U S C E N S U S B U R E A U

Helping You Make Informed Decisions

U.S. Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

Supplemental Measures of Material WellBeing: Basic Needs, Consumer Durables,

Energy, and Poverty, 1981 to 2002

Special Studies

Issued December 2005

Current

Population

Reports

P23-202

INTRODUCTION Management and Budget’s (OMB)

Statistical Policy Directive 14 (1978). This report continues an effort begun in

2003 to explore additional ways of Income-based measures do not always

assessing the economic well-being of the provide a completely satisfactory measU.S. population. Issued as a companion ure of material well-being. Cash income

to the U.S. Census Bureau’s reports on measures, which are used in most

alternative measures of income and Census Bureau reports, do not include

poverty, this report also attempts to the effect of taxes and noncash benefits,

expand our understanding of the popula- nor do they account for the advantages

tion in poverty in the United States. of owning long-lived assets such as a

home or consumer durables. The economic well-being of a population

can be measured in many ways. Using Another measure of economic well-being

income to measure well-being avoids is expenditures of households and famicomparing the situations of people with lies.1 Expenditure measures focus on

different spending preferences. For what a household spends rather than on

example, one person might spend income it receives. Closely related are

money on a variety of goods; another “consumption” measures, which focus on

might spend almost all on video games; the benefits derived from money spent or

while a third might spend little and save items owned. A report on poverty measfor a rainy day. If their incomes are the urement by the National Academy of

same, an income measure considers Sciences stated that expenditures and

them to be equally “well-off,” even if they consumption measure not only the ability

differ in other aspects of their material to maintain a certain level of well-being

condition. but also the actual level attained (Citro

and Michael, 1995). Researchers have Poverty, as officially defined, indicates observed that expenditures vary less than that a family’s income is below a thresh- income in the United States, because peo- old designed to reflect its needs. The ple tend to save when their income is thresholds, designed in the 1960s, vary high and spend from savings or borrow by family size and composition to deter- when it is low (Slesnick, 1993). Thus, mine who is in poverty. If a family’s total information on expenditures can shed income is less than that family’s thresh- light on economic well-being beyond that old, then that family, and every individual which comes from information on current in it, is considered to be in poverty. income alone. Official poverty estimates are based on

data collected in the Current Population

Survey’s (CPS) Annual Social and Economic 1 See the discussion in the 2003 report on supplemental measures of well-being (U.S. Census

Supplement (ASEC), following the Office of Bureau, 2003).
The focus of this report is on yet ■ Some measures of material wellanother set of measures of eco- being reflect not only income or

nomic well-being, simply called other resources, but also needs,

“material well-being” indicators, which are sometimes hard to

which provide a more or less direct measure. For example, people

picture of the conditions in which may have health problems, a

people are living. The indicators high cost of living, or other facinclude the presence or absence of tors that make it harder to make

selected appliances and electronic ends meet with a given level of

goods in a home, take account of income. When needs put a strain

housing and neighborhood condi- on the budget, the strain affects

tions, obtain ratings of community living conditions and therefore

services, and measure whether affects material well-being.

households have been able to meet ■ Material well-being can also differ basic needs. Some specific exam- for households depending on ples include items such as refriger- assistance provided by relatives, ators, telephones, and air condi- neighbors, employers, charities, tioning; problems such as broken and others not counted in windows, leaky roofs, fear of income or expenditures. crime, streets out of repair; and

whether rent and utility bills have The 2003 report Supplemental

been paid. Overall, the set of Measures of Material Well-Being:

measures is meant to take broad Expenditures, Consumption, and

account of a household’s standard Poverty 1998 and 2001 was issued

of living. Material well-being meas- by the Census Bureau with the colures have some features that make laboration of the Interagency

them attractive as an additional Working Group on Alternative

measure of economic well-being. Measures of Material Well-Being,

For example: which included representatives of

the Office of Management and ■ Material well-being measures Budget, the Bureau of Economic can be closer to conditions Analysis, the Bureau of Labor experienced at the present time. Statistics, and the Energy More like expenditure measures, Information Administration (U.S. and less like income and Census Bureau, 2003). That report poverty measures, they are less provides further background and subject to major swings when discussion of detailed properties of people temporarily have high or well-being measures and a bibliog- low income. raphy of related materials.

■ Material well-being can be This report focuses on trends in improved by purchases made in economic well-being from 1992 to previous years, such as appli- 2002. The purpose is to broaden ances, cars, or houses. People discussion of the issues involved benefit from these assets long with supplementing income-based after they received the income poverty measures with other meas- or made the purchase. Material ures that focus on consumption and well-being measures are closer material well-being. It is by no to consumption measures than means a comprehensive document. are income, poverty, or expenditure measures in reflecting this The next section discusses trends

aspect of living conditions. in material well-being from 1992 to

1998, using data from the Survey

of Income and Program

Participation (SIPP), and includes

information on material well-being,

the relation of material well-being

to poverty, and changes for population subgroups. The third section examines the possession of

consumer durables from 1992 to

2002, using data from the

Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE).

