Family Economics Review [1986, Number 4]

              Editor
Joan C. Courtless
Managing Editor
Sherry Lowe
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 ttus
periodical has been approved
by the Director of the Ottice 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
Family Economics Review is
for sale by the Superintendent of
Documents. U.S. Government
Printing Ottice. Send subscrip­tion
orders, change ot address,
and single copy requests to
Superintendent ot Documents,
U.S. Government Printing Ottice.
Washington, D.C. 20402. (See
subscription form in back ot this
issue.)
Suggestions or comments con­cerning
this publication should
be addressed to:
Joan C. Courtless, Editor.
Family Economics Review.
Family Economics Research Group.
USDNARS. Federal Building,
~
Econolnics
Review
1986 No. 4
Contents:
Child Care Arrangements and Expenditures
Frankie N. Schwenk
Contributions and Gifts of Cash
Kathleen K. Scholl
Planning for Tomorrow's Elderly
Joyce Matthews Pitts
Abstracts
Mothers' Labor Force Activity
Earnings of Married-Couple Families
Housing Assistance Program Participation
New York Family Budget Costs--Annual Price Survey, 1985
Projected Food Expenditures
Regular Features
Agricultural Outlook '87 Program--Outlook for Families
Cost of Food at Home
Some New USDA Publications
Updated Estimates of the Cost of Raising a Child
Consumer Prices
Index of Articles in 1986 Issues (back cover)
Room 442A Hyattsville, Md. 20782. Issued October 1986
1
12
17
8
10
21
24
26
21
25
26
28
30
Child Care Arrangements and
Expenditures
By Frankie N. Schwenk
Family economist
CHILD CARE ARRANGEMENTS
Need for Child Care Arrangements
The need for child care arrangements is
growing. Not only has the number of American
children under 5 years old increased since
1980--from 16.4 million in 1980 to 17.8
million in 1984 (§_, p. 26)--but, also, more
mothers are working and there are more
single-parent families. These factors con­tribute
to an increased demand for child
care arrangements.
Of the Nation's 58 million children under
age 18. 56 percent had mothers in the labor
force in March 1984, up from 39 percent in
1970 <.V. For mothers with children under 18
years of age, 6 in 10 were in the labor
force in March 1984. compared with 4 in 10
in 1970. Increases have been greatest among
married mothers of preschool children,
especially those with children under 1 year.
Their participation rate jumped from 24
percent in 1970 to 47 percent in 1984.
The labor force participation rates of
married mothers rose from 40 percent in 1970
to 59 percent in 1984, whereas the rate for
divorced mothers increased from 76 percent
to 79 percent during that time (1). Figure 1
summarizes the changes in labor force
participation rates of mothers from 1970 to
1985. as related to marital status of the
mother and age of the child. The rate of
labor force participation among separated
and divorced mothers did not change as much
as that for married women, but the numbers
increased substantially. The number of
separated and divorced mothers in the labor
force with children ages 6 to 17 rose from
1 million in 1970 to 2.7 million in 1985;
and for those mothers with children under
6 years old. from 0 • 6 million to l million (§_) •
Corresponding numbers for married employed
mothers with children ages 6 to 17 were 6. 3
million (1970) and 8.5 million (1985); and
for those with children less than 6 years
old, 3.9 million (1970) and 6.4 million
(1985). The number of single-parent families
doubled from 1970 to 1984 and now con­stitutes
one-fourth of all families with
children under 18 years old.
Child Care Placement
The child care system has a patchwork de­sign
composed of many settings. In addition
to parental, sibling, or self-care, children
may be placed in center care or family day­care
homes, or receive in-home care. Center
care may be a nursery school or day care
center that is operated for profit or non­profit,
existing independently or sponsored
by churches, employers, or community organi­zations.
Family day care is in the home of
the care provider. In-home care refers to
care provided by someone who comes into the
child's home. The type of arrangement and
the amount of time spent in a child care
arrangement are very dependent upon the age
of the child.
Child care arrangements for children less
than 5 years old. The 1982 Current Popula­tion
Survey (CPS) (see box on p. 2) indicates
there has been a shift from in-home care to
out-of-home and group care for children less
Figure 1
Labor Force Participation Rates of Mothers ~ 1970 - 1985
100 r-------------------~------------------,
With children under 6 With children 6-1 7 only
DatacompUed from the foltowing sources. U.S. Department of labor, Bureau of
l.aborStatistics,Spocia/LaborForce Reports Nos. 13, t30,and 134, Bulletin
2, 63, and unpublished data; as reported in Statistical Abstract of the
Unned States 1986, p. 399, U.S. [)epertmentot Commerce, Bureau
of the Census.
oc
a
Vf'l
19B6- No.4 fami1 y Econom ics Re vi ew
STUDIES REPORTING ON CHILD CARE ARRANGEMENTS
The 1982 Current Population Survey of 60,000 households, conducted by the U.S.
Bureau of the Census, provides data on the principal child care arrangement for families
with at least one child less than 5 years old with a working mother age 18 to 44 (~).
Data for child care of children ages 5 to 13 were collected in the December 1984
Cur rent Population Survey and are being processed.
The National Center for Health Statistics conducted the third National Survey of
Family Growth in 1982. A probability sample of 8, 000 women 15 to 44 years of age were
interviewed. Questions were asked about multiple arrangements for the care of each child
under the age of 12 C..V.
Data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics on multiple care arrangements of the
youngest child under the age of 12 were collected in 1979 from 1, 300 families with either
a working mother or a single working parent (1).
The School-Age Day Care Study was a statewide survey in the school year 1981-82
of child care arrangements among 1, 000 families in Minnesota and Virginia with children
ages 5 to 14, sponsored by the Administration for Children, Youth and Families, U.s.
Department of Health and Human Services (!.).
The continuing Consumer Expenditure Survey, conducted by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics , U.S. Department of Labor, has a rotating sample of 5,000 consumer units who
are asked each quarter about expenditures for babysitting and day care C.J_). Data from
1981 are reported in this article.
than 5 years old (~). Figure 2 shows this
change from 1958 to 1982 for children of
mothers employed full time and also illus­trates
that relatives were less likely to be
caring for the children in 1982 than in
1958. Of families with a mother ei_Jlployed
full time in 1982, 48 percent had the
youngest child cared for by a nonrelative
Figure 2
Principal Child Care Arrangements for Preschool Children,
Used by Mothers Employed Full Time*
Percent
Relative 42 ;:::::===:::;----------'
Nonrelative 14 ~:rr~m~
1958 Relative 1 5[\\\\\\\\\\l
Nonrelative 1 3 t\\S\\\\\\1
Group Care 5-
Relative 21 '--------'
Nonrelative 5 c:::J
1982 Relative 20 't"\"\'"\'"'\"'S'\'S'S'\'S'S'\'\"S'""J
D In-home care
~ Out-of-home care
• Group care center
Nonrelative 241S\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'1
Group Care 1 9
*The 1958 percen1ages are for mothers with tbe youngest child under 6 years.
The 1982 numbers are for mothers with the youngest child under 5 years.
Note: percent of families where mother cared for child while working, had olher
care arrangements, or gave no answer are not shown.
Sources· U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current
Population Reports, Special Studies Senes P-23, Nos. 117 and 129:
as appearing in Families and Child Care: Improving the Options, 1985, U.S.
House of Representatives, Cornm111ee Report No. 98·1180.
2 family Ec o n omics Re view 1986 No.4
(5 percent in the child's home, 24 percent
in the caretaker's home, and 19 percent in
center care) and 46 percent had care pro­vided
by a relative (6 percent by the mother
while working, 10 percent by the father and
10 percent by other relatives in the child's
home, and 20 percent in the home of a
relative). The other 6 percent had other
arrangements or gave no answer.
For families with a mother who worked
part time, care was provided by the father
in 20 percent of the families (compared with
10 percent in families with a mother employed
full time), by the mother while working
in 14 percent of families (compared to
6 percent), and a group care center was used
by 8 percent (compared with 19 percent) (~).
This implies that part time work decreases
the use of caretakers other than the
parents.
Parental care during hours of employment
was more prevalent among less educated
women, white women, husband-wife families
where both have blue-collar occupations, and
families with income less than $15,000 (~).
Group care services were more likely to be
used by families whose youngest child was
at least 3 years old, black women, well­educated
women, and women working full time.
Data from the National Survey of Family
Growth (NSFG) show similar patterns of child
care arrangements but indicate a higher
percent of children under 3 years old in
family day-care homes (!).
Child care arrangements for school age
children. Child care is needed for this
age group primarily before and after school
and during the summer and holidays. It is
provided by a broad variety of caretakers
(such as relatives, friends, neighbors, or
self-care) and programs or settings provided
by libraries, parks, playgrounds, churches,
or schools. The variety of arrangements
makes measurement of child care for this age
group difficult. For example, a relative or
neighbor might provide a check-in point or
be available when needed after school but
may not actually provide care for the child
on a day-to-day basis. The Panel Study of
Income Dynamics (PSID) indicates that 28
percent of families with the youngest child
6 to 11 years old received care from a rela­tive
or sibling living in the household, or
reported self-care as one of the methods of
child care (1). Twenty-nine percent provided
parental care by splitting shifts, working
at home, or taking the child to work. Other
reported methods included public school
(48 percent), baby-sitter or friend (25
percent), and day care center (4 percent).
Preliminary results from the 1984 CPS
indicate that 2.3 million children (of about
30 million children ages 5 to 13) were in
the care of a nonrelative after school on a
regular basis, usually for 1 or 2 hours. 1
About 1 million were in the care of a non­relative
before school, usually for less than
2 hours. (CPS data on self-care and care by
relatives has not yet been published.)
Data from the 1982 NSFG study also provide
information on school age children not in
the care of a parent, a sibling under 12
years, and not in self-care while the mother
was working (!). Of those families with
children ages 6 to 8 years old and the
mother working full time, 41 percent were
with a relative (including a sibling 12
1 Information taken from personal communi­cation
with the U.S. Bureau of the Census,
Population Division, in June 1986.
years or over) and 59 percent were with a
nonrelative (36 percent in a family day-care
home, 15 percent in group care, and 8 per­cent
with a nonrelative at home). Children
ages 9 to 12 were more likely to be taking
care of themselves. Of those who were in
child care, 53 percent of those with an
employed mother were with a relative. Only
8 percent of these children were in group
care.
CHILD CARE EXPENDITURES 2
Data from Fees, Surveys, and Tax Returns
If fees were used to estimate child care
expenditures, estimates might be $45 to $75
per week for a preschooler in center care,
as cited in hearings of the House Select
Committee on Children, Youth, and Families
(~). However, most families do not incur
these costs because they make other arrange­ments
for child care. For instance, care by
parents is not reported as a cost or expendi­ture.
Of the CPS families with the youngest
child under 5 years old and with an employed
mother, 23 percent reported that the father
or mother was the principal caretaker for
the child while the mother worked (5). For
CPS families with school age childre~, those
who reported parental care ranged from 40
percent when the mother was employed full
time to 70 percent when she was employed
part time (!). The PSID study reported that
in one-third of the families with children
under 12 and parents working, a parent was
one of the care providers (4).
Also, self-care and sibling care may not
involve cash payment. In Minnesota and
Virginia, survey results indicated that
7 percent and 11 percent, respectively, of
children age 9 to 11 were in self-care or
sibling care as one care arrangement (1).
The PSID reported that 8 percent of -
families with the youngest child 6 to 11
years old used self-care as one of their
arrangements <.1).
Even among caretakers outside the imme­diate
family, there are arrangements that
involve noncash payments or no payment.
Noncash payments may include providing
transportation or meals for the caretaker or
2 Expenditures are in survey-year dollars.
1986 No.4 Family Economics Review 3
exchanging child care services with neigh­bors
or a babysitting cooperative organiza­tion.
Relatives, especially grandparents,
may provide care for no payment.
Table 1 describes the distribution of
these arrangements for CPS families with the
youngest child less than 5 years old (~_).
Seventy-three percent of employed mothers
who used child care arrangements (other than
parental care) paid cash only. Cash payments
were more likely when the care was provided
by a nonrelative or a group care center. Ten
percent had noncash arrangements and 13
percent made no payment of any kind.
In the PSID data, from 1979. 53 percent of
families with a child under age 12 and a
working wife or unmarried working parent
paid nothing; 16 percent paid up to $20 per
week; 26 percent paid $20 to $37; and only
5 percent paid $40 or more (~). In the
Virginia and Minnesota study. about 84
percent of the respondents reported they
had no cost or did not know the cost of
child care for their children ages 5 to
14 (!). The most frequently reported cost
was $1 to $20 per week (11 percent in
Virginia and 9 percent in Minnesota);
4 percent spent $20 to $40, and 2 percent
spent over $40.
