Family Economics Review [1983, Number 2]

              I For Building Use Only I
Family
Economics
Review
Editors
Kathleen K. Scholl
Katherine S. Tippett
Managing Editor
Sherry Lowe
Editorial Assistant
Nancy J. Bailey
Family Economics Review is published each
quarter by the Family Economics Research
Group, Agricultural Research Service,
United States Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D. C.
The Secretary of Agriculture has
determined that the publication of this
periodical is necessary in the transaction
of the public business required by law of
this Department. Use of funds for this
periodical has been approved by the
Director of the Office of Management and
Budget through March 31, 1987.
Contents may be reprinted without
permission, but credit to Family Economics
Review would be appreciated .
Use of commercial or trade names does not
imply approval or constitute endorsement
by USDA.
Sugge stions or comments concerning this
publication should be addressed to:
Kathleen K. Scholl, Editor, Family
Economics Review, Family Economics
Res earch Group, USDA/ ARS, Federal
Building , Room 442A, Hyattsville, Md .
20782.
For s ubscription information, s ee p. 3 3.
For sale b~· the Superintendent ot Documents. U.S. Government Printing Otllce Washington, D.C. 20402
Family Economics Revie w 1983 No.2
Family
Economics
Review
CONTENTS
Recent Trends ·in Clothing and Textiles................................................ 2
Joan C. Cour•tless
Family Financial :\fanagement Curriculum Sourcebook......................... . .......... 10
Karen E. Craig
USDA 1983 Family Food Plans.......................................................... 12
Linda E. Cleveland and Betty B. Peterkin
Abstracts
Nutrient Content of the U.S. Food Supply, 1909-81. •• • •• • .... .. • • .. ..... ••• .. • ... • •••• 21
Measuring the Effect of In-Kind Transfers on Poverty • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • . • • 22
Out-of-Pocket Expenditures for Personal Health Services............................... 24
New York City Family Budget Standard................................................ 25
Regular Features
Some New USDA Publications . . . . . . . . . • . • . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . • . . . . 24
Updated Estimates of the Cost of Raising a Child • • • • • • • . . • • .. . . • • • .. • .. • .. • • • • • • • • • • • • 26
Cost of Food at Home, U.S. and Regio·ns.............................................. 28
Consumer Prices....................................................................... 33
Issued April 1983
1 9 8 3 No. 2 Family Eco nom ics Re view
Recent Trends in
Clothing and 'lextiles 1
By Joan C. Courtless
Family economist
CLOTHING EXPENDITURES AND PRICES
Annual spending for clothing and shoes in
1982 is estimated at $511 per person, ac­cording
to preliminary figures for the first
three quarters of 1982 (table 1). This
amount exceeds 1981 spending by $12 per
person; 83 percent of this increase can be
attributed to higher prices and 17 percent
to increased buying. The percentage of total
personal consumption expenditures in current
dollars allotted to clothing and shoes has
declined since 1960, reflecting the fact
that clothing prices have increased at a
lower rate than prices for other items. When
the effect of inflation is removed (shown by
constant dollars in table 1), the percentage
of personal consumption expenditures for
clothing and shoes remains relatively
steady. Possible reasons for this include a
trend toward upgraded · clothing, more women
in the labor force, and increasing numbers
of young adults who are likely to have
greater clothing requirements than are other
segments of the population.
Apparel and upkeep prices in 1982, as
measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI),
increased 2.4 percent over those in 1981.
This increase was less than the 6. 5-percent
increase for the "all items" category during
the same period (table 2). Within the CPI
clothing and footwear categories, men's and
boys' furnishings and women's and girls'
underwear, nightwear, and hosiery increased
1 Information in this article is based on
reports available during the period January
through October 1982. Discussion of business
trends is based on trade reports or news
items in The Daily News Record, The Wall
Street Journal, The Washington Post, Women's
Wear Daily, The New York Times, The
Kiplinger Washington Letter, Business Week,
and Knitting Times. Other sources are
included in "Selected References" at the end
of this article.
2 Family Economics Review 1983 No.2
relatively more than other clothing items
between September 1981 and September 1982
(table 3).
The average family's purchasing power, as
measured by real income, decreased by 3.5
percent from 1980 to 1981, following a 5. 5-
percent drop from 1979 to 1980 (~). A
Gallup poll conducted in June 1982 found
that 48 percent of those interviewed
believed inflation would continue to negate
any income gains during the next year. This
same poll found that only 37 percent of the
persons interviewed thought the present was
a good time to buy furniture, a car, and
other major items. Retailers were optimistic
that the tax cut which took place on July 1,
1982, would boost apparel and other soft
goods sales. In August the stock market
became active and "bullish", interest rates
declined in September, and the annual rate
of inflation continued to decline to about
the 5-percent level. These factors added to
retailers' expectations for improved sales.
However, August and September sales proved
disappointing; rising unemployment kept con­sumers
cautious and reluctant to increase
their spending levels.
TRENDS IN FIBERS, FABRICS, AND
APPAREL
Recent research on nylon has produced a
new process which reportedly gives nylon the
absorbency characteristics of cotton.
Developed and marketed by International Yarn
Corporation, the process (Intera) is used
after the nylon fibers have been knitted or
woven in to fabric. The fabric is available
in knit shirts, blouses, active sportswear,
swim wear, leotards, underwear, hosiery, and
towels.
A technique for crimping raw silk has been
developed in Japan. The crimped raw silk has
stretch, increased bulk, crease retention
properties, and resistance to abrasion; and
it repels water. Research on washability is
underway.
PROFILE OF AMERICAN SHOPPERS
Many facets of apparel consumers were studied throughout the year by R.H. Bruskin
Associates in Daily News Record -OmniTel telephone surveys (~). Each survey interviewed
a nationally representative sample of men and women.
Highlights of some of the surveys showed that:
Over one-half of the men and women believed the quality of apparel in stores today
to be inferior to that of 5 years ago.
Only 10 percent believed apparel prices were increasing at a rate slower than that
of nonapparel items; whereas 44 percent believed apparel prices had increased at a
faster .rate. (For many years, apparel prices have increased less than prices of
nonapparel items.)
About 60 percent said they preferred to shop in a store which is mostly self­service
rather than in a store where a salesperson l.\SUally assists them.
Women were more likely than men (65 percent versus 55 percent) to delay (sometimes
or always) apparel purchases until sales are run.
When asked whether credit cards were used to pay for apparel, 55 percent replied
affirmatively. About 25 percent said they were using credit cards less often than
they had during the previous year.
Over 40 percent said they have become increasingly disappointed lately when shop­ping
for a specific item because the retailer was either out of stock of that item
or no longer carried a large selection.
Almost 75 percent of those surveyed believed American-made apparel to be a better
value than imported apparel. 1
1Similar results were obtained in a study by Dickerson done at the Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, with support from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, of 1, 350 consumers in 32 States C!); almost half found the quality of
imported apparel to be inferior to domestic products.
Fabrics made of all-natural and mostly
natural fibers (reverse blends) are becoming
more important in retailers' better apparel
lines. Fabrics with a higher percentage of
manmade fibers than natural fibers still
dominate the moderate and popular price
lines.
Market share of cotton and cotton blends
Item
Men's knit shirts •••••
Men's dress shirts ••••
Men's slacks ••••••••••
Women's apparel •••••••
1981
50
34
20
25
1974-75
Percent
37
24
10
16
Source: Market Research Corporation of
America, Stamford, Conn.
Blends with a high percentage of cotton
combine the feel and comfort of cotton and
the ease of care common to manmade fibers.
Cotton Incorporated and some individual
manufacturers have obtained trademarks for
blended fabrics containing mostly cotton.
Nineteen of the largest manufacturers of
men's shirts report retailers have ordered a
mix of merchandise consisting of 13 percent
all cotton, 42 percent mostly cotton blends,
and 45 percent mostly polyester blends
including 0.3 percent all polyester.
1983 No.2 Family Economics Review 3
Table 1. Annual expenditures on clothing and shoes 1
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
Year
198 2 3
••••••••••••
Per capita
expenditures 2
Constant
dollars
(1972)
203
203
209
209
222
227
239
236
242
245
240
249
264
281
279
288
293
306
331
341
343
360
362
Current
dollars
148
149
154
156
166
172
186
192
208
223
227
244
264
291
308
328
345
375
415
440
460
499
511
Percent of
expenditures
for personal
consurrpt ion
Constant
dollars
(1972)
8.1
8.1
8.1
7.9
8.1
7.9
8.0
7.8
7.7
7.6
7.4
7.5
7.5
7.7
7.8
7.9
7.7
7.8
8.1
8.3
8.4
8.7
8.8
Current
dollars
8.2
8.2
8.1
7.9
8.0
7.8
7.9
7.8
7.8
7.8
7.5
7.6
7.5
7.6
7.3
7.2
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.6
6.3
6.2
6.1
Aggregate
expenditures
Billions
of
constant
dollars
(1972)
36.6
37.3
38.9
39.6
42.6
44.2
46.9
46.9
48.6
49.6
49.2
51.6
55.1
59.2
59.1
61.4
63.8
67.5
73.6
76.7
78.0
82.7
84.0
Bi 11 ions
of
current
dollars
26.7
27.4
28.7
29.5
31.9
33.5
36.6
38.2
41.8
45.1
46.6
50.5
55.1
61.3
65.3
70.1
75.3
82.6
92.4
99.1
104.7
114.6
118.5
1Includes yard goods, but excludes services such as cleaning and repairing clothing and
shoes.
2Calculated by dividing aggregate expenditures for each year by population figures for July
of each year.
3Preliminary figures--average of estimates for first 3 quarters of 1982 (i.e., seasonally
adjusted quarterly totals at annual rates).
Sources: U.s. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1982, Population estimates
and projections, Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 920. U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, 1982, Survey of Current Business 62(7): 38-39
(table 2. 2), and personal communication.
4 Family Economics Review 1983 No.2
OUTLOOK FOR RAW MATERIALS
The 198 2 U.S. mill use of total fibers is
estimated at 44.4 pounds per capita. This
includes 10.7 pounds of cotton, 0. 5 pound of
wool, and 33.2 pounds of manmade fibers.
Per capita use in 1981 was 50.4 pounds,
including 11.8 pounds of cotton, 0.6 pound
of wool, and 38.0 pounds of manmade fibers.
Growth in world population and income will
increase fiber demand by 20 billion pounds,
to 88 billion pounds in 1990.
Cotton
The 1982 domestic cotton crop is expected
to be about 11.4 million bales, down 27 per­cent
from last year. The average yield per
acre increased from 543 pounds in 1981 to a
record level of 563 pounds in 1982 (see box
on p. 7). Because total acreage devoted to
cotton throughout the world will decline,
cotton will provide only about one-quarter
of the additional fiber required by 1990.
The World Bank estimates that by 1985 both
the U.S.S.R. (with 6.8 billion pounds) and
China (with 6.2 billion pounds) will produce
more cotton than the United States (5.9
billion pounds).
During the first 7 months of 1982, the
price of cotton averaged 69 cents a pound,
20 cents less than for the same period in
1981. A large carryover stock of cotton from
the 1981-82 season could keep the total
supply for 1982-83 from declining more than
3 percent. This may prevent cotton prices
from rising in 1983.
Wool
U.S. wool production for 1982 is estimated
at less than 1 percent below the 1981 yield
and 4 percent above the 1980 yield. Mill
consumption of apparel wool for the first
8 months of 1982 was 16 percent below that
of a year earlier. Imports of raw wool for
apparel in the first 6 months of 1982 were
10 percent below imports for the same period
in 1981.
U.S . farm prices for wool in the first
7 months of 1982 were about 12 cents per
pound lower than for the same period in
1981. Contributing to this decrease were a
drop in demand for women's wool coats and
the medium wools used in them; a devaluation
of the Australian dollar, which reduced the
price of Australian wool; and the importing
of low-priced wool from Argentina.
Table 2. Annual percentage change in selected indexes of consumer prices
Consumer Price Index
All i terns ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.
Apparel and upkeep ••••••••••••••••••••
Men's and boys' clothing •••••••••••••
Women's and girls' clothing •••.•••••••
Infants' and toddlers' clothing2
•••••••
Footwear ............................ .
Other apparel commodities 3
•••••••••••
1978
+7.6
+3.4
+2.3
+1.8
+4.0
-.1
1979
+11. 5
+4.3
+2.5
+1.5
+3.5
+8.0
+7.4
1980
+13.5
+6.6
+4.6
+2.4
+9.8
+8.0
+16.3
1981
+10.2
+5.2
+5.3
+3.1
+10.9
+5.4
+2.8
+6.5
+2.4
+3.5
+.8
+2.9
+3.4
-2.3
1Preliminary estimates--average for first 9 months of 1982 compared with the average for
first 9 months of 1981.
2Developed in 1978.
3Includes sewing materials and notions, jewelry, and luggage.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982, News, Consumer Price
Index (monthly issues), and personal communication.
1983 No.2 Family Economics Review 5
Table 3. Percentage change in selected index of consumer prices from September 1981 to
September 1982
Consumer Price Index
All items
Apparel and upkeep ...............•......................
Men's and boys' clothing .............................. .
Men's •••.••.•.••••••. · • • • · · · • • • • • • • • • • • · • · • · • · • · • • • • •
Suits, sport coats, and jackets
Coats and jackets ................•..•..•...........