The fourth section uses data from

the Residential Energy

Consumption Survey (RECS) to

examine trends in energy use and

energy efficiency in the United

States from 1981 to 2001, with a

focus on energy use by households

with poverty-level incomes. The

report concludes with a review of

results, a discussion of data

sources, and information on how

to obtain additional detailed tables

and other information related to

the subjects covered in this report.

TRENDS IN MATERIAL

WELL-BEING: 1992 TO 1998

The Survey of Income and Program

Participation (SIPP) provides measures of more than 70 items related

to household material well-being.

Thirty-nine of the measures reported

in 1992 and 1998 can be compared

and are examined here.2 These

measures cover five topical areas or

“domains”: consumer durables,

2 U.S. Census Bureau

2 The data for this section of the report

come from the 1991, 1992, and 1996 panels

of the SIPP. Data from the 1991 and 1992

panels used in this report were collected from

October 1992 to January 1993; data from the

1996 panel used in this report were collected

from August to November 1998. The population represented (the population universe) is

the civilian noninstitutionalized population living in the United States. The estimates in this

report are based on responses from a sample

of the population. As with all surveys, estimates may vary from the actual values

because of sampling variation or other factors. All comparisons using SIPP data in this

report have undergone statistical testing and

are significant at the 90-percent confidence

level unless otherwise noted.
housing conditions, crime and The trend towards greater material New goods matter if they improve

safety, neighborhood conditions, well-being was especially strong for the quality of life . . . and/or allow

and meeting basic needs. Across 28 items that could be considered the current quality of life to be

of these 39 measures, positive indi- innovations. Bresnahan and Gordon maintained at less expense.” The

cations of material well-being were (1997, page 2) noted that durable goods considered innovain evidence for a higher proportion “Innovations are important if they tions are computers, microwave

of U.S. households in 1998 than six make a difference in the way ovens, and videocassette recorders

years earlier (Table 1). human beings live and work . . . (VCRs). In 1992, 21 percent of

U.S. Census Bureau 3

Table 1.

Percent of Households With Selected Indicators of Material Well-Being: 1992 and 1998

Indicator

1992 1998

PercentageEstimate point change90-percent

confidence interval Estimate

90-percent

confidence interval

Consumer durables

Food freezer ................................... 37.1 36.5−37.7 34.9 34.2−35.7 *–2.2

Computer ...................................... 20.7 20.3−21.2 42.0 41.4−42.6 *21.3

Dishwasher .................................... 49.3 48.6−50.0 56.0 55.4−56.7 *6.7

Air conditioner . ................................. 68.7 68.1−69.5 77.7 77.0−78.4 *9.0

Clothes dryer................................... 78.0 77.5−78.4 77.8 77.3−78.3 –0.2

Clothes washer................................. 84.8 84.4−85.2 82.0 81.7−82.4 *–2.8

Videocassette recorder .......................... 73.8 73.4−74.3 85.2 84.7−85.7 *11.4

Microwave ..................................... 82.2 81.7−82.6 90.7 90.3−91.1 *8.5

Telephone . . ................................... 94.7 94.5−94.9 96.2 95.9−96.4 *1.5

Television ...................................... 96.6 96.4−96.8 98.4 98.2−98.5 *1.8

Stove.......................................... 98.9 98.8−99.1 98.7 98.6−98.8 –0.3

Refrigerator ....................................

Housing conditions

99.1 99.0−99.2 99.3 99.2−99.4 0.2

No problem with mice, rats, insects . . ............. 85.1 84.7−85.6 87.3 86.8−87.8 *2.2

Housing not so bad, would move . ................ 90.0 89.7−90.3 92.1 91.8−92.5 *2.1

No roof or ceiling leaks .......................... 91.4 91.1−91.7 93.1 92.8−93.4 *1.7

No broken windows ............................. 92.4 92.1−92.7 95.9 95.7−96.1 *3.6

No cracks in walls .............................. 95.4 95.1−95.6 96.0 95.8−96.2 *0.7

No plumbing problems .......................... 95.0 94.7−95.3 97.4 97.2−97.6 *2.4

No holes in floor ................................ 98.9 98.8−99.0 99.1 99.0−99.2 0.2

No exposed wires. . .............................

Crime and safety

98.6 98.4−98.7 99.2 99.1−99.3 *0.6

Does not stay at home for safety ................. 89.2 88.9−89.6 87.1 86.8−87.5 *–2.1

Neighborhood is considered safe