Family Economics Review [1987, Number 3]

              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.
Washing1on. 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.
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 con-stitute
endorsement by USDA
Family Economics Review is
for sale by the Superintendent of
Documents. U.S. Government
Printing Office. Send subscrip­tion
orders. change of address.
and single copy requests to
Superintendent of Documents.
U.S Government Printing Office.
Washing1on. D.C. 20402. (See
subscription form in back of 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
1987 No. 3
Contents:
Housing Situation of American Children
Nancy E. Schwenk
Calcium: Food Sources and Costs
Dianne D. Odland and Patricia M. Behlen
Abstracts
Employment and Wage Changes of Families in CES Surveys
Nutrient Content of the U. S . Food Supply
Research Summaries
Food Stamp Program
1987 CPI Revision
Poverty Among Blacks in the Nonmetro South
Spending Patterns of Urban and Rural Populations: 1984
FER Subscription Price Reduced
Regular Features
New Publications
Agricultural Outlook Conference '88
New USDA Charts
Cost of Food at Home
Consumer Prices
Room 442A. Hyattsville. Md. 20782. Issued July 1987
1
6
5
15
16
18
20
23
26
32
19
23
28
30
31
The Housing Situation of
American Children
By Nancy E. Schwenk
Consumer economist
The welfare of our Nation's children has
been an area of increasing concern in recent
years. In 1983, 44% of American households
included children under the age of 18.
Married-couple families accounted for 79% of
these households, 19% were female house­holders,
and 2% were male householders (_~) •
Of these households with children, 70% lived
in owned homes and 30% lived in rented
homes. This article will examine the housing
conditions and housing expenditures of
households with children under age 18.
SOURCE OF DATA
Data are from the 1982-83 Consumer
Expenditure Interview Survey (CES), a
continuing survey conducted by the Bureau
of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of
Labor (~_). The Survey has a rotating sample
of 5, 000 consumer units. A consumer unit,
or household, is either (1) all members of a
particular household who are related by
blood, marriage, adoption, or other legal
arrangement; (2) a person living alone or
sharing a household with others, or living
as a roomer in a private home, lodging
house, hotel or motel, but who is
financially independent; or (3) two or more
persons living together who pool their
income to make joint expenditure decisions.
This study is based on responses from
12,7 30 households who reported positive
income and who had participated in the
Survey during 1983. Households were asked
about expenditures for housing for the
previous 3 months. Comparisons were made
with data from the 1983 Annual Housing
Survey (AHS) , 1 which was sponsored by the
U.S. Bureau of the Census.
1 Renamed the "American Housing Survey"
in 1984 and is currently being conducted
every other year.
HOUSING SITUATION
Owners vs. Renters
The CES sample was divided into four
groups of households for the purpose of mak­ing
housing-related comparisons: Homeowners
with children, homeowners without children,
renters with children, and renters without
children. Owners comprised 62% of the Survey
households. The category of owners includes
both households who were paying off a mort­gage
and those who had no mortgage payments.
One-half of the homeowners had children;
among renters, 35% had children in the
household. These figures can be compared
with results from the 1983 AHS in which 38%
of homeowners and 35% of renters had
children (J_).
The older the children in CES households,
the more likely the household owned, rather
than rented, their home. In households with
children all under age six, 39% were
renters. Only 19% of households with the
oldest child between ages 6 and 17 years
were renters, and 15% of those with the
oldest child over 17 years. Also, the older
the children, the more likely the household
had paid off their mortgage.
In households headed by single parents,
43% of mothers, compared with 72% of
fathers, were homeowners. Most homeowners
with children had an income of $30,000 or
more, whereas most renters with children had
an income of under $20,000.
Housing Characteristics
Physical characteristics of the homes in­habited
by the four groups of households are
shown in table 1. The great majority of
homeowners with children lived in single­family
detached homes, whereas most renters
with children lived in multifamily dwellings.
These multifamily dwellings include town­houses,
row houses, duplexes, garden and
high-rise apartments, and flats. A third type
dwelling is mobile homes, which according to
the AHS, accounted for 4% of all year-round
housing units in 1983 C!). Less than
one-half of CES households living in mobile
homes had children. Most of those with
children owned their mobile home. Only 4% of
CES owners with children and 2% of renters
with children lived in mobile homes.
1987 No.3 Family Economics Review
In comparing the four groups of house­holds,
owners with children were more likely
than other households to live in the newest
homes (those built since 1970); owners with­out
children most often reported their home
was built between 1950 and 1969. Renters
with and without children were more likely
to live in the oldest homes (built before
1950).
Differences in the size of homes were
found among the four groups of CES house­holds.
Most renters without children lived
in homes of one to four rooms. The homes of
the other three groups of households usually
contained five to seven rooms. Over one­quarter
of owners with children lived in
homes with eight rooms or more.
Very few households in the Survey lived in
public housing. Also, very few households
reported any government assistance in paying
part of their housing costs.
When the CES sample was divided into only
two groups--households with children and
households without children--it was found
that 75% of households with children lived
in single-family detached homes, two-fifths
lived in homes built since 1970, and over
two-thirds lived in households with two or
more earners and annual incomes of $20,000
or greater. Only 1% of households with
children lived in public housing.
Housing Expenditures
Annual housing expenditures for the four
groups of CES households are shown in
table 2. Housing expenses were found to be
highest for owners with children and lowest
for renters with no children. However, as a
percentage of income, renters with children
spent a larger portion of their income on
housing and owners with no children spent
a smaller share on housing than the other
households. Households with children most
Table 1. Housing characteristics of CES households, 1983
Characteristics
Description of building:
Single family detached •••••••
Multifamily 1
••••••••••••••••••
Mobile home .................. .
Year home was built:
1970 or later •••••••••••••••••
1950-1969 •••....•......••..••.
Before 1950 •••••••••••.•••••••
Number of rooms:
1-4 ........................ .
5-7 ...............•.•.......
8 or more .................. .
Living in public housing ••••• ; ••
Government paying part of
housing costs ................ .
Owners, Owners with Renters,
no children children no children
(percent of households)
83
12
5
27
41
32
14
70
16
CZ>
90
6
4
42
36
22
6
68
26
0
(2)
20
79
1
32
29
39
69
29
2
1
(2)
Sample size • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 3,863 3,904 3,213
Renters with
children
41
57
2
32
32
36
43
52
5
4
4
1,750
1 Includes townhouses, row houses, duplexes, garden and high-rise apartments, and flats.
2 Less than 1%.
2 family Economics Review 1987 No.3
often had two earners, and households with­out
children most often had one earner.
Mean family income (before taxes) was con­siderably
higher for owners than for
renters.
Meeks (~_), in an analysis of the 1980
Census of Population and Housing, found that
average housing costs for owners and renters
are highly correlated with income. She found
the big difference in percent of income
spent on housing to be between owners and
renters, with renters spending a greater
proportion of their income than owners.
These findings are consistent with those of
the CES concerning housing expenditures of
owners versus renters.
When the "other lodging" and "furnishings
and equipment" expenditures are removed
from the components making up total housing
expenditures, the percent of income allo­cated
to housing ranged from 17% (owners
with no children) to 25% (renters with
children). Housing expenses remained highest
for owners with children ($6,917) and lowest
for renters with no children ($3, 7 45). A
comparable definition of housing expendi­tures
was used in the 1983 AHS and included
expenses for real estate taxes, property
insurance, utilities, fuel, water, trash
Table 2. Mean annual housing expenditures of CES households, 1983
Item
Housing ......................... .
Mortgage interest 1
••••••••••••••
Property tax •·•••••••••••••••••
Household maintenance 2 ••••••••
Utili ties 3
•••••••••••••••••••••••
Household operations4 ••••••••••
Other lodging 5 •••••••••••••••••
Furnishings and equipment 6
••••
Housing, less other lodging and
furnishings and equipment ••••••
Income before taxes ••••••••••••••
Housing as a percent of income 7
••
Housing as a percent of income
(not including other lodging or
furniture and equipment) s ••••••••
CNmers,
no children
$7,050
1,871
676
687
1,899
251
474
1,169
5,407
32,201
22
17
1 Does not include reduction of principal.
CNmers with
children
$8,460
2,899
654
626
2,190
498
378
1,165
6,917
34,179
25
20
2 Includes repairs, insurance, and other related expenses.
Renters,
no children
$4,475
854
73
205
525
3,745
17,756
25
21
Renters with
children
$5,598
1,362
464
160
506
4,933
19,574
29
25
3 Includes natural gas, electricity, fuel oil and other fuel, telephone, water, and other
public services.
4 Includes domestic services and other household expenses.
5 Includes rental of hotel and motel rooms, expenses for vacation homes, and housing for
someone at school.
6 Includes household textiles, floor coverings, appliances, and miscellaneous housewares.
7 Mean housing expenditure as a percentage of mean income before taxes.
8 Mean housing expenditure (not including "other lodging or furnishings and equipment")
as a percentage of mean income before taxes.
1987 No.3 Family Economics Review 3
collection, and mortgage. According to the
AHS (7), annual housing costs in 1983 for
owners paying a mortgage were $5,556; for
owners without a mortgage, $1,992; and for
renters, $3,780.
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST CHILDREN
One barrier to securing suitable, afford­able
rental housing that some families have
experienced is discrimination. A 1980 study
(3) found that one in four rental units were
located in buildings that exclude families
with children, compared with one in six in
197 5. Efficiencies and one-bedroom units
were more likely to be affected by
no-children policies than were units of two
or more bedrooms. The study also found that
one-fourth of renters without children
preferred to live in all-adult buildings.
According to apartment managers, the largest
problem in renting to families with children
was the increased maintenance costs. Because
of these restrictive rental practices, 40%
of the families in the 1980 study had been
frustrated in their search for rental
housing and had settled for less desirable
housing units or locations than they would
have chosen otherwise.
HOMELESS FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN
Although homeless families are not
accounted for in the CES data, they are a
growing concern in this country. An alarming
number of families with children are now
found among the ranks of the homeless, and
this number appears to be increasing. In
Boston, families make up 40% of the homeless
(!)· New York City has an estimated 4,400
homeless families, which the city houses in
hotels and shelters (!). A recent survey (!)
of 25 cities shows that in 1985 demand for
emergency shelter increased by 25% in nearly
90% of the cities. Also, in 60% of the
cities, emergency shelters could not accom­modate
everyone seeking assistance, and
families in need were routinely turned away.
Families may become homeless because of
eviction, nonpayment of rent, dangerous
housing, fire or other disaster, or because
4 Family Economics Review 1987 No.3
they are victims of domestic violence.
Homeless families are usually headed by a
single, unemployed female who dropped out
of high school and has two or three children.
Unemployment is often the critical incident
in beginning the cycle of homelessness.
Homelessness is not confined to big cities;
one of the largest groups of homeless
families with children are migrant farm
workers.