Furnishings and special clothing
Shirts
Dungarees, jeans, and trousers ••••••••••••••••••••
Boys' ............................................... .
Coats, jackets, sweaters, and shirts
Furnishings ....................................... .
Suits, trousers, sport coats, and jackets
Women's and girls' clothing ............................ .
Women's
Coats and jackets •...•....•••................•.....
Dresses ................................. · · · · · · · · · · ·
Separates and sportswear •••••••••••••••••••••.••..•
Underwear, night wear, and hosiery •••••••••••••••••
Suits ..................... · · . · · · · • · • · · · • · · · · • • · · · · •
Girls' ....................... • · • • • • · · · • · · · · · · • • • • • • • · •
Coats, jackets, dresses, and suits
Separates and sportswear •••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Underwear, night wear, hosiery, and accessories ••••
Infants' and toddlers' clothing •••••••••••••••••••••••••
Other apparel commodities ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Sewing materials and notions •••••••••••••••••••••••••
Jewelry and luggage
Footwear .•..........................•..•.... · · . · · · . · · • •
Men's
Boys' and girls' ..................................... .
Women's ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Percentage change
+4.9
+1.9
+2.9
+2.8
+1.4
+.3
+5.7
+1.9
+3.0
+3.0
+2.0
+6.4
+2.5
+.5
+.6
-.5
-2.8
-.7
+5.5
-2.7
+.1
-2.7
-1.4
+6.9
+3.0
-2.3
+3.1
-4.4
+1.8
+3.4
+.9
+1.0
Source : U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1981, CPI Detailed Report
September 1981, and personal communication.
6 Family Economics Review 19 8 3 No . 2
FEDERAL DETERRENTS AND INCENTIVES FOR FIBER PRODUCERS
In 1982, the U.S. Department of Agriculture required farmers who wished to partici­pate
in the voluntary crop set-aside program to cut back cotton acreage by 15 percent.
The Government goal was to bring 1982 cotton production levels down to the 10- to 11-
million-bale level of 1980. By July 1982, USDA estimated cotton acreage had been
reduced by 19 percent.
The USDA Federal wqol incentive program that supports the price of wool, encouraging
sheep farmers to increase wool production, may be modified in the near future. The
program was initiated in 1954 and has cost about $2 billion to date. Wool production
has dropped. from 283 million pounds in 1955 to 106 million pounds in 1980. Since wool
producers get about three-fourths of their income from sheep raising by selling lambs
for slaughter, most sheep-raising decisions are based on the outlook for profits in
lambs rather than on the wool incentive program. Therefore, the original goals of the
program lack validity in the current market.
For the first time in 10 years, Federal incentive payments to mohair growers were
restored in 1981, and again in 1982, because the market price of mohair fell below
certain predetermined levels ($3. 7 4 and $3.98 a pound, respectively).
Manmade Fibers
Shipments of manmarle fibers by U.S.
producers during the first 8 months of 1982
were 21 percent below shipments a year
earlier and 24 percent below the 1979
level.
Two studies (~. ~) project continued
growth for manmade fibers. In 5 years world
production of these fibers will increase by
40 percent; for example, polyester will
increase by 62 percent and acrylic fibers by
27 percent. By 1998 world consumption of
manmade fibers will be 87 percent higher
than that in 1980.
Mohair
U.S. mohair production is expected to in­crease
by one-fourth by 1985. South Africa,
Turkey, and the United States are the lead­ing
producers of mohair. Japan, the United
States, and West Germany are the greatest
mohair consumers. U.S. exports of mohair in
the first 6 months of 1982 were 15 percent
higher than the January to June average of
the previous 5 years. Over half of the
exports were shipped to the United Kingdom.
Demand outlook for mohair is favorable
because it can be used in place of alpaca,
cashmere, and camel hair. About two-thirds
of all mohair is used for women's apparel.
DEVELOPMENTS IN THE EXPORTING AND
IMPORTING OF FIBERS, FABRICS, AND
APPAREL
U.S. textile trade deficit for the first
half of 1982 was 78 percent higher than that
for the same period in 1981. The strong U.S.
dollar during 1982 made U.S. goods more
expensive to foreign countries and foreign
goods less costly for the United States.
Total textile exports declined by one-third,
but total imports declined by only 0. 5
percent. Apparel imports for the first
8 months of 1982 were up 11 percent from
imports for the same period in 1981. Manmade
fiber apparel contributed the most to this
increase; woolen apparel imports declined
slightly, although imports of woolen fabrics
increased over 10 percent.
Percentage change in imports from January­August
1981 to January-August 1982
Fiber Textiles and Apparel
apparel only
Cotton ••••••• -1.3 +7.1
Wool ••••••••• +10.5 -1.2
Manmade ••••• +9.8 +13.5
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Office of Textiles and Apparel.
1983 No.2 Family Economics Review 7
The August 1982 level of imports was
equivalent to 724,000 fiber-textile-apparel
jobs according to James A. Chapman, Vice
President of the American Textile Manufac­turing
Institute. Unemployment for the tex­tile
and apparel industries in October 1982
was 14.1 percent and 16.1 percent, respec­tively.
Although the U.S. wage scale com­pares
favorably to that of most European
nations, labor costs in the Far East are
generally much lower than in the United
States. Wage costs in China are the equiva­lent
of 20 cents an hour. It has been pre­dicted
that within the next 10 to 25 years-­depending
on the extent of trade restraints
imposed by the Federal Government--half of
the apparel consumed annually in the United
States will be imported.
In the first quarter of 1982, 60 percent
of U.S. apparel imports came from Taiwan,
Hong Kong, and South Korea, and 8 percent
came from China. The percentage imported
from China has been increasing because of
its enormous production capabilities and the
lack, as yet, of specific limits for China
on most categories of textiles and apparel
covered by the Multi-Fiber Arrangement. 2
The International Trade Commission predicts
that China may become the world's largest
exporter of textiles and apparel by 1985.
China is also a major exporter of silk and
down. Almost three-quarters of silk imports
in the United States are from China. Imports
of raw silk for the first 8 months of 1982
were 10 percent higher than the 1981 level
for the same time period. Outerwear with a
down fill will cost more in 1982-83 because
China, the source of one-third of U.S. down
imports, increased its price for down by 5
to 10 percent in 1982. China withheld its
down from the international market this past
season and exported its own quilted gar­ments.
Many U.S. outerwear manufacturers
have switched from down to manmade
fiberfill.
2 Negotiations for a bilateral textile
agreement with China were initiated in
September 1982.
8 Family Economics Review 1983 No.2
MODIFICATION OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS
RELATED TO TEXTILES AND APPAREL
The Export Trading Company Act
The Export Trading Company Act, designed
to encourage exports of American-made
merchandise, became law in October 1982.
Companies that compete in the U.S. domestic
market will be allowed to join together to
form an export trading company without
violating antitrust and price-fixing regula­tions.
This legislation permits banks to own
equity and to participate as partners in an
export trading company for the first time.
The U.S. Department of Commerce plans to
publish initial guidelines and regulations
in the Federal Register early in 1983.
Commerce officials are hopeful that 500,000
jobs and $50 billion in added exports could
result from implementing this act.
Flammable Fabrics Act
The Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), in August 1982, proposed a major
revision of its textile flammability stand­ards,
which would allow manufacturers of
most textiles to determine for themselves
how often to test fabrics to guarantee com­pliance
with flammability laws. The period
during which records of these tests must be
retained would be reduced from 3 years to
1 year. In addition, CPSC proposed that cer­tain
fabrics, having once passed, be exempt
from additional testing. These would include
all fabrics made of acrylic, mod acrylic,
nylon, olefin, or polyester, plus all
plain-surface fabrics weighing 2.6 ounces or
more per square yard regardless of fiber
content.
The CPSC also proposed permitting textile
firms to design their own test methods and
equipment, as long as they are at least as
stringent as the prescribed Government pro­cedures.
Various manufacturers have stated
their costs would be reduced if they could
use their own test methods. Under the
proposed plan, the CPSC would continue to
monitor compliance with its flammability
standards using its own test methods.
Currently, the CPSC is testing procedures
developed by the industry for reducing the
flammability of upholstered furniture. Since
October 1981, the industry has been volun­tarily
seeking methods of reducing the risk
of upholstered furniture catching fire from
cigarettes. The two procedures being tested
include: Placing a narrow strip of aluminum
foil in the welt, or rounded seam, which
runs along cushion perimeters and other
edges of most upholstered furniture; and
using artificial fibers (which tend to
resist igniting) to construct the tightly
woven inner wrapping under the upholstery.
A Federal appeals court ruled that the
CPSC could not use the criteria it
established in ~980 to decide whether
"borderline" garments, not usually con­sidered
sleepwear and including thermal
underwear, are actually intended for
use as sleepwear and subject to the chil­dren's
sleepwear flammability standards.
Since children's thermal underwear is speci­fically
exempt from sleepwear flammability
standards, the appeals court ruling elimi­nates
further CPSC action on children's
thermal underwear unless a formal rule is
adopted under established procedures set
forth in the Flammable Fabrics Act.
Care Labeling Rule
The care labeling rule requires wearing
apparel and piece goods used to make wear­ing
apparel to have a care label attached
that specifies a satisfactory method for
cleaning the product. In 1982 the Federal
Trade Commission (FTC) voted not to include
leather and suede apparel, upholstered
furniture, linens, yarns, and curtains and
draperies.
The Bureau of Consumer Protection was
directed by the FTC to determine if there
are special problems associated with the
proper care of leather and suede weai"ing
apparel, carpets, and upholstery.
The FTC suggests that the current rule be
amended to clarify the type of information
that should be contained in each instruc­tion,
that standardized language be used in
phrasing the instruction; and requires a
reasonable basis of accuracy for each
instruction. Suggestions made by FTC and
recorded in the minutes are subject to
congressional action before becoming rules·
Cancer Risk from Apparel Finishes
The CPSC expects to expand its investiga­tion
of possible cancer hazards in apparel
finishes. In fiscal year 1983 CPSC-sponsored
research (conducted in part by the USDA
textile research laboratory in New Orleans)
will examine the amount of formaldahyde
released from durable press apparel and will
determine whether it can then be absorbed
through the skin in amounts that could be
dangerous.
The CPSC also plans to continue investiga­tions
into the possible cancer risks posed
by benzidine dyes used for home dyeing of
fabrics and found in manufactured apparel.
Other dye products will be selected for
additional testing.
SELECTED REFERENCES
1. American Demographics. 1982. Openers.
Getting into jeans. Vol. 4, No. 7,
p. 47.
2. Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System. 1982. Monetary policy
report to Congress. Federal Reserve
Bulletin 68(8):443-452.
3. Daily News Record. 1982. January 18,
March 11, March 26, May 12, June 24,
and July 22 issues.
4, Dickerson, Kitty G. 1982. Imported
versus U.S. -produced apparel: Consumer
views and buying patterns. Home Econo­mics
Research Journal 10(3)241-252.
5. Dillon, Robert M. 1982. Textile Denier
Polyester Filament: World Supply and
Demand Prospects. Paper presented by
Chemtex, Inc., at the International
Conference on Manmade Fibers for Devel­oping
Countries, sponsored by UNIDO
and the Government of India. [Bombay,
India, April 12, 1982.]
6. Heitmiller, Richard F. 1982. Global
Strategies for Man-Made Fibers in the
Eighties. Arthur D. Little Decision
Resources, Cambridge, Mass.
7. Schoepfle, Gregory K. 1982. Imports
and domestic employment: Identifying
affected industries. Monthly Labor
Review 105(8): 13-26.
8. Textile Organon. 1982. Vol. 53, No. 9,
p. 194.
1983 No.2 Family Economics Review 9
9. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Econo­mic
Research Service. 1982. Cotton and
Wool Outlook and Situation, CWS-30 and
CWS-32, and personal communication.
10. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau
of the Census. 1982. Population esti­mates
and projections. Current Popula­tion
Reports, Series P-25, No. 920.
11. 1982. Money income of house-holds,
families, and persons in the
United States: 1980. Current Population
Reports. Consumer Income, Series P-60,
No. 132.
12. Bureau of Economic Analy-sis.
1982. Survey of Current Business
62(7):38-39 (table 2.2), and personal
communication.
13. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics. 1982. News. Consumer
Price Index monthly reports.
Family Financial Management
Curriculum Sourcebook 1
By Karen E. Craig
Professor and associate dean for
Home Economics Extension
Purdue University
In May 1982 the U.S. Department of
Agriculture funded a special needs project
to develop a curriculum sourcebook on family
financial management. The sourcebook is to
be made available to Cooperative Extension
Service agents and specialists to use in
helping families with varied and complex
economic problems. Extension staff will have
the option of using the sourcebook to iden­tify
program content and evaluation strate­gies.
Since the content of the sourcebook is
broad in scope, it can and should be used
1This article is abstracted from a paper
presented at the Agricultural Outlook
Conference in November 1982 at Washington,
D.C. Complete copies are available from
Family Economics Research Group (see inside
front cover for address).
10 Family Economics Review 1983 No.2
along with other curriculum guides over the
next decade. The project is also in tended to
provide the Extension Service at the Federal
level with a structure to document the work
of home economics agents and specialists in
assisting families.