Data on child care expenditures from indi­vidual
income tax returns provide another
source of information. In 1981 credit was
limited to 20 percent of child care costs
incurred for those with incomes over $20,000
(there was a sliding scale for those below
this income). with maximum costs of $2,000
for one dependent and $4,000 for two or more
dependents (~). In 1981, 4.6 million returns
included child care credit. The aggregate
amount was $1.2 billion for an average
credit of about $260 for families who
claimed the credit. At the 20 percent level,
a credit of $260 would suggest $1,300 annual
expenses, or $25 per week.
Analysis of 1981 Consumer Expenditure
Survey Child Care Data
The Consumer Expenditure Interview Survey
(CES) (1) asked respondents how much they
paid during the last 3 months for "daycare,
nursery school or preschool" expenses and
for "babysitting or other home care for
children." 3 Expenditure data for four quar­ters
of 1981 were combined because separate
3Data from Public Use Tapes, Consumer
Expenditure Survey: Interview Survey, 1980-
81, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics.
Table 1. Mothers using cash or noncash child care arrangements for youngest child under 5 years old, 1982
Principal type of
arrangement
Total employed ••••••••••••••••
Care in child's home •••••••••••
By grandparent •••••••••••••
By nonfamily relative ••••••••
By non relative ..............
Care in another home ••••••••••
By grandparent •••••••••••••
By nonfamily relative ••••••••
By nonrelative ..............
Group care center •••••••••••••
Nursery school ••••••••••••••
Day care center •••••••••••••
Cash
payment
only
73.3
49.2
22.3
42.0
82.8
74.8
37.9
72.5
94.3
94.0
93.6
94.1
Noncash
arrangement
only
Both cash
and noncash
arrangements
(percent distribution)
9.5 3.7
16.6 7.8
25.4 5.8
21.8 11.6
3.6 7.5
9.9 3.2
24.1 4.8
10.5 7.3
2.4 1.3
1.5 0.7
1.6 1.2
1.2 0.4
No payment
of any kind
12.8
25.6
45.2
23.2
6.1
11.4
32.4
9.3
1.3
3.3
2.3
3.8
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1983, Child Care Arrangements
Mothers: June 1982, Current Population Reports, Series P-23, No. 129, p. 30.
4 Family Economics Review 1986 No.4
Don' t know I
no answer
0.7
0.9
1.4
1.4
o.o
0.6
0.9
0.4
0.7
0.8
1.3
0.4
of Working
analyses indicated little variation across
quarters. There were quarterly data from
nearly 5,000 consumer units with the
youngest child less than 12 years old. Seven
percent of the families with the youngest
child under 5 years old and 10 percent of
families with the youngest child 5 to 12
years old had an adult or child other than
their own living with them.
Child care expenditures vary with the age
of youngest child, number of parent earners,
income, and number of parents present. 4 Fac­tors
that had little effect on these expen­ditures
were metropolitan size, race, and
number of preschoolers. Overall, child care
expenses increased with income and were
related to family characteristics (table 2,
P• 6) •
Separate analyses were made for consumer
units with the youngest child under 5 years
old and for those with the youngest child
5 years or older but less than 12, because
the literature and regression analyses indi­cated
that child care costs are related to
the age of the child. Children less than
5 years old need more care because they are
not in school. Also, the reported costs were
for the care of all children in the family.
Families with a preschooler were more likely
to have more than one child 12 years old or
less than were families with the youngest
child in school; therefore, families with a
preschooler had higher costs partly because
they had more children needing care. The age
of 12 was chosen as the other breakpoint
because the School-Age Day Care Study in
Virginia and Minnesota indicated parents
began to consider self-care an option at
that age (]). Also, these age categories
allow some comparisons with the CPS and PSID
studies.
Comparison of age groups. Nearly one-half
of the CES families with preschool children
had child care expenses, compared with
one-fifth of the families with school age
"To determine what factors were related to
child care expenditures, a multiple regres­sion
was conducted, yielding a .18 R-Square.
The expenditures were categorized as zero,
less than $180, and more than $180. Signif­icant
predictors of child care expenditures
are presented in decreasing order of
importance in the text.
children. Older children were in school much
of the day and might have been in self-care
or in community programs that were reported
as recreational expenses rather than child
care. Also, families with preschoolers were
more likely to have more than one child
needing care.
For those households with child care
expenses, the average cost was $19 per week
for preschool children, compared with $15
for school age children in care. The average
dollar amounts obscure the range of expendi­tures
among families. Average weekly expen­ditures
for families with preschool children
ranged from less than $1 to $273 (standard
deviation = $21) and, for families of school
age children, the range was from less than
$1 to $139 (standard deviation = $16).
Expenditures for child care included both
day care and babysitting. For families who
incurred costs, average weekly child care
expenditures were $19 for day care and $14
for babysitting in the younger group, and
$21 and $10, respectively, in the older
group.
Comparison of family types. As expected,
families in which all parents were earners
were more likely to have child care expenses
than families with one parent not employed.
Of those all-earner families that had ex­penses,
5 or 7 percent of total expenditures
was for child care, compared with 2 percent
for those families with a nonearner parent.
A further analysis of families indicates
that the average amount spent on child care
by two-parent, two-earner, and one-parent,
one-earner families with a preschooler were
similar ($23 and $26 per week). However, the
one-parent, one-earner families allocated 10
percent of their total expenditures to child
care, compared with 6 percent by two-parent,
two-earner families. This reflects the
difference in average, before-tax income in
1981 dollars for families in the survey with
youngest child less than 5 years old--
$10,947 for one-parent, one-earner families,
and $21,989 for two-parent, two-earner
families. Even more pronounced was the
difference in percent of expenditures spent
for child care by families of school age
children--8 percent of expenses for one­parent,
one-earner, compared with 4 percent
for two-parent, two-earner families.
1986 No.4 Family Economics Review 5
In households with the youngest child less
than 5 years old, 58 percent of two-parent,
two-earner families and 49 percent of one­parent,
one-earner families paid for child
care. This may indicate that young children
of single parents are more likely than those
of two parents to be cared for in a noncash
arrangement, perhaps by a grandparent,
other relative, or friend. However, of those
one-parent, one-earner families with child
care costs, expenses for day care (separate
from babysitting) were higher than for two­parent,
two-earner families, $32 compared
with $22.
Comparison to other budget categories.
For families with child care costs, the
percentage of total expenditures spent for
child care was 5 percent for families with a
preschooler and 4 percent for those with the
youngest child in school. This is similar to
the budget share for clothing or health
care. The average share for families in both
Table 2. Child care expenditures, 1981 1
age groups of this sample was 6 percent of
total expenditures for apparel and 4 percent
for out-of-pocket health care costs.
Comparison of 1981 CES data to other data
on child care expenditures. Dollar costs
are not available in the CPS for families
with preschool children. However, 55
percent 5 of these families with an employed
mother and the youngest child less than
5 years old made a cash payment. In the CES,
expenditures were reported by 57 percent of
families in which all parents were earners
and the youngest child was less than 5 years
old.
To compare the CES data and PSID data,
CES computations were made for families
with a child less than 12 years and all
5 The 55 percent was calculated by includ­ing
families whose principal caretaker was a
parent, whereas percentages in table 1 omit
these families.
Classification
Percent of families
wi th child care
expenditures
Families with child care expenditures
Weekly dollar
amount
Percent of total
expenditures
Families with youngest child less than
5 years old •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
2 parents, 2 parent earners 2
•••••••••••••
2 parents, 1 or no parent earners ••••••••
1 parent, 1 parent earner ••••••••••••••••
1 parent, no parent earner •••••••••••••••
All parents earn 3 •••••••••••••••••••••••••
Not all parents earn •••••••••••••••••••••
Families with youngest child 5 years or
older and less than 12 years ••••••••••••••
2 parents, 2 parent earners ••••••••••••••
2 parents, 1 or no parent earners ••••••••
1 parent, 1 parent earner ••••••••••••••••
1 parent, no parent earner •••••••••••••••
All parents earn ••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Not all parents earn •••••••••••••••••••••
46
58
37
49
7
57
33
20
24
13
26
4
24
11
$19
23
12
26
4
23
11
15
15
7
22
8
17
7
5
6
2
10
2
7
2
4
4
2
8
3
5
2
1 Data from Public Use Tapes, Consumer Expenditure Survey: Interview Survey, 1980-81, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor.
2 Within each age group, expenditures by the number of parents and number of parent earners are shown.
3A second classification of the same families is included. The category "all parents earn" includes 2-parent,
2-earner and 1-parent, l-earner families. The remaining families are in the category "not all parents earn."
6 Family Economics Review 1986 No.4
parents earning, that is, a working wife or
unmarried working parent. Forty percent of
the CES respondents had some child care
expenses, compared with 47 percent of the
PSID sample. The average cost of all-earner
CES families with expenditures for child
care was $21, and the modal cost category
(reported by 26 percent of the families) for
the PSID was $20 to $37.
Child care expenditures for school age
children were reported by 20 percent of the
families in the CES, compared with 17 per­cent
in the Virginia sample arid 15 percent
in the Minnesota sample. The average weekly
cost of those reporting expenditures in the
CES was $15. The modal category for each
State was $1 to $20.
A comparison of CES data with the IRS tax
credits is complicated by several factors.
Families with children less than 15 years
old were eligible for the tax credit. The
expenditure estimate of $25 per week for
child care assumed that the credit repre­sented
20 percent of the cost and that the
family did not incur expenses over the maxi­mum
of $2,000 per child. Also, persons who
were willing to complete special forms may
have had higher than average child care
costs, and the incomes of these families
were higher--64 percent of those claiming
the credit in 1981 had incomes above the
median level (~_) •
Evaluating Measures of Child Care Costs
Expenditures for child care from the CES
data reported in this paper are similar to
those from other studies that were discussed
here. The reported expenditures, however,
are substantially less than fees associated
with center care or day care homes. The dif­ference
is due primarily to the large number
of families who care for their children with
an assortment of arrangements that include
parental care, self-care, and many noncash
or low-cost agreements with family members
or others.
The CES reports only out-of-pocket expen­ditures
for child care. It does not record
the cost of parental care in terms of oppor­tunities
for employment, advancement, or
other income-producing activities that are
forfeited in order to provide time and
opportunity to care for children . Nor does
the CES measure costs to the family or
society that may be associated with self­care,
sibling care, or inexpensive, but
ill-qualified, caretakers. If these costs
could be included, the cost of child care
would be much higher than that reported as
expenditures.
REFERENCES
1. Applied Management Sciences, Inc. 1983.
School-Age Day Care Study--Executive
Summary. G-187. Contract No. 105-81-
C-011. Prepared for Administration for
Children, Youth and Families, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services.
2. Hayghe, Howard. 1984. Research Summa­ries:
Working mothers reach record
number in 1984. Monthly Labor Review
107 (12): 31-34. U.S. Department of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics.
3. Hofferth, Sandra L., and Deborah
Phillips. 1986. Working Mothers and the
Care of Their Children : 1970 to 1995.
National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development, U.s. Department of
Health and Human Resources; and National
Association for the Education of Young
Children.
4. Morgan, James N. 1981. Child care when
parents are employed • ..!.!!. Martha S. Hill,
Daniel H. Hill, and James N. Morgan,
editors. Five Thousand American Families-­Patterns
of Economic Progress, Vol. IX,
Analyses of the First Twelve Years of
the Panel Study of Income Dynamics.
5. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of
the Census. 1983. Child Care Arrange­ments
of Working Mothers: June 1982.
Current Population Reports. Special
Studies, Series P-23, No. 129.
6. • 1985. Statistical Abstract
of the United States: 1986. 106th ed.
7. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics. 1985. Consumer
Expenditure Survey: Interview Survey,
1980-81. Bulletin 2225.
8. U.S. House of Representatives, 98th
Cong., 2d sess., Select Committee on
Children, Youth, and Families. 1985.
Families and Child Care: Improving the
Options. Report No. 98-1180.
1986 No.4 Family Econom i cs Review 7
Mothers' Labor Force Activity1
Mothers today typically do not wait to
see their youngest child off to school before
entering or reentering the work force. In
1985, nearly 60 percent of all children under
18 had mothers in the labor force, compared
with less than 50 percent in 1975. Over the
decade, the number of children involved rose
by 5.8 million to 33.5 million. Slightly more
than one-half of this increase occurred
among children under age 6.
One-half of all mothers of children under
3 and 60 percent of those with youngest child
between the ages of 3 and 5 were in the labor
force in 1985. Overall, 62 percent of women
with children under age 18 were in the work
force. Comparable figures for mothers in
the labor force in 1975 were 34 percent
with children under 3, 45 percent with
children between 3 and 5 (none younger),
and 47 percent with children under 18.
The majority of employed mothers work
full time (35 hours a week or more).