Often homeless families have multiproblems
in addition to housing. For example, the
majority of homeless children were found to
have serious emotional problems that were
not characteristic of other poor children
(_!). Homeless children seldom receive routine
health care. Infants and young children do
not adapt well to temperature extremes;
consequently, there is a high risk for
thermal injury among homeless children.
The challenge for many cities is to find
appropriate ways of housing families in rieed
of emergency shelter without provoking a
flood of applicants. Providing hotel rooms
and shelters for homeless families is ex­tremely
costly. In New York City the cost of
putting up a family of four can run between
$5,000 and $6,000 a month (~). Although
homeless individuals have been the subject
of much notice since the early seventies,
little research exists on homeless families.
Better counts of homeless families are
needed to provide useful policy guidelines.
The task of getting homeless families off
the streets, out of shelters, and into pri­vate
housing is not an easy one.
REFERENCES
1. American Family. 1986. Mayors group
cites rise in hunger, homelessness.
Vol. 9, No.2, P• 12.
2. Main, Thomas. 1986. The homeless fami­lies
of New York, The Public Interest,
85(3):3-21.
3. Marans, RobertW., etal. 1980.
Measuring Restrictive Rental Practices
Affecting Families with Children: A
National Survey. University of
Michigan, Survey Research Center.
4. Meeks, Carol B. 1984. Housing quality
and affordability. Family Economics
Review 1984(2): 26-28.
5. Sebastian, Juliann G. 1985. Homeless­ness:
A state of vulnerability. Family
Community Health 8(3):11-24.
6. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau
of the Census. 1984. Statistical
Abstract of the United States 1985,
105th edition.
7. , and U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development, Office
of Policy Development and Research.
1984. Annual Housing Survey: 1983,
Part A--General Housing Characteristics.
Current Housing Reports~ Series
H-150-83.
8. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics. 1985. 1982-1983
Interview Survey Public Use Tape
Documentation.
Employment and Wage
Changes of Families in
CES Surveys1
Market employment rates 2 and wage changes
experienced by households 3 in the 1972 and
1980 Consumer Expenditure Interview Surveys
were compared in a study from the U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Households
comprising a husband, wife, and children (if
any) were grouped by race (white, nonwhite)
and household type (age of children).
Employment rates for full-time (35 hours
or more per week) and part-time work were
reported separately for husbands and wives.
In both the 1972 and 1980 samples, most hus­bands
(both white and nonwhite) worked full
1 'Consumer Expenditure Survey: Interview
Surveys, 1972-73 and 1980-81, U.S. Depart­ment
of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
2 Market employment rates do not corres­pond
to the official BLS statistical series
on labor force participation, but are the
proportion of total sample households in the
given demographic group and sample year.
3 The study was limited to renter house­holds
and households in which neither hus­band
nor wife was retired or over age 60.
Data on owner estimates of the rental value
of their residences were not available for
the 1980 sample.
time; highest rates were reported by hus­bands
in young families (oldest child under
6 years old) and middle families (oldest
child, 6-17 years old). Compared with the
1972 sample, more wives were working in
1980 in all family categories, except older
(oldest child over 17 years) white families.
Greatest increases in the proportion of
working wives were in the young and middle
family types of both racial groups, that is,
those families with greater household
responsibilities.
An index of wage changes from 1972 to
1980 was constructed using Current Popula­tion
Survey data on weekly earnings of
full-time workers. Wage increases were high
among farm workers, above average for blue­collar
workers, average in white-collar
occupations, and low for service employees.
In both the 1972 and 1980 samples, most of
the working husbands (except for those in
white families with no children) were
employed in blue-collar occupations with
above-average wage increases. Wives tended
to work in white-collar (average wage in­creases)
and service (low increases) occupa­tions
in 1972. In 1980, however, more wives
reported working in blue-collar jobs than in
service occupations.
Source: Kokoski, Mary F ., 1987, Employ­ment
and wage changes of families from CE
survey data, Monthly Labor Review
110(2):31-33.
1987 No.3 Fam i ly Econom ics Re vi ew S
Calcium: Food Sources
and Costs
By Dianne D. Odland, Home economist
Patricia M. Behlen, Nutritionist 1
Nutrition Education Division
Human Nutrition Information Service
Recently, considerable attention has
focused on the importance of calcium in the
diet. It has been reported that the diets of
about two-thirds of the U.S. population do
not meet the Recommended Dietary Allowance
(RDA) for calcium (~_). (See table 1 for
calcium RDA's.) Because of low dietary
intakes of calcium in the United States
especially among women, and because of the
possible association of low intake with
osteoporosis in elderly women, calcium is
considered a nutrition monitoring priority
(!).
Calcium can be obtained in the diet from a
variety of milk and milk products as well as
from other foods such as dark green leafy
vegetables, tofu processed with calcium
sulfate, fish with edible bones, and some
enriched or fortified breads and cereals.
The relative economy of foods as calcium
sources varies greatly, and careful
selection can result in money saved. The
primary objective of this study was to show
how the costs of foods providing equal
amounts of calcium differ. Cost per serving
of food as sources of calcium, related
nutritional concerns such as fat and sodium
content, and the use and cost of calcium
supplements also are discussed.
PROCEDURES
Prices of food sources of calcium were
obtained in September of 1986 in three
Washington, DC, area superm~rkets--one
national and two local chains. Based on sales
volume data collected from May 1985 through
April 1986, these chain supermarkets repre­sented
over 81% of sales in the Washington
1 Formerly with Human Nutrition Information
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
6 Family Economics Review 1987 No.3
metropolitan area (2) •2 The following
guidelines were used in selecting items to
be priced:
Excluding items available at "special"
prices.
Choosing medium-size containers.
Recording the price for the brand
having the lowest unit price when more
than one brand of a product was
available.
Prices for each food were averaged for use
in this study. The cost of whole milk is in­cluded
in the costs of products to which
milk is added during home preparation
(canned soups, pudding mix, and so forth).
Nutrient values of foods were obtained pri­marily
from the data base used in USDA's
1985 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by
Individuals.
For the purpose of this article, the cost
of calcium from a product is assumed to be a
function of both price and calcium content
even though most foods contain other nutri­ent
components of value in the diet. To
identify the most economical food sources of
calcium, food costs per 100 mg calcium were
computed. Also, cost per serving for all
foods was determined.
ECONOMICAL FOOD SOURCES OF CALCIUM
The costs per 100 mg calcium for a variety
of foods, ranked from least to most costly
within each food category, are listed in
table 2, pp. 8-9. Calcium content and cost
per serving also are provided (see discussion
on p. 11, "Planning Calcium Intake").
Milk and Milk Products
The calcium content of milks and yogurts
may vary considerably with the addition of
nonfat milk solids. For example, a cup of
low-fat milk can range in calcium from
297 mg (no added solids) to 352 mg (not less
than 10% milk-derived solids). Milk with
2 Costs reported in this study do not
represent those throughout the country.
Prices vary by region of the United States,
among cities, and among supermarkets within
the same city. Procedures for calculating
costs in other localities are given in the
"note" to table 2.
Table 1. Recommended dietary allowances
for calcium
Person Age Calciun per
day (~)
Infants ............. 0.0-0.5 360
Infants ............. 0.5-1.0 540
Children •••••••••••• 1-10 800
Males and females 11-18 1200
Males and females ••• 19-51+ 800
Pregnant or
lactating ••••••••••• +400
Note: The U.S. Recommended Dietary
Allowance for calcium used in nutrition
labeling of food products is 1000 mg.
Source: National Academy of Sciences,
National Research Council, Food and Nutri­tion
Board, 1980, Recommended Dietary
Allowances, 9th edition.
nonfat solids added is a better buy for cal­cium
than milk without solids if prices of
the two milks are about the same. Nutrition
labels on products can be used to compare
percentages of the U.S. RDA for calcium
provided in a serving.
Among dairy products, milks--including
nonfat dry, skim, low-fat, buttermilk, and
whole milk--generally provide the most
calcium at the least cost. Compared to
these milks, some processed milks (canned,
and aseptically packaged ultra-high
temperature--UHT) cost l-l/2 to over
2 times as much per 100 mg calcium.
Lactose-reduced low-fat milk and lactose­reduced
low-fat milk fortified with calcium
phosphate are products designed for those
who have difficulty digesting milk because
they lack sufficient lactase--an enzyme that
breaks down milk sugar (lactose). As
sources of calcium, lactose-reduced milks
cost slightly more than most other milks but
considerably less than most milk products
studied.
To provide an equal amount of calcium in
the diet, the costs of various cheeses range
from 2 to 12 times as much as that of the
most economical forms of milk. Cottage cheese
and cream cheese were two of the most expen­sive
sources of calcium included in this study.
Yogurt also was more costly than milk per
100 mg calcium. Frozen yogurt cost nearly
twice as much as ice cream or ice milk to
supply the same amount of calcium.
Milk-Based Foods
Milk-based foods can make worthwhile con­tributions
to calcium intake--soups, custard~
pudding, cocoa, macaroni and cheese, and
pizza, for example. Among the soups evalu­ated,
canned Cheddar cheese soup prepared
with whole milk cost the least to provide
100 mg calcium, and New England clam chow­der
and oyster stew prepared with whole milk
cost about twice as much as other soups
studied per 100 mg calcium. Pudding and
custard made from mixes had about the same
cost per 100 mg calcium as ice cream or ice
milk. Frozen cheese pizza cost about twice
as much per 100 mg calcium as did macaroni
and cheese made from a mix.
Other Food Source~ of Calcium
Although milk and milk products are the
major source of calcium for most Americans,
other food groups also contribute signifi­cant
amounts of calcium in most diets. For
example, grain and vegetable products are
important contributors to women's calcium
intakes (!). Although the phytate, oxalate,
and fiber content in some of these foods re­duces
absorption of calcium, the effects
appear to be of little nutritional signifi­cance
in American diets C.!).
Other food sources of calcium considered
here include vegetables such as tofu
(soybean curd) processed with calcium sul­fate,
and dark leafy greens; fish with edi­ble
bones; and some enriched or fortified
breads and cereals. These foods generally
cost more per 100 mg calcium than most
milks. Exceptions are noted below.
Tofu processed with calcium sulfate is a
very economical source of calcium. The cost
of frozen leafy green vegetables averaged
about one-half as much as fresh greens per
100 mg calcium. However, because seasonality
can affect the price of fresh produce, rela­tive
costs of fresh and frozen forms could
vary throughout the year. Broccoli (fresh or
frozen) was substantially more costly per
100 mg calcium than dark leafy greens. In
fact, broccoli was the least economical food
source of calcium in this study.
1987 No.3 Family Economics Rev i ew 7
Table 2. Cost of foods as sources of calcium
Food
MILK:
Dry, nonfat, reconstituted ••••••••
Skim .••.....••. · · • • · · · · · • · • · • · · • · •
Low-fat ( 2%) 3 •••••••••••••••••••••
Buttermilk ..•••.....•..........•..