The sourcebook project is being developed
with grass roots planning. This type of
planning has been used in the past success­fully
to describe the outcomes and impacts
of Extension programs. An advisory committee
with representation from the various regions
of the country and agencies in U.S . Depart­ment
of Agriculture guides the project. The
committee is composed of seven family
economists, consumer economists, and family
resource specialists; one agricultural
economist; one home economics administrator;
and three Federal level representatives, one
each from Agricultural Research Service,
Extension Service, and Cooperative State
Research Service. Project results are
expected to be distributed in the spring of
1983, with copies sent to Cooperative
Extension Service home economics staff. If
requested, every State will receive source­books
for each county office, specialist,
and State leader. An assessment of the
overall usefulness of the sourcebook will be
made in the late fall of 1983 or early
spring of 1984.
The sourcebook contains four sections:
A subject matter outline, research informa­tion,
statistical data, and priorities. The
outline (see table 1) in section 1 is used
as the organizing feature of the research
and data sections. This enables users to
identify completed and ongoing work in each
subject matter area as well as voids in
family financial management research.
In addition to the basic outline,
section 1 includes a brief narrative
relating to each portion of the outline and
a list of resources that can be used in
teaching or delivering material to clien­tele.
The narrative is not detailed enough
to teach a lesson, but it provides some
understanding of the principle(s) related to
each part of the outline. The list of
resources includes suggested publications
from Extension, business, indus try, and
other educational program units. Publica­tions
proposed were screened by selected
members of the advisory committee.
To assess whether the outline was usable
by agents, 12 randomly selected agents from
Indiana and Illinois were given a list of 13
clientele problems. They were asked to
locate in the curriculum outline where they
would find information to respond to a
specific question. For example, when asked
which section of the outline would be used
to obtain information on coping with unem­ployment,
4 of the 12 agents correctly
identified the appropriate section of the
outline. Correct responses for the other 12
problems were answered with a range of 1 to
7. As a result of this test, certain aspects
of the narrative portion of the outline and
the directions on the use of the outline
were clarified •
Benchmark research and current research
of value to program delivery are identified
in section 2 of the sourcebook, and statis­tical
data essential to understanding
family financial management content are
located in section 3. The latter section
includes information such as mean and median
income, dollar value of housing, Consumer
Price Index, unemployment rates, and labor
force participation rates for women. Since
the data change frequently, the section also
provides suggestions for updating the infor­mation
on a regular basis. Materials for
these sections were suggested by Extension
specialists throughout the Nation and other
professionals working in the area of family
financial management. Proposed materials
were reviewed by the advisory committee,
which established criteria for the selection
of research or data considered critical to
the subject rna tter.
Priorities for the decade are identified
in the fourth section of the sourcebook. The
priorities are based on responses to a
letter sent to specialists throughout the
Nation asking for personal or State priori­ties
for the decade. The suggestions were
arranged by the advisory committee into
three time-related priorities--one each for
1983-85, 1986-88, and 1989-91 (table 2).
Evaluation strategies relating to the gener­al
expected behavior of people who improve
their family financial management skills are
included for each of these three priority
areas.
Table 1. Financial resource management topic outline
I. Financial management
A. General management process
B. Specific skills
II. Regulation, market conditions, and public policy
A. Regulation and safety of consumer goods
(including services)
B. Consumer rights and responsibilities
C. Price and market conditions
D. International/national trade interaction with
family economic well-being
E. Policy issues
II I. F amity resources: Money, personal and real
property, knowledge, skills, time, and
personal energy
A. Identifying resources available for meeting
family goals
B. Money--income flow
Table 2. Priorities established for the period 1983-91
Year
1983-85
1986-88
1989-91
Priority
To improve management skills to
maximize and extend income to help
families cope with changing family
circumstances and economic conditions.
To develop skills in use of technology
to conserve, use, and manage family
financial resources.
To develop family-member skills in
identification of the constraints that
government places on consumers in the
selection of consumer goods (including
services) , e.g. , housing, food,
clothing, and transportation.
1983 No.2 Family Economics Review 11
USDA 1983 Family Food Plans
By Linda E. Cleveland and Betty B. Peterkin
Home economist and deputy director
Consumer Nutrition Division
Human Nutrition Information Service
The USDA family food plans have been
revised. Starting in 1983, the revised food
plans will replace the food plans developed
in 1974-75 as the basis for the "Cost of
Food at Home," released monthly by USDA. 1
This article describes the 1983 low-cost,
moderate-cost, and liberal food plans; and
why and how they were revised.
What Are the USDA Food Plans?
The food plans are sets of nutritious
diets at four costs levels--thrifty, low,
moderate, and liberal. The food plans and
the total costs of foods in the plans have
been used as standards of family food use
and food costs since the mid thirties. The
food plans are .used by State and private
institutions to plan food purchases, and by
lawyers to establish dependency rates. The
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS), used the three most costly
food plans as the food components of their
family budgets. 2 An earlier food plan--the
economy plan--is at the core of the Federal
poverty thresholds. USDA uses the cost for
the thrifty food plan as the basis for the
coupon allotment for the Food Stamp Program.
Each food plan specifies the amounts of
foods of different types (food groups) to
buy to provide nutritious diets for men,
women, and children of different ages
(tables 1 to 3). Amounts in each food group
can be totaled for persons of the sex and
1Costs for the food plans shown on
pp. 28-32 of this issue are for the 1974-75
food plans . The computer program used to
e s timate costs of foods in the 1983 plans
had not been completed when Family
Economics Review went to press.
2BLS urban family and r e tired couple
budgets have been dis continued. See Family
Economics Review 1982(4) :32 and
1983(1) :31.
12 Family Economics Review 1983 No . 2
age of family members to determine the plan
for a specific family . To follow the plan,
families may choose from the food groups, in
amounts as specified in the plan, those
foods that they can store properly and pre­pare,
that they enjoy eating, and that they
can afford. Foods within the groups are
generally similar to each other in nutritive
value. Thus, as long as families choose a
variety of foods, choices within groups will
not alter the nutritional quality of the
diet.
Most families will find the cost of one of
the four food plans similar to the amount
they spend for food. In USDA's Nationwide
Food Consumption Survey 1977-78 (NFCS),
about 12 percent of the households had food
costs below the cost for the 1974-75 thrifty
food plan; 30 percent had food costs above
the cost for the liberal food plan (_i_). The
revised food plans cost about the same as
the 197 4-75 food plans.
Why Were the Food Plans Revised?
The previous food plans were developed in
1974-75. Food consumption and food price
data from a 1965-66 nationwide survey were
used in their development. Dietary standards
used were from the Recommended Dietary
Allowances (RDA) released in 1974 by the
National Academy of Sciences, National
Research Council.
The 1974-75 food plans were revised to
take into account new information on food
consumption, food prices, food composition,
and nutritional needs. The NFCS provided
new food consumption and food price data .
The Human Nutrition Information Service's
(HNIS) Nutrient Data Bank contained updated
and expanded food composition data. In 1980,
the RDA were revised, and these RDA were
used to define lower limits for food energy
and nutrients in the 1983 food plans.
Several dietary substances were added to
those considered in developing the earlier
plans partly because new food composition
data were available. They are zinc,
phosphorus, folacin, vitamin E, cholesterol ,
caloric sweeteners, and sodium.
Table 1. Low-cost food plan , 1983: Quantities of food for a week 1
Food group
Child Male
1-2 3-5 6-8 9-11
years years years years
12-14 15-19 20-50 51 years 12-19 20-50 51 years
years years years or more years years or more
Vegetables, fruit:
Potatoes (fresh weight)
High-nutrient vegetables .••..••
Other vegetables •••••••••••••.•
Mixtures, mostly vegetable;
condiments •.••••.••.••...•••••
Vitamin - C-rich fruit 4
•••••••••••
Other fruit 4
••••••••••••••••••••
Grain products:
Whole-grain /high -fiber
breakfast cereals •••••.••••.•..
Other b r eakfast cereals ••••••••
Whole-grain/high -fiber flour,
meal, rice, pasta •••••• •• ••• , .•
Other flour, meal, rice, pasta ,.
Whole-grain /high-fiber bread •• ,
Other bread •.••..•• • ••.•.....•.
Bakery products, not bread • , :.
Grain mixtures •••...•••. , .••. ••
Milk, cheese, cream:
Milk, yogurt (quarts)6 ........ .
Cheese •.•. •• .•• • •...• ,.,,.,., .•
Cr eam, mixtures mostly milk ••.•
Meat and alternates:
Lower-cost red meats, variety
meats •••.....•••...•.••.•••••.
Higher-cost red meats, variety
meats .••••..•••..•..•...••••..
Poultry , ••••••.••...•••.•••••• ,
Fish, shellfish •.•••••.••••.•.•.
Bacon, sausage, luncheon meats
Eggs (number) ....•••••••••..••
Dry beans, peas, lentils
(dry weight) 7
•••••••••••••••• ,
Mixtures, mostly meat, poultry,
fish, egg, legume .. ...... . ... .
Nuts (shelled weight), peanut
butter .•••..•..•.•••.•.•••• •••
Other foods: 8
Fats , oils .••••••...•• • ••••••.•.
Sugar, sweets •••••• , ••.••• •• • ••
Soft drinks, punches, ades
(single-strength) •••••••••••••
0.50
.55
.82
. 06
1.51
1.97
5 . 35
5 .38
.11
. 86
.1 2
. 41
.09
.15
3.41
.17
. 13
.71
. 37
.42
.09
.15
3.34
. 22
.08
.09
.09
. 15
1.53
0. 73
.50
.88
.10
1.43
!.58
.27
. 26
.07
. 83
.17
• 79
.36
.20
3. 23
.17
.44
. 52
.38
.43
.07
.39
3. 24
.09
.08
.20
.27
. 46
1.96
1.16
. 86
1. 20
.14
1. 79
2.30
. 31
.33
. 08
1.04
.22
1.08
.62
.18
4.26
.20
.57
.60
.47
. 63
.14
.48
2.50
.12
.11
.20
.43
. 57
2.72
1.28
. 98
1.41
.17
1.94
2. 44
.35
.38
. 09
1.17
.26
1. 28
.75
. 30
4.69
.19
.69
.74
.57
. 67
. 11
. 51
2. 99
.15
• 15
.22
.50
. 62
3.25
1. 55
1.30
1.41
.18
2 . 03
2. 07
. 36
. 39
.I 0
1.32
. 31
!.52
.96
.33
5.02
.22
.67
.99
.79
. 85
.16
.58
3.02
. 20
. 19
. 20
.55
• 74
3.35
1.88 1.97
1.34 1.91
1. 54 2. 12
.20 . 29
2. 16 1. 62
1.45 1.98
. 28 .14
• 31 . 16
.10 .11
1.34 1.40
.39 . 42
1.95 2 . 08
. 85 .86
.34 .29
4 . 86
.30
. 75
1. 23
. 94
.77
. 14
. 57
2.97
.19
.20
. 22
.54
.77
4 . 63
2.49
.36
.51
1.65
.86
.94
. 25
.34
3.38
.27
. 22
. 14
.68
. 84
3.67
1. 71
2. 00
2.1 9
.30
1. 75
2.21
.22
. 25
. 10
1. 34
.30
1.45
. 71
.13
2.07
.28
. 50
!. 23
1. 04
.98
.23
.58
3.93
.19
. 15
.08
.54
. 83
1.19
1.19
1.19
!.54
.15
1. 76
1.81
.33
.36
. 09
. 95
. 28
1.19
.44
.23
4 . 64
.34
.65
1.13
.70
.83
.17
.29
3.82
.24
.16
. 11
.25
.43
3.96
1. 19
1.86
2.30
.24
1. 79
1. 53
. 21
. 23
.09
!. 01
.30
1.24
.46
. 22
1.85
. 34
.34
!.57
.95
.91
• 21
.41
4.23
.34
.17
. 07
.32
.35
3.33
1.11
2.17
2.04
.15
1. 91
2.19
.31
.22
.12
. 83
.25
.84
.19
. 14
2.16
.35
.55
1.67
1.21
.95
.19
.21
4.02
.14
. 16
.04
.26
.43
. 96
1 Quantities are for food as purchased or brought into the household from garden or farm . Food is for preparation of all
meals and snacks for a week . About 10 percent of the edible parts of food above quantities needed to meet caloric needs is
included to allow for food assumed to be discarded as plate waste, spoilage, etc.
2 Pregnant and lactating females usually require added nutrients and should consult a doctor for recommendations about diet
and supplements.
3 Quantities in pounds, except milk which is in quarts, and eggs which are by number.
4 Frozen concentrated juices are included as single-strength juice.
5 Cereal fortified with iron is recommended.
6 Quantities of dry and evaporated milk and yogurt included as their fluid whole milk equivalents in terms of calcium
content.
7 Count I pound of canned dry beans--pork and beans, kidney beans, etc.--as 0.33 pound.
8 2 small food groups--coffee and tea, and seasonings--are not shown. Their cost is a part of the estimated cost for the
food plan .
