................
Auto or truck1 •.•....•••.••
Drives alone ............ .
Carpool .........•.......•
Shares driving ...•.....
Drives others .•........
Rides with someone .... .
Public transportation2 .... .
Bus or streetcar •........
Subway or elevated ...... .
Railroad ................ .
Other means 3 •••••••••••••••
Walks only .................. .
Not reported .....•...........
Median distance
Miles
7.6
8.2
8.1
9.3
8.2
7.9
9.5
13.2
9.5
6.8
8.8
5.0
10.2
36.0
3.5
0.6
6.6
Median time
taken
Minutes
21.8
22.4
20.2
20.6
20.2
19.6
22.7
26.7
23.6
19.1
39.5
31.1
43.4
68.2
15.5
9.2
19.7
1Includes a small number of workers using an auto or truck but not
specifying type of riding arrangement.
2rncludes workers using taxicabs.
3Bicycle, motorcycle, and all other means not listed.
Source: Data from "Selected Characteristics of Travel to Work in 20
Metropolitan Areas: 1976," Current Population Reports, Series P-23,
No. 72, 1978, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
SUMMER 1979 23
WORKING WOMEN, JUNE 1978
Half of all women 16 years and over (almost
42 million women) were working or looking
for work in June 1978. They made up about
42 percent of all U.S. workers, compared with
35 percent in 1965. As in the past, most
women in the labor force were employed in or
seeking full-time employment. Almost three
out of every four employed women held full­time
jobs (35 hours or more per week), and
three out of every four unemployed women
were looking for full-time jobs.
In 1978, women accounted for 79 percent
of all clerical workers and 59 percent of all
service workers (other than household work­ers)-
traditional fields in the past for women.
However, women are increasingly employed in
occupations associated with higher status and
earnings. For example, about one-tenth of all
lawyers, judges, doctors, and industrial engi­neers
are women.
A high of 8.2 million families were headed
by women who had either never married or
were separated, widowed, or divorced in June
1978. The labor force participation rate of
these women rose to 59 percent in 1978, com­pared
with an average of 55 percent through­out
most of the 1970's.
Source : U.S . Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 1978, Employment in perspective : Working
women, Rpt. 544, No. 2, 2nd quarter.
UNIFORM TIRE QUALITY GRADING SYSTEM
The Uniform Tire Quality Grading regula­tion,
issued by the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, Department of Trans­portation,
is intended to aid the consumer in
making an informed choice in the purchase of
passenger car tires. The regulation requires that
all passenger car bias-ply, bias-belted, and radial
tires be graded to indicate treadwear, traction,
and temperature resistance based on the rela­tive
performance of the tires in specific Federal
Government tests.
Each tire will have three separate grades. The
treadwear grade is indicated with a two- or
three-digit number. This number is a compara­tive
rating based on the wear rate of the tire
when tested in a controlled test. For example,
a tire graded 150 would wear l lh times as well
on the test course as a tire graded 100. The
traction and temperature resistance grades are
indicated with ratings of A, B, or C-with "A"
being the highest grade. The traction grades
represent the tire's ability to stop on wet
asphalt and concrete surfaces. The temperature
resistance grades represent the tire's resistance
to the generation of heat and its ability to dissi­pate
heat.
24
The regulations require an explanatory label
to be attached to the tread surface of bias-ply
tires by Aprill, 1979, bias-belted tires by
October 1, 1979, and radial tires by Aprill,
1980. The label will explain the grading, list
the range of grades for traction and tempera­ture
resistance, and indicate all three grades of
that particular tire. In addition, by October 1,
1979, for bias-ply tires, Aprill, 1980, for bias­belted
tires, and October 1, 1980, for radial
tires, the tire grades must be molded into the
tire sidewall and sellers of motor vehicles must
have a statement in the owners manual
concerning the tire grading regulations.
These regulations do not apply to deep
tread, winter-type snow tires; to space-saver or
temporary use spare tires; or to tires with
nominal rim diameters of 10 to 12 inches.
The Department of Transportation has a
publication explaining the new regulations and
how to use them when purchasing tires. Single
copies of the publication, entitled "Uniform
Tire Quality Grading ... Your key to a better tire
buy," may be obtained free from General Serv­ices
Division, Distribution, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, Department of
Transportation, Washington, D.C. 20590.
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
HUMAN NUTRITION CENTER
The Consumer and Food Economics Insti­tute
( CFEI) became part of the Human Nutri­tion
Center, Science and Education
Administration (SEA), USDA, on December
20, 1978. The Family Economics Research
Group, formerly part of CFEI, continues to be
part of Agricultural Research, SEA.