Whole ••.••.•.•..••••••..••....••..
Calcium-fortified, lactose-reduced,
low-fat (1%) ..........•........•••
Evaporated, whole, diluted ••••••••
Evaporated, skim, diluted •••••••••
Lactose-reduced, low-fat (1%) •••••
Ultra-high temperature (UHT) •••••
MILK PRODUCTS:
Cheese, natural, swiss ••••••••••••
Cheese, natural, Cheddar •••••••••
Cheese, mozzarella, low-moisture,
part skim ....................... .
Cheese spread, process •••••••••••
Cheese, American, process ••••••••
Cheese food, process ••••••••••••••
Cheese, Parmesan, grated •••••••••
Yogurt, plain, low-fat3 ••••••••••••
Cream, half-and -half ••••••••••••••
Cheese, ricotta, low-fat,
part skim milk .................. .
Yogurt, low-fat, fruit 3 ••••••••••••
Ice milk .•.•..•..•......• · ......•..
Ice cream ........................ .
Cream, sour . ..................... .
Cheese, natural, blue •••••••••••••
Yogurt, frozen ................... .
Cream, .table (light) •••••••••••••••
Cheese, cottage, low-fat (1%) •••••
Cheese, cottage, creamed ••••••••••
Cheese, cream ••••...•••••.••••••.•
MILK-BASED FOODS:
Canned soups~ 4
Cheddar cheese ••••••••••••••••••
Chicken, mushroom, potato,
tomato (average of) ••••••••••••
New England clam chowder,
oyster stew (average of) •••••••
See footnotes at end of table.
8 Family Economics Review 1987 No.}
Cost per
100 ng
calciun 1
(cents)
4
4
4
4
4
5
6
6
8
9
7
8
8
9
9
9
10
11
12
14
14
14
14
21
23
25
26
36
36
50
11
14
26
Per serving--
Serving size 2
1 cup
1 cup
1 cup
1 cup
1 cup
1 cup
1 cup
1 cup
1 cup
1 cup
1 oz
1 oz
1 oz
1 tbsp
l slice
l slice
1 tbsp
8-oz container
1 tbsp
1/2 cup
8-oz container
1/2 cup
1/2 cup
2 tbsp
1 oz
8-oz container
1 tbsp
1/2 cup
1/2 cup
l tbsp
1 cup
1 cup
1 cup
Calciun
(ng)
285
302
313
285
291
500
331
371
300
291
269
202
205
84
129
121
69
415
16
337
345
90
87
34
148
304
14
69
63
12
289
171
175
Cost
(cents)
10
12
12
12
13
25
18
21
22
26
19
16
17
7
12
11
7
46
2
47
50
12
12
7
34
76
4
24
23
11
32
25
46
Table 2. Cost of foods as sources of calcium--Continued
Food
MILK-BASED FOODS: (cont.)
Custard from mix" •••••••••••••••••
Pudding from mix" •••••••••••••••••
Hot cocoa from mix ••••••••••••••••
Macaroni and cheese from mix5 •••••
Cheese pizza ..................... .
VEGETABLES:
Tofu (with calcium sulfate) ••••••••
Leafy greens (frozenf' ••••••••••••
7 Leafy greens (fresh) •••••••••••••
Broccoli (frozen) ••••••••••••••••••
Broccoli (fresh) .................. .
CANNED FISH WITH BONE:
Mackerel ...........•...•..........
Sardines ......................... .
Pink salmon ...................... .
GRAIN PRODUCTS:
Calcium-fortified bread ••••••••••••
Enriched white bread ••••••••••••••
Ready-to-eat cereal fortified
with calcium ............ ......... .
Instant fortified oatmeal ••••••••••
English muffin . .•...............•..
8
Ready-to-eat cereals ···········•·
Dinner roll ..............•......•..
Cost per
100 rrg
calciun 1
(cents)
13
14
14
14
26
6
16
30
54
74
8
15
30
4
6
8
10
10
14-38
31
Per serving--
Serving size2 calcium
(Ill?)
1/2 cup
1/2 cup
1 pkt with
water added
3/4 cup
1/8 of 12-in frozen
1/2 cup
1/2 cup
1/2 cup
1/2 cup
1/2 cup
3 oz
3 oz
3 oz
1 slice
1 slice
1 cup
1 pkt
half
( 9)
one
194
133
97
80
148
322
122
73
47
37
263
371
191
150
31
242
162
47
88-154
28
1Based on unrounded cost per serving.
2
3Serving sizes are based on those used in national studies of food consumption.
Nonfat milk solids added.
"Prepared with whole milk.
5Prepared with whole milk and margarine.
Cost
(cents)
25
18
14
11
39
21
18
20
26
28
20
56
57
5
2
19
17
10
17-40
9
6Average of spinach, kale, mustard greens, turnip greens, and collards. Calcium per
serving ranges from 75 mg for mustard greens to 179 mg for collards.
7Average of spinach, kale, and collards. Calcium per serving ranges from 47 mg for kale
to 122 mg for spinach.
8Selected cereals relatively high in calcium but not calcium fortified.
9Serving size varies according to type.
Note: Costs are based on prices of least costly brands from 3 Washington, DC, area
supermarkets, September 1986. Cost comparisons per serving for other localities may be
determined as follows: Using serving sizes specified above, determine number of servings
per market unit, then divide cost per market unit by number of servings. Cost comparisons
per 100 mg calcium may be determined as follows: Divide cost per serving by calcium (mg)
per serving, then multiply by 100.
1987 No. J Family Economics Review 9
Of the three fish sources of calcium that
were evaluated, canned mackerel was least
expensive per 100 mg calcium. Pink salmon
with edible bones cost nearly four times as
much to furnish this amount of calcium.
Noteworthy among economical sources of
calcium were calcium-fortified bread and
enriched whit e b read 3 (4 and 6 cents per
100 mg calcium, respectively). These
products rank with milk as "best buys" in
calcium.
Cereals vary widely in calcium content.
(This information is readily available to
consumers in the nutrition panel on cereal
boxes.) A r eady-to-eat cereal recently
introduced to the market '+ that is calcium­fortified
and mu ltivitamin and iron supple­mented,
and ins tant fortified oatmeal were
relatively economical sources of calcium-­both
cost less per 100 mg calcium than the
other cereals included in this study.
Calcium fortification of grain products is
not limited to breads and breakfast cereals.
Some producers have also added calcium to
all-purpose flour .
CALCIUM IN SUPPLEMENTS
A wide selection of calcium supplements is
available, and d emand for them is increasing.
The sale of calcium tablets was expected to
rise 33% in 1986 from 1985, which in turn
was 50% higher than in 1984 (~_). Calcium
supplements vary by the calcium compound
they contain (for example , calcium carbon­ate,
calcium phosphate, calcium lactate, or
calcium gluconate), dose per tablet, and
number of tablets per bottle. Some calcium
supplements also contain vitamins and other
minerals.
3 About 61% of en riched white bread and 35%
of wheat bread (made with enriched white
and whole-wheat flou r ) contain calcium at a
level meeting the requirements for calcium
enrichment of breads, rolls, and buns--
600 mg calcium per pound or about 33 mg per
25-gram slice bread (.§_, ~). Whole-wheat
(made with 100% whole-wheat flour) and
multigrain breads are calcium enriched to a
lesser extent C!).
4 Prices collected Nov ember 1986.
10 Family Econ omic s Revi ew 1987 No.3
To compare the cost of supplements with
the cost of foods as sources of calcium,
prices of 18 different calcium supplements
were collected. Both store and pharmaceutical
name brands 5 were included. All supplements
were lower in cost than nonfat dry milk per
100 mg elemental calcium.
Supplements, however, do not substitute
for food. No supplement assures the variety
and amounts of nutrients and energy provided
by foods in a varied diet. For example, milk
and milk products are not only the major
source of calcium in our diets, they also
provide protein, riboflavin, vitamin B 12 ,
vitamin A, thiamin, and if fortified,
vitamin D. Foods such as leafy greens
provide vitamin A, ascorbic acid, riboflavin,
folic acid, iron, magnesium, and potassium,
in addition to calcium.
Large doses of any nutrient suppleme~t
should be avoided CJ). Calcium supplements
may not be appropriate for all ; anyone with
a history of kidney stones should consult a
physician before taking them (l) .
OTHER NUTRITIONAL CONCERNS
The "Dietary Guidelines for Americans,"
issued by the U.S. Departments of
Agriculture and Health and Human Services,
recommend that Americans eat a variety of
foods to assure adequate nutrient intake and
to provide the appropriate amount of energy
to maintain desirable weight. In addition,
it is important to avoid too much fat, satu­rated
fat, cholesterol, sodium, sugar, and
alcohol, and to eat foods with adequate
starch and fiber CJ). These recommendations
should be considered along with food cost in
making food purchase decisions.
Some food sources of calcium are rela­tively
high in calories , fat, and/or sodium.
However, there are many alternative food
choices available, and specific foods that
are high in fat, calories, and sodium can be
balanced with others that are lower.
Calcium, energy, fat, and sodium values per
5 Calcium-rich antacids, bone meal, and
supplements containing additional minerals
and vitamins were not included.
serving are shown for selected products in
the figure on pp. 12-13. Similar foods are
grouped together, using similar serving
sizes within each group to aid in selecting
alternative sources of calcium. Within each
group, products are ranked according to
their calcium content, with those higher in
calcium listed first.
Some considerations in selecting foods as
sources of calcium are as follows:
Milk and Milk Products
Some of the most economical sources of
calcium among milk and milk products are
also lowest in fat--nonfat dry, skim, and
low-fat milk, for example. These products
provide more calcium for their calories than
most other foods included in this study.
Milks lower in fat may be used in place of
whole milk for drinking, and to moderate fat
in food preparation (for example, to recon­stitute
canned soups or to make pudding,
custard, or macaroni and cheese).
Just 1-2/3 cups of calcium-fortified
lactose-reduced milk provide an adult's RDA
for calcium. The product is low in fat and
reasonable in cost.
Low-moisture, part skim mozzarella is a
relatively low-cost cheese that provides
more calcium for its calories with less fat
and sodium than most other cheeses.
Among cheeses, low-fat cottage cheese
offers a low-fat alternative but is higher
in cost and is lower in calcium relative to
calories than many other milk products. On
a per serving basis, it is higher in sodium
than all other dairy products considered.
In addition to being one of the most
costly sources of calcium in this study,
cream cheese has the least calcium for its
calories. It would take about 14 ounces of
cream cheese (136 g fat) to equal the cal­cium
in a cup of 2% low-fat milk (less than
5 g fat).
Plain low-fat yogurt contains more cal­cium
but about the same level of calories,
fat, and sodium per serving as low-fat milk.
Low-fat fruit yogurt is similar in fat and
sodium to plain low-fat yogurt but is a more
costly source of calcium and is substantially
higher in calories because of added sugar.