1983 No.2 Family Economics Review 13
Table 2. Moderate-cost food plan, 1983: Quantities of food for a week 1
Olild Male
Food group
1-2 3-5 6-8 9-11 12-14 15-19 20-50 51 years 12-19 20-50 51 years
years years years years years years years or more years years or more
Vegetables, fruit:
Potatoes (fresh weight)
High-nutrient vegetables ••••.••
Other vegetables •••••••••••••••
Mixtures, mostly vegetable;
condiments ••••.•••••••••••••••
Vitamin-e-rich fruit 4
•••••••••••
Other fruit 4
••••••••••••••••••••
Grain products:
Whole-grain /high -fiber
breakfast cereals ••••••••••••
Other breakfast cereals ••••••••
Whole-grain I high -fiber flour,
meal, rice, pasta ....•.........
Other flour, meal, rice, pasta ••
Whole-grain/high-fiber bread •••
Other bread ••••••••••••••••••••
Bakery products, not bread ••••
Grain mixtures •••••••••••••••••
Milk, cheese, cream:
Milk, yogurt (quarts) 6
••••••••••
Cheese •••••••••••••••••••••••••
Cream, mixtures mostly milk ••••
Meat and alternates:
Lower-cost red meats, variety
meats •••••••••••••••••••.•••••
Higher-cost red meats, variety
meats • •• • •• •••••••••••••••••••
Poultry ••••••••••••••••••••• , ••
Fish, shellfish •••••••••••••••.
Bacon, sausage, luncheon meats
Eggs (number) .••••••••••.•••.•
Dry beans, peas, lentils
(dry weight)7
••••• •••••••• •• ••
Mixtures, mostly meat, poultry,
fish, egg, legume ••• .•••.•••••
Nuts (shelled weight), peanut
butter ••••••••••.•••••••.•.•••
Other foods: 8
Fats, oils
Sugar, sweets . ••••• .•••••••••••
Soft drinks, punches, ades
(single-strength) •••••••••••••
0.68
.78
1.06
.10
1.60
1.98
5.53
5.43
.07
.81
.11
.41
.21
. 14
3.79
.18
.28
• 51
.46
.57
.10
. 26
3.64
. 10
.08
.05
.11
.17
1.57
0.81
1.00
.81
.12
1.92
2.19
.24
.26
.06
.81
.19
.82
.53
.18
3.58
.18
.34
.60
.64
.59
.16
.42
3.40
.07
. 10
. 13
.30
.49
2.37
1.34
.88
1.38
.17
2.61
2.32
.35
.38
.07
.87
.25
1.07
.76
.26
4.72
.29
.71
.85
.90
.82
. 22
.59
2.52
.16
.14
.18
.31
.60
2.86
1.90
1.48
1.82
. 22
2.47
2.44
.42
.47
.07
.86
.31
1.34
.65
.46
5.16
.21
.99
1.11
1.17
1.00
.29
.50
3.08
.21
.16
.15
.46
.68
3.69
1.69
1.33
1.65
.21
2.10
2.88
.42
.46
.09
1.19
.34
1.52
• 78
.43
6.07
.26
1.08
1. 36
1.43
1.15
.40
. 26
2.42
.20
.17
.28
.52
.79
3.90
Pounds 3
2.17
1. 55
2.11
.26
2.32
2.42
.38
.43
. 08
1.03
.50
2.18
.86
. 46
5.38
.46
• 75
1.19
1.35
.74
.36
.72
2.73
. 18
.23
. 13
. 57
.84
4.84
2.11
2. 22
2.51
.32
2.26
1.99
. 19
.21
.11
1.53
.46
2.02
.93
.30
2. 62
.39
. 59
1.48
1.60
1.12
.41
. 50
3.10
. 23
. 29
.16
. 65
.92
3.73
1. 81
2.17
2.76
.34
2.15
3.12
.22
.25
.10
1.38
.34
1.48
.80
.15
1.93
.40
.61
1.37
1.46
1.03
.51
.43
3.83
.20
.19
.04
.62
.91
1.06
1.31
1.56
1.86
.20
1.96
1.81
.41
.42
.06
.86
.30
1.24
. 59
.32
5.09
.38
.70
1.12
1.04
.94
.41
.32
3.23
.24
.17
.06
. 28
.42
4.26
!. 31
2.51
2.71
.29
2.22
1.91
.23
.24
.08
1.10
.32
1.27
.53
.25
!.89
.44
.25
1.60
1.35
1.06
.41
.24
4.37
. 35
.19
. 03
.36
.47
3.71
1.03
2.76
2.52
.23
2.51
2.78
.23
.17
.11
.85
.26
.87
.31
.18
2.24
.40
.58
1.58
1. 50
1.03
.56
.22
4.12
.19
.17
. 02
.29
.44
1.18
1 Quantities are for food as purchased or brought into the household from garden or farm. Food is for preparation of all
meals and snacks for a week . About 20 percent of the edible parts of food above quantities needed to meet caloric needs is
included to allow for food assumed to be discarded as plate waste, spoilage , etc .
2 Pregnant and lactating females usually require added nutrients and should consult a doctor for recommendations about diet
and supplements.
3 Quantities in pounds, except milk which is in quarts, and eggs which are by number.
4 Frozen concentrated juices are included as single-strength juice .
5 Cereal fortified with iron is recommended .
6 Quantities of dry and evaporated milk and yogurt included as their fluid whole milk equivalents in terms of calcium
content.
7 Count 1 pound of canned dry beans--pork and beans, kidney beans, etc.--as 0.33 pound.
8 2 small food groups--coffee and tea, and seasonings--are not shown . Their cost is a part of the estimated cost for the
food plan.
14 Family Economics Review 1983 No.2
Table 3, Liberal food plan, 1983: Quantities of food for a weekl
Food group
Olild Male
1-2 3-5 6-8 9 -11
years years years years
12-14 15-19 20-50 51 years 12-19 20-50 51 years
years years years or more years years or more
Vegetables, fruit:
Potatoes (fresh weight)
High-nutrient vegetables •••••••
Other vegetables •••••••••••••••
Mixtures, mostly vegetable;
condiments •••••.••••.••••••••••
Vite.min-C-rich fruit 4
•••••••••••
Other fruit 4
••••••••••••••••••••
Grain products:
Whole-grain/high-fiber
breakfast cereals •••••••••••••
Other breakfast cereals .•••••••
Whole-grain I high -fiber flour,
meal, rice, paste. •••.••••••••••
Other flour, meal, rice, pasta ••
Whole-grain/high-fiber bread • .•
Other bread ••••••••••••••••••.•
Bakery products, not bread •.••
Grain mixtures ••••••••••••••••.
Milk, cheese, cream.:
Milk, yogurt (quarts) 6
••••••••••
Cheese •••••••••••••••••••••••••
Cream, mixtures mostly milk ••••
Meat and alternates:
Lower-cost red meats, variety
meats ••••••••••••.••••••.•••••
Higher-cost red meats, variety
meats •.••••••.•••••.••••• • ••••
Poultry •....••.•.•••••••••••••.
Fish, shellfish ••••••••••••••••
Bacon, sausage, luncheon meats
Eggs (number) •••••••••••••••••
Dry beans, peas, lentils
(dry weight) 7 ........... . .... .
Mixtures, mostly meat, poultry,
fish, egg, legume ........... ..
Nuts (shelled weight), peanut
butter •.••.•••••.•••..••.•••••
Other foods: 8
Fats, oils •.••••••••..•••••••••
Sugar, sweets ••••••••••••••••••
Soft drinks, punches, e.des
(single-strength) ••.•.••••.•••
0 .70
.78
1.03
.10
1.65
3.24
5 .53
5 .54
.05
. 85
.13
.45
.29
.23
4.1·4
.23
. 17
. 60
• 61
.38
.22
.18
3 . 51
.07
.10
.03
.10
.20
1.65
0.78
. 81
.87
. 11
2.28
2.47
. 25
. 26
.06
.89
.20
.76
. 62
. 29
3.64
.24
.57
.54
.73
.79
.26
.53
2.72
.13
.13
.20
.25
.47
3.20
1.13
1.24
1.47
.18
2.32
2.68
.32
.34
.09
1.26
.25
.94
.81
.34
5 . 05
.41
.61
.98
1.13
.89
.27
.51
2.48
.14
.15
.26
.34
.71
3.14
1.48
1.22
1. 61
.19
3.26
3.38
. 37
.40
.09
1.35
.33
1.26
.64
.38
5.13
.38
.77
1.07
1.44
1.18
.36
.62
3.73
.20
.19
.22
.48
.84
4.10
1.57
1.57
2.08
.24
2.79
2.54
.51
.56
.08
1.20
.45
1.71
.95
.46
6.12
.34
.69
1. 21
1.66
1.06
.38
.68
2.87
.26
.31
.21
.56
.89
4.84
Pounds 3
2.44 2.06
1.78 2.79
2.04 3.02
.29 .49
3.08 2.72
2.29 2.44
.48 .27
.52 .30
.10 .11
1.40 1.48
.52 .60
1. 94 2.22
.98 .91
.43 .35
5.30 2.46
.50 .45
.33 .19
1.23
1.65
1.05
.34
• 70
3.11
.17
.26
.26
.65
.94
5.95
1.46
2.00
1.17
. 74
.36
3.55
.30
.19
.21
.82
1.06
4.46
1.74
2.77
3.14
.36
2.50
3.02
.19
.21
.11
1.54
.43
1.61
.97
.18
1.87
.41
.68
1.35
1.80
1.20
.77
.43
3.84
.20
.21
.04
.68
1.01
1.46
1.20
1.89
2.00
.19
2.21
2. 09
.45
.46
.07
.93
.34
1.24
.55
.42
5.44
.43
.96
1.15
1.42
.89
.66
.27
3.86
.26
.24
.03
.34
.43
5.07
1.18
3.90
3.72
.34
2.47
2.15
.20
.20
.09
1.22
.21
1.38
.56
.31
2.05
.45
.15
1.95
1.64
1.28
.91
.19
3.90
.27
.28
.01
.43
.48
3.83
1.10
2.81
2.89
.28
2.63
3.13
.24
.17
.09
.81
.28
.86
.41
.15
2.42
.45
.76
1.36
1.69
1.31
.89
.22
4.27
.16
.19
.06
.30
.67
1. 28
1 Que.ntities are for food e.s purchased or brought into the household from garden or farm. Food is for preparation of all
meals and snacks for e. week. About 30 percent of the edible parts of food above quantities needed to meet caloric needs is
included to allow for food assumed to be discarded e.s plate waste, spoilage, etc.
2 Pregnant and lactating females usually require added nutrients and should consult e. doctor for recommendations e. bout diet
and supplements.
3 Que.ntities in pounds, except milk which is in quarts, and eggs which are by number.
4 Frozen concentrated juices are included e.s single-strength juice.
5 Cereal fortified with iron is recommended.
6 Quantities of dry and eve. pore. ted milk and yogurt included e.s their fluid whole milk equivalents in terms of calcium
content.
7 Count I pound of canned dry beans--pork and beans, kidney beans, etc.--as 0.33 pound.
8 2 small food groups--coffee and tee., and seasonings-- are not shown. Their cost is e. part of the estimated cost for the
food plan .
1983 No.2 Family Economics Review 15
The 1983 food plans are presented in a
slightly different format from that used in
3 1974-75. The number of food groups was
increased from 17 in the 1974-75 food plans
to 31 in the 1983 food plans. Additional
food groups were needed to group foods with
high and low content of certain dietary
substances not considered in the earlier
plans and to help deal with the increased
use of commercially prepared foods. In
addition, the sex-age categories for which
food plans were developed were reduced from
14 to 11. Plans meeting the dietary standards
could not be developed for pregnant and
lactating women using the food plan model
(described in the following section). Plans
for children under 1 year of age differed
excessively from usual consumption partly
because average nutritive values and prices
used in developing the plans may not be
appropriate for this age group whose eating
patterns are quite different from those of
other groups. Thus, food plans for pregnant
and lactating women and children under a
year old were discontinued. Also, the
categories for older women and men were
changed from 55 years and over to 51 years
and over to conform to categories for which
RDA are presented.
Data and Procedures Used in Revising the
Food Plans
Data from the basic sample of the NFCS,
which was conducted from April 1977 through
March 1978, were used as the basis for food
consumption patterns and base food prices.
Data included quantities and prices of foods
as purchased and used by the survey
households in a week and quantities of foods
eaten by individual members of each house­hold
for 3 days.
Data were collected from over 14,000
households. From these households, three
3The food groups, the foods in each
group, and other details related to food
plan development are available on request
from the Human Nutrition Information
Service, Consumer Nutrition Division,
Federal Building, 6505 Belcrest Road,
Hyattsville, Md. 20782.
16 Family Economics Review 1983 No . 2
separate samples were selected as a basis
for the low-cost, moderate-cost, and liberal
food plans. Data used were from households
with increasingly higher food costs per
person--approximately the second, third, and
fourth q uartiles, respectively, on a distri­bution
of households by money value of their
food per person.
The food plans were developed by starting
with usual food consumption patterns calcu­lated
from survey data. This approach was
used because researchers believe that a
nutritious diet that disrupts usual eating
habits the least is most likely to be accept­able
to families. These food consumption
patterns are estimated quantities as pur­chased
of foods (classified into 31 food
groups) that survey households used to
prepare a week's meals and snacks for people
in given sex-age categories. Each food group
has an average nutritive value and price
associated with it, based on selections within
groups typical of those made by survey
households. A computerized rna thematical
model (1) was used to find the combination
of food groups at a given total cost that
met dietary standards for each sex-age cate­gory
with the least change from quantities
in food groups in the consumption pattern.