Sixty-seven percent of employed mothers
with children under 3 years worked full
time in 1985; comparable figures were 70
percent and 73 percent for mothers whose
youngest ·child was 3 to 5 years and 6 to 17
years old, respectively.
Overall, black mothers had a slightly
higher labor force participation rate (64 pet)
than white mothers (62 pet) in 1985. This
difference between races has decreased
since 1975, when the participation rate for
black mothers was 56 percent and that for
white mothers, 46 percent. In 1985, although
labor force participation rates were about
the same for black and white mothers whose
youngest child was between 6 and 17 years
old (71 pet and 70 pet), there was a
5-percentage-point difference between black
women and white women with children under
age 6 (58 and 53 pet).
1Data derived from information collected
each March in the Current Population Survey,
a monthly household survey conducted for
the Bureau of Labor Statistics by the U.S.
Bureau of the Census, and related to the
employment status of the noninstitutional
population 16 years and over.
8 family Economics Review 1986 No.4
New Data Series
A newly expanded series of statistics from
the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics provides
information on labor force participation
rates of mothers of young children. Labor
force participation rates were previously
disaggregated by the age group of the
youngest child of the working mother;
however, now they are also disaggregated by
the single year of age of the youngest child.
Married mothers of infants age 1 or younger
were more likely to be in the labor force in
1985 than single-parent mothers were. Rates
were about the same for married and single­parent
mothers with children ages 2, 3,
and 4. When the youngest child's age was 5
or older, however, single-parent mothers had
a higher labor force participation rate than
married mothers; disparity was greatest for
mothers whose youngest child was 16 or 17
years old (see table). Also, single-parent
mothers were more likely than married
mothers to work full time (82 and 68 pet).
A comparison of wives' labor force parti­cipation
rates in 1970, 1975, 1980, and 1985
by single year of age of youngest child in­dicate
that rates grew fastest among mothers
of infants and very young children. Mothers
of infants age 1 and younger, for example,
doubled their labor force participation in
the 15-year span. There was a 77-percent
increase in labor force participation among
mothers with youngest child age 2, and a
60-percent increase among mothers whose
youngest was 3. In general, rates increased
faster between 1975 and 1980 than during
other 5-year intervals.
Families with children are becoming more
dependent on a mother's earnings. By using
the single year of the youngest child's age,
researchers will be better able to monitor
changing labor force trends, interpret chang­ing
family economic structures, and project
demand for family services such as child care.
Sources: Hayghe, Howard, 1986, Research
Summaries--Rise in mothers' labor force
activity includes those with infants,
Monthly Labor Review 109(2)43-45; U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statis­tics,
1985, Labor force activity of mothers
of young children continues at record pace,
News, USDL Publication No. 85-381.
Labor force status of wives and women maintaining families, by presence and age of youngest
child, March 1985
Presence and age
of child (years) 1
Total ........................ · . · .
No children under 18 2
••••••••••
With children under 18 •••••••••
Under 6 •••••••••••••••••••••
Under 3 .................. .
1 and under ••........•..
2 ••••••••••••••••••••••••
3 to 5 ••••••••••••••••.••••
3 ••••••••••••••••••••••••
4 ••.••.•.••.•••.•••.•.••.
5 ••••••••••••••••••••••••
6 to 17 ••••••••••••••••••••••
6 to 13 ..••••.•••••.•••••••
6 •••••.•.••.•••••.•••.•.•
7 ••••••••••••••••••••••••
8
9
10 ••••...•.•••.••••.•..••
11 •••••••••••••••••••••••
12 •.••.•••••.•.••..•...•.
13 .....•......•...•...•••
14 to 17 ......•..••••••••••
14 •..•.•.......•.•......•
15 .••.•..•...•.•.•••.••••
16
17 ...•......•.•.•..•••.••
Civilian noninstitutional
population (in thousands)
Wives
50,395
26,170
24,225
11,728
7,306
5,185
2,121
4,422
1,728
1,433
1,261
12,498
8,387
1,165
1,147
995
1,003
1,008
959
1,031
1,079
4,111
1,137
1,115
949
910
Wanen
maintaining
families
10,524
4,179
6,345
2,390
1,146
728
418
1,244
423
380
441
3,955
2,609
358
339
295
312
328
303
351
323
1,346
374
328
302
342
Labor force
participation rate
Wives
54.3
48.2
61.0
53.7
50.7
49.4
54.0
58.6
55.1
59.7
62.1
67.8
68.1
64.5
67.3
69.2
66.2
68.2
69.2
71.4
69.5
67.0
70.3
67.9
64.2
64.9
Wanen
maintaining
families
61.0
50.7
67.8
53.2
44.5
38.0
55.7
61.2
54.8
61.8
66.7
76.6
75.7
76.0
75.5
69.8
78.8
79.6
72.9
75.5
76.8
78.5
78.6
73.5
81.1
80.7
1 Children are defined as "own" children of householder and include never-:married sons,
daughters, stepchildren, and adopted children. Excluded are other related children such as
nieces, nephews, or grandchildren, and unrelated children.
2 May include children 18 years or over and/or other persons related by blood, marriage,
or adoption.
Note: Due to rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals.
Source: Hayghe, Howard, 1986, Research Summaries--Rise in mothers' labor force activity
includes those with infants, Monthly Labor Review 109(2)43-45.
1986 No.4 Family Economics Review 9
Earnings of Married-Couple
Families
The working wife has become an integral
feature of the U.S. economy and an important
factor in determining the economic level of
the family. Both husband and wife had earn­ings
in nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of
the 42.2 million married-couple families
with at least one spouse employed during
1983. The mean earnings of those dual-earner
couples was $32,468, and $39,390 if both
spouses worked year round, full time. Annual
earnings averaged $24,230 if only the
husband was an earner.
These data were obtained in the March 1984
Current Population Survey and are presented
in a new U.S. Bureau of the Census report.
Earnings data for 1983 are included for
husbands and wives, both individually and as
married couples, classified by each spouse's
annual work experience, age, occupation,
and education; and by presence and age of
children. Some comparisons of 1983 with
1981 earnings of husbands and wives (as
individuals only) also are presented.
Wives had mean earnings of $10,164 in
1983, 7.9 percent higher in constant dollars
than the 1981 level. The difference was
significant at the 95 percent level of con­fidence.
The 1983 mean earnings of husbands
($22, 980) did not differ significantly from
the 1981 level, however.
The ratio of mean earnings of all working
wives to those of all working husbands
increased from 41 percent in 1981 to 44
percent in 1983 (see box). For year-round,
full-time workers, the ratio increased from
55 percent in 1981 to 57 percent in 1983.
When only households in which both spouses
had earnings in 1983 were included, wives'
earnings averaged 46 percent of husbands';
and 64 percent when both were employed year
round, full time.
10 Family Econom i cs Re vi ew 1986 No.4
In interpreting these data, it should
be noted that the report covers 1983, a
year of economic recovery following the
recession that ended in the latter part
of 1982. That situation may have had
some effect on the relationship between
earnings levels of husbands and wives.
The data should not be used to examine
issues such as possible sex discrimina­tion
and differences in the monetary
gains from education. Such analyses
should be based on the experience of
all earners (of which husbands and
wives are only a subset) and on more
detailed data from persons with similar
educational backgrounds, degrees,
specific occupations, and previous
lifetime work experience.
Approximately 4.8 million wives had earn­ings
that exceeded those of their husbands
in 1983. This number represents about 18
percent of the 26.1 million married couples
in which both spouses were earners. In addi­tion,
about 8 percent of wives had earnings
from 80 to 100 percent of their husband's.
Wives earning more than their husbands were
more likely than other earning wives to be
working year round, full time; to have no
minor children at home; to have completed
college; and to work in a professional
specialty or executive, administrative, or
managerial occupation.
The 1983 mean earnings of husbands and
of wives by selected characteristics of
earner and by presence and age of children
are presented in the table on page 11.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census, 1986, Earnings in 1983
of Married-Couple Families, by Characteris­tics
of Husbands and Wives, Current
Population Reports, Series P-60, No. 153 •
Mean earnings of husbands and wives, by selected characteristics, 1983
Olaracteristic
Total, 15 years and over ••••••••••••••••••••••••
Age (years)
15-24 ............•..•.......................
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
.......................................
............................................................................... .......................................
65 and over ................................ .
Age of own children under 18 years
No own children ........•....................
1 or more own children ••••••••••••••••••••••
All under 6 .............................. .
Some under 6, some 6-17 ••••••••••••••••••
All 6-17 .•...•...•.........................
Work experience
Worked at full-time jobs •••••••••••••••••••••
50-52 weeks ••..........•...............••.
49 weeks or less ......................... .
Worked at part-time jobs ••••••••••••••••••••
50-52 weeks •..•....••.......•...•....••.•.
49 weeks or less ......................... .
Years of school completed
Less than 12 ..........................•.....
High school (4 years) •••••••••••••••••••••••
College:
1-3 ...................................... .
4 ••...•.•••••••••.••••...••...•.•..•••.•.•
5 or more ................................ .
Occupation of longest job
Executive, administrators, and managerial •••
Professional specialty •••••••••••••••••••••••
Technical and related support •••••••••••••••
Sales workers .............................. .
Administrative support, including clerical •••
Precision production, craft, and repair ••••••
Operators, fabricators, and laborers ••••••••
Ser'Vice workers ............................ .
Farming, forestry, and fishing ••••••••••••••
Husbands
$22,980
12,217
20,000
26,336
27,008
24,048
11,932
22,167
23,596
20,461
22,329
25,760
24,138
26,532
13,673
7,875
12,032
4,915
14,559
19,912
23,122
30,898
37,142
33,037
32,592
25,195
25,206
21,153
20,034
17,079
14,786
10,023
Wives
$10,164
7,258
10,352
10,998
10,956
9,777
4,948
11,088
9,365
9,192
8,150
9,877
12,900
15,041
7,423
4,603
6,849
2,848
6,658
8,997
10,612
13,211
17,760
15,741
14,384
12,895
7,572
10,504
10,138
8,610
5,635
2,230
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1986, Earnings in 1983 of
Married-Couple Families, by Characteristics of Husbands and Wives, Current Population
Reports, Series P-60, No. 153.
1986 No.4 Family Economics Review 11
Contributions and Gifts of Cash
By Kathleen K. Scholl
Consumer economist
Three of five households give gifts of
cash to individuals outside the immediate
family or make a contribution to a charita­ble,
religious, educational, political, or
other organization, according to analysis of
1981 data in the Consumer Expenditure
Survey. Churches and other religious orga­nizations
receive gifts from two of five
households; of all the recipient groups,
religious organizations benefit from the
highest contribution per household. Giving
households have above-average family income
and are homeowners or occupy rent-free
housing.
Because cash contributions may be distri­buted
throughout the year in nl}merous, often
small amounts, the magnitude of familial
giving is not readily apparent. The American
Association of Fund Raising Counsel1
estimates that $55 billion was given to
charitable organizations in 1981. Living
individuals contributed $46 billion, and the
remainder was donated through bequests from
estates, corporations, and foundations.
Families choose whether or not to share
their financial resources with others. In
deciding to become a benefactor, a family
must consider how much to give and identify
recipients who carry out a . desirable
societal function that the family seeks to
promote. Discretionary allocations may not
be a conscious implementation of the fam-ily's
values, however. When asked why they
gave to a certain charity, most of the
respondents in two national surveys of 1973
philanthropic gifts (l), were unable to pro­vide
a spontaneous answer. Apparently, many
do not question or think about their own
charitable motives. Most givers, however,
approved of the organization's goals,
thought the organization needed the money,
or felt obligated to give a contribution.
A sense of belonging motivated many of the
religious gifts. The receipt of a benefit
from the charity, such as a family member
receiving a blood transfusion, was another
1Personal communication on July 8, 1986.
12 Family Economics Review 1986 No.4
cited motive. Pressure or a quota was
expressed as a motive for donations to
combined appeals, such as a community chest
drive.
Personal involvement with the charity can
provide a motive to donate money. A correla­tion
between gifts of money and the volun­teering
of time was found in the 1973 study
of charitable contributions. Nearly one­fourth
of the gifts of money were accompa­nied
by donations of time. For another
one-third of the monetary donations, the
giver knew someone involved in running the
organization.
The recent availability of information
about familial giving of cash to organiza­tions
and individuals outside the immediate
family permits an indepth examination of
contributions. This article reports the mean
dollar amounts given to others (levels of
giving) by selected socioeconomic charac­teristics,
levels of giving by certain
recipient categories (such as gifts to
educational organizations), and characteris­tics
of households who give cash to others.