Though ice milk and ice cream were sim­ilar
in cost and calcium content, ice milk
provides about 4 g less fat per serving and
only two-thirds the calories of ice cream.
Compared to ice milk, pudding and custard
made from mix are higher in fat and calories;
moreover, they contai n about five times as
much sodium. Using skim milk in place of
whole to prepare pudding and custard saves
nearly 4 g of fat per serving.
Other Foods
Compared to milk , canned soups recon­stituted
with milk h ave less than half the
calcium for their calories, yet cost over
twice as much per serving . Canned soups are
relatively high i n sodium and some are also
high in fat. Preparin g soup with skim milk
rather than whole saves about 4 g fat per
serving.
Though macaroni and cheese made from
mix is moderate in cost per 100 mg calcium,
it is high in fat--13· g per serving. Because
of the small amount of milk added to the
mix, using skim in place of whole milk re­sults
in little reduction of fat--only 1/2 g
less per serving.
Leafy green vegetables provide more
calcium for their calories than all other
foods studied. Moreov er, they are low in
calories, fat , and sodium . Frozen greens are
moderate in cost per 100 mg calcium.
Among the t hree fish sources of calcium
included for pricing , t he least costly
(mackerel) is considerably higher in fat and
sodium than the most costly (salmon).
Enriched white b read and calcium­fortified
bread are good buys in calcium and
are low in fat. Butter or margarine added as
a spread, however, adds 4 g of fat per
teaspoon.
PLANNING CALCIUM INTAKE
Though cost of food per 100 mg calcium
shows best buys in calcium among food
sources, cost per serving is also important
in planning economical ways to include cal­cium
in the diet. For example, although
low-fat yogurts and r icotta cheese were
moderate in cost per 100 mg calcium, on a
per serving basis they were among the most
expensive milk products - -exceeded only by
frozen yogurt. It is also useful to compare
the amount of calcium provided per serving
1987 No. J Fa mily Economics Review 11
........
..,
Ill
.3.. .
.....
'<
r'1
0
0
:J
0
.3.. .
0
Ill
;Q
(II
.<.. .
(II
2:
....
-.:.
Calcium, Energy, Fat, and Sodium per Serving
in Selected Foods
Food
Milk (1 cup)
Calcium-fortified
(1% fat)
Low-fat (2%)3
Skim
Whole
Nonfat dry
Calcium (mg) Energy (kcal)
500 -100
-124
-85
-149
-81
~ I Cheese
z
0
"'
Natural swiss (1 oz)
Mozzarella4 (1 oz)
Natural Cheddar (1 oz)
Natural blue (1 oz)
Process American
(1 slice)
Process cheese food
(1 slice)
Process cheese spread
(1 tbsp)
Cream cheese (1 tbsp)
Parmesan, grated (1 tbsp)
Ricotta low-fat (1/2 cup)
Low-fat cottage (1/2 cup)
Creamed cottage (1/2 cup)
Yogurt (1 cup)
Plain, low-fat3
Fruit, low-fat3
Frozen
12
269
205
202
148
129
121
84
69
69
63
337
105
78
112
98
78
68
43
52
22
171
-
81
108
415 -143
Fat1 (g) Sodlum2 (mg)
.2.0 .125
-4.7 .128
1 o.4 .126
8.1 .120
1 o.1 .131
- 7.6 -
4.7 c- 148
-
9.2 CJ 174
8.0 I 1391
I ~ 6.5 r--1 300
5.1 -·
L. 3.1 r-1 202
I 5.2
1 1.5 I 93
I 9.8 .__
I 1.1 [ ---, 459 -
I --, 4.7 - 425
-3.5 .159
-2.4 .133
247 -4.5 .118
Dairy desserts{% cup)
Custard from mix5 -- 194 I 160 L___ _ 5.1 L 155
Pudding from mix5 L 133 L 149 c- 3.7 r 277
Ice milk [ 90 c 92 c 2.7 51
r r- I -
Ice cream 87 135 7.0 54
Canned soups5 {1 cup)
Cheddar cheese 289 230
Chicken -181
Tomato -159 -161 932
Mixed dishes
Cheese pizza {1 slice) 148 I 162 . 6.2 ' 393 -
Macaroni & cheese from I ~
mix5 (%cup) 80 290 ,.;; 13.0 1630
Vegetables (V2 cup)
Tofu (calcium sulfate) 322 .. 66 -3.8 16
Leafy greens, frozen .. 122 123 1 o.3 133
Broccoli, frozen 147 125 1o.1 1 22
Canned fish (3 oz)
\0 Sardines I 371 172 9.4 I 699
OJ .... z Mackerel c= 263 I 182 ; 10.1 607
0 . r- I --- Salmon 191 129 6.0 I 376
"' -
..., Grain products
3" ' Calcium-fortified bread
..... -150 .45 1<1 .125
,.... (1 slice)
'<
,.., White bread (1 slice) 131 11170 .0.8 .132
(")
0
~ Ready-to-eat cereal with
0 -242 -100 .1.0 -280 .3.. .. calcium (1 cup)
Instant oatmeal
-162 -104 .1.7 -286 (")
CJ) (1 packet)
;ll
~ 1 Some scientific groups recommend that fat be limited to amounts that will provide no more than 30% to 35% of calories. This allows for roughly 65 to .<... . 75 g of fat in the diets of persons consuming about 2000 calories daily.
~ • 2-fhe National Academy of Sciences estimates 1100 to 3300 mg of sodium to be a "safe and adequate" daily intake for adults .
3 Non-fat milk solids added. ..... I 4 Low-moisture, part skim milk.
"' 5Made according to package directions using whole milk.
of food. For example, it would take nearly
2-1/2 cups of cottage cheese or 4 cups of
fresh broccoli to equal the same amount of
calcium in a cup of milk.
The cost and calcium per serving informa­tion
provided in table 2, along with values
shown in the figure, can be used to make
For low cost and minimal fat:
3 8-oz glasses reconstituted
nonfat dry milk
Total •••••••• •••••••••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • •
An alternative higher in cost and fat:
2 8-oz glasses low-fat (2%) milk
1 oz Cheddar cheese
Total ........ ··.······· ··· • • • • • · · · · · · ·
For greater variety and other nutrients
not found in dairy products:
3 slices white enriched bread
1 packet instant oatmeal
1-112 cups skim milk
l/2 cup cooked frozen spinach
Total •••••••• ••••••••••••• • • • • • • • • • • • •
REFERENCES
1. Behlen, Patricia M. 1986. Calcium in
Women's Diets. National Food Review
NFR-34, PP• 16-19.
Cost
(cents)
30
40
62
2. Best-Met Publishing Company, Inc. 1986.
Eighth Annual Market Study of the Mid­Atlantic
Market. Food World 41(6) :64.
3. Bishop, Jerry. 1986. America's new
hunge:r; for calcium presents nutritional
dilemma. Wall Street Journal (Jan. 20
issue).
4. Chinn, Herman I. 1981. Effects of
Dietary Factors on Skeletal Integrity in
Adults: Calcium, Phosphorus, Vitamin D,
and Protein. [Prepared for the Bureau
of Foods, Food and Drug Administration.
Contract No. FDA 223-79-2275.1 Life
Sciences Research Office, Bethesda, MD.
5. Consensus Conference, National Institutes
of Health. 1984. Osteoporosis. Journal of
the American Medical Association
252(6):799-802.
14 Family Economics Review 1987 No.3
practical decisions on how to combine foods
at the least cost to obtain the recommended
amount of calcium, yet keep fat, calories,
and sodium under control.
Following are a few examples of food se­lections
that meet the adult RDA for calcium
(800 mg):
Calcium
(mg)
855
828
847
Energy
(kcal)
243
360
468
Fat
(g)
0.3
18.6
4.9
Sodium
(mg)
430
430
953
6. Stewart, Jean. 1986. Current Trends in
Nutrient Composition of Baked Products.
Speech presented at American Association
of Cereal Chemists, 7lst Annual Meeting.
[Toronto, Ontario, October 1986.]
7. U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services.
1985. Nutrition and Your Health: Dietary
Guidelines for Americans. Home and
Garden B\}lletin No. 232, 2d edition.
8. U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services and U.S. Department of
Agriculture. 1986. Nutrition Monitoring
in the United States: A Progress Report
from the Joint Nutrition Monitoring
Evaluation Committee. DHHS Publication
No. (PHS) 86-1255.
9. U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
1986. Bakery products. Code of Federal
Regulations. Title 21, Part 136.
Nutrient Content of the U.S. Food
Supply, 1985
Most nutrient levels estimated from the
U.S. food supply were higher in 1985 than in
1984, according to an article published in
the National Food Review, Winter-Spring
1987 •1 Major changes in levels and sources of
nutrients between 1984 and 1985 and over the
past two decades are discussed. Also included
is an in-depth report on levels and sources
of vitamins in the food supply since
1909-13.
Per capita levels of energy and nutrients
provided by the food supply are based on
quantities of food available for consumption
in the United States and nutrient composi­tion
data. These quantities of food are
measured at the wholesale/retail level of
distribution. Food and nutrient losses
occurring after per capita food consumption
is measured (such as in further processing,
marketing, and home use) are not considered.
Therefore, levels of energy and nutrients in
the food supply are higher than quantities
actually ingested.
From 1984 to 1985, levels of food energy,
fat, carbohydrate, vitamin E, and ascorbic
acid increased between 3% and 7%. Use of
salad and cooking oils accounted for the
increase in fat and vitamin E; use of grain
products and high-fructose corn syrup
(HFCS), for the increase in carbohydrate.
Citrus fruits, largely frozen orange juice,
provided most of the increase in ascorbic
acid. Levels of other nutrients and food
components changed 2% or less.
Between 1967 -69 and 1985, increases of
10% to 23% occurred in levels of fat and
vitamin E because of greater use of salad
and cooking oils; in levels of ascorbic
acid, from the use of citrus fruits; and in
levels of iron, thiamin, and niacin because
of revised enrichment standards for white
flour. A 37% rise in vitamin A reflected
higher vitamin A values for newer varieties
1 Marston, Ruth, and Nancy Raper, 1987,
Nutrient content of the U.s. food supply,
National Food Review, NFR-36, pp. 18-23,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic
Research Service.
of carrots amd sweet potatoes developed
after 1969, which have a deeper orange
color and more carotene. Over the past two
decades, increases ranged between 5% and 9%
for food energy, protein, carbohydrate,
riboflavin, and vitamin B6• Substantially
greater use of poultry accounted for the
increase in protein and vitamin B6 ; use
of HFCS, for the increase· in carbohydrate;
and the revised enrichment standard for
white flour, for the increase in riboflavin.
Higher levels of protein, fat, and carbo­hydrate
raised the level of food energy. The
8% decline in cholesterol reflected a decrease
in the use of eggs. Decreased use of eggs
and meats, especially offals, also contri­buted
to the 5% lower level of vitamin B 12 •
Since 1909-13, changes in the food supply
raised vitamin levels. Year-around avail­ability
of an assortment of foods and new
varieties of vegetables contributed to the
higher levels of ascorbic acid and vitamin A·
Enrichment of grairi products, begun in the
forties, was an important factor in the
higher levels of thiamin, riboflavin, and
niacin. The meat, poultry, and fish group
was the largest contributor of niacin and
the main source of thiamin until the late
forties, when grain products took the lead.
Dairy products were the main source of
riboflavin throughout the century. Vitamins
s 6 and B12 were provided chiefly by the
meat, poultry, and fish group. Fruits and
vegetables, including potatoes, were the main
sources of ascorbic acid over the years.
However, shifts occurred in proportionate
contributions. The proportion of ascorbic acid
from potatoes was halved, whereas that from
citrus fruit quadrupled. Increased use of
processed forms of fruits and vegetables,
chiefly frozen, was an important factor
contributing to the rise of ascorbic acid
from fruits and vegetables. Vegetables,
particularly dark-green and newer varieties
of deep-yellow types, accounted for the gain
in vitamin A. Fats and oils were the leading
source of vitamin E. Increased use of
vegetable oils was responsible for the gain
in vitamin E.
1987 No.3 family Economics Review 15
Research Summaries
Two studies, conducted as part of a
larger USDA-supported project entitled
"Economic Consequences of Selected
Provisions of the Food and Agricultural
Act of 1977," are summarized below.
The States that participated in this
regional research project (also known
as NC-152) were California, Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland,
Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota,
Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
FOOD EXPENDITURES IN FOOD STAMP
ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLDS: DIRECT MEASURE
AND ADEQUACY MEASURE
A study designed to assess the food ade­quacy
of households receiving food stamps
was undertaken at Purdue University. 1
Household food expenditures (FE) were
reported in dollars sp~nt per month and a)s :
percentage of the Thr1fty Food Plan (TFP •
Demographic factors that could influence
spending for food were examined.
Data were collected by Agricultural
Experiment Stations in California, Indiana,
Ohio, and Virginia during the period immedi­ately
following implementation of most of
the changes in the Food Stamp Programs
(including elimination of the purchase
requirement) in early 1979. The sample con­sisted
of 889 households who were either
participating in the Food Stamp Program or
were eligible to participate. Of these house­holds,
45% were rural and 56% were female­headed.
The mean household income was $400
per month; 30% of households reported
year-round income.
1 By FloraL. Williams, Purdue University,
West Lafayette, IN.
2 The U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Thrifty Food Plan is used as the standard
for determining food stamp benefits.
Recipients are given quantities of food
stamps based on their income levels, family
size, age, and region of the country.
16 family Econo~ica Review 1987 No.3
For all households, the mean monthly ex­penditure
for food was $159, or 37% of
household income. FE was found to increase
as number of household members, number of
children participating in the school lunch
program, and total household income in­creased.
Participation in medicare was asso­ciated
with greater food expenditure, but
participation in meals for the elderly
reduced food spending. Rural residents spent
less for food than urban residents.
Ratios of FE to TFP (FE/TFP) were estima­ted
for all households and separately for
food stamp participating households and non­participating
households. No difference in
the FE/TFP for food stamp participants and
nonparticipants was found. Results show the
average FE/TFP to be 1.06, with a range from
0. 52 to over 5. 00. About one-half of the
households, however, spent within 10% of the
TFP.
Those households who benefited from meals
for the elderly, help with utility bills,
employer-provided health insurance, and food
and clothing gifts had lower FE/TFP than did
households without these benefits. Low
FE/TFP was also found among households with
middle-aged heads, an earner who worked
year-round, children age 6 to 10, rural
households, and large households. As the
number of household members increased, the
food spending ratio decreased: One-person
households spent 131% of TFP, whereas six­or
seven-person households spent 80%. This
finding has implications for appropriate
calculations of both the T FP and the
issuance of food stamps.
FE and FE/TFP for all households were
found to be a function of money income,
income in-kind, demands upon resources,
barriers to obtaining food resources, consu­mer
management, and financial pressures.
Since no difference in FE/TFP was found
between food stamp participants and
nonparticipants, it was concluded that TFP
is a minimum-adequacy food plan that can be
achieved through the use of food stamps.
DETERMINANTS OF FAMILY HEALTH
EXPENSES
A study of family health expenditures was
conducted by researchers from Purdue
University and Northern Illinois
University. 3 The study hypothesized that
medical expenses are a function of socio­economic
characteristics, health status,
arrangements for financing medical care, and
expenditure priorities. Socioeconomic char­acteristics
included annual income; house­hold
size; sex, age, and educational level
of household head; ethnicity; and residence.
Arrangements for financing health care
included medicare, medicaid, insurance
through employers, self-paid insurance, and
no insurance coverage.
The survey sample consisted of 895 house­holds
residing in California, Indiana, Ohio,
and Virginia who were defined as "low-income"
because they were either participating in
the Food Stamp Program or were eligible to
participate during the interviewing period
of 1979-80. Of the survey households, 46%
lived in rural areas and 32% consisted of
five or more members. Among household
heads, 53% were female, 67% were white, 68%
were under age 60, and 60% had less than 12
years of schooling; 14% had no medical
insurance, 14% participated in medicare, 33%
participated in medicaid, 22% had employer­sponsored
insurance, and 17% had self­insurance
as their primary insurance. Many
households participated in more than one
insurance program.
The respondents reported spending an
average of $64.71 (7. 6% of income) on
out-of-pocket medical expenses during a
3-month reporting period. Most of the
households (54%) reported out-of-pocket
expenses between $0 and $96. However, 6%
had expenses of $1,000 or more during the
3-month period. Households in the lowest
income bracket (annual income below $1,000)
3 By Flora L. Williams, Amy Hagler, and
Marshall A. Martin, Purdue University, West
Lafayette, IN; and Mary Pritchard, Northern
Illinois University, De Kalb, IL.
spent 27% of their income on out-of-pocket
expenses, while those in the highest income
bracket (annual income of $10,000 or more)
spent only 3%.
The arrangements used to finance medical
expenses affected the amount of out-of­pocket
expenses. Medical services for house­holds
without public or private insurance
are limited by the amount of money avail­able,
but findings indicate these households
had the highest out-of-pocket medical
expenses. Households covered by medicare or
medicaid spent less than households with
employer- or self-provided insurance.
Other characteristics of households re­lated
to spending for out-of-pocket medical
expenses included:
Area of residence. Farm households and
rural nonfarm households spent more than
urban households.
Sex of household head. Male-headed
households spent more than female-headed
households.
Ethnic origin. White households spent
more than black and Mexican-American
households.
Health status. Households reporting
illness spent more than those with no
illness.
Education. Households with a head who
completed college spent more than households
whose head had less education.
Age. Households with persons over age 60
spent more than younger households.
Priority of medical bills in the budget.
Households that gave medical bills high
priority spent more than those that gave
them low priority.
Household size was not related to out-of­pocket
medical expenditures.
1987 No.3 Family Economics Review 17
Food Stamp Program
The Food Stamp Program was created to
improve the levels of nutrition among
low-income households. It originated from
the food assistance programs begun during
the Great Depression, when the Federal
government began distributing farmers'
surplus foods to the country's hungry
citizens. By the late thirties, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) was using
a plan wherein families exchanged money
for stamps of equal value to purchase
regular food items. These families also
received additional stamps to buy surplus
foods. The plan ended in 1943 when World
War II reduced both food surpluses and
unemployment. During the mid fifties a
depressed economy caused renewed interest in
food stamps, and some jurisdictions re­established
systems for distributing sur-plus
foods to needy people. In 1961,
President Kennedy directed USDA to establish
a pilot Food Stamp Program. It was estab­lished
as a permanent program under the
Food Stamp Act of 1964, to operate at State
option. The program went nationwide in 197 4
when Congress required all States to offer
food stamps to the poor.
The Food Stamp Program is administered
nationally by USDA's Food and Nutrition
Service, and locally by State welfare agen-cies.
Qualified households receive monthly
benefits to help in purchasing a nutrition­ally
adequate diet. The criteria for parti­cipation
include the following requirements:
Able-bodied applicants between 18 and
60 years of age must meet certain work
requirements.
All households may have up to $2,000
worth of countable resources. Households
with one or more people may have up to
$3,000 if at least one member is age 60.
All household members must provide a
Social Security number.
Only households with net monthly in­comes
at or below 100% of the poverty line
may qualify for food stamps. Households
without elderly or disabled members must
also have gross incomes at or below 130% of
the poverty line.
The value of a household's allotment of
food stamps is based on the Thrifty Food
Plan 1 for that particular household size and
on the household's spendable income. The
current maximum monthly allotment levels,
effective October 1, 1986, are given in the
table below.
1 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and
Nutrition Service. For further information
on the Thrifty Food Plan, see "USDA 1983
Thrifty Food Plan," Family Economics Review
1984 (1): 18-25.
Maximum monthly allotment levels, effective October 1, 1986
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Household size
(persons)
............................................ ...................... ............................................ ............................................ ......................
48 States and
Washington, OC
$81
149
214
271
322
387
428
489
Each additional member. +61
1 Rural areas that are close to a city.
2 Rural areas not near a city.
Urban Alaska
$111
204
293
372
442
530
586
670
+84
Rural
$140
236
367
467
554
665
735
840
+105
Alaska
Il Rural
$170
312
447
568
675
810
895
1,023
+128
I I2
Hawaii
$128
234
336
426
506
608
672
768
+96
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 1986, Food Stamp
Program, Governmental Affairs Staff [Alexandria, VA].
18 Family Economics Review 1987 No.3
The types of firms that can apply for au­thorization
to accept food stamps include
retail food stores, wholesalers, meals-on­wheels,
communal dining, alcoholic and drug
treatment centers, private restaurants, 2 and
group living facilities. Food stamps can be
used to purchase any food or food product
for human consumption, in addition to seeds
and plants for use in home gardens to pro­duce
food. To avoid unfair competition with
fast food restaurants, food stamps cannot be
used in food stores to purchase hot foods
ready to eat, foods intended to be heated or
eaten in a store, and lunch counter items.
Food stamps cannot be exchanged for cash,
or used to buy alcoholic beverages, tobacco,
vitamins or medicines, pet foods, or any
nonfood items.
In 1985, children, the elderly, the dis­abled,
and single parents who head house­holds
made up over 75% of food stamp
recipients (52% children, 7% elderly, 8%
disabled, and 14% single parents who head
households). As of July 1984, almost 50% of
food stamp households were white, 37% black,
11% Hispanic, 1% Asian or Pacific Islander,
and 1% American Indian or Alaskan Native.
2No fast food establishments and very few
restaurants accept food stamps. In order to
receive approval for accepting food stamps,
restaurants must be willing to offer low or
reduced prices to elderly who qualify for
SSI (Supplemental Security Income).
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Food and Nutrition Service, 1986, Food Stamp
Program, Governmental Affairs Staff
[Alexandria, VA].
New Publications
The following is for sale from the Super­intendent
of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402,
(202) 783-3238:
• Composition of Foods: Legumes and
Legume Products--Raw. Processed. Prepared.
AH 8-16. December 1986. SN001-000-04488-5.
$8.50.
Single copies of the following are avail­able
free from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Human Nutrition Information
Service, Room 325A. 6505 Belcrest Road,
Hyattsville, MD 20782:
Nationwide Food Consumption Survey:
Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by
Individuals--Men 19-50 Years. 1 Day. 1985.
November 1986. No. 85-3.
Nationwide Food Consumption Survey:
Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by
Individuals--Women · 19-50 Years and Their
Children 1-5 Years. 1 Day. 1986. January
1987. No. 86-1.
* * * * * * *
The following is available from the Con­sumer
Information Center. Write to S. Woods,
Department 425R, Consumer Information
Center, Pueblo, CO 81009:
• Buying and Borrowing: Cash in on the
Facts. Winter 1986. 425R. $0.50.
This booklet from the Federal Trade
Commission gives suggestions on establishing
credit and solving credit problems, and
explains consumers' rights when buying on
layaway and credit, cosigning a loan.
getting warranty protection. and shopping by
mail or phone.
1987 No.3 Family Economics Review 19
1987 CPI Revision
Changes in Americans' spending patterns
since 1972-73 are reflected in the latest
revision of the Consumer Price Index (CPI)
(see box), - effective with the January 1987
estimates. The CPI, calculated by the Bureau
of Labor Statistics (BLS), U.S. Department
of Labor, is a measure of the average change
in the price paid by urban consumers for a
fixed market basket of goods and services. 1
Periodic revisions of the CPI market basket
are necessary to incorporate changes in con­sumer
spending patterns that have occurred
over time. The composition and relative
weight for each market basket component is
derived from expenditure estimates from the
ongoin~ Consumer Expenditure Survey
(CES). To more accurately measure changes
in the price level for goods and services
purchased by consumers in the eighties, the
1987 revision uses data from the 1982-84 CES
(the previous revision in 1978 was based
on the 1972-73 CES).3
Changes in Consumption Patterns
Many trends noted in earlier revisions of
the CPI have continued. The relative impor­tance
for the service expenditure classes
continued to grow in relation to the com­fllOdity
expenditure classes, and food
declined in relative importance following a
trend established almost 50 years ago.
1 For detailed information on the construc­tion
of the CPI, see BLS Handbook of
Methods, Volume II, The Consumer Price
Index, Bulletin 2134-2, U.S. Department of
Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1984.
2 For information on the Survey, see
"Spending Patterns of U.S. Households,"
Family Economics Review 1987 ( 1) : 26-28.
3The collection of expenditures of college
students in the CES changed between 1972-73
and 1982-84. Students living in college
dormitories are now considered to be sepa­rate
consumer units, whereas previously they
were considered a part of their parents'
consumer unit. This change allows for more
precise accounting of students' expenses
when living outside their parents' home,
particularly for "lodging while at school."
20 Family Economics Review 1987 No. J
Many factors contributed to the changes in
expenditures for each component of the CPI
market basket between 1972-73 and 1982-84-­changes
in prices, demographic characteristics
of the population, income, and tastes and
habits.
Food
Since the 1972-73 base period, the rela­tive
importance for food at home declined
but the relative importance of food consumed
away from home increased. The rise in the
number of two-earner families (from 43.6% of
households with both spouses present in 1970,
to 59.6% in 1983) coincides with the increase
in the number of meals purchased away from
home.
Health and nutritional concerns influenced
consumption of various food items. Increases
occurred for cereals (especially high fiber,
low sugar), poultry, and low-fat milk;
whereas declines were noted for red meats,
whole milk, sugars and sweets, and fats and
oils.
Also contributing to lower sugar and sweets
consumption was the decreasing number of
children over the 10-year period. School
lunches--a significant part of lunches away
from home--declined in importance, partially
offsetting the increase in lunches away from
home purchased by employees.
Housing
The relative importance of the housing
component has grown substantially between
revisions. This increase is mostly the result
of the increase in homeowners' equivalent
rent. Homes are larger (5 .6 rooms per
housing unit in 1970, compared with 5.8
rooms in 1980) and are more likely to be
air-conditioned (29.6% in 1970 and 42.9% in
1980).
Consumption of many items may depend on
the geographical location of the consumer
unit. For example, fuel oil is consumed more
heavily in the North and East, both because
of cold weather and the ready availability
of fuel oil. The shift in population from
the North and East to the South and West
has had the effect of reducing fuel oil
expenditures by 4.9%.
The CPI consists of seven major expenditure groups--food and beverages, housing, ap­parel
and upkeep, transportation, medical care, entertainment, and other goods and ser­vices.
These are disaggregated into 69 expenditure classes, which in turn are divided
into 184 item strata. Periodic CPI revisions permit modifications in the aggregate index
structure by (1) combining some detailed indexes into a single item stratum; (2) devel­oping
separate indexes for items that had previously been combined with others; or
(3) pricing previously unpriced items. Changes of this type help to keep the CPI current
and, by pricing an optimal mix of items, help to minimize sampling error for the all-items
CP I. Examples of expenditure categories that have been redefined include the following:
• Food purchases made at grocery stores during trips are now assigned to the expen­diture
category for food at home, as this food is prepared at the site where the pur­chaser
is staying. A 2.3% increase in food-at-home expenditures and a 3.8% reduction for
food away from home resulted from this revision •
• Lodging away from home now includes an imputed value for owners' personal use of
vacation property; this was not included in the former CPI.
• The market value of trade-ins on purchases of new and used cars is now subtracted
from the value of used car purchases. The prerevision method double-counted certain used
car values by neglecting to subtract all used car trade-ins from used car purchases,
causing the combined value of new and used vehicles to be overstated. The new procedure
reduces the total estimated expenditure for the transportation major group by 9. 7% •
• A "professional services" index has been formed that combines eye care (including
eyeglasses and contact lenses) with physicians', dental, and other professional services.
In the past, the CPI disaggregated the purchase price of eyeglasses and contact lenses
(commodities) and the charge associated with the fitting of eyeglasses and contact lenses
for the consumer (services). The revised CPI places the total cost in a single index in
the medical care service component, resulting in a 12.2% reduction in the medical care
commodity component •
• Services for pets (principally veterinary services) and video rentals are now priced
in "other entertainment services." Water sports equipment, previously unpriced, is now
included in "other sporting goods."
• "School textbooks and supplies" has been expanded to include expenditures for elemen­tary
school textbooks and supplies, and sets of reference books--both previously unpriced.
The following are examples of new indexes of previously unpriced items:
Video cassette recorders and other video equipment.
Computers and related information processing equipment.
Accounting fees.
Cemetery lots and vaults.
These are examples of separate indexes for items previously combined with others:
• Club memberships •
• Fees for participant sports •
• Fees for lessons and instructions.
• Legal services.
• Funeral expenses.
• Personal financial services.
1987 No.3 family Economics Review 21
Other areas within the housing group
showed large consumption increases. The
largest increase (600%) was for cable tele­vision
service, primarily because of its
greater availability across the country.
Prices affected the relative importance of
the housefurnishings and housekeeping ser­vices
components. Whereas consumption of
housefurnishings was stimulated by much
lower than average price increases, consump­tion
of housekeeping services declined as
prices more than doubled between 1972-73
and 1982-84.
Apparel and Upkeep
The relative importance of the apparel and
upkeep category as a whole declined between
1972-73 and 1982-84. Specific items within
this major group experiencing consumption
decreases included men's suits, coats,
sport coats, and jackets; sewing materials
and luggage; and apparel services. Contrib­uting
to these consumption declines were the
trends toward more casual dress for men,
growth in two-earner families (decreasing
the time available for sewing), and the
improvement in easy-care fabrics (re~ucing
the need for drycleaning services).
Transportation
Both private and public transportation
components" showed consumption declines.
The Arab oil embargo of 1973-74, . which sent
gasoline prices soaring, radically altered
motor fuel consumption. Fuel efficiency
standards for new u.s. cars and the
gas-saving 55 mph speed limit promoted fuel
conservation. Even after the embargo was
lifted in March 1974, conservation efforts
continued, resulting in increasing sales of
smaller, fuel-efficient cars and a reduction
in the number of miles driven. These factors
created a 23.2% decline in gasoline
consumption per consumer unit between
197 2-7 3 and 1982-83.
" Private transportation includes the pur­chase,
ownership, operation, and maintenance
costs of vehicles. Public transportation
includes expenditures for intercity trans­portation
by air, bus, ship, boat, or train,
and intracity travel by subway, bus, van pool,
and taxi.
22 fa•ily Econo•ica Review 1987 No.J
Consumers have been keeping their vehicles
longer--in 1984 the average age of owned
vehicles was 7.5 years. This increased
longevity could be the result of lower
annual mileage, greater durability, less
deterioration caused by leaded gas, and
less incentive by owners to replace for
changes in style. This increase in vehicle
age, however, has not translated into
increased total expense for automobile
maintenance and repair service. The 13%
decline in maintenance and repair expenses
may be due to improved structural
standards, longer recommended service
intervals, better protection against
corrosion, the 55 mph speed limit, and more
do-it-yourself maintenance.
The public transportation category was
affected by heavy discounting of airline
fares after industry deregulation in 1979.
About two-thirds of the relative importance
for public transportation consisted of airline
fares in 1982-84, compared with one-half in
1972-73.
Medical Care
The revised relative importance for the
medical care category was slightly less in
1982-84 than it was in 1972-73, even though
medical care costs have risen rapidly in the
past decade (up 141% compared with 116% for
all items). This decline results from changes
in the way consumers pay for medical care.
An increasing proportion of medical costs
are paid by employer-financed insurance or
government transfer programs. Because the
CPI relates only to consumption expenditures,
employer- and government-provided benefits
are not included.
Entertainment
Entertainment commodities declined between
revisions in the CP I. Sporting goods was the
only exception, reflecting the increased popu­larity
of health and fitness products. Enter­tainment
services, however, has grown 20%
since the last CPI revision. Admissions to the
cinema, concerts, and sporting events have
increased since 1972-73.
Other Goods and Services
The major group "other goods and services"
(which includes personal care, tobacco pro­ducts,
and personal and educational expenses)
remained nearly unchanged in relative impor­tance
over the decade. However, personal and
educational services showed substantial rises
since the last revision. The large quantity
increase for the "tuition and other school
fees" category is a result of the growth in
expenditures for day care and nursery
schools. The increasing number of dual-earner
families and single-parent households has led
to the enrollment of 7 million children in
some form of day care center. Enrollment in
trade schools and colleges also increased.
Source: Mason, Charles, and Clifford
Butler, 1987, New basket of goods and ser­vices
being priced in revised CPI, Monthly
Labor Review 110(1):3-22, U.S. Department
of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Agricultural Outlook
Conference '88
The Agricultural Outlook Conference will
be held from December 1 to December 3,
1987. The session coordinated by the Family
Economics Research Group will feature
several speakers from Government agencies
and the academic community who will discuss
their work in connection with the Consumer
Expenditure Survey. This session will be
held on Wednesday, December 2.
The Conference is free; preregister by
writing to Outlook '88, Room 5143, South
Building, Washington, DC 20250. To obtain
Conference materials and a building pass,
Conference participants are asked to go to
the 5th wing bay, 1st floor, in the South
Building, 14th Street and Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC.
Poverty Among Blacks in the
Nonmetro South 1
In 1980, almost all (93%) U.S. black fami­lies
living in nonmetro areas resided in the
South. Over 22% of poor black families, com­pared
with 17% of total black families, lived
in the nonmetro South. More than 35% of
southern nonmetro black families had incomes
below the poverty threshold in 1979.2 Poverty
was an even greater problem among those
families that were headed by females; 55% had
incomes below the poverty threshold. More­over,
of all black or white groups, black
female-headed families were most likely to
have very low incomes; nearly 43% had
incomes below 75% of the poverty threshold.
Poverty rates of southern nonmetro blacks in
1979 rivaled those for families in any metro­politan
area. Poverty was three times more
prevalent among black than among white non­metro
southern resid~nts (table 1). Low
income levels in both black and white families
were related to low levels of education,
young or old age, work disabilities, and
child care responsibilities.
Most poor black householders in the non­metro
South have not completed high school,
and 82% of poor black "other" householders
(married couple or male householders with no
wives present) have not graduated. Nearly
30% of poor black "other" householders have
not completed 5 years of elementary school.
Median years of schooling for female house­holders
was about 2 years greater than that
for "other" householders.
1 Nonmetro areas are counties outside of a
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA).
SMSA's include counties containing a city of
50,000 or more people, or a city of 25,000
or more people if the city population plus
that of contiguous thickly populated areas
equals 50,000 or more.
Data computed from the 1980 Census of
Population and Housing, Public Use Microdata
Sample B (a 1% population sample), U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census.
2 The poverty threshold varies by size of
family. For example, the threshold for a
family of four in 1979 was $7,412.
1987 No.3 Family Economics Review 23
Poor black "other" householders were twice
as likely as those who were nonpoor to be 65
years or older (29% compared with 15%),
whereas poor black female householders were
younger than those who were nonpoor. More
poor than nonpoor black female householders
care for preschool children (33% of poor
female householders, compared with 11%
non poor). Having enough money for both day
care and supporting the family is a serious
problem for female householders who have
limited education or who lack the work skills
needed to obtain adequate paying jobs.
In 1980, 57% of poor black female house­holders
in the nonmetro South and 49% of
poor black "other" householders (including
the work-disabled) were not in the labor
force. Poor black "other" householders 16 to
64 years old were those most affected by
disability; over 15% were prevented from
working, compared with 6% of their non poor
black counterparts.
Nearly 20% of poor black female house­holders
and over 9% of poor black "other"
householders in the labor force were unem­ployed.
These are rates well above those of
their nonpoor counterparts (7% and 5%, re­spectively)
and may reflect the low level of
skills among poor black householders as well
as the scarcity of employment opportunities
in their communities. The unemployment rate
of poor white female householders (17%) was
not much lower than that of poor black fe­male
householders. However, because female
householders made up one-half of poor black
householders, compared with only one-fifth
of poor white householders, the unemployment
rate for female householders affected over-all
rates for blacks more than for whites.
Black householders were more likely than
white householders to hold lower-wage opera­tor,
fabricator, and laborer occupations. A
larger percentage of employed white female
householders held technical, sales, and ad­ministrative-
support occupations than did
employed black female householders. There
was a greater concentration of white than
black "other" householders occupying
professional and managerial or precision
jobs, perhaps due to the higher educational
level attained by whites.
Table 1. Number of families in the nonmetro South, by race, type of householder, and
poverty status, l980
Family type
Total black families ....................
Married couple ..•.•............•...••
Male householder, no wife present ••••
Female householder, no husband
present .............................
Total white families ....................
Married couple ..•...•.......•........
Male householder, no wife present ••••
Female householder, no husband
present .............................
All families
(thousands) (percent)
1,019.5 100
639.1 100
54.9 100
325.5 100
5,599.5 100
4,954.1 100
143.4 100
502.0 100
Poor families 1
(thousands) (percent)
360.8 35.4
163.2 25.5
17.8 32.4
179.8 55.2
668.4 11.9
507.2 10.2
22.1 15.4
139.1 27.7
1 Families with incomes below the poverty threshold are considered poor.
Source: Data computed from the 1980 Census of Population and Housing, Public Use
Microdata Sample B, computer tape, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
2.\ family Economics Review 1967 No.3
In 1979, adult (age 16 and over) family
members other than the householder provided
about one-third of the income in poor black
families. In poor black female-headed fami­lies,
70% of the adult members were between
16 and 24 years old, indicating low levels
of marketable skills.
Families with poor female householders re­ceived
a lower percent of their incomes from
earnings than did other families. Poor
female householders received about 25% of
their income from cash public assistance
programs (such as Aid to Families with
Dependent Children). Poor "other" families
were more dependent upon Social Security
than upon cash public assistance. (The
distribution of family income for the
nonmetro South in 1979 is shown in table 2.)
Source: Ghelfi, Linda M., 1986, Poverty
Among Black Families in the Nonmetro South,
Rural Development Research Report No. 62,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic
Research Service.
Table 2. Family income in the nonmetro South, by race, type of householder, and poverty
status, l979
Family type
Total black families (thousands) •••••
Percent with income--
Less than $2,500 •••••••••••••••••
$2,500-$4,999 •••••.•••••••••••••••
$5,000-$7,499 •••••••••••••••••••••
$7,500-$9,999 ••••.••••••••••••••••
$10,000-$19,999 •••••••••••••••••••
$20,000-$29,999 •••••••••••••••••••
$30,000 or more ••••••••••••••••••
Median family income •••••••••••••••
Average family size ••••••••••••••••
Total white families (thousands) ••••••
Percent with income--
Less than $2,500 •••••••••••••••••
$2,500-$4,999 •••••••••••••••••••••
$5,000-$7,499 •••••••••••••••••••••
$7,500-$9,999 •••••••••••••••••••••
$10,000-$19,999 •••••••••••••••••••
$20,000-$29,999 •••••••••••••••••••
$30,000 or more ................. .
Median family income •••••••••••••••
Average family size ••••••••••••••••
Female householder
2
Poor
179.8
36.7
38.2
16.6
6.4
2.2
$3,375
4.2
139.1
33.9
49.1
14.2
2.6
.3
$3,324
3.2
Nonpoor
145.7
2.9
20.0
20.7
44.4
8.6
3.4
$10,109
3.6
362.9
1.8
17.7
19.9
44.2
11.5
4.9
$11,825
2.7
1 Married couple or male with no wife present.
2Poor families are those with incomes below the poverty threshold.
Note: -- = No families in this category.
Other householder1
Poor
181.0
22.5
38.2
22.5
11.2
5.6
$4,299
4.4
529.3
26.0
44.7
20.5
7.4
1.5
$3,844
3.5
Non poor
513.0
1.3
8.7
10.9
48.2
21.9
9.1
$15,465
4.0
4,568.2
.8
6.4
8.7
39.8
27.1
17.2
$18,543
3.1
Source: Computed from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
1987 No.3 Family Economics Review 25
Spending Patterns of Urban and
Rural Populations: 19841
U.S. urban consumers have, on average,
substantially high er income and expenditure
levels than rural consumers, according to
results for 1984 from the continuing
Consumer Expen diture Survey ( CES). This is
the first time the rural population has been
sampled and a nalyzed since the current CES
program b egan in 1979. Comparisons of
expenditure values 2 reported for urban and
rural consumer unit s 3 identified the following
differences :
• Rural h ouseholders are, on average,
older than urban householders; about 42% of
rural househ olders, compared with 33% of
urban, are age 55 or older.
• Rural consumers are more likely than
urban consume r s to own their homes. Housing
expenditures for r ural consumers are lower
than expenditures for u r ban consumers,
partly because rur al homeowners are more
likely to have paid off t heir mortgage.
The higher percentage of renters among
urban consumers is r eflected in their higher
expenditures for rental costs .
1 Findings from the Consumer Expenditure
Survey: Interview and Diary Surveys, 1984 ,
U.S. Department of Lab or, Bureau of Labor
Statistics. For additional information on
this survey and its two component parts, see
"Spending Patterns of U. S . Households,"
Family Economics Review 1987(1): 26-28 •
2 All sales and ex cise taxes are included
in CES expenditure v alues for items pur­chased
by the consumer unit for itself or
for others. Busines s - related expenses for
which the consumer u nit is reimbursed are
excluded from the Interview and Diary
Surveys.
3 The basic reporting u nit for toe CES is
the consumer unit that r efers to a single
person or group of persons in a sample
household related by blood , marriage, adop­tion,
or other legal arrangement, or who
share responsibility for a t least two of
three major types of expenses--food,
housing, and other expenses. The term
household is used for convenience.
26 Family Ec o nomics Review 1987 No.3
• Comparable amounts are spent for food
at home by urban and rural consumers,
except for fruits and vegetables. Urban
consumers spend 24% more than rural consu­mers
for fresh and processed fruits and
vegetables.
• Urban consumers spend more of their
food budget on food away from home than do
rural consumers (36% compared with 29%) •
Urban consumers spend one-third more
than rural consumers on personal care pro­ducts
and services.
• Urban consumers report higher expendi­ture
levels than rural consumers for gaso­line
and motor oil, health care, tobacco,
and life and other personal insurance.
Annual expenditure values for urban and
rural populations for selected expenditure
categories are shown in the table.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor,
Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1986, Consumer
Expenditure Survey, 1984 Results for Both
Urban and Rural Populations, News USDL:
86-451.
NEW RELEASES ON THE CES
The 1984 Interview microdata tape is
now available with machine- readable
format. New features found in this
public-use tape include summary data,
additional variables, data on household
inventory of major household appliances
and vehicles, travel information, the
new weighting procedure, and informa­tion
on rural consumers. The 1984 Diary
microdata tape is also available to the
public. A News release for 1985 data
for the total population is scheduled
to be published later in 1987. For
information on ordering tapes, call
(202) 272-5060. For free single copies
of News reports or for inquiries about
survey results, write to the Office of
Prices, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
U.S. Department of Labor, Washington,
DC 20212.
Selected characteristics and average annual e;rpendttures of urban and rural consumer untts, 19841
Item
Number of consumer units (thousands) •••••••••••.•••
Consumer unit characteristics:
Income before taxes (dollars) ••••••••••••••••••••••
Size of consumer unit •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Age of reference person (yearsi •••••••••••.•••.••
Number in consumer unit:
Earners •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Vehicles ••••••••••••••••••••••• : ••••••••••••••••
Children under 18 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Persons 65 and over •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Housing tenure (percent):
Homeowner with mortgage ••••••••••••••.•••••••
Homeowner without mortgage •••••••••.•••••••••
Renter •..........................•..•.........
Average annual expenditures (dollars) •••••••••••••••
Food •••••••••....•....•...••••••..•.........•.....
At home ..•.......••.....•.•.....•.•.••.••.......
Away from home ••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••
Alcoholic beverages •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Housing •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Shelter ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Owned dwellings •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Rented dwellings ••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••
Other lodging •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Utilities, fuels, and public services ••••••••••••
Household operations ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Housefurnishings and equipment •••••••••••••••••
Apparel and services ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Transportation ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Vehicles .....•....•...•.................•.......
Gasoline and motor oil •••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Other vehicle expenses ••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Public transportation ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Health care •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Entertainment •••••••••••••••.•.•••••••••••••••••••
Personal care .................................... .
Reading •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Education •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Tobacco ......................................... ..
Miscellaneous ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Cash contributions ••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••
Personal insurance and pensions ••••.••••••••••••••
Life and other personal insurance •••••••.•••••••
Retirement, pensions, and Social Security •••••••
All
consuner
units
90,223
23,457
2.6
46.7
1.4
1.9
.7
.3
38
25
38
20,862
3,280
2,300
980
286
6,284
3,494
2,066
1,071
357
1,638
315
837
1,107
4,263
1,813
1,058
1,137
255
902
973
193
132
286
227
295
706
1,928
300
1,628
Urban Rural
75,172 15,050
24,410 18,681
2.6 2.8
46.2 49.1
1.4 1.4
1.8 2.2
.7 .8
.3 .4
38 35
21 42
41 23
21,612 17,115
3,369 2,837
2,325 2,176
1,0,44 661
301 215
6. 573 4,837
3,729 2,324
2,151 1,645
1,194 460
384 220
1,660 1,529
328 247
857 737
1,183 728
4,351 3,826
1,860 1,577
1,034 1,175
1,166 994
291 79
891 959
1,026 706
203 138
139 95
314 148
224 244
308 229
730 584
2,000 1,569
296 316
1,704 1,253
1 Data from the Consumer Expenditure Survey ( CES), Interview Survey, 1984. The basic reporting unit for
the CES is the consumer unit that refers to a single person or group of persons in a sample household
related by blood, marriage, adoption, or other legal arrangement, or who share responsibility for at least
2 of 3 major types of expenses--food, housing, and other expenses. The term household is used for
convenience.
2 Reference person or householder is the first person named by the respondent as owning or renting the
home.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1986, Consumer Expenditure Survey, 1984
Results for ·Both Urban and Rural Populations, News USDL: 86-451.
1987 No.} Family Economics Review 27
Some New USDA Charts
Chart 165
Personal Health Care Expenditures by Age
Compared to the general population, the elderly spent a smaller share of their health care dollar on dentists'
services, prescription drugs, and vision aids (other care) in 1984.
Total population
Other care 22.4% -------
Physician 22.1% ----
1984 data. Source: Health Care Financing Administration.
Chart 166
Poverty Rates by Age
Double-digit inflation and falling real income during 1979-82
led to higher poverty rates for persons under 65 than for the
elderly.
Percent
30
25
20
15
10
1966
Under65
69 72
Source: Bureau of the Census.
75 78 81
28 family Economics Review 1987 No. J
84
65 and over
Chart 167
Nursing Home Population Projections
The number of elderly residing in nursing homes should triple
by 2040. Their median age is expected to rise as 50 percent
become 85 and over in 2040.
Millions
5
4
3
2
0
185andover
75-84 years
65-74 years
• 1980 2000 2020 2040
Sources: Bureau ofthe Census and the 1977 National Nursing Home Survey,
National Center for Health Statistics.
Chart 175
Changes in Consumer Prices for Goods and
Services
Prices for services continued to increase to an annual
rate of about 5 percent in 1985. Prices for goods increased
only 2 percent in 1985 and decreased slightly by mid-1986.
300
200
100L-~~--~~~--~~-L~--~~~--~~
1972 74 76 78 80 82 84
Annual averages 1972·85; June data for 1986. Source: Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
Chart 171
Wives' Labor Force Participation Rates by Age of
Youngest Child
86
Labor force participation rate for wives with children under 3
doubled during 1970-85, and was higher in 1985 than that for
wives with no children.
Percent
70
60
50
40
30
20
1970 75 80 85
Husband present. Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Chart 176
Loan Rates
Except for credit card rates, consumer loan rates have fallen
since 1982. Prime rate, charged by banks on most short-term
business loans, dropped by 18 percent from 1984 levels.
Percent
20 Credit card
18
16
14
12
10 Prime rate
8
1981 82 83 84
Annual averages. Source: Federal Reserve Bulletin.
Chart 169
Earnings and Work Status of Wives in the
Labor Force
85
In 1983, over half of wives with earnings had children under
18. The earnings of these wives were only slightly lower than
those of wives with no children.
$thousand
Earnings
12.3
With children
under18
Part
time
13.5
Full time
With no children
under18
Work status
1983 data. Average annual earnings; excludes wives with no 1983 earnings.
Source: Bureau of the Census.
1987 No.3 Family Econom i cs Rev i ew 29
....
0
..,
Ill
.3.. . .....
'<
1'1
n
0
::J
0
.3.. ..
n
Ill
:::tl
CD
<.... .
CD
:(
'4:1
CD ......
z
0
""
Cost of food at home estimated for food plans at 4 cost levels, May 1987, 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
$39.80
37.70
57.90
66.40
10.40
11.30
13.80
16.40
17.10
17.80
19.00
17.30
17.10
17.20
17.00
Cost for 1 week
Low-cost
plan
$50.30
48.40
72.30
85.00
12.70
13.90
18.40
20.90
23.70
24.60
24.30
23.20
20.50
21.40
20.80
l\bierate­cost
plan
$62.40
59.80
88.70
106.80
14.80
17.20
23.10
27.00
29.70
30.60
30.60
28.60
25.00
26.10
25.80
Liberal
plan
$77.40
71.70
109.00
128.70
17.90
20.70
27.00
31.30
34.90
35.50
37 .oo
34.30
30.20
33.40
30.90
Thrifty
plan
$172.60
163.60
250.80
287.90
45.10
48.80
59.90
71.10
74.20
77.10
82.50
75.00
74.00
74.40
73.70
Cost for 1 month
Low-cost
plan
$218.20
209.60
313.70
368.90
55.00
60.30
79.80
90.70
102.90
106.50
105.50
100.40
89.00
92.90
90.10
Moderate- Liberal
cost plan plan
$270.20 $335.80
259.30 310.90
384.30 472.60
462.70 558.00
64.10 77.60
74.60 89.70
100.20 117 .oo
116.90 135.70
128.70 151.20
132.50 153.70
132.60 160.40
123.90 148.80
108.20 131.10
113.00 144.90
111.80 133.80
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.
3The costs given are for individuals in 4-person families. For individuals in other size families, the following adjustments
are suggested: 1-person--add 20 percent; 2-person--add 10 percent; 3-person--add 5 percent; 5- or 6-person--subtract
5 percent; 7- or more-person--subtract 10 percent.
()
~
9.
()1
0
0. a
i
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' costs1
••••••••••••••••••••••••
Rent, residential ••••••••••••••••••••
Homeowners' costs1 ••••••••••••••••••••
Maintenance and repairs •••••••••••••••
Maintenance and repair services •••••
Maintenance and repair commodities ••
Fuel and other utilities •••••••••••••••••
Fuel oil and other household fuel
commodities . ••......•..•..............
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 ca.rs .......................•..•..
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.
May
1987
338.7
332.5
318.8
372.3
368.9
419.2
127.3
289.4
124.0
381.9
435.3
279.6
377.5
2 497.7
433.3
254.9
203.7
330.1
353.1
218.0
201.8
207.1
179.6
316.4
220.8
346.8
314.6
306.3
230.6
378.6
299.7
376.1
439.6
458.9
289.6
496.0
413.9
282.0
362.0
299.0
454.4
Unadjusted indexes
April March
1987 1987
337.7
331.0
316.9
371.5
367.7
418.0
127.1
288.8
123.6
382.4
437.1
278.7
374.2
2 500.5
425.9
255.2
204.7
328.2
352.2
218.7
202.6
205.6
182.2
319.1
219.2
344.7
313.3
304.8
229.9
371.6
297.2
376.1
440.8
457.3
287.5
494.7
412.5
281.3
361.1
297.3
453.8
335.9
330.0
315.8
370.9
366.4
415.9
126.4
288.3
123.0
383.4
439.4
278.5
374.9
2 500.6
428.7
254.3
203.8
327.7
351.0
215.2
199.1
203.5
177 .o
319.6
216.5
344.7
310.6
301.9
229.2
363.0
290.0
373 .o
441.4
455.0
286.3
492.1
409.6
279.8
360.3
296.4
452.8
2 Includes wood, charcoal, and peat, not previously priced.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
May
1986
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
1987 No.3 Family Economics Review 31
FER Subscription Price Reduced
As announced in our last issue, the subscription price for Family Economics Review
(FER) has been reduced, making FER a better value than ever. A year's subscription
now costs only $5 for four issues ($2 for a single copy).
To subscribe, send the subscription form below to the Superintendent of Documents,
U.S . Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402.
Subscription Order Or
Change 01 Address Form
Enclosed iss _____ _
0 Check
0 Money order
0 Charge to my Deposit Account
No _________ _
Order No. ______ _
Make check payable to.
Superintendent ot Documents
CREDIT CARD ORDERS ONLY
(Visa and Mastercard)
Total charges S
Credit card No.
Expiiation Date Month/Year
FAMILY Annual subscription Single copies
ECONOMICS $5.00 dome at ic $2.00 domestic
REVIEW ($6.25 foreign) ($2.50 foreign)
Please print or type
Company or Personal Name
I I I I I I I I I II I I
Additional Address I Attention Une
I I I I I I
Street Address
I I · I
City
I I
Country
I I I I
CHANGE OF ADDRESS
Please attach mailing label here and
send this form when requesting a
change ot address.
UAlL ORDER FORM TO,
Superintendent of Documents
Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402
State ZIP Code
LU 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
____ Refund
32 Family Economics Review 1987 No .3 'tl U.S. GOV!:RN'JI.ENT PRINTING OPPIC:Z:: 1987 - 721- 656 - 1.'302/60316