This combination of food groups is the food
plan for the sex-age category.
Dietary standards for the 1983 plans,
based on the 1980 RDA Cl), were set after
extensive study of the dietary change needed
in food consumption patterns to meet various
sets of standards (~, ~. ~). These standards
and the rationale for their use are describ­ed
in the March 1983 issue of the Journal of
Nutrition Education (~_). Briefly they are:
RDA for food energy, protein, six
vitamins (A, B12• thiamin, riboflavin,
niacin, and C), and three minerals (calcium,
magnesium, and phosphorus).
RDA for iron, exce pt 90 percent of the
RDA for the child 1 to 2 y ears old.
Eighty percent of RDA for zinc,
folacin, and vitamin E. Levels below RDA
were used in reco g nition of the limited food
composition data for all three of these
nutrients. Another conside ration was that
the U.S. food supply does not provide enough
zinc and folacin to meet RDA for the
population.
0. 02 milligrams of vitamin B6 per gram
of protein in the food plan. The Food and
Nutrition Board based RDA for vitamin B6 on
this ratio.
Moderate levels of fat (35 percent of
energy), cholesterol (350 mg per day),
caloric sweeteners (12 percent of energy),
and sodium (1, 600 mg per 1, 000 calories).
None of the food consumption patterns for
the three food plans met all of the dietary
standards (table 4). Nutritional shortcom­ings
were fairly consistent for all three
plans. They occurred despite the fact that,
Table 4. Nutritional shortcomings in food
consumption patterns 1 used as a basis for
1983 food plans
Nutrient
Below standard:
Calcium, zinc ••••
Iron . ........... .
Magnesium •••••••
Folacin ......... .
Above standard:
Fat •...•.........
Sweeteners ••••••
Sodium •••.• • .•.•
Cholesterol ••••••
Sex-age category with
pattern not meeting
dietary standard
Children, 1-2 years;
females, 12 years
and over
Children, 1-5 years;
females, 12-50 years
Males, 15-19 years;
females, 12-50 years
Females, 12 years and
over
Most
All
All
Primarily males,
15 years and over
1Estimated quantities as purchased of
foods in 31 food groups used to prepare all
meals and snacks for a week. Developed
using data from USDA's Nationwide Food
Consumption Survey 1977-78.
in deriving the consumption patterns, quan­tities
of food in food groups were propor­tionately
adjusted to make the patterns
provide enough food to meet the midpoint of
the RDA range for energy. Calcium, zinc,
iron, magnesium, and folacin were the
problem nutrients. Young children, teenage
girls, and women had the greatest shortages.
Levels of fat, sweeteners, and sodium in
consumption patterns for almost all cate­gories
exceeded the specified standards, and
patterns of males 15 years and over also
exceeded the cholesterol standard. There­fore,
in developing the food plans, adjust­ment
to the patterns was required for all
sex-age categories.
In each food plan, there is an allowance
for some discard of edible food during
preparation, as plate waste, or because of
spoilage. Food specified in the 1983 food
plans is sufficient to provide the dietary
standard for calories and nutrients for each
sex-age category and to allow for some food
discard. The limited information available
on household discard of food indicates that
those with higher per capita food costs have
higher discard; the assumed discard
allowances were set accordingly.
The 1983 Low-Cost, Moderate-Cost, and
Liberal Food Plans
The low-cost, moderate-cost, and liberal
food plans are shown in tables 1 to 3 in
terms of quantities as purchased of food in
31 food groups. To compare food plans by
cost level, and to compare food plans with
consumption patterns, food quantities as
purchased for a week were translated into
food quantities as served for a day. These
"as served" quantities are easier to compare
across food plans because the amount of food
assumed as discard is excluded. Consumption
patterns and food plans for three cost
levels in terms of food as served for a
four-person household (man and woman 20 to
50 years, and children 6 to 8 and 9 to 11
years) are shown in table 5.
As the cost of the plan increases, quanti­ties
of vegetables and fruit and foods in
the meat, poultry, and fish groups generally
increase; and quantities of grain products;
198 3 No. 2 Fami l y Ec onom ics Rev iew 17
dry beans, peas, and nuts; and eggs general­ly
decrease. The low-cost plan relies more
heavily than the other food plans on the
food groups that are the most economical
sources of nutrients. In addition, users of
the low-cost plan are expected to select
more often the lower cost foods within food
groups--for example, ground beef rather than
steak. Conversely, more expensive choices
within food groups account for much of the
greater cost of the liberal plan. Differ-ences
between plans reflect differences in
both consumption patterns and cost limits
for the plans.
Compared with the food consumption pat­terns
on which they are based, food plans
for the four-person household contain more
grain products and dry beans, peas, and
nuts, and less soft drinks, punches, and
ades; sugar and sweets; fats and oils;
cheese; eggs; and meat, poultry, and fish.
Such shifts were required to provide food
plans that meet the dietary standards.
Because calcium, zinc, iron, magnesium, and
folacin were the nutrients most often short
in consumption patterns, adjustments to
patterns generally increased quantities in
food groups providing these nutrients, espe­cially
those with low to moderate levels of
fat, cholesterol, caloric sweeteners, and
sodium.
The changes needed in food consumption
patterns to provide nutritious diets varied
by sex-age category. For example, nutrient
shortages of men 51 years and over were not
as great as those of women 51 years and
Table 5. A day's food as served for a 4-person household: 1 Food consumption patterns and
1983 food plans
Food 2 Unit Low-cost Moderate-cost Liberal
Pattern Plan Pattern Plan Pattern Plan
- - - - Number of units per day
Vegetables, fruit ....... 1/2 cup 18.1 18.3 18.3 19.9 18.6 21.1
Grain products •••••••••• 1 oz 3 25.1 38.7 25.3 36.7 24.6 35.2
Milk, yogurt ............ 1 cup 6.5 6.5 6.4 6.5 6.0 6.1
Cheese (per week) •••••• 1 oz 20.5 15.8 20.7 17.8 25.5 20.9
Meat, poultry, fish,
boned 4
••••••••••••••••• 1 oz 19.1 15.5 19.9 18.6 20.4 19.4
Eggs (per week) •••••••• no. 14.7 11.9 13.4 10.9 13.9 10.5
Dry beans, peas,
cooked; nuts •.•••••.••. 1/2 cup 0.9 1.5 0.9 1.4 0.8 1.3
Fats, oils .............. 1 tbsp 10.1 7.6 10.2 6.4 10.3 6.9
Sugar, sweets .......... 1 tbsp 16.8 9.6 15.4 10.8 15.4 12.3
Soft drinks, punches,
a des .................. 1 cup 6.3 3.2 6.1 3.0 6.4 3.1
1Man and womart 20-50 years, children 6-8 and 9-11 years.
2Excludes commercially prepared mixtures except bread and bakery products.
31 oz (dry) of cereal, pasta, or rice (about 1 serving), 1 slice of bread or equivalent
in other bakery products. Bread is commercially prepared bread and bread assumed to be
made at home from flour and meal and some milk, fat, and sugar. Milk, fat, and sugar in
excess of amount required to make bread are included in their respective groups.
~Lean parts of meat and poultry. Includes some bacon, sausage, and 1 uncheon meats.
18 Family Economics Review 1983 No.2
over. Changes from the man's consumption
pattern reflect the need to moderate fat in
his diet, primarily through increased use of
grain products and legumes and decreased
use of fats and oils, meat, eggs, and
cheese. The woman's pattern had to be
changed in different ways to increase
nutrient levels as well as reduce fat levels.
Like the man, she had to increase her use of
grain products; unlike the man, she had to
increase markedly her use of milk, red meats,
and poultry, an_d decrease substantially
her use of fats and sweets.
Differences Between the 1983 and 1974-75
Food Plans
Weekly quantities as purchased of items
from selected food groups from the 1974-75
and the 1983 plans for a four-person house­hold
(man and woman 20 to 50 years old and
children 6 to 8 and 9 to 11 years) are shown
in table 6. Compared with the 197 4-75 food
plans, the 1983 plans for the four-person
household contain more cereal, flour, rice,
and pasta; bread; dry beans, peas, and nuts;
meat, poultry, and fish; and vegetables and
fruit. The 1983 plans also contain less fats
Table 6. Quantities of food for a week 1 for a 4-person household: 2 Food plans, 1974-75
and 1983
Food 3 Low-cost plan MOderate-cost plan Liberal plan
1974-75 1983 1974-75 1983 1974-75 1983
Pounds '+
Vegetables, fruit 5
•••••••••••••••• 33.3 34.5 39.2 41.4 45.3 47.4
Cereal, flour, rice, pasta ....... 6.3 7.1 5.2 7.2 5.3 8.1
Bread ......................... ... 6.3 6.9 5.9 7.0 5.6 7.2
Other bakery products ••••••••••• 4.4 3.7 5.4 4.1 6.0 4.3
Milk, cheese, other dairy
(milk equivalent in quarts) 6 16.0 17.5 19.2 19.5 20.7 20.4
Meat, poultry, fish .............. 12.4 13.7 15.8 18.0 18.9 21.0
Eggs (number) •.................. 14.8 13.1 15.3 13.1 15.4 13.7
Dry beans, peas, lentils, nuts
(dry I shelled weight) 7 ........... 1.4 1.5 1.2 1.5 1.3 1.6
Fats, oils ....................... 2.6 1.9 2.8 1.8 2.9 2.1
Sugar, sweets •••••••••••••••••• •• 3.6 2.4 4.1 2.7 4.3 3.1
1 Quantities are for food as purchased or brought into the household from garden or farm.
Food is for preparation of all meals and snacks for a week. Food quantities are increased by
10, 20, and 30 percent above the amount required to meet dietary standards for low-cost,
moderate-cost, and liberal plans, respectively, to allow for nutrients lost as discarded
edible food.
2Man and woman 20-50 years, children 6-8 and 9-11 years.
3 Small quantities of coffee, tea, seasonings, soft drinks, punches, and ades that are a
part of the food plans are not shown.
4Quantities in pounds except milk which is in quarts, and eggs which are by number.
5Frozen concentrated fruit juices are included as single-strength juice.
6Quantities of dry and evaporated milk and yogurt included as their fluid whole milk
equivalents in terms of calcium content.
7Count 1 pound of canned dry beans--pork and beans, kidney beans, etc.--as 0.33
pound.
1983 No.2 Family Economics Review 19
and oils, sugar and sweets, commercially
prepared bakery products and grain mixtures
other than bread, and eggs. Some of these
differences reflect changes in consumption
patterns between the 1965-66 and 1977-78
surveys. Some reflect changes in existing,
and additions of new, dietary standards for
the food plans.
Procedures Used to Estimate Costs
To estimate the cost of foods in the
plans, an assumption is made that families
following the plans select the kinds and
amounts of foods in each of the food groups
that survey households at the three food
cost levels selected on the average. 4 For
example, the percentage of total meat used
by the selected survey families that was
ground beef, beef chuck, stewing beef, and
so forth, is assumed in the plan. These
average selections are believed to provide
the most reliable basis for food guides to
be used nationwide.
The average prices paid for almost 2, 400
different foods are used as a basis for
estimating the costs. These prices reflect
differences in container sizes, brands,
quality of food, and price levels of stores
selected by families who use food at differ­ent
levels of cost.
Costs of foods in the food plans are
estimated each month by use of the following
procedures:
1. Prices paid by survey households are
updated by use of the percentage change in
price indexes of detailed food expenditure
categories from the time of the survey to
the month of the estimate. Indexes for these
food expenditure categories are based on
prices collected each month by BLS from a
representative sample of stores in selected
cities across the country. For example,
survey households used as a basis for the
moderate-cost food plan paid an average
price of $1.04 a pound for ground beef in
4 A list of the most commonly used foods in
the plans for a family of four is available
on request from the Human Nutrition Infor­mation
Service, Consumer Nutrition Division,
Federal Building, 6505 Belcrest Road,
Hy atts ville, Md. 20782.
20 Family Economics Review 1983 No . 2
1977-78, and the index for the food
expenditure category containing ground beef
reported by BLS in November 1982 is 64
percent higher than the index reported in
1977-78. A price of $1.71 ($1.04 plus 64
percent of $1. 04), then, is used for ground
beef in estimating the cost of the moderate­cost
food plan for November 1982.
2. The updated prices for foods in each
food group for each food plan are weighted
by the average amounts of foods used by the
survey households to derive prices per unit
--pound, quart, or number--for the food
groups.
3. The prices per unit are then multiplied
by the number of the units of food groups in
the plan for each sex-age category (tables 1
to 3) to determine the cost of foods from
each food group.
4. Costs for the food groups for each
category are totaled. These totals, rounded
to the nearest 10 cents, are released as the
cost of food at home for a week. Unrounded
weekly costs are multiplied by 4. 333, then
rounded to the nearest 10 cents, to estimate
the cost for the month. 5
The general cost level for each of the
1983 food plans is about the same as for the
comparable 1974-75 food plan. However, 1983
food plans for some sex-age categories cost
more and others cost less than earlier plans.