The Human Nutrition Center staff directs a
Federal research program on human nutrition.
The program includes work on human nutri­tional
requirements; nutrient composition of
foods and the effects of agricultural practices,
handling, food processing, and cooking on the
nutrients they contain; surveillance of the
nutritional benefits provided to participants in
the food programs administered by the Depart­ment
of Agriculture; factors affecting food
preference and habits; and development of
techniques and equipment to assist consumers
in the home or institutions in selecting food
that supplies a nutritionally adequate diet.
Dr. D. Mark Hegsted, formerly Professor of
Nutrition at Harvard University, is Administra­tor
of the Human Nutrition Center.
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:
• COMPOSITION OF FOODS: BABY FOODS-RAW, PROCESSED, PREPARED. AH 8-3.
Revised Decem her 197 8.
• LIVING ON A FEW ACRES. 1978 Yearbook of Agriculture. $7.00 (hardback) .
Single copies of the following are available free from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Please
address your request to the office indicated:
Fro-m Office of Governmental and Public Affairs, Washington, D.C. 20250:
• NUTRITION-FOOD AT WORK FOR YOU. G-S 1. Revised September 1978.
• ANTS IN THE HOME AND GARDEN-HOW TO CONTROL THEM. G 28. Revised
December 1978.
• PAINTING INSIDE AND OUT. G 222 (supersedes G 155 and G 184).
• COCKROACHES-HOW TO CONTROL THEM. L 430. Revised December 1978.
From Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service, Publications Unit, Room 0054, South
Building, Washington, D.C. 20250:
• FARM POPULATION TRENDS AND FARM CHARACTERISTICS. RDRR 3.
December 1978.
From Food and Nutrition Service, Information Division, Washington, D.C. 20250:
• FREE AND REDUCED PRICE MEAL AND FREE MILK POLICY HANDBOOK. PA 1149.
Revised November 1978.
• FUN WITH GOOD FOODS. PA 1204 (supersedes PA 912). October 1978.
County Extension Staff: When ordering publications, use Extension Publications Shipping Order Form
ES-91A and follow instructions from your State publications distribution officer.
SUMMER 1979 25
1.\:)
0)
':r:1 >
.~......
t"'
><:!
tzj
(")
0 z
0
~
0 r:n
:::0
tzj
<: .......
tzj
:!:!
Cost of food at home estimated for food plans at 4 cost levels, March 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--
l-2 and 3-5 years
6-8 and 9-11 years
INDIVIDUALS '+
Child:
7 months to l year ..•.•.
l-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
27.80
25.00
39.20
47.20
5.60
6.30
7.60
9.70
12.20
13.00
14.30
13.90
12.40
11.60
11.40
10.30
14.30
15.20
Cost for 1 week
Low-cost
plan
Moderate­cost
plan
Dollars
36.40
32.30
50.70
61.10
6.80
8.00
9.60
12.40
15.60
16.50
18.40
18.30
16.10
14.80
14.80
13.30
18.20
19.30
45.60
40.00
63.30
76.70
8.30
9.90
11.90
15.60
19.60
20.80
23.10
23.10
20.00
18.40
18.40
16.40
22 .40
24.10
Liberal
plan
54.70
48.00
75.80
91.80
9.80
11.80
14.30
18.70
23.40
24.90
27.70
27.80
24.10
22 .00
21.90
19.50
26.70
28.60
Thrifty
plan2
120.70
108.00
170.00
204.30
24.10
27 .30
33.00
41.90
52.70
56.20
62.00
60.40
53.60
50.40
49.30
44.60
61.80
65.70
Cost for l month
Low-cost
plan
Moderate­cost
plan
Dollars
157.40
139.80
219.30
264.40
29.40
34.80
41.40
53.90
67.40
71.70
79.70
79.10
69.60
64.30
64.00
57.50
78.90
83.80
197.80
173.70
274.30
332 . 40
36.00
43.10
51.40
67.70
84.90
90.00
99.90
100.00
86.80
79.80
79.80
71.10
97.20
104.30
Liberal
plan
236.90
207.50
328.50
398.10
42.60
51.20
61.90
81.10
101.60
107.70
120.10
120.30
104.20
95.20
95.10
84.40
115.50
123.90
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 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.
n
0
tn
-1
0., .,
0
0 c
)>
-1
:I
0 s .m.
c.:
.tn
)>
2 c
:a
m
G) -0
2
tn
Cost of food at home for food plans at 3 cost levels, March 1979,
North Central regionl
Cost for 1 week Cost for 1 month
Sex-age groups
FAMILIES
Family of 2: 2
20-54 years .. . •...••...•
55 years and over •....•.