Levels of Giving by Household
Characteristics
In 1981 gifts of cash to individuals
outside the family and to organizations
averaged 2 percent ($353) of before-tax
household income for all households, as
calculated from the interview portion of the
continuing Consumer Expenditure Survey
(CES) •2 Survey respondents are asked in
the fifth questionnaire to report the annual
dollar amounts if anyone in the household 3
had made gifts of cash, bonds, or stocks to
persons not in the household; or contribu­tions
to charitable, religious, educational,
political, and other organizations. A total
of 4, 783 households were asked these
questions in 1981 and form the basis of this
analysis.
The amount given increases with household
income (table 1). As in the 1973 study,
however, those with low income give a larger
proportion of their income than do those in
high-income categories. For example, house-
2Data from Public Use Tapes, Consumer
Expenditure Survey: Interview Survey,
1980-81, U.s. Department of Labor, Bureau
of Labor Statistics.
3 See footnote 2 in table 1, p. 13.)
Table 1. Contributions and cash gifts, by selected socioeconomic characteristics of households, 1981 1
Household2 characteristic
All households1 (n = 4,783) •••••••••••••••••••
Household income (before taxes)
Under $5,000 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
$5,000-$9,999 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
$10.000-$14.999 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••
$15.000-$19.999 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••
$20,000-$24,999 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••
$25.000-$29.999 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••
$30.000-$39.999 ••••••••••••••••••••• • •••••
$40,000 and over 3
• •••••••••••••••••••••••
Incomplete income respondents4 (n = 714) ••
Household composition
Husband and wife only •••••••••••••••••••••
Husband and wife with oldest child--
Under 6 years •••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Over 5, but under 18 years •••••••••••••
18 years and older ••••••••••••••••••••••
Single parent with child under 18 years old:
Male parent •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Female parent •••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Urbanization and region
Rural •••••••••••••••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Urban •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Northeast •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Midwest ••••• • •••••••••••••••••••••••••••
South ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • •••••••
West ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Housing tenure
Homeowner:
With a mortgage •••••••••••••••••••••••••
Without a mortgage •••••••• • •••••••••••••
Renter ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Occupy without payment •••••••••••••••••••
Age of reference person 5 (years)
21-29 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
30-39 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
40-49
50-59
60-69
70-79
80 years and older ••••••••••••••••••••••••
Highest educational level of
reference person
Never went to school ••••••••••••••••••••••
Grade 1 through 8 ••••••••••••••••••••••••
Grade 9 through 11 •••••••••••••••••••••••
High school graduate ••••••••••••••••••••••
Course work beyond high school •••••••••••
College graduate ••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Course work beyond bachelor's degree •••••
Average incane
(dollars)
20,662
2,680
7,346
12,268
17.391
22,286
27,307
34,085
56,094
23.570
23,338
27,458
32,299
20,354
10,511
14,809
21,237
20,675
20,655
20,878
22,946
28,804
19.552
13,598
12,764
17,495
24,484
28,204
25,904
18,251
12,150
12,153
9,452
11,857
14.671
21,635
21,255
28,005
29,969
Average lJllOunt given Proportion of
(dollars) incane given
(percent)
353 1.7
111 4.1
218 3.0
239 1.9
324 1.9
311 1.4
295 1.1
574 1.7
998 1.8
285
518 2.2
226 1.0
475 1.7
577 1.8
317 1.6
81 0.8
350 2.4
354 1.7
288 1.4
386 1.9
328 1.6
412 1.8
454 1 .6
545 2.8
137 1.0
217 1.7
132 0.8
269 1.1
490 1.7
491 1.9
479 2.6
509 4.2
378 3.1
77 0.8
201 1.7
194 1.3
290 1.3
359 1.7
665 2.4
677 2.3
1 Data from Public Use Tapes, Consumer Expenditure Survey: Interview Survey, 1980-81, U.S. Department of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Only consumer units responding to the 5th questionnaire for 1981 are reported.
2 The term "household" is used for convenience. The Consumer Expenditure Survey uses "consumer unit" to define a
single person or group of persons in a sample household who are related by blood, marriage, adoption, or other legal
arrangement, or who share responsibility for at least 2 of 3 major types of expenses.
3 Average income for this category reflects 115 cases that were topcoded at $75,000. Amount given was not topcoded;
therefore, this group probably gave less than 1.8 percent of their income.
• A value for at least one of the major sources of family income was not provided.
5 Reference person is the first person named by the respondent as ownin or renting the home.
1986 No.4 Family Economics Review 13
holds with before-tax income of $5,000 to
$9,999 give away 3 percent of their income,
whereas those with $20,000 to $29,999 give
1 percent. Similar giving patterns also
emerge for those who itemized deductions on
their 1981 Federal income tax forms (~)
(see box).
Interestingly, one- and two-earner house­holds
average the same level of giving ($337
and $339, respectively), indicating that the
addition of a second paycheck does not in­crease
discretionary giving to others. This
is confirmed by the proportion of income
that is given away--one-earner households
give 2 percent, whereas two-earner house­holds
give 1 percent of their before-tax
income.
The presence of young children in the
household, especially under the age of 6,
lowers the mean level of giving to others.
Although average income is about the same
for husband-and-wife-only households and
couples with children under the age of 6,
the level of giving drops by more than one­half
for those with a young child. Single­parent
households headed by a female give
1 percent of their income, compared with
2 percent given by those headed by a male.
Adequacy of income to cover living expenses
probably influences this difference; the
income of a single-parent female averages
only one-half the income of a single-parent
male. 4
4Level of income affects the ability to
give. Levels of giving by socioeconomic
characteristics described in this section
are influenced by the household's income.
CHARITABLE TAX DEDUCTIONS
Location in a rural as compared with an
urban area has no effect on the level of
giving. Of the urban households, however,
those in the West tend to give the most;
those located in the Northeast give the
least. Urban households located in the
Northeast give away 1 percent of their
income; urban households located in the
other regions give 2 percent.
Households who own their homes tend to
give more than average, and those without a
mortgage give more than those who have
mortgage expenses. Renters give less than
average. As indicated in table 1, renters
are constrained in their giving by a low
average income. In addition, differences in
levels of giving may be influenced, in part,
5 by the age of the reference person. Home-owner
reference persons who do not have a
mortgage average 63 years in age--20 years
older than those with a mortgage ( 43 years).
Reference persons of renting households
average 39 years of age.
Generally, age of the reference person is
associated with the level of giving. Those
39 years of age and under give 1 percent of
their before-tax income. Households with
reference persons 40 years old and over
average 2 percent or more of their income in
gifts. Older households vary in the propor­tion
of income they give to others. House­holds
whose reference person is 60 to 69
years old give 3 percent of their income.
5 Reference person is the first person
named by the respondent as owning or
renting the home.
Three of ten Federal income tax itemizers deducted a charitable contribution in 1981.
Cash contribution deductions averaged about $900 per return, or about 4 percent of
adjusted gross income (AGO. A higher percentage of income was given by low-income
itemizers than was given by high-income itemizers. For example, those with AGI of
$5,000 to $9,999 had cash contributions that averaged about 8 percent, whereas those
with AGI of $20,000 to $24,999 gave away 3 percent of their AGI.
Since only one-third of 1981 Federal income tax returns included itemized deductions,
these averages reflect the giving patterns of a limited group of U.S. taxpayers.
Generally those with high incomes benefit from itemizing their deductions. This is illus­trated
by the number of filers who itemize a charitable cash contribution at various
income levels--9 of 10 filers with AGI over $50,000 itemize a cash contribution, compared
with only 2 of 10 with AGI of $10,000 to $14,999.
14 family Economics Review 1986 No.4
This increases to 4 percent for 70- to
79-year-olds but drops to 3 percent for
those 80 years and older. The differences by
age suggest that retirement is an important
factor in the giving of resources. House­holds
with retired reference persons give
more than average--$406, or 3 percent of the
retired household's income.
Other characteristics of the reference
person influence the level of giving. The
completion of college courses influences the
level of giving more than any other educa­tional
achievement. Although the average
amount of gifts nearly doubles with gradua­ation
from college (from $359 to $665),
the proportion of income given does not
increase.
Households with the reference person in
managerial, professional specialty,
technical, sales, and administrative support
occupations give more than average. House­holds
with reference persons employed in
service, precision production, craft,
repair, operator, fabricator, and laborer
occupations give less than the mean level of
contributions. Households with self-employed
reference persons give above average in cash
gifts to others.
Among the marital status categories,
households with married reference persons
have the highest level of giving ($458) and
give away 2 percent of their income. House­holds
with reference persons who are widows
or widowers give 3 percent of their income.
Households with separated and never-married
reference persons give 1 percent and average
lesser amounts ($140 and $113).
Level of Giving for the Various
Recipient Groups
Charitable groups and religious organiza­tions
receive cash gifts from 4 of 10 house­holds,
and educational and political causes
receive contributions from 1 of 10 house­holds
(table 2), according to analysis of
1981 CES data. Individuals outside the imme­diate
family receive gifts of stocks, bonds,
or cash from 1 of 10 households.
An average of $512 is given by the house­holds
who give to religious organizations
(table 2). Of these households nearly one­third
give to their religious affiliation
only and do not contribute to other causes.
An average of $147 is given by the house­holds
who give to charities, such as the Red
Cross or United Fund. One-fourth of these
households give to charities only. House­holds
giving to charities and/or r eligious
organizations are somewhat u nlikely to give
to other groups; only one-half of these
households give to any other recipient
group. In contrast, nearly all households
who make a gift to an educational institu­tion
also give to another recipien t group .
Nearly one-fourth of those who give to
political organizations give $1 or $2. A con­tribution
of this amount suggests that these
households are reporting the Federal income
tax check-off for the Presidential Election
Campaign fund as a contribution. None of
the other recipient groups have a similar
proportion of small cash contributions.
Individuals outside the immediate family
are another major cash recipient group; 14
percent of households make nonsupport gifts
(excludes child support, alimony, and
support for children away at college). The
average size of these gifts ($493 per giving
household) and the frequency of occurrence
in comparison with other contributions
suggests that families directly redistribute
income to persons they choose rather than
use an intermediary organization for this
purpose.
Table 2. Contribut ions and cash gifts , by r ecipien t g roups f or
giving households, 1981 1
Recipient groups
All giving households •• ••• ••• •
Churches and other religious
organizations ....... . ..... .
Charities, such as Red Cross
and Uni ted Fund ••• • . • •• •••
Educational or ganizations • •• •
Political organizations • ••. • • • •
Other organizations •• • • •• • • • .
Gifts of stocks, bonds,
and cash to individuals
outside the family ••••• • • • ••
Giving households Average amount
(percent of total) given (dollars)
60
41
39
6
4
14
592
512
147
166
71
161
493
1 Data from Public Use Tapes, Consumer Expenditure Survey:
Interview Survey, 1980-81, U. s . Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics . Only consumer units responding to the 5th
q uestionnaire for 1981 are reported .
1986 No.4 Fam i ly Econom i cs Re vi ew 15
Characteristics of Giving Households
Sixty percent of households give to others;
40 percent do not make contributions or give
cash to anyone outside their household,
according to analysis of 1981 CES data.
A discriminant analysis was conducted to
determine the characteristics that differen­tiate
between the two groups. 6 When the 21
variables were used collectively to predict
whether or not a household is likely to give
its financial resources, only income and
housing tenure were found to discriminate
between giving households and those who
did not _give.
A higher than average before-tax income
identifies giving households; their income
averages $23,798, compared with $14,747 for
nongiving households. Families with below­average
income apparently use most of their
financial resources for their own consump­tion,
whereas those with above-average
income are more likely to have sufficient
financial resources to meet their own
consumption needs and to satisfy their
charitable motivations. This finding seems
to conflict with that concerning the house­hold's
proportion of income given to others
by various income levels. The discriminant
6 Twenty-one variables were tested with a
forward stepwise discriminant analysis. The
analysis revealed a significant multivariate
Wilks' lambda ( A. = .86) for a set of 12
variables. Examination of the standardized
discriminant function coefficients indicated
that the age of the reference person, level
of before-tax income, and housing tenure
were the most influential variables in
determining group differences. The level of
before-tax income and housing tenure loaded
highly and contributed to the discriminant
scores. Over two-thirds ( 68 pet) of the
analysis group were correctly classified for
the discriminant function. Cross validation
resulted in two-thirds (66 pet) correctly
classified.
16 Family Economics Review 1986 No.4
analysis was used to identify characteris-tics
of giving and non giving households. The
description of levels of giving for all
households, both giving and nongiving,
includes many household characteristics that
do not discriminate between the two groups.
The implication of the two findings regard­ing
income is that a household must have
sufficient income in order to give to
others; however, those with low incomes tend
to give away a larger proportion of their
income than do those with high incomes.
Housing tenure influences the household's
decision to give. Households who rent their
housing tend not to give to others;
households who own their homes or occupy
rent-free housing, however, are likely to
give their financial resources to others.
In summary, giving households are charac­terized
by high incomes and are homeowners
or occupy their housing without payment.