Costs for the new plans for women 51 years
and over are substantially higher. The new
plans for children 1 to 8 years old, women
20 to 50 years, and men 51 years and over
are also more costly. Conversely, new plans
for children 9 to 11 years, girls 12 to 19
years, boys 15 to 19 years, and men 20 to 50
years are less costly (!). These changes in
food cost relationships result from changes
in food consumption patterns and the costs
associated with changing patterns to meet
the dietary standards for the various
sex-age categories.
Food Plan Development--An Ongoing Project
The maintenance of the USDA food plans-­development,
interpretation through publ~­cations
for leaders and consumers, and
periodic estimates of costs--is an ongoing
project in the HNI S. The food plans are
5See footnote 1 on p. 12.
evaluated, and revised as required, when
new information becomes available on food
consumption, food prices, food composition,
and nutritional requirements.
The 1983 food plans reflect the most
recent, complete, and reliable information
available; however, such information has
limitations. For example, current food
consumption may differ from that reported in
1977-78, nutrient composition is not known
for some nutrients in some foods, and
dietary standards must be derived from
research results that are not always
sufficient and consistent.
An underlying premise in developing the
food plans is that families might be encour­aged
to change the amounts of food groups
they use to achieve a nutritious diet. The
public, however, may have neither sufficient
skills nor the desire to do so.
Each food plan is only one of many combi­nations
of food groups that could be devel­oped
at the given cost level. Amounts in
food groups in the food consumption patterns
could be changed in other ways to provide
nutritious diets. While such other combina­tions
would deviate further from consumption
patterns, they might be acceptable to some
families.
Other food plans at similar costs could be
developed if selections of food groups were
not assumed to be typical of the selections
of survey households. If the foods within
the groups were limited to those that are
especially inexpensive or especially nutrient
dense, the quantities in food groups in the
food plans probably would not be required to
deviate from food consumption to the extent
the 1983 food plans do. For example, if only
nonfat dry and fluid skim milk were used,
the extra calories and cost of the typical
assortment of milk assumed in the 1983 food
plans could be used for other foods in the
food plan. For purposes of establishing food
plans at different costs for use nationwide
and estimating the nutrient content and cost
of foods in the food plans, foods within
food groups used, on the average, by
households with different levels of food
cost are believed to be most reasonable.
LITERATURE CITED
1. Cleveland, Linda E., Richard L. Kerr,
Alyson L. Jones, and Mary E. Doran.
1982. USDA family food plans, 1983:
Low-cost, moderate-cost, and liberal.
CNC(Adm)366. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Human Nutrition Information
Service.
2. Betty B., Peterkin, Andrea J.
Blum, and Sharyl J. Becker. [In press].
Recommended dietary allowances as
standards for family food plans. Journal
of Nutrition Education.
3. National Academy of Sciences, National
Research Council, Food and Nutrition
Board. 1980. Recommended dietary
allowances, 9th edition.
4. Peterkin, Betty B. and Richard L. Kerr.
1982. Food stamp allotment and diets of
U.S. households. Family Economics Review,
winter issue, pp. 23-26. U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Agricultural Research
Service.
5. Pamela C. Patterson,
Andrea J. Blum, and Richard L. Kerr.
1981. Changes in dietary patterns: One
approach to meeting standards. Journal of
the American Dietetic Association
78(5):453-459.
6. Carole Shore, and Richard L.
Kerr. 1979. Some diets that meet the
dietary goals for the United States.
Journal of the American Dietetic
Association 74(4) :423-430.
Nutrient Content of the
u. 5. Food Supply; 1909-81
The winter 1983 issue of the National Food
Review (NFR-21) includes an article that
analyzes trends in nutrient levels from the
period 1909-13 to 1981. "Nutrient Content of
the National Food Supply, 1981," was written
by Ruth Marston and Susan Welsh, both home
economists with Human Nutrition Information
Service of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
A comparison of nutrient levels of the
national food supply for 1980 and 1981 shows
that levels for food energy and nine nutri­ents
were unchanged. Of the nutrients that
1983 No.2 Family Economics Review 21
changed, niacin, vitamin A, and vitamin
B12 increased by 1 to 3 percent, and
thiamin and ascorbic acid decreased by 1 to
2 percent.
Changes in nutrient levels tended to be
greater over a longer period of time.
Between 1967-69 and 1981, increases of 1 to
12 percent occurred in levels of food
energy, fat, carbohydrate, iron, vitamin A,
thiamin, niacin, vitamin B5, and ascorbic
acid. During the same period, decreases of
3 to 6 percent occurred in levels of vitamin
B 12, magnesium, phosphorus, and calci­um,
while levels of protein and riboflavin
did not change.
In addition, the article reports a more
detailed review of trends in the fat content
of the U.S. food supply. Between 1909-13 and
1981, the daily per capita level of fat rose
31 percent, reaching a peak of 163 grams in
1981. The greater use of vegetable fats,
particularly salad and cooking oils and
shortening, accounted for the increase.
Nevertheless, animal fats continued to
account for the largest proportion of total
fat. Throughout the century, three food
groups--fats and oils; meat, poultry, and
fish; and dairy products--provided approxi­mately
90 percent of the total fat, although
marked changes occurred in the sources of
fat within each group.
Measuring the Effect of
In-Kind Transfers on Poverty
The current definition of poverty used for
statistical purposes is based on money
income and does not include the value of
in-kind (noncash) transfers as income. This
policy has evoked much criticism since the
market value of food stamps, school lunches,
publicly owned or subsidized rental housing,
medicare and medicaid grew from $2. 2 billion
to over $72.5 billion from 1965 to 1980. In
the first of several U.S. Bureau of the
Census reports to explore these issues,
several alternative methodologies for valu­ing
public in-kind transfers were examined
22 Family Economics Review 1983 No.2
to determine their effect on the size and
composition of the official poverty
population.
Three income concepts were developed that
would do the following: Incorporate only
food and housing noncash benefits; add
medical care, excluding institutional care
benefits; and include food, housing, and
medical care with institutional care.
Medical tranfers constitute over 80 percent
of the total market value of in-kind
benefits.
Three valuation techniques were analyzed:
Market value, or purchase price in the
private market; recipient or cash equivalent
value, which reflects the recipient's own
valuation of the benefit in cash; and the
poverty budget share value, which limits the
value of in-kind transfers to the propor­tions
spent on these items by persons at or
near the poverty line in 1960-61, when such
transfers were minimal.
The choice of income concept and valuation
technique produces a wide range of estimates
when the value of in-kind benefits is
included in the determination of poverty
according to the current poverty definition.
The reduction in the estimated number of
poor ranges from 42 percent to a low of
about 12 percent (see table). However, the
inclusion of the value of in-kind benefits
in the measure of poverty does not eliminate
poverty altogether.
The effect of the value of medical bene­fits
is particularly strong on the elderly.
Their official poverty rate was 14.7 percent
in 1979. Food, housing, and medical benefits
(including institutional care) reduce the
poverty rate for the elderly to 4. 5 percent.
Source: Smeeding, Timothy M., 1982,
Alternative methods for valuing selected
in-kind transfer benefits and measuring
their effect on poverty, Technical Paper 50,
U.s. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census.
Number of poor and poverty rates by alternative income concepts and valuation techniques,
all persons, 1979
[Numbers in thousands]
lncane concept
Money income alone:
Number of poor ................. .
Poverty rate •...•........••.•.••.
Money income plus food and
housing (in-kind transfers):
Number of poor ....•.............
Poverty rate ..•.•••.•..•..•.•...•
Percent reduction 1
••••••••••••••••
Money income plus food, housing,
and medical care (excluding insti­tutional
care expenditures); (in­kind
transfers):
Number of poor ................. .
Poverty rate .................... .
Percent reduction 1
••••••••••••••••
Money income plus food, housing,
and medical care (including insti­tutional
care expenditures); (in­kind
tranfers):
Number of poor ................. .
Poverty rate •••.•••.......•••••••
Percent reduction1
••••••••••••••••
Market
value
approach
23,623
11.1
19,933
9.4
-15.6
14,023
6.6
-40.6
3,634
6.4
-42.3
Valuation technique
Recipient of each
equivalent value
approach
23,623
11.1
20,218
9.5
-14.4
18,393
8.7
22.1
17' 318
8.2
-26.7
Poverty budget
share value
approach
23,623
11.1
20,743
9.8
-12.2
18,866
8.9
-20.1
18,866
8.9
-20.1
1Percent reduction in the number of poor from the current poverty estimate based on money
income alone.
Source: Smeeding, Timothy M., 1982, Alternative methods for valuing selected in-kind
transfer benefits and measuring their effect on poverty, Technical Paper 50, U.S. Department
of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
1983 No.2 Family Economics Review 23
Out-of-Pocket Expenditures for
Personal Health Services
Out-of-pocket expenses for personal health
services were incurred by 75 percent of the
U.S. population in 1977. Health services
were not required by 15 percent, and the
remaining 10 percent had no out-of-pocket
expense for health services they received.
The mean expenditure was $205 for persons
who had any expense.
About two-thirds of the U.S. population in
1977 spent less than $100 out-of-pocket for
health services. Less than one-tenth of all
individuals spent over $500. Families were
more likely than individuals to have health
expenses over $500; one-fourth of U.S .
families reported spending over $500 for
unreimbursed health care services.
A majority of U.S. families (68 percent)
spent less than 3 percent of their income
for personal health services, not including
health insurance premiums. Ten percent of
all families spent more than 10 percent of
family income, and 4 percent had health
expenses exceeding 20 percent of family
income.
Expense per person varied by character­istics
of the population, such as age, sex,
education, and labor force participation .
Relatively high out-of-pocket expenses were
incurred by the older age groups, females,
families at the highest education levels,
and those not in the labor force (many of
whom are retired elderly). Out-of-pocket
health expenses increased with age from $97
per child under 6 years to $326 per person
65 years and older. Females incurred an
average expense of $230 compared with $175
for males, a 24 percent difference. Those in
families with annual income below $12,000
spent, on the average, more than families in
higher income brackets ($241 and $190,
respectively).
Source: Rossiter, Louis F., and Gail R.
Wilensky, 1982, Out-of-pocket expenditures
for personal health Services, NCHSR National
Health Care Expenditures Study, Data
Preview 13, U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, National Center for Health
Services Research.
24 F a mily Eco n omics Re v iew 1983 No.2
Some New USDA Publications
The following are for sale from the Super­intendent
of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402,
(202) 783-3238.
1982 HANDBOOK OF AGRICULTURAL
CHARTS. November 1982. Stock No.
001-000-04305-6. $5.50.
1982 YEARBOOK OF AGRICULTURE:
FOOD FROM FARM TO TABLE. October
1982. Stock No. 001-000-04298-0. $12.
COMPOSITION OF FOODS: BREAKFAST
CEREALS. Revised July 1982. Stock No.
001-000-04283-1. $7.
COMPOSITION OF FOODS: FRUITS AND
FRUIT JUICES. Revised August 1982.
Stock No. 001-000-04287-4. $9.
FOOD CONSUMPTION: HOUSEHOLDS IN
THE UNITED STATES, SPRING 1977,
NATIONWIDE FOOD CONSUMPTION
SURVEY 1977-78. September 1982.
Stock No. 001-000-04293-9. $8.50.
FOOD CONSUMPTION: HOUSEHOLDS IN
THE NORTHEAST, SPRING 1977,
NATIONWIDE FOOD CONSUMPTION
SURVEY 1977-78. September 1982. Stock
No. 001-000-04294-7. $8.50.
FOOD CONSUMPTION, PRICES, AND
EXPENDITURES 1960-81. November 1982.
Stock No. 001-019-00330-8. $5.50.
RESEARCH FOR SMALL FARMS: PRO­CEEDINGS
OF THE SPECIAL SYMPOSIUM.
July 1982. Stock No. 001-000-04279-3.
$7.50 .
New York City
Family Budget Standard
The Community Council of Greater New
York has revised its "Family Budget
Standard--Components of a Moderate Level of
Living in New York City." This is the first
revision since 1970 of the series, which
dates back to 1955. The family budget
standard specifically focuses on how much
self-supporting families need to live at a
moderate level in New York City. The series
assesses the components and costs of a
"typical," not ideal, budget. A new market
basket of goods and services was developed
by the council. The new market basket
reflects consumer behavior of the eighties
and differs in a variety of ways from past
standards.
The new standard contains quantity-cost
specifications for various sizes of families
and for individual family members, by age,
sex, and activity. The information is useful
in family money management counseling, in
determining ability of families to pay for
social and health agency services, and in
consumer education.
According to the new standard, the budget
costs in 1981 for a self-supporting family
of four 1 living in New York City, at the
moderate level, was $29,735 (see table).
Budget costs are also provided for "new"
households, including single parents
($18,576), young singles ($12,782), elderly
singles ($8, 098), and retired couples
($12,641).
A Family Budget Standard, dated July 1982,
is available for $6 from the Community Coun­cil
of Greater New York, 225 Park Avenue
South, New York City, N.Y. 10003.
1The "index" family used in this publica­tion
includes two adults, ages 35-54, one of
whom is a wage-earner; and two children, a
boy of 13 and a girl of 8.
Budget costs for index family of 4 persons, 1 moderate level
[Prices as of October 1981, New York City]
Item
Food ............................. .
Housing .......................... .
Clothing and upkeep ••••••••••••••
Personal care ........•...•........
Medical care ...................... .
Transportation ................... .
Other goods and services ••••••••••
Total ......................... .