Family of 4:
Couple, 20-54 years
and children--
1-2 and 3-5 years
6-8 ano 9-11 years
INDIVIDUALS 3
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
Low-cost
plan
37.40
33.20
52.40
63.20
7.10
8.40
10.00
13.00
16.20
17.30
19.10
18.80
16.50
15.50
15.20
13.70
18.80
19.90
Moderate­cost
plan
Dollars
46.20
40.70
64.40
78.20
8.50
10.20
12.20
16.10
20.10
21.30
23.60
23.40
20.30
18.90
18.60
16.70
22.80
24.40
Liberal
plan
56.00
49.10
77.90
94.60
10.10
12.20
14.80
19.40
24.30
25.80
28.60
28.40
24.60
22.80
22.50
20.00
27.40
29.40
Low-cost
plan
162.10
144.10
227.00
274.00
30.70
36.30
43.30
56.30
70.30
74.90
82.80
81.40
71.70
67.00
66.00
59.30
81.40
86.40
Moderate­cost
plan
Dollars
200.20
176.10
279.20
338.80
37.00
44.20
53.00
69.60
87.20
92.40
102.40
101.20
87.90
81.90
80.80
72.20
98.70
105.70
Liberal
plan
24 2. 70
212.70
337.70
410.30
43.80
52.90
64.20
84.20
105.50
111.70
124.10
123.10
106.80
98.60
97.50
86.60
118.60
127.20
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 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 3 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; 7-or-more-person-­subtract
10 percent.
SUMMER 1979 27
Cost of food at home estimated for food plans at 3 cost levels, March 1979,
Northeast regionl
Cost for 1 week Cost for 1 month
Sex-age groups
FA.MILIES
Family of 2: 2
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 3
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 .•...............
Low-cost
plan
38.20
33.80
53.10
64.00
6.90
8.40
10.00
13.00
16.30
17.40
19.30
19.20
16.90
15.50
15.50
13.80
19.10
20.30
Moderate­cost
plan
Dollars
49.20
43.00
68.00
82.40
8.70
10.60
12.70
16.70
21.00
22.30
24.80
24.90
21.50
19.80
19.80
17.60
24.10
25.90
Liberal
plan
59.40
51.80
82.10
99.50
10.40
12.70
15.40
20.20
25.30
27.00
30.00
30.20
26.10
23.70
23.80
21.00
28.90
31.00
Low-cost
plan
165.70
146.30
230 . 30
277.70
29.90
36.30
43.40
56.50
70.60
75.50
83.80
83.30
73.00
67.20
67.30
60.00
82.60
87.90
Moderate­cost
plan
Dollars
213 .30
186.30
294.80
357.20
37.70
45.90
55.00
72.50
90.80
96.80
107.50
107.90
93.30
85 . 61)
86.00
76.10
104.30
112.00
Liberal
plan
257.70
224.70
356.30
431.60
44.90
55.20
66.80
87 . 60
109.70
116.80
130.10
131.00
113.20
102.90
103.30
91.10
125.10
134.30
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 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 3 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.
28 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
Cost of food at home estimated for food plans at 3 cost levels, March 1979
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 Dollars
FAMILIES
Family of 2: 2
20-54 years .............. 36.30 45.30 54.00 157.20 196.40 234.10
55 years and over ....... 32.10 39.60 47.10 139.20 171. 60 203.90
Family of 4:
Couple, 20-54 years
and children--
1-2 and 3-5 years 50.50 62.80 74.80 218.70 271.90 324.00
6-8 and 9-11 years 61.00 76.10 90.80 264.10 330.00 393.20
INDIVIDUALS 3
Child:
7 months to 1 year ...... 6.70 8.20 9.60 29.20 35.60 41.70
1-2 years ............... 8.00 9.80 11.60 34.50 42.40 50.20
3-5 years ............... 9.50 11.80 14.10 41.30 51.00 61.00
6-8 years ............... 12.40 15.50 18.50 53.80 67.20 80.10
9-11 years .............. 15.60 19.40 23.20 67.40 84.30 100.30
Male:
12-14 years .............. 16.60 20.70 24.60 71.90 89.50 106.70
15-19 years ............. 18.50 23.00 27.50 80.00 99.50 119.00
20-54 years •••••••••••• 0 18.20 22.80 27.30 78.70 99.00 118.40
55 years and over ....... 15.90 19.70 23.60 69.10 85.50 102.20
Female:
12-19 years ............. 15.00 18.40 21.90 64.90 79.90 94.70
20-54 years ............. 14.80 18.40 21.80 64.20 79.50 94.40
55 years and over ....... 13.30 16.30 19.20 57.40 70.50 83.20
Pregnant ................ 18.30 22.40 26.50 79.20 97.20 114.90
Nursing ••••• 0 ••••••••••• 19.40 24.00 28.40 84.10 104.10 123.20
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 Economics 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 3 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; 7-or-more-person-­subtract
10 percent.