Those not likely to give to others rent
their homes and have low household incomes.
This information will be useful to financial
counselors in identifying benefactor
families. The level of giving is affected by
many household characteristics, such as
presence of young children, and educational
attainment and age of the reference person.
This information can be helpful to counsel­ors
and educators in advising families on
their level of giving.
REFERENCES
1. Morgan, James N., Richard F. Dye, and
Judith H. Hybels. 1977. Results from two
national surveys of philanthropic activ­ity
• .!!!. Department of the Treasury.
Research Papers--Volume 1: History,
Trends, and Current Magnitudes,
pp. 157-323. (Sponsored by The Commis­sion
on Private Philanthropy and Public
Needs.)
2. Department of the Treasury, Internal
Revenue Service. 1983. 1981 individual
Income Tax Returns. Publication 79
(8-83).
Planning for 'Ibmorrow's Elderly1
By Joyce Matthews Pitts
Home economist
The economic consequences of an aging
population are the focus of growing concern
and debate. From 1946 to 1964 there were
more than 75 million births in the United
States (!~). This group, often referred to
as the baby boom generation, will begin
retiring in about 22 years. Many experts be­lieve
that serious problems will arise unless
plans are implemented to fund the retirement
of this large cohort of future elderly.
Americans for Generational Equity (AGE),
a nonpartisan research and public education
group based in Washington, DC, has focused
national attention on this issue. In April
1986, AGE sponsored its First National
Conference of Americans for Generational
Equity, entitled, "Tomorrow's Elderly:
Planning for the Baby Boom Generation's
Retirement." Papers i1resented at this con­ference
explain the views of those concerned
with the future economic well-being of the
elderly and the nonelderly. The following is
a summation of the issues presented.
DEMOGRAPHICS AND ECONOMIC
COMPARABILITY
The Nation is facing a grandparent explo­sion.
Because of the baby boomers' large
numbers, low-fertility rates, and unprece­dented
life expectancies, the 65-and-over
population is expected to grow 4-1/2 times
as fast as the rest of the population be­tween
now and the middle of the 21st century
(_!1). At present there are about 5.9 million
persons age 80 and over in the United
States. It is projected that this group will
total 17 million by 2030 and 26 million by
2050. The number of women 80 years of age
and over could equal the number of women in
each of the other age groups, and the
1 Issues discussed throughout this report
represent the opinions of individuals who
presented papers at the First National
Conference of Americans for Generational
Equity. Citations refer to conference
papers, not to sources used by presentors
in support of these opinions.
"great-grandma boom" will have arrived {_!1).
These projections imply that the support
ratio (the number of working persons per
number of elderly persons) will change dra­matically.
Currently this ratio is 5 working
persons for each elderly person; by 2030
this ratio is expected to be 2. 5 to 1 C.!).
The economic comparability of the aged and
nonaged has become a central issue in
debates on whether or not the Government
should reduce or means test benefits to the
elderly, either now or in the future. The
economic well-being of today's elderly has
greatly improved over recent years. Their
poverty rate fell below the rate for children
in 1974 and below that for the population
as a whole in 1982 (!!). When noncash
transfer payments are taken into account,
the poverty level for the elderly falls to
about 4 percent (.!.Q). After taxes, the
average per capita income of the elderly is
13 percent higher than for all Americans (.!.!) •
According to Levy and Michel C,Q) , the
economic status of young people has not
improved as much as that of the elderly.
Before 1973 the average man experienced a
real earnings increase of about 110 percent
between ages 25 and 35. After 1973 a com­parable
man received an earnings increase of
only 16 percent. In 1984 less than 50
percent of typical young families, with the
parents aged 25 to 34, and one child under
age 12, owned their homes.
PROBLEMS OF AN AGING POPULATION:
ECONOMIC CONCERNS
The Federal Deficit
Federal social insurance programs cur­rently
are the bases for financial security
for the elderly. Social Security, medicare,
and other services to the elderly represent
a large part of the Government's fiscal
responsibility. About one-fourth of total
Government spending is used to support these
programs <1). In the future there may be a
conflict between the growing needs of the
1986 No.4 Family Economics Review 17
elderly population and a Federal budget that
cannot cover its current commitments. Lamm
(~) points out that we are the world's
largest debtor nation, owing more than
Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina combined. By
spending more than we make, we can live for
a time beyond our means, thus avoiding the
consequences of slow economic growth.
According to Levy and Michel (~_), ending
the Federal deficit will likely require tax
increases and budget cuts--painful choices
and ones that could lower living standards
for the short run.
Social Security Tax Increases
We depend on intergenerational income
transfers to support Social Security. Taxes
paid by today's workers are not invested for
their future retirement, but are used to
support today's retirees. Initially this
required only a modest investment on the
part of the worker. As late as 1965 the
maximum annual Social Security tax was only
$348 for both the employer and employee (_~).
Recently, however, payroll taxes have risen
faster than other tax obligations. The maxi­mum
annual Social Security tax is now over
$6,000; by the end of the decade it is ex­pected
to be almost $8,000. Some projections
estimate that a future tax of more than 40
percent could be required to support Federal
retirement programs (Social Security, medi­care,
and others) under currently legislated
benefit levels (~_) •
Most of today's elderly will receive more
in Social Security benefits than they paid
into the program. This will not be true for
today's young workers, however. Even if they
draw all the benefits provided under current
law, baby boomers will still receive low, and
in some cases negative, returns on the taxes
that they have paid into the system. Ferrara
(~) states that workers would be better off
if they could privately invest what they and
their employer currently contribute to
Social Security. He estimates that at a
6-percent real return workers would receive
3 to 6 times the retirement benefit promised
by Social Security. Meanwhile, Lamm (~_) says
that there is growing concern that Social
Security and medicare take money from some
who are almost poor to pay some who are
rich.
18 Fam i ly Economi cs Review 1986 No.4
Ferrara (§_) further states that the Social
Security program does not pay equal returns
to all workers. In particular, it pays lower
returns to two-earner couples, childless
couples, and single workers. Social Security
and medicare also tend to discriminate
against minorities and 0 hers who have low
life expectancies. Goouman (.J_) notes that
raising the retirement age under Social
Security and the eligibility age under
medicare (often suggested as possible
solutions to the financial problems of these
programs) would intensify the effects of
this discrimination. Minorities, for example,
are overrepresented among taxpayers
(14 .4 percent) and underrepresented among
medicare beneficiaries (8 .6 percent).
Medicare's Financial Crisis
The elderly depend on medicare and medi­caid
for about 64 percent of their health
costs (~). Rising medical costs may cause
massive cuts in future medicare benefits,
however. The U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services estimates that the average
man who retired last year can expect to
receive about $28,255 in medicare benefits
after having paid only $2,640 in medicare
taxes (.J_). This contributes to the financial
crisis that medicare is experiencing.
Etheredge (~_) predicts that the hospital in­surance
trust fund will be bankrupt by 1991
and will incur a $1 trillion deficit by 2005.
The need for long-term health care financ­ing
will rise rapidly with the increasing
numbers of the most dependent elderly--those
over age 85. The nursing home population is
expected to double between 1980 and 2010,
and double again by 2050 (~_). Very few
insurance companies provide coverage for
such long-term care. Nursing home costs now
average about $14,000 per year. Few elderly
are able to sustain such costs for very
long; therefore, more than one-half of all
long-term care is publicly financed. Future
demographic trends may strain the ability of
public programs to maintain current levels
of assistance, however. The United States
spends eight times more on health care than
any of its industrial competitor nations,
but the mortality and morbidity statistics
are the same (~). Extended life expectancies
will require innovative and economical
approaches to quality health care.
PROPOSED SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS
CAUSED BY AN AGING POPULATION
Continue Social Insurance
Some experts believe that with only modest
economic growth, currently legislated taxes
are sufficient to pay Social Security bene­fits
for the next 75 years (!). Even with
poor growth they foresee surpluses that will
accumulate over the next 25 years, allowing
ample time to respond to shrinking funds
with higher taxes or lower benefits if the
need arises. These experts feel that Social
Security will continue to play an important
role in contributing to the support of
future elderly generations. Most agree,
however, that members of the baby boom
generation need to have additional sources
of retirement income.
Increase Private Pension Use
Private pensions currently provide only 14
percent of retirement benefits (5). Efforts
to encourage greater use of private pensions
to supplement Social Security have not been
very successful; only about one-half of all
workers are employed by a firm that offers a
pension plan. One-half of workers who have
private pension plans are not fully vested ;2
therefore, only one-fourth of all workers
are now entitled to a private pension upon
retirement. Pension reforms would make more
people eligible to receive benefits. A first
step could shorten requirements for vesting.
Currently almost 90 percent of private
pensions require 10 years of service before
vesting occurs (3). Private pensions also
need to be portable. 3 American workers
change jobs, on the average, six or seven
times during their careers. A worker who
2 The term "vested" refers to the right of
an employee to receive earned pension bene­fits
even if employment under the plan is
terminated before retirement. The employee's
contributions to the plan are always refund­able
upon termination of employment, whether
employee is vested or not.
3 The term "portable" refers to an
employee's right to carry earned pension
benefits to a different job or employer.
changes jobs just once reduces the value of
his or her pension by 28 percent (1).
Pensions tied to the person and not the job
would allow workers to change jobs, or leave
and re-enter the labor force without losing
or reducing their accrued pension benefits.
A private, central, federally managed
pension fund has been proposed that would
be available to all workers, be completely
portable, and allow immediate vesting (~) •5
Expand Individual Retirement Accounts (IRA's)
About one-fifth of American households
have IRA investments (!~). Twelve percent
of householders age 25 to 34, and 22 percent
of those age 35 to 44 have IRA's or Keogh
accounts <.!~). These accounts represent a
small percentage of the net worth of these
groups, however.
A Super IRA has been proposed that would
allow workers to contribute additional
amounts to their retirement investments (§_).
A 100-percent income tax credit would be
allowed to the extent that they forego
future Social Security benefits and rely on
their Super IRA for their retirement income.
Workers would still be required to contri­bute
to Social Security, however, so that
benefits to today's elderly would not be
affected.
One organization has proposed privatizing
medicare through Medical IRA's (MIRA's) <1).
This plan would allow individuals to make
annual contributions into a MIRA. Accumu­lated
funds would enable retirees to pay for
their own medical expenses and to purchase
private health insurance for retirement.
Reevaluate Insurance Uses
Currently about 69 percent of elderly
males and 57 percent of elderly females own
life insurance <.!~) . The importance of life
insurance in the attainment of financial
security for future elderly is expected to
increase. Life insurance cash values can be
used for retirement income. Alternatively,
coverage could be maintained to help support
a surviving spouse after the death of the
insured.
5 For additional information on pensions,
see "Pensions" by Frankie N. Schwenk on
pp. 8-13 of the Spring 1981 issue of Family
Economics Review.
1986 No.4 Family Economics Review 1~
There is also a great need for private
health insurance during retirement. A few
companies are beginning to offer some health
care coverage for the elderly. Major policy
reforms involving the entire system of
health care financing and the delivery of
health care services for all Americans may
be required •
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE BABY BOOM
GENERATION
The Nation has many problems that could
affect the ability of future generations to
cope with the added strain of a large
elderly population. Concerns such as the
large national debt, a trend of downward
economic mobility for young adults and
children, declining quality education for
today's children, and low savings rates are
all competing for attention. Choices will
have to be made. In the past these choices
have favored the elderly. Some experts be­lieve
that in the future more consideration
and support may have to be given in areas
that improve the status of the young.
The baby boom generation must plan for
added years in retirement, taking into con­sideration
that paying for Social Security
and other public retirement programs will be
imposing a heavy financial burden on the
much smaller, working generation that
follows. It is generally agreed that their
future retirement will be best financed by a
three-tiered approach--strong social
insurance, substantial personal savings, and
portable private pensions.
REFERENCES I
1. Aaron, Henry. 1986. Accommodating
Social Security to the Retirement of the
Baby Boom Generation. Pre- Conference
Working Paper. First National Conference
of Americans for Generational Equity.
[Washington, DC, April 1986.]
2. Choate, Pat. 1986. Portable Personal
Pensions. Pre-Conference Working Paper.
First National Conference of Americans
for Generational Equity. [Washington,
DC, April 1986. ]
3. • 1986. Remarks made at the
First National Conference of Americans
for Generational Equity. [Washington,
DC, April 1986.]
20 Famil y Eco nom ic s Review 1986 No.4
4. Durenberger, Dave. 1986. Statement of
Senator Dave Durenberger. Remarks
made at Press Conference of the First
National Conference of Americans for
Generational Equity. [Washington, DC,
April 1986.]
5. Etheredge, Lynn. 1984. An aging society
and the Federal deficit. Health and
Society 65(4):521-543.
6. Ferrara, Peter J. 1986. Social Security
and Super IRA's: A Populist Proposal.
Pre-Conference Working Paper. First
National Conference of Americans for
Generational Equity. [Washington, DC,
April 1986.]
7. Goodman, John C. 1986. Privatizing
Medicare Through Medical IRAs.
Pre-Conference Working Paper. First
National Conference of Americans for
Generational Equity. [Washington, DC,
April 1986.]
8. Lamm, Richard D. 1986. Confessions of
a Prodigal Parent. Conference Keynote
Address. First National Conference of
Americans for Generational Equity.
[Washington, DC:, April 1986.]
9. Levy, Frank S., and Richard C. Michel.
1986. The Economic Future of the Baby
Boom. Pre-Conference Working Paper.
First National Conference of Americans
for Generational Equity. [Washington,
DC, April 1986.]
10. Preston, Samuel H. 1984. Children and
the elderly in the U.S. Scientific
American 251(6):44-49.
11. Russell, Cheryl. 1985. Let's bust this
myth. Editor's Note. American
Demographics 7 (18): 9.
12. Taeuber, Cynthia M. 1986. Age Structure
of the U.s. Population in the 21st
Century. Pre-Conference Working Paper.
First National Conference of Americans
for Generational Equity. [Washington,
DC, April 1986.]
13. Vatter, Robert H. 1986. The Role of
Insurance and Pensions in Providing for
the Baby Boom Generation's Retirement.
Pre-Conference Working Paper. First
National Conference of Americans for
Generational Equity. [Washington, DC,
April 1986.]
Agricultural Outlook '87
Program- Outlook for Families
The Agricultural Outlook Conference will
be held from December 2 to 4, 1986, in
Washington, DC. To obtain additional infor­mation
about this free Conference or to
register in advance, write: Outlook
8:30-9:30 COTTON OUTLOOK
Conference, Room 5143 South Building, USDA,
Washington, DC 20250, or call 202-447-6050.
To obtain Conference materials and identi­fication
badge, participants are directed to
the Patio in USDA's Administration Building
at 12th Street and Independence Avenue.
On Wednesday, December 3, several
sessions will be of interest to consumers
and professionals working with families:
International Textile Trade: The Consumer's Stake
Rachel Dardis, University of Maryland
10:15-11:15 USDA MONITORS THE AMERICAN DIET
First Report From the Monitoring Committee
Susan 0. Welsh, HNlS, USDA
USDA's Continuing Survey
Suzanne S. Harris, Deputy Assistant Secretary, USDA
Diets of the Elderly
Robert B. McGandy, Tufts University
Methods Make a Difference
Frances A. Larkin, University of Michigan
12:30-2:30 ECONOMIC OUTLOOK FOR SELECTED FAMILY TYPES
Economic and Social Concerns of Dual-Earner Families
Theodora Ooms and Sandra Hanson, The Catholic University of America
Economic and Social Concerns of Single-Parent Families
(to be announced)
Trends in Income for the Young and Elderly
Paul Ryscavage, Bureau of the Census
3:30-4:30 OUTLOOK FOR FOOD PRICES
The Impact of Imports on Food Prices
Jean Kinsey, University of Minnesota
Housing Assistance Program
Participation
In July 1984 the chairman of the House
Subcommittee on Housing and Community
Development (House Committee on Banking,
Finance, and Urban Affairs) requested a
General Accounting Office (GAO) examination
of low-income housing-assistance payment
programs. This request was made in
anticipation of hearings to be conducted on
low-income housing legislation. 1 The
Subcommittee was particularly interested in
1The Subcommittee on Housing and Com­munity
Development conducted hearings on
low-income housing in February and March of
1985, resulting in The Housing Act of 1985
(H. R. 1) , which was pending before the
Senate when this issue went to press.
determining any demographic, socioeconomic,
and geographic patterns in program partici­pation,
and in ascertaining the effects of
the programs on the availability and afford­ability
of low-income housing. The report
was undertaken in response to the chairman's
request.
GAO selected to review two housing
programs that represent the most relevant
housing allowance experiences to date. Both
programs supply allowance payments to help
participants pay the rent for housing units
they locate for themselves in the private
housing market. The first, the Experimental
Housing Allowance Program (EHAP), a
voucher program conducted in 12 locations
between 1973 and 1983, assessed the feasi­bility,
usefulness, and effects of housing
allowances. EHAP included a subexperiment
called the Housing Allowance Demand
1986 No.4 Family Economics Review 21
Experiment (HADE), which involved 3,400
households in Phoenix and Pittsburgh in
1973-76. The primary purpose of HADE was
to provide estimates of participant responses
to a range of program elements such as the
amount of the payment, the way in which it
was determined, and whether housing
standards were to be met before payment.
The second program, the Section 8 Existing
Housing Program, with a similar allowance­like
approach, is the largest ongoing low­income
housing program. It was established
in 1974, and helps low-income families by
supplementing their rent with payments given
directly to their landlords. The payments
equal the difference between about 25
percent of a household's income and its
rent, up to a fair market rent for local
geographic areas. (For comparison of
physical requirements of HADE and the
Section 8 Existing Program, see table.)
The GAO report answers three main
questions concerning these housing programs:
(1) What are the program participation rates
and demographic profiles? (2) What are the
effects of the programs on the participants?
and (3) What are the effects of the programs
on the low-income housing market?
Program eligibility is determined by
household income level. The size of the eli­gible
population has usually been estimated
from census data or from the American
Housing Survey (a survey designed by the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development and carried out by the U.S.
Department of Commerce's Bureau of the
Census). Overall participation rates in the
programs, measuring households who met
program requirements and actually received
a program payment, range from 33 percent to
86 percent depending on site location. The
study found different rates of participation
among demographic groups. Households headed
by women, and very poor and welfare house­holds
have high participation rates, but
large households have moderately low partici­pation
rates, relative to their eligibility.
Under these housing programs, housing
quality is assured because recipients have
to meet minimum housing standards in order
to receive payments. Housing and public
health associations have developed minimum
guidelines for safe, decent housing; program
enrollees are required to reside in units
22 family Economics Review 1986 No.4
that pass these fixed guidelines before
receiving allowances. Minimum housing
quality is defined in terms of housing
occupancy (or crowding) and its physical
condition. For example, there must be one
sleeping room or living and sleeping room
for every two persons; and there must be
complete kitchen facilities, complete bath­room
plumbing, light fixtures in the bath­room
and kitchen areas, electrical service,
adequate fire exits, and acceptable heating
equipment. Standards are enforced by means
of annual inspections, which may encourage
the maintenance of units that might
otherwise be allowed to deteriorate.
Forty percent of participants qualified
for the programs without notably changing
the quality of their housing; therefore, the
programs do not notably improve the quality
of housing for all households. Of the 60
percent who did not qualify, one-third
notably upgraded their living units and
two-thirds moved to new housing. Those
households who moved in order to qualify for
the programs experienced the greatest rent
increases. Rent burden (defined as the ratio
of the cost of rent, with utilities, to
gross income) of program enrollees, however,
was lowered from about 40 percent to about
25 percent.
There is no evidence to suggest that
housing costs increase significantly in
areas where full-scale housing allowances
are introduced. Observed price increases
were found to result from normal economic
inflation rather than the allowance program.
Available data also indicate that market
supply of low-income housing is unresponsive
to housing allowances.
Since 1975 there has been a trend toward
using existing housing or moderately
rehabilitating it rather than using new
construction. Congress authorized a voucher
demonstration program, which began in April
1985, under the Housing and Urban Rural
Recovery Act of 1983. This act emphasizes
the use of existing housing stock and
terminates new construction.
Source: U.S. General Accounting Office,
1986, Housing Allowances--An Assessment of
Program Participation and Effects,
GAO I PEMD-86-3.
The physical components of housing requirements In HADE 1 and Section 8 Existing Housing Program
HADE
Basic services
Core rooms
Living room, bathroom, and kitchen; maximum of 2 persons per
"adequate" bedroom
Complete plumbing
Private toilet facilities and a washbasin and shower or tub with
hot and cold running water, all in working condition
Complete kitchen facilities
A cooking stove or range, refrigerator, and sink with hot and cold
running water, all in working condition
Light fixtures
A working ceiling or wall fixture in the bathroom and kitchen
Electrical service
At least 1 operable electric outlet in the living room and
kitchen; working wall switch, pull-chain light switch, or
additional electric outlet in the living room
Safety
Adequate fire exits
In multifamily buildings, at least 2 exits from each
dwelling unit to safe and open space at ground level
Acceptable heating equipment
Dwelling units that have no heating equipment and are heated with
unvented room heaters burning gas, oil, or kerosene or mainly with
portable electric room heaters are unacceptable
Structures and surfaces
Room structure and surface
Ceilings and walls for all rooms must not have severe bulging,
leaning, loose material, large holes, or severe damage requiring
replacement
Floor structure and surface
Floor structure and surface for all rooms must not require
replacement
Roof structure
Visible roof structure must be firm
Exterior structure and surface
Exterior walls must not require replacement
Other
Ceiling height
For living room, bathroom, and kitchen, 7 feet or
higher in at least half the room area
Light and ventilation
The dwelling unit must have a 10% dwelling ratio of
window to floor area and at least 1 openable window
in living room, bathroom, and kitchen or adequate
working mechanical ventilation in kitchen and
bathroom
Section 8 Existing
Living room, bathroom, kitchen area, and at least 1 sleeping or
living and sleeping room of appropriate size for every 2 persons
A flush toilet in a separate, private room and a fixed basin and
shower or tub with hot and cold running water, all in proper
operating condition and using an approved public or private
disposal system
A cooking stove or range, refrigerator of appropriate size
(supplied by owner or family), and sink with hot and cold
running water, all in proper operating condition
A working ceiling or wall fixture in the bathroom and kitchen area
At least 2 operable electric outlets, 1 of which may be an over­head
light, in the living room, kitchen area, and each bedroom
An alternative means of egress from the building, such as fire
stairs or windows; each dwelling unit maintainable without
unauthorized use of other private property
In each dwelling unit, safe heating and cooling facilities in
proper operating condition that provide adequate heat and cooling
to each room, appropriate for the climate, to ensure a healthy
living environment; unvented room heaters burning gas, oil, or
kerosene are unacceptable
Ceilings and walls must not have serious defects such as severe
bulging, leaning, or buckling, large holes, loose materials,
missing parts, or other serious damage; the dwelling unit must
comply with HUD lead-based paint regulations
Floors must not have serious defects, severe buckling, or
noticeable movement under walking stress
Roof must be firm and weather tight
Exterior walls must not have serious leaning, buckling, sagging,
cracks, holes, or loose siding or other serious damage; condition
and equipment of exterior and interior stairways, halls, porches,
and walkways must not present a danger of falling or tripping;
elevators must be maintained, safe, and operable; for mobile homes,
the device that distributes and transfers the load to appropriate
ground anchors must resist sliding and overturning in wind
The dwelling unit must have adequate circulation throughout and
be free from dangerous levels of carbon monoxide, sewer gas, fuel
gas, dust, and other harmful air pollutants; bathroom must have
at least openable window or other adequate exhaust ventilation
1 Housing Allowance Demand Experiment, a subexperiment of the Experimental Housing Allowance Program.
Source: u.s. General Accounting Office, 1986, Housing Allowances--An Assessment of Program Participation and Effects, GAO/PEMD-86-3.
1986 No.4 Family Economics Review
New York Family Budget Costs­Annual
Price Survey, 1985
The Community Council of Greater New York
has published its 22d edition of the Annual
Price Survey--Family Budget Costs, the first
update since 1!t82. The survey makes avail­able
current data on budget costs for fami­lies
living at a moderate level in New York
City and reflects costs and prices during
October 1985. The survey updates the cost
of the council's Family Budget Standard
(revised in July 1982), 1 which describes the
quantities of goods and services required by
families of moderate income, taking into
account the age, sex, and employment status
of each family member, as well as family size.
Changes in family lifestyles during the
eighties are reflected in the new survey
budgets. Compared to previous surveys, there
is a larger representation of more-than-one­wage-
earner families. These include an
employed couple under age 54, an employed
couple with a girl age 7, and an employed
1For more information on the revised
standard, see "New York City Family Budget
Standard," Family Economics Review, 1983
No. 2, P• 25.
couple with an employed son age 22. In addi­tion
to more families with working wives, a
growing number of adult, employed children
are living with their parents. In 1985, 60
percent of men and 48 percent of women aged
18 to 24 lived with their parents--up from 55
percent and 42 percent, respectively, in 1980.
According to the survey, a family of four 2
required $24,535 annually for goods and
services to live at a moderate level in the
New York City area in October 1985, whereas
the survey's retired couple required $15,451
(see table). Housing remained the greatest
expenditure in the budgets for both family
types, requiring more than 32 percent of the
index family's income and 39 percent of the
retired couple's budget. Medical care,
however, was the budget component that
increased the most between 1981 and 1985.
The Annual Price Survey is available for
$10 from the Community Council of Greater
New York, 275 Seventh Avenue, New York,
NY 10001.
2 The "index" family of four persons
includes two adults, ages 35-54, one of whom
is a wage-earner; and two children, a boy of
13 years and a girl of 8.
Annual budget costs for index family of 4 persons 1 and retired couple
[Prices as of October 1985, New York City, moderate level]
Item
Food ...•................•.........
Housing .......................... .
Clothing and upkeep ••••••••••••••
Personal care •••.•••••..••.•..•••.
Medical care ..................... .
Transportation ••••••••••••••••••••
Other goods and services ••••••••••
Total .......................... .
4-person family
Dollars
7,074
7,968
2,418
843
2,413
1,535
2,284
24,535
Percent
distribution
28.8
32.5
9.9
3.4
9.8
6.3
9.3
100.0
Retired couple
Dollars
3,706
5,971
847
546
2,348
1,007
1,026
15,451
Percent
distribution
24.0
38.6
5.5
3.6
15.2
6.5
6.6
100.0
1 lndex family includes 2 adults, ages 35-54; 1 of whom is a wage-earner, and 2 children,
a boy 13 and a girl 8.
Source: Community Council of Greater New York, 1986, Annual Price Survey--Family
Budget Costs, 22d ed.
24 Family Economics Review 1986 No.4
\0
(X)
<:;..
z
0
~
..,
Q)
3... ..
......
'< ...,
()
0
:J
0
.3.. ..
()
(.0
::0
~
.<... .
~
:t:
N
"'
Cost of food at home estimated for food plans at 4 cost levels, July 1986, U.S. average1
Sex-age group
FAMILIES
Family of 2: 2
20-50 years ........................
51 years and over •.••.•.•.•..•••..•
Family of 4:
Couple, 20-50 years and children--
1-2 and 3-5 years .....•..........
6-8 and 9-11 years •••••••••••••••
INDIVIDUALS 3
Child:
1-2 years ..........................
3-5 years ••••••••••••••••••••••••••
6-8 years ..........................
9-11 years •••••••••••••••••••••••••
Male:
12-14 years ........................
15-19 years ........................
20-50 years ••••••••••••••••••••••••
51 years and over ••••••••••••••••••
Female:
12-19 years ........................
20-50 years ........................
51 years and over ••••.•.•••...•.•.
Thrifty
plan
$37.90
35.90
55.20
63.50
9.90
10.80
13.30
15.70
16.40
17.10
18.20
16.50
16.30
16.30
16.10
Cost for 1 week
Low-cost
plan
$48.00
46.00
69.00
81.20
12.10
13.30
17.60
20.00
22.70
23.40
23.20
22.10
19.60
20.40
19.70
MOderate­cost
plan
$59.40
56.90
84.50
101.60
14.10
16.40
22.00
25.60
28.30
29.10
29.20
27.20
23.80
24.80
24.50
Liberal
plan
$73.50
68.20
103.40
122.30
16.90
19.70
25.70
29.80
33.20
33.70
35.20
32.70
28.70
31.60
29.30
Thrifty
plan
$164.70
155.70
239.50
275.40
43.10
46.70
57.50
68.20
71.20
74.00
79.00
71.60
70.50
70.70
69.90
Cost for 1 month
Low-cost
plan
$207.70
199.30
298.70
351.50
52.30
57.60
76.20
86.50
98.20
101.60
100.30
95.70
84.90
88.50
85.50
MOderate- Liberal
cost plan plan
$257.40 $318.40
246.50 295.20
366.00 448.30
440.40 529.70
61.00 73.40
71.00 85.40
95.30 111.30
111.10 128.90
122.50 143.70
126.00 146.20
126.50 152.40
118.10 141.50
102.90 124.30
107.50 137.10
106.00 126.90
1 Assumes that food for all meals and snacks is purchased at the store and prepared at home. Estimates for the thrifty food
plan were computed from quantities of foods published in Family Economics Review, 1984(1). Estimates for the other plans were
computed from quantities of foods published in Family Economics Review, 1983(2). The costs of the food plans are estimated by
updating prices paid by households surveyed in 1977-78 in USDA's Nationwide Food Consumption Survey. USDA updates these
survey prices using information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, CPI Detailed Report, table 3, to estimate the costs for
the food plans.
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.
n
~
9.
(J
0
0.
8. s:
~
Some New USDA Publications
The following are for sale from the Super­intendent
of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402,
(202) 783-3238:
The U.S. Farm Sector in the Mid-1980's.
AER-548. May 1986. SNOOl-019-00441-0.
$2.50.
Composition of Food: Beverages--Raw,
Processed, Prepared. AH 8-14. May 1986.
SNOOl-000-04468-1. $9.50.
1985 Agricultural Chartbook. AH-652.
December 1985. SNOOl-019-00428-2.
$3.50.
1985 Agricultural Chartbook--Enlargement
version (black and white charts, each on
an 8- by 1 0-inch page). December 1985.
SNOO 1-019-00429-1. $11.00.
Dietary Guidelines and Your Diet.
HG-232-1 to HG-232-7. April 1986.
(Set of 7 short bulletins supplementing
HG-232, "Nutrition and Your Health:
Dietary Guidelines for Americans.")
SNOOl-000-04467-2. $4.50 single set
(25 percent discount on orders of 100
or more).
U • S. Agriculture in a Global Economy,
1985 Yearbook of Agriculture. SNOO 1-000-
04452-4. $10.00.
Projected Food Expenditures
Income, age, race, region of household
residence, and season of the year affect in­dividual
expenditures for food, as reported
in a recent bulletin from the Economic
Research Service, U.s. Department of Agri­culture.
Data from the Consumer Expenditure
Survey: Interview Survey, 1980-81, of the
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics were used to
measure the effects of income and other
demographic factors on per person spending
for 28 food groups and alcoholic beverages.
Higher income households spend more per
person on most food groups--especially beef,
fish, cheese, vegetables, butter, and
alcoholic beverages--than do lower income
26 Family Economics Review 1986 No.4
households. Elderly Americans spend less
than younger people on food away from home
and alcoholic beverages. Non blacks spend
more on food than do blacks, and households
in the Northeast and West spend more on food
than those in the South and Midwest. Per
person spending on food varies little across
seasons.
U.S. Census Bureau estimates of population
trends (reflecting projected changes in age
and racial and regional distributions) and
income growth equal to a 2-percent increase
in annual income were used to project food
spending to the year 2020. The two most
significant demographic changes affecting
consumer food demand will be the slowing of
the overall population growth rate and the
subsequent aging of the population.
Projected higher incomes and an older
population could mean significant shifts in
expenditures among food groups even though
per capita expenditures for all commodities
are likely to increase between 1980 and
2020.1 Foods that are expected to show the
largest per capita expenditure increases
include fish, fresh fruits, fresh vegeta-bles,
butter, and alcoholic beverages (see
table). Smallest increases are expected for
milk and cream, eggs, and margarine. Spend­ing
for total food, food eaten at home, and
food eaten away from home is projected to
increase 38.9 percent, 23.5 percent, and
62.1 percent, respectively. Income will be
the major contributing factor.
1See James R. Blaylock, and David M.
Smallwood, 1986, Projected growth in
American food spending, National Food
Review, NFR-32: 18-21, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
Source: Blaylock, James R., and David M.
Smallwood, 1986, U.S. Demand for Food:
Household Expenditures, Demographics, and
Projections, Technical Bulletin No. 1713,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic
Research Service.
Projected per capita effects of combined demographic changes and a 2-percent increase in
annual income on weekly food expenditures, middle series 1
[1980 = 100]
Item
Total food ................................. .
Food a way from home •..•. •................
Food at home .•.......•...•••..••.........
Meat, poultry, fish, and eggs •••••••••••
Beef .............................. · · · .
Pork .•..••.....•... · · · · · · • • • · • · · · · · · • •
Other meat .•..........................
Poultry .............................. .
Fish ............................... · · .
Eggs ••••••••••••• • • · • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Cereals and bakery products ••••••••••••
Dairy products ......................... .
Milk and cream •••..•.•..•....••••.•.•.
Cheese ............................... .
Other dairy products ••••••••••••••••••
Fruits .............................. • • • ·
Fresh ............... • . • • · • • • • • • • · • · · · •
Processed ............................ .
Vegetables ............................. .
Fresh .................... · • • • • • • • • • · · •
Processed ............................ .
Sugars and sweeteners ••••••••••••••••••
Nonalcoholic beverages ••••••••••••••••••
Fats and oils ....•......................
Butter ...........•....................
Margarine ............................ .
Other ................................ .
Miscellaneous ................•... ~ ..... .
Alcoholic beverages •••••••••••••••••••••••
1990
108.0
112.1
105.0
105.5
105.0
104.7
103.4
104.3
109.4
101.0
103.3
103.0
99.8
107.1
104.9
105.7
105.6
106.0
106.7
107.1
105.7
103.4
103.1
104.8
107.8
102.9
103.5
105.4
111.6
2000 2010
(percent)
117.5
125.9
111.4
112.6
112.2
110.9
108.1
108.6
121.1
102.8
108.1
107.0
101.1
114.6
111.4
113.3
114.1
112.5
114.5
115.3
112.6
108.0
107.6
110.6
116.2
107.2
108.8
111.1
124.8
128.0
142.2
118.1
120.1
119.9
117 .o
112.5
112.4
133.5
104.4
112.4
110.9
102.3
122.0
117.2
123.4
125.6
119.8
122.7
124.2
119.1
111.5
111.8
116.4
125.2
109.8
113.8
117.4
142.6
2020
138.9
162.1
123.5
125.3
126.0
120.1
114.6
113 .o
145.0
104.1
115.1
113.9
102.6
128.1
122.9
135.2
140.3
126.3
129.1
131.5
123.4
114.1
114.2
120.7
134.7
109.5
117.4
122.9
164.5
1Demographic changes include changing age, regional, and racial distributions.
Source: Blaylock, James R., and David M. Smallwood, 1986, U.S. Demand for Food:
Household Expenditures, Demographics, and Projections, Technical Bulletin No. 1713,
U.s. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
1986 No.4 Family Economics Review 27
Updated Estimates of the Cost of Raising a Child
The cost of raising urban children: June 1986; moderate-cost level 1
Region and
age of child
(years)
MIDWEST: s
Total
Food
at
hane 2
Food
away Clothing !busing 3 Medical Educa-fran
care tion
hane
Transpor- All
tation other'
Under 1 ......... $4,517 $581 $0 $140 $1,967 $321 $0 $849 $659
1 • • • • • • • • • ••• • • • • 4,649 713 0 140 1,967 321 0 849 659
2-3 •• • •• • • • • • • • • • 4,326 713 0 227 1,728 321 0 740 597
4-5 ••••• ••••••••• 4,583 818 152 227 1,728 321 0 740 597
6 •••••••••••••••• 4,799 792 152 315 1,639 321 149 740 691
7-9 • • • • • • • • • •• • • • 4,983 976 152 315 1,639 321 149 740 691
10-11 •••••••••••• 5,168 1,161 152 315 1,639 321 149 740 691
12 •••••• •• ••••••• 5,509 1,188 182 454 1,699 321 149 794 722
13-15 •••••••••••• 5,641 1,320 182 454 1,699 321 149 794 722
16-17 • • • • • • • • • • • • ___;6,_,,c.::1..:..78=-----=1"-'''-'4"-7-=-8 ---=1..::.8=-2 _ ___:;6.::.29::...._ _:1,_,,...:.7.::.58=----..::.3=-21=-----"1-"49:...._ _ ..;:.8.:..76:...._ _ _;_78"-'5:...._ _ _
Total •••••••••• 91,856 18,502 2,308 6,152 30,992 5,778 1,788 14,026 12,310
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:
4,481
4,639
4,515
4,773
5,140
5,324
5,562
5,893
6,051
6,478
96,934
4,920
5,052
4,733
4,964
5,279
5,437
5,649
6,014
6,172
6,616
100,016
686
844
818
924
924
1,108
1,346
1,346
1,504
1,663
21,138
633
765
739
818
818
976
1,188
1,188
1,346
1,478
18,816
0
0
0
152
182
182
182
182
182
212
2,548
0
0
0
152
182
182
182
212
212
212
2,668
140
140
245
245
332
332
332
489
489
612
6,432
157
157
245
245
332
332
332
489
489
629
6,500
1,997
1,997
1,818
1,818
1,788
1,788
1,788
1,848
1,848
1,877
33,140
2,116
2,116
1,877
1,877
1,788
1, 788
1,788
1,848
1,848
1,907
33,674
321
321
321
321
321
321
321
321
321
321
5,778
356
356
356
356
356
356
356
356
356
356
6,408
0
0
0
0
186
186
186
186
186
186
2,232
0
0
0
0
224
224
224
224
224
224
2,688
740
740
685
685
685
685
685
767
767
822
13,042
904
904
794
794
794
794
794
849
849
931
15,006
597
597
628
628
722
722
722
754
754
785
12,624
754
754
722
722
785
785
785
848
848
879
14,256
Under 1 •• •• ••••• 4,847 633 0 140 2,056 392 0 904 722
1 • • •• • •• • • • • • • • • • 5,006 792 0 140 2,056 392 0 904 722
2-3 •• •••••••••••• 4,748 765 0 227 1,848 392 0 794 722
4-5 •••••••••••••• 5,036 871 182 227 1,848 392 0 794 722
6 •• •• • • •• • • • • • • • • 5,422 844 212 332 1,818 392 186 822 816
7-9 •• ••• •••• •• ••• 5,607 1,029 212 332 1,818 392 186 822 816
10-11 ••••••• ••••• 5,845 1,267 212 332 1,818 392 186 822 816
12 ••••••••••••••• 6,158 1,267 212 472 1,877 392 186 904 848
13-15 •••••••••••• 6,290 1,399 212 472 1,877 392 186 904 848
16-17 •••••••••••• ~6~·~8~9~3 _ ~1,~5~8~3 _ ~2~4~3 _ ~5~9~4----=1~·~9~6~7 _ ~3~9~2 _ ~1~8~6 ___ ~9~8~6 __ ~9~42~------
Total •••••••••• 102,168 19,792 2,970 6,256 33,854 7,056 2,232 15,504 14,504
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, "USDA
Estimates of the Cost of Raising a Child: A Guide to Their Use and Interpretation," by Carolyn S. Edwards, Family
Economics Research Group, Agricultural Research Service, USDA.
2Includes 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.
5 Formerly the North Central Region.
28 Family Economics Review 1986 No.4
The cost of raising rural nonfarm children: June 1986; moderate-cost Ievei l
Region and
age of child
(years)
MIDWEST:5
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
$4,267
4,399
3,908
4,135
4,481
4,639
4,850
5,210
5,342
5, 735
85,556
4,954
5,086
4,854
5,141
5,532
5,691
5,928
6,281
6,440
6,990
104,072
5,112
5,218
4, 727
5,014
5,236
5,394
5,605
6,015
6,147
6,662
100,220
5,318
5,450
4,917
5,204
5,626
5,811
6,022
6,429
6,587
7,211
106,725
Food
at
hane2
$528
660
633
'139
739
897
1,108
1,108
1,240
1,372
17,150
633
765
739
844
844
1,003
1,240
1,240
1,399
1,557
19,448
633
739
713
818
792
950
1,161
1,161
1,293
1,451
18,340
633
765
739
844
818
1,003
1,214
1,214
1, 372
1, 557
19.263
Food
away Clothing
frcm
heme
$0
0
0
121
152
152
152
152
152
182
2,126
0
0
0
182
212
212
212
212
212
243
2,970
0
0
0
182
182
182
182
212
212
243
2, 790
0
0
0
182
182
182
182
212
212
243
2,790
$122
122
192
192
297
297
297
454
454
559
5, 728
140
140
227
227
332
332
332
507
507
664
6,536
157
157
245
245
332
332
332
507
507
717
6, 748
140
140
227
227
350
350
350
524
524
612
6,608
fuusing 3 Medical
care
$1,877
1,877
1,579
1,579
1,550
1,550
1,550
1,609
1,609
1,639
29,084
2,116
2,116
1,937
1,937
1,907
1,907
1,907
1,967
1,967
2,026
35,342
2,116
2,116
1,818
1,818
1,758
1, 758
1, 758
1,818
1,818
1,848
33,020
2,146
2,146
1,848
1,848
1,818
1,818
1,818
1,877
1,877
1,997
34,094
$321
321
285
285
285
285
285
285
285
321
5,274
321
321
321
321
321
321
321
321
321
321
5,778
356
356
356
356
356
356
356
356
356
356
6,408
392
392
356
356
392
392
392
392
392
392
6,912
Educa­tion
$0
0
0
0
149
149
149
149
149
149
1,788
0
0
0
0
224
224
224
224
224
224
2,688
0
0
0
0
186
186
186
186
186
l!l6
2,232
0
0
0
0
224
224
224
224
224
224
2,688
Transpor­tation
$822
822
685
685
712
712
712
794
794
822
13,476
959
959
876
876
876
876
876
931
931
1 013
16,428
1,096
1,096
904
904
876
876
876
959
959
1 013
16.926
1,096
1,096
931
931
931
931
931
1,013
1,013
1,150
17,854
All
other '•
$597
597
534
534
597
597
597
659
659
691
10,930
785
785
754
754
816
816
816
879
879
942
14,882
754
754
691
691
754
754
754
816
816
848
13,756
911
911
816
816
911
911
911
973
973
1,036
16,516
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, "USDA
Estimates of the Cost of Raising a Child: A Guide to Their Use and Interpretation," by Carolyn S. Edwards, Family
Economics Research Group, Agricultural Research Service, USDA.
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.
5Former1y the North Central Region.
1986 No.4 Family Economics Review 29
Consumer Prices
Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers
[ 1967 = 100, unless otherwise noted)
Group
All i terns ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Food .••......•.... · · · • · · • · · • • • • • · • · • • · • · · ·
Food at home . .....•.....................
Food a way from home ••••••••••••••••••••
Housing .................................. .
Shelter •. ................................
Renters' costs 1
••••••••••••••••••••••••
Rent, residential ••••••••••••••••••••
Homeowners' costs 1
••••••••••••••••••••
Maintenance and repairs •••••••••••••••
Maintenance and repair services •••••
Maintenance and repair commodities ••
Fuel and other utilities •••••••••••••••••
Fuel oil, coal, and bottled gas ••••••••
Gas (piped) and electricity ••••••••••••
Household furnishings and operation •••••
Housefurnishings ..................... .
Housekeeping supplies •••••••••••••••••
Housekeeping services •••••••••••••••••
Apparel and upkeep •••••••••••••••••••••••
Apparel commodities ••••••• • •••••••••••••
Men's and boys' apparel •••••••••••••••
Women's and girls' apparel ••••••••••••
Infants' and toddlers' apparel •••••••••
Footwear ....•.........................
Apparel services ....................... .
Transportation ........................... .
Private transportation •••••••••••••••••••
New vehicles ..............•...........
Used cars ............................ .
Motor fuel ...•...........................
Maintenance and repair ••••••••••••••••••
Public transportation ••••••••••••••••••••
Medical care .............................. .
Medical care commodities •••••••••••••••••
Medical care services ••••••••••••••••••••
Professional services ••••••••••••••••••
Entertainment ............................ .
Other goods and services ••••••••••••••••••
Personal care .......................•....
Personal and educational expenses •••••••
1 Indexes based on December 1982 = 100 base.
July
1986
328.0
320.1
305.5
360.8
361.5
403.5
122.5
281.2
119.4
369.2
430.1
262.7
389.4
459.4
462.3
250.5
201.2
319.5
346.6
203.2
187.0
195.8
159.8
307.5
209.1
334.6
304.7
396.5
224.5
360.3
280.2
363.4
428.0
434.8
275.4
469.8
391.7
274.4
344.9
291.1
421.2
Unadjusted indexes
June May
1986 1986
327.9
317.1
301.6
360.2
361.2
401.6
121.6
279.4
119 .o
366.6
427.4
260.7
393.8
486.6
466.0
250.2
200.8
319.6
346.1
204.5
188.4
198.1
161.3
319.7
210.0
334.3
308.6
300.8
224.0
362.5
299.4
362.1
425.4
432.0
273.3
466.8
390.3
273.9
342.6
291.0
420.4
326.3
317.0
302.1
358.8
358.5
400.9
121.1
278.4
118.9
367.1
425.5
262.9
382.5
496.8
444.6
249.9
200.8
318.3
345.8
206.4
190.7
200.2
164.9
318.5
211.5
333.6
305.7
297.8
222.8
363.6
289.3
361.3
423.7
429.7
272.3
464.2
388.3
272.9
342.1
290.9
419.5
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
JO family Economics Review 1986 No.4
July
1985
322.8
309.5
296.2
347.3
351.6
383.2
115.8
265.0
113.5
367.8
421.1
267.8
399.9
601.9
467.1
246.5
198.8
313.1
339.8
202.8
188.0
194.5
163.4
294.5
211.4
321.4
321.8
316.1
214.3
376.7
385.5
351.1
402.4
404.0
257.8
435.8
368.1
265.7
325.0
282.3
390.1
SUblcription Order Or
Change Of Address Form
Enclosed Is $ _____ _
0 Check
0 Money order
0 Charge to my Deposit Account
No. _______ _
~der No. _______ _
Make check payable to.
Superintendent ot Documents
CREDIT CARD ORDERS ONLY
(Visa and Mastercard)
Total charges S
Credit card No.
Expiration Date Month/Year
FAMILY Annual subscr1pt1on Single copies
ECONOMICS $12.00 domestic $325 domestic
REV1EW ($15.00 foreign) ($4.10 foreign).
Please prtnt or type
Company or Personal Name
I I I I I I I I I I I I
Additional Address I AHentlon Une
I I I I I I I I
Street Address
I I I
City
I 1 _1
Country
I I I I
CHANGE OF ADDRESS
Please attach maUing label here and
send this lorm when requesting a
change ol address.
MAIL ORDER FORM TO.
Supertntenc1ent of Documents
GoTemment Prtntblg OU1ce
Wash!Dgton, D.C. 20402
State ZIP Code
UJ II II
I I I
FOR OmCE USE ONLY
Quantity
____ Publications
Charges
____ Subscriptions ____ _
Special Shipping Charges ___ _
International Handling ____ _
Special Charges ______ _
OPNR ----------
_____ UPNS
_____ Balance Due
____ Discount
____ Retund
11' OB. GOVERNJQNT PRINTING OrJI'J.C.I: 1986 - 626-926 - 1302-843 1986 No.4 Family Economics Review 31
Index of Articles in 1986 Issues
FINANCE
Contributions and Gifts of Cash ................................... .
Economic Characteristics of U.S. Households--2d Quarter 1984 ••••••
Households Receiving Noncash Benefits •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
New York Family Budget Costs--Annual Price Survey, 1985 •••••••••
1986 Revision of Poverty Income Guidelines •••••••••••••••••••••••••
Revision of the Equal C recti t Regulation •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
FAMILY LIVING
Award and Receipt of Child Support and Alimony •••••••••••••••••••
Households, Families, and Living Arrangements •••••••••••••••••••••
Child Care Arrangements and Expenditures •••••••••••••••••••••••••
Economic Outlook for Families--1986 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Farm Families: Economic Outlook for 1986 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••
FOOD
Bulk Foods--Cost and Other Considerations •••••••••••••••••••••••••
Convenience and the Cost of the "Newer" Frozen
Plate Dinners and Entrees ....................................... .
Diets of School-Age Children and Teenagers ••••••••••••••••••••••••
Family Expenditures for Food A way From Home and Prepared Food ••
Food Habits of Vietnamese Immigrants •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Food and Nutrient Intakes by Women and Children, Spring 1985 •••••
Nutrient Content of the U.s. Food Supply ••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Projected F<X>d Expenditures •••••••••.••••••.••••••••••••••••••••.••
Second Edition of Dietary Guidelines Available ••••••••••••••••••••••
Share of Income Spent for Food ••..•.........•..•....••.•.•..•..•...
LABOR--POPULATION
Characteristics of the Rural and Farm-Related Population •••••••••••
Earnings of Married -Couple Families ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Mothers' Labor Force Activity ...................................... .
Planning for Tomorrow's Elderly ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Women and Social Security--Findings From the
New Beneficiary Survey . ...................................... ·. · ·
MISCELLANEOUS
Federal Sources of Family Economic Data ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Housing Alternatives for the Elderly •••••••••••••••••••••••• ••••••••
Housing Assistance Program Participation •••••••••••••••••• • • • • • • • • •
New Publications From Human Nutrition Information Service •••••••••
Perspectives on Comparable Worth •••••••••••••••••••••••••• • • • • • • • •
Recent Trends in Clothing and Textiles ••••••••••••••••••• • •• • • • • • • •
Revision of the Consumer Price Index in 1987 •••••••••••• • • • • • • • • • • •
Terms, Concepts, and Acronyms in Family Financial Planning •••••••
Issue
4
1
3
4
3
3
2
2
4
2
2
1
1
3
3
2
2
3
4
1
3
3
4
4
4
1
1
3
4
3
3
2
1
1
No. Page
12
24
25
24
23
21
16
32
1
1
10
33
26
14
9
28
2
8
26
39
8
22
10
8
17
23
1
1
21
25
26
17
22
13