Other costs and personal taxes ••••
Total cost of budget •••••••••••
4-person family
Year 2
$6,328
6, 362
2,016
695
1,755
1, 259
2,097
20,512
9,223
29,735
Week
$121.69
122.35
38.77
13.37
33.75
24.21
40.33
394.46
177.36
571.83
Ret ired couple
Year 2 Week
$3,193 $61.40
4,756 91.46
701 13.48
444 8.54
1,821 35.02
811 15.60
915 17.60
12,641 243.10
(3) (3)
12,641 243.10
1 lndex family includes 2 adults, ages 35 to 54, 1 of whom is a wage-earner; and 2 children
a boy 13 and a girl 8.
2 Column total may not add correctly because of rounding.
3 Couples at this economic level may or may not be required to pay personal income taxes,
depending on the source of their income.
Source: Community Council of Greater New York, 1982, A Family Budget Standard.
1983 No . 2 Family Economics Review 25
Updated Estimates of the Cost of Raising a Child
The cost of raising urban children: 1982 annual average; moderate-cost level 1
Region and
age of child
(years)
NORTH CENTRAL:
Under 1 •••••••••
1 ••••••••••••••••
2-3 ••••••••••••••
4-5 ••••••••••••••
6 ••••••••••••••••
7-9 ••••••••••••••
10-11 ••••••••••••
12 •••• .••••••••••
13-15 ••••••••••••
16-17 ••••••••••••
Total ••••••••••
NORTHEAST:
Under 1 •••••••••
1 .............. ..
2-3 •••• •••••• ••••
4-5 ••••••••••••••
6 .............. ..
7-9 ............ ..
10-11 .......... ..
12 .............. .
13-15 ••••••••••••
16-17 ••••••••••••
Total
SOUTH:
Under 1 •••••••••
1 .............. ..
2-3 ••••••••••••••
4-5 ••••••••••••••
6 .............. ..
7-9 ••• •••••••••••
10-11 .......... ..
12 .............. .
13-15 .......... ..
16-17 .......... ..
Total
WEST:
Under 1 •••••••••
1 .............. ..
2-3 •••••••••••.••
4-5 ••••••••••••••
6 .............. ..
7-9 ............ ..
10-11 ••••••••••••
12 .............. .
13-15 .......... ..
16-17 .......... ..
Total ••••••••••
Total
$3,977
4,099
3,816
4,043
4,201
4,373
4,544
4,855
4,977
5,469
80,926
3,947
4,094
3,982
4,209
4,496
4,667
4,887
5,190
5,337
5,729
85,353
4,325
4,447
4,165
4,368
4,605
4,752
4,948
5,275
5,421
5,831
87,795
4,259
4,405
4,174
4,427
4,732
4,904
5,124
5,411
5,533
6,076
89,720
Food
at
home2
$539
661
661
759
734
906
1,077
1,102
1,224
1,371
17,162
636
783
759
857
857
1,028
1,248
1,248
1,395
1,542
19,605
588
710
685
759
759
906
1,102
1,102
1, 248
1, 371
17,455
588
734
710
808
783
955
1,175
1,175
1,297
1,469
18,360
Food
away
fran
home
$0
0
0
129
129
129
129
155
155
155
1,962
0
0
0
129
155
155
155
155
155
181
2,170
0
0
0
129
155
155
155
181
181
181
2,274
0
0
0
155
181
181
181
181
181
207
2,534
Clothing Housing3 Medical
care
$132
132
214
214
296
296
296
427
427
592
5,788
132
132
230
230
312
312
312
460
460
575
6,046
148
148
230
230
312
312
312
460
460
592
6,112
132
132
214
214
312
312
312
444
444
559
5,886
$1,747
1, 747
1,535
1,535
1, 456
1,456
1,456
1, 509
1,509
1,562
27,530
1, 773
1, 773
1,615
1, 615
1,588
1,588
1,588
1,641
1,641
1,668
29,434
1,879
1,879
1,668
1,668
1, 588
1, 588
1, 588
1,641
1,641
1,694
29,910
1,826
1,826
1,641
1,641
1, 615
1,615
1,615
1,668
1,668
1,747
30,072
$244
244
244
244
244
244
244
244
244
244
4,392
244
244
244
244
244
244
244
244
244
244
4,392
271
271
271
271
271
271
271
271
271
271
4,878
298
298
298
298
298
298
298
298
298
298
5,364
Educa­tion
$0
0
0
0
107
107
107
107
107
107
1, 284
0
0
0
0
133
133
133
133
133
133
1,596
0
0
0
0
160
160
160
160
160
160
1,920
0
0
0
0
133
133
133
133
133
133
1,596
Transpor- All
tation other~
$806
806
702
702
702
702
702
754
754
832
13,312
702
702
650
650
650
650
650
728
728
780
12,376
858
858
754
754
754
754
754
806
806
884
14,247
858
858
754
754
780
780
780
858
858
936
14,716
$509
509
460
460
533
533
533
557
557
606
9,496
460
460
484
484
557
557
557
581
581
606
9,734
581
581
557
557
606
606
606
654
654
678
10,998
557
557
557
557
630
630
630
654
654
727
11,192
1 Annual cost of raising a child from birth to age 18, by age, in a husband-wife family with no more than 5 children.
For more information on these and additional child cost estimates, see USDA Miscellaneous Publication No. 1411 by
Carolyn S. Edwards, "USDA Estimates of the Cost of Raising a Child: A Guide to Their Use and Interpretation." This
publication is for sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.
2 Includes home-produced food and school lunches.
3 Includes shelter, fuel, utilities, household operations, furnishings, and equipment.
'Includes personal care, recreation, reading, and other miscellaneous expenditures .
26 Family Economics Review 1983 No. 2
The cost of raisin11 rural nonfarm children: 1982 annual average; moderate-cost leve1 1
Region and
age of child
(years)
NORTH CENTRAL:
Under 1 •••••••••
1 ••••••••••••••••
2-3 •••••••••••• · -
4-5 ••••••••••••••
6 ••••••••••••••••
7-9 ••••••••••••••
10-11 ••••••••••••
12 •••••••••••••••
13-15 ••••••••••••
16-17 ••••••••••••
Total ••••••••••
NORTHEAST:
Under 1 •••••••••
1 ... . ... ........ .
2-3 ••••••••••••••
4-5 ••••••••••••••
6 ............... .
7-9 ••••••••••••••
10-11 ........... .
12 •••••••••••••••
13-15 ••••••••••••
16-17 ••••••••••••
Total
SOUTH:
Under 1 ••••• • •••
1 ••••••••••••••••
2-3 •••• • •••••••••
4-5 ••••••••••••••
6 ••••••••••••••••
7-9 ••••••••••••••
10-11 ••••••••••••
12 •••••••••••••••
13-15 ••••••••••••
16-17 •.••••••••••
Total
WEST:
Under 1 •••••••••
1 ............... .
2-3 ••••••••••••••
4-5 ••••••••••••••
6 ••••••••••••••••
7-9 ............. .
10-11 ••••••••••••
12 •••••••••••••••
13-15 ••••••••••••
16-17 ••••••••••••
Total ••••••••••
Total
$3,757
3,879
3,451
3,651
3,929
4,076
4,272
4,600
4,723
5,074
75,458
4, 359
4,481
4,277
4, 530
4,836
4,983
5,204
5,522
5,668
6,169
91,511
4,507
4,604
4,168
4,421
4,580
4,727
4,923
5,294
5,417
5,888
88,217
4,666
4,788
4,325
4,578
4,902
5,073
5,269
5,639
5,786
6,348
93,612
Food
at
home 2
$490
612
588
685
685
832
1,028
1,028
1, 151
1, 273
15,912
588
710
685
783
783
930
1,151
1,151
I, 297
1,444
18,039
588
685
661
759
734
881
1,077
1,077
1,200
1,346
17,013
588
710
685
783
759
930
1,126
1,1 26
1, 273
1,444
17,868
Food
away
frcm
home
$0
0
0
103
129
129
129
129
129
155
1,806
0
0
0
155
181
181
181
181
181
207
2. 534
0
0
0
155
155
155
155
181
181
207
2,378
0
0
0
155
155
155
155
181
181
207
2,378
Clothing Housing 3 Medical
care
$115
115
181
181
279
279
279
427
427
526
5,388
132
132
214
214
312
312
312
477
477
625
6,150
148
148
230
230
312
312
312
477
477
674
6,344
132
132
214
214
329
329
329
493
493
575
6,216
$1,668
1,668
1,403
1,403
I, 376
1, 376
1,376
1,429
1,429
1,456
25,832
1,879
1,879
1,721
1,721
1,694
1,694
1,694
I, 747
1,747
1,800
31,394
1,879
1,879
1,615
1, 615
1,562
1,562
1,562
1,615
1,615
1,641
29,332
1,906
1,906
1, 641
1, 641
I, 615
1,615
1, 615
1,668
1,668
1,773
30,284
$244
244
217
217
217
217
217
217
217
244
4,014
244
244
244
244
244
244
244
244
244
244
4,392
271
271
271
271
271
271
271
271
271
271
4,878
298
298
271
271
298
298
298
298
298
298
5,256
Educa­tion
$0
0
0
0
107
107
107
107
107
107
1,284
0
0
0
0
160
160
160
160
160
160
1,920
0
0
0
133
133
133
!33
133
133
1,596
0
0
0
0
160
160
160
160
160
160
1,920
Transpor- All
tat ion other 4
$780
780
650
650
676
676
676
754
754
780
12,792
910
910
832
832
832
832
832
884
884
962
15,600
1,040
1,040
858
858
832
832
832
910
910
962
16,068
1,040
1,040
884
884
884
884
884
962
962
1,092
16,952
$460
460
412
412
460
460
460
509
509
533
8,430
606
606
581
581
630
630
630
678
678
727
11,482
581
581
533
533
581
581
581
630
630
654
10,608
702
702
630
630
702
702
702
751
751
799
12,738
1Annual cost of raising a child from birth to age 18, by age, in a husband-wife family with no more than 5 children.
For more information on these and additional child cost estimates, see USDA Miscellaneous Publication No. 1411 by
Carolyn s. Edwards, "USDA Estimates of the Cost of Raising a Child: A Guide to Their Use and Interpretation." This
publication is for sale by the U. S . Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.
2Includes home-produced food and school lunches .
3Includes shelter, fuel, utilities, household operations, furnishings, and equipment.
4lncludes personal care, recreation, reading, and other miscellaneous expenditures.
1983 No.2 Family Economics Review 27
N I Q)
.,.,
Q)
3 .....
.....
'<
1"1
C')
0
::l
0
3 .....
C')
rJl
;o
<1>
.<... .
<1>
~
'"' I co
"" z
0
N
Cost of food at home estimated for food plans at 4 cost levels, January 1983, U.S. average 1
Cost for 1 week Cost for 1 month
Sex-age group
Thrifty Low-cost 1\bderate- Liberal Thrifty Low--cost Moderate- Liberal
plan 2 plan cost plan plan plan plan cost plan plan
FAMILIES
Family of 2: 3
20-54 years ••••••••••••••••••••••••• $33.90 $43.80 $54.80 $65.60 $146.60 $189.40 $237.20 $283.80
55 years and over •••••.•••••••••••.• 30.40 39.00 48.30 57.50 131.90 169.00 209.20 249.20
Family of 4:
Couple, 20-54 years and children--
1-2 and 3-5 years ••••••••••••••••• 48.10 61.40 76.50 91.50 208.00 265.90 331.30 396.00
6-8 and 9-11 years •••••••...•••••• 58.00 74.30 93.00 111.20 251.10 321.60 402.90 481. 70'
INDIVIDUALS 4
Child:
7 months to 1 year ••••••••••••.••••• 6.90 8.30 10.20 12.00 29.90 36.10 44.10 52.00
1-2 years ••••••••.•••••••••.•••••••• 7.80 9.80 12.10 14.40 33.70 42.70 52.60 62.30
3-5 years ••••••••••••••••••.•••••••• 9.50 11.80 14.60 17.50 41.00 51.00 63.10 75.70
6-8 years ••••••••••••••••.•••••••••• 12.10 15.30 19.20 22.90 52.20 66.40 83.10 99.30
9-11 years ••••••••••.••••.•••••••••• 15.10 19.20 24.00 28.70 65.60 83.00 104.20 124.40
Male:
12-14 years •••••..•..•.••••••.••••.• 16.10 20.30 25.40 30.40 69.80 88.10 110.30 131.60
15-19 years •••••.••••••••••••••••••• 17.70 22.40 28.10 33.70 76.50 97.20 121.70 146.00
20-54 years ••••.•.••••••••••.•.••••• 17.00 22.00 27.70 33.30 73.50 95.30 120.00 144.10
55 years and over ••••••••••.•••••••• 15.10 19.40 24.10 28.90 65.50 84.00 104.40 125.00
Female:
12-19 years •.••.••••••••••••••••.••. 14.30 18.20 22.50 26.70 61.90 78.70 97.40 115.90
20-54 years ••••••••••••••••••••••••• 13.80 17.80 22.10 26.30 59.80 76.90 95.60 113.90
55 years and over •••••••••••••••.•• 12.50 16.10 19.80 23.40 54.40 69.60 85.80 101.50
Pregnant .•••••••••••..•••.•.•••••••• 17.30 22.00 27.00 32.10 74.80 95.10 117.10 138.90
Nursing ............................. 18.30 23.30 29.00 34.40 79.50 100.90 125.50 148.90
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, moderate-cost, 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 Cosumption 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.
2 Coupon allotment in the Food Stamp Program based on this food plan.
310 percent added for family size adjustment. See footnote 4.
4The costs given are for individuals in 4-person families. For individuals in other size families, the following adjustments are
suggested: 1-person--add 20 percent; 2-person--add 10 percent; 3-person--add 5 percent; 5- or 6- person--subtract 5 percent;
7- or more-person--subtract 10 percent.
()
0
~
0... ..
~
0
0
0.
8.
::X::
0
!3
CD
~
Ul
§
0.
~
CD
<..Q... .
0
~
Cost of food at home for food plans at 3 cost levels, January 1983, Northeast region1
Sex-age group
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
Low-cost
plan
$46.00
40.90
64.50
78.00
8.50
10.30
12.40
16.10
20.10
21.50
23.60
23.10
20.40
19.00
18.70
16.80
23.00
24.50
for 1 week
M:xlerate-cost
plan
$59.10
51.80
82.20
100.10
10.70
12.90
15.60
20.60
25.80
27.40
30.30
29.90
25.90
24.10
23.80
21.20
29.00
31.10
Liberal
plan
$71.30
62.30
99.20
120.70
12.70
15.50
18.90
24.80
31.10
33.00
36.60
36.20
31.30
29.00
28.60
25.30
34.80
37.30
Cost
Low-cost
plan
$199.40
176.90
279.50
338.20
37.00
44.60
53.60
69.80
87.10
93.00
102.40
100.30
88.20
82.50
81.00
72.60
99.80
106.00
for 1 month
M:xlerate-cost
plan
$255.80
224.30
356.20
433.20
46.40
56.00
67.70
89.10
111.60
118.80
131.10
129.40
112.20
104.60
103.10
91.70
125.70
134.90
Liberal
plan
$308.90
270.20
430.10
522.90
55.10
67.30
82.00
107.50
134.60
143.10
158.50
156.90
135.80
125.70
123.90
109.80
150.70
161.70
1 Assumes 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 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" (Boston; New York and northeastern New Jersey;
Philadelphia) released monthly by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
2 10 percent added for family size adjustment. See footnote 3.
3 The 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.
1983 No.2 Family Economics Review 29
Cost of food at home for food plans at 3 cost levels, January 1983, North Central region
1
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
plan
$44.80
40.00
63.10
76.50
8.60
10.20
12.20
15.90
19.90
21.10
23.20
22.50
19.90
18.80
18.20
16.50
22.50
23.90
Moderate- Liberal
cost plan plan
$55.20
48.80
77.50
94.30
10.30
12.40
14.90
19.60
24.50
25.90
28.50
27.90
24.40
22.90
22.30
20.00
27.30
29.20
$66.80
58.90
93.50
113.90
12.20
14.80
18.00
23.60
29.60
31.20
34.50
33.90
29.50
27.50
26.80
24.00
32.70
35.10
Cost for 1 month
Low'-cost
plan
$194.40
173.60
274.00
331.90
37.30
44.30
53.00
69.00
86.20
91.40
100.40
97.70
86.30
81.30
79.00
71.50
97.70
103.50
Moderate- Liberal
cost plan plan
$239.30
211.40
335.70
408.60
44.80
53.70
64.50
84.80
106.30
112.30
123.70
121.10
105.50
99.10
96.40
86.70
118.20
126.60
$289.40
254.80
404.90
493.40
52.90
63.90
77.90
102.20
128.10
135.30
149.60
146.90
127.80
119.00
116.20
103.80
141.80
152.00
1 Assumes 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.
2 10 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.
30 F a mily Eco n omics Re v iew 1983 No. 2
Cost of food at home for food plans at 3 cost levels, January 1983, Southern region
1
Cost for 1 week Cost for 1 Ironth
Sex-age groups
Low-cost M:xlerate- Liberal Low-cost M:xlerate- Liberal
plan cost plan plan plan cost plan plan
FAMILIES
Family of 2: 2
20-54 years •• ~ ••••••••• $43.20 $53.90 $64.30 $187.10 $233.60 $279.20
55 years and over •••••• 38.20 47.10 56.10 165.30 203.90 242.60
Family of 4:
Couple, 20-54 years
and children--
1-2 and 3-5 years •••• 60.40 74.90 89.40 261.40 324.70 387.80
6-8 and 9-11 years ••• 73.10 91.20 109.00 316.80 395.60 472.40
INDIVIDUALS 3
Child:
7 months to 1 year ••••• 8.00 9.70 11.40 34.50 42.10 49.50
1-2 years .............. 9.60 11.70 13.90 41.50 50.80 60.20
3-5 years .............. 11.50 14.20 17.00 49.80 61.50 73.80
6-8 years .............. 15.00 18.70 22.40 65.10 81.20 97.00
9-11 years ••••••••••••• 18.80 23.50 28.10 81.60 102.00 121.60
Male:
12-14 years ............ 20.10 25.00 29.90 87.10 108.50 129.60
15-19 years ............ 22.20 27.70 33.20 96.30 120.10 143.90
20-54 years ............ 21.70 27.20 32.60 93.90 117.90 141.40
55 years and over •••••• 19.00 23.50 28.10 82.10 101.60 121.50
Female:
12-19 years •••••••••••• 18.00 22.20 26.40 78.20 96.30 114.50
20-54 years •••••••••••• 17.60 21.80 25.90 76.20 94.50 112.40
55 years and over •••••• 15.70 19.30 22.90 68.20 83.80 99.00
Pregnant ............... 21.70 26.70 31.70 94.10 115.90 137.40
Nursing ................ 23.00 28.60 34.00 99.80 124.00 147.20
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.
2 10 percent added for family size adjustment. See footnote 3.
3 The 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.
1983 No.2 Family Economics Review 31
. 1 Cost of food at home for food plans at 3 cost levels, January 1983, Western regwn
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 Mbderate- Liberal
plan cost plan plan
$45.30
40.50
63.90
77.50
8.60
10.30
12.40
16.10
20.20
21.40
23.50
22.80
20.10
19.10
18.40
16.70
22.70
24.10
$56.80
49.90
79.50
96.90
10.40
12.60
15.30
20.10
25.20
26.70
29.30
28.70
24.90
23.50
22.90
20.50
28.10
30.10
$68.20
60.00
95.70
116.70
12.60
15.20
18.50
24.30
30.40
32.20
35.50
34.60
30.00
28.30
27.40
24.50
33.50
35.90
Cost for 1 month
Low-cost
plan
$196.40
175.20
277.00
335.90
37.40
44.80
53.70
70.00
87.40
92.80
101.60
98.70
87.10
82.60
79.80
72.20
98.50
104.50
MOderate- Liberal
cost plan plan
$246.10
216.70
344.50
419.60
45.00
54.70
66.10
86.90
109.00
115.60
126.90
124.40
108.10
101.90
99.30
88.90
121.60
130.30
$295.60
259.50
414.90
505.60
54.80
65.90
80.30
105.20
131.70
139.60
153.70
149.80
129.90
122.70
118.90
106.00
145.40
155.70
1 Assumes 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 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.
2 10 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- ­s
ubtract 10 percent.
32 Family Economics Revie w 1983 No . 2
Consumer Prices
Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers [1967 = 100]
Group
All i terns •••••••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••••
Food ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Food at home ••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Food away from home ••••••••••••••••••
Housing ••••••.•••••••••••••••.•••••••••••
Shelter ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Rent, residential 1
•••••••••••••••••••
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' •••••••••••••.•••••••••
Women's and girls' •••••••••••••.•••••••
Footwear ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Transportation ••••••••••.•••••••••••••••
Private ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Public •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Medical care ••••••••••••••••••.••••••.•••
Entertainment ••••••••••••••••••••• ••••••
Other goods and services ••••••••••••••••
Personal care ••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Jan.
1983
293 .• 1
288.1
279.3
314.5
317.9
338.3
232.2
365.4
671.1
413.5
235.8
191.0
184.9
153.9
204.8
293.0
288.4
357.7
347.8
241.5
279.9
256.1
Dec.
1982
292.4
286.5
277.8
312.6
316.3
333.9
230.8
364.1
688.5
410.6
235.7
193.6
187.4
159.6
205.9
294.8
290.4
355.6
344.3
240.1
276.6
254.8
Nov.
1982
293.6
286.4
278.3
311.4
319.0
340.7
230.2
362.2
691.3
407.6
235.1
195.4
189.0
162.2
206.9
295.8
291.4
356.0
342.2
239.9
273.8
254.2
Jan.
1982
282.5
281.0
275.3
299.8
306.1
328.3
217.8
336.2
686.0
367.4
228.4
187.3
178.7
154.3
202.8
289.9
286.6
334.9
313.4
229.2
248.4
240.9
1 See "Consumer Price Index: Changes in Homeownership Component," Family Economics
Review 1983(1):32 for explanation of rental equivalence measure.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
ORDER FORM MAIL TO: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402
Credit C•rd Orders Only
Enclosed isS 0 check, • Total charges S Fill in the boxes below.
0 money order, or charge to my .
Deposit Account No. Credit .--
1
-.- 1 -1.---T"~-.-1 ---,Ir--r-l -.
1--r- 1
......
1
----.--
1
--.-
1
--,--
1
--.-
1
--,--
1
-.-1-,1
I I I I I I I 1-0 ~~~ Card No. . . .
Order No._____ ~ ~ci'~~~}!,.~~rDate I I I I I
Please enter my subscription to FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
at $8.50 per year. (Add $2.15 for other than U.S. mailing).
Company or personal name
~ai~Jn.}_kel,.,~ttiJn ,!nel I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
~tr~tl ad~r~ss I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
b I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
lty State ZIP Code
llllfiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiWIIIIII
(or COuntry)
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE
For Office UM Only
Quantity Charges
............... Enclosed
................ To be mailed ..
.. . . Subscriptions
Postage ..... .... ................................... .
Foretgn handling .............. .
MMOB ............................................. .
OPNR ......................... .
. UPNS
..... D•scount
.. Refund
<> U.S OOV!IRNlUNT PRINTING OP!'IOE 1983 - 401-962 - 814/896
1983 No. 2 Family Economics Review 33
Consumer Prices
Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers [1967 = 100]
Group
All items •••••.•••••••••••••••.•.•••••••••••
Food ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Food at home ••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Food away from home ••••••••••••••••••
Housing ••••.•.•.•••.••••••••••••••••••••
Shelter ••••..•.•••..•••••••••••••.•••••
Rent, residential 1
•••••••••••••••••••
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' ••••••.•••••••••.••••••
Women's and girls' •••••••••••••••••••••
Footwear ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Transportation ••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Private •.•.••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••
Public •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Medical care ••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••
Entertainment ••••••••••••••••••••••••.••
Other goods and services ••••••••••••••••
Personal care ••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Jan.
1983
293_.1
288.1
279.3
314.5
317.9
338.3
232.2
365.4
671.1
413.5
235.8
191.0
184.9
153.9
204.8
293.0
288.4
357.7
347.8
241.5
279.9
256.1
Dec.
1982
292.4
286.5
277.8
312.6
316.3
333.9
230.8
364.1
688.5
410.6
235.7
193.6
187.4
159.6
205.9
294.8
290.4
355.6
344.3
240.1
276.6
254.8
1 See "Consumer Price Index: Changes in Homeownership Component,"
Review 1983(1) :32 for explanation of rental equivalence measure.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Nov. Jan.
1982 1982
293.6 282.5
286.4 281.0
278.3 275.3
311.4 299.8
319.0 306.1
340.7 328.3
230.2 217.8
362.2 336.2
691.3 686.0
407.6 367.4
235.1 228.4
195.4 187.3
189.0 178.7
162.2 154.3
206.9 202.8
295.8 289.9
291.4 286.6
356.0 334.9
342.2 313.4
239.9 229.2
273.8 248.4
254.2 240.9
Fa mil~ Economics
ORDER FOAM MAIL 1:0: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402
Credit Card Orders Only
Enclosed IsS 0 check, • . Total charges$ Fill in the boxes below.
0 money order, or charge to my
Deposit Account No. g~~~i~o . 1..-.. ,1.---1.---.l---.1'1-.1'1-.1'1,..,..1-l,..,..l-l....,.l-.-1. .,--,
I I I I I I I 1-D lffi·hNCald I Expiration Date I I
Order No. Month/Year .._ ._ .___,__J
Please enter my subscription to FAMILY ECONOMICS REVIEW
at $8.50 per year. (Add $2.15 for other than U.S. mailing).
Company or personal name
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Additional address/ attention line
~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
treet address b I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
ity State ZIP Code
llllfiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiWIIIIII
(or COuntry)
l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
PLEASE PAINT OR TYPE
For Office UM Only
Quantity Charges
..... Enclosed
. To be mailed
. . . . .. Subscriptions .. ..... .
Postage ....
Foreign handling .................... .
MMOB
OPNR ····· ··············-·---····-········
. UPNS
.......... Discount
.... Refund
n U.S GOV'ERNVI!:NT PRINTING OFFICE. 1983 - 401- 962 - 814/896 1983 No. 2 Family Economics Review JJ