SUMMER 1979 29
Cost of food at home estimated for food plans at 3 cost levels, March 1979,
Western regionl
Sex-age groups
FAMILIES
Family of 2: 2
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 3
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 ..•.••...........
Cost for 1 week
Low-cost Moderate-plan
cost plan
36.70
32.70
51.20
61.90
6.70
8.10
9.70
12.70
15.80
16.90
18.70
18.50
16.30
15.10
14.90
13.40
18.30
19.50
Dollars
46.30
40.60
64.10
77.80
8.10
10.00
12.00
15.80
19.90
21.10
23.40
23.40
20.30
18.70
18.70
16.60
22.70
24.40
Liberal
plan
56.00
48.90
77.70
94.40
9.90
12.10
14.70
19.30
24.20
25.70
28.50
28.40
24.60
22.60
22.50
19.90
27.30
29.30
Cost for 1 month
Low-cost Moderate-plan
cost plan
159.30
141.20
222.10
268.20
29.00
35.20
42.10
54.80
68.60
73.00
80.90
80.10
70.40
65.30
64.70
58.00
79.40
84.50
Dollars
200.90
175.90
278.00
337.30
35.20
43.30
52.10
68.60
86.10
91.50
101.40
101.60
88.00
81.10
81.00
71.90
98.40
105.70
Liberal
plan
242.70
212.10
336.90
408.80
43.00
52.60
63.70
83.50
104.70
111.10
123.50
123.20
106.60
98 . 10
97 . 40
86.20
118.20
126.90
1Assumes that food for all meals and snacks is purchasea 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 Economics 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 3 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: 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.
30 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
CONSUMER PRICES
Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers
Group
All items •..•.•...........•..
Food .......••.......•......
Food at home .•••.........
Food away from home ..... .
Housing ....•.......•.......
Shelter .•••..............
Rent ....•..............
Hom~ownership ...••.....
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)
Mar.
1979
209.1
230.4
229.9
236.0
217.6
228.0
171.3
248.2
225.9
339.5
244.0
187.4
164.3
158.7
151.8
171.6
198.1
198.1
191.5
233.9
184.8
192.8
192.l
Feb.
1979
207.1
228.2
228.0
233.4
215.6
225.9
171.0
245.6
223.3
326.1
241.2
186.0
161.4
156.7
147.7
168.9
195.6
195.5
190.7
232.6
183.2
191.9
190.4
Jan.
1979
204.7
223.9
223.1
230.2
213.1
222.8
170.3
241.6
221.5
316.4
239.5
184.8
160.7
157.4
146.9
l68.7
193.9
193.8
190.0
230.7
182.3
190.5
188.9
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Mar.
1978
189.8
204.2
202.5
212.3
196.7
202.9
160.5
218.3
212.6
297.2
226.6
173.6
156.5
155.8
145.4
160.7
179.9
179.1
187.2
214.5
174.1
179.3
178.2
SUMMER 1979 31
FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
SUMMER 1979
Contents
USERS' GUIDE TO USDA ESTIMATES OF THE COST OF
RAISING A CHILD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Carolyn S. Edwards
CLOTHING BUDGETS FOR FARM ADULTS, 1978
Annette Polyzou, Carolyn S. Edwards, and Mills B. Weinstein
FROZEN-PREPARED PLATE DINNERS AND ENTREES-
16
COST VS. CONVENIENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Pamela lsom
RECENT HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS 20
RECENT REPORTS ON HOUSING 20
CONSTRUCTION STATISTICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
NUTRIENT CONTENT OF THE NATIONAL FOOD SUPPLY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
COMMUTING TO WORK-A COST COMPARISON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
TRAVELING TO WORK 22
WORKING WOMEN, JUNE 1978 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
UNIFORM TIRE QUALITY GRADING SYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
HUMAN NUTRITION CENTER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Regular Features
SOME NEW USDA PUBLICATIONS 25
COST OF FOOD AT HOME, U.S. AND REGIONS 26
CONSUMER PRICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Issued June 1979
32 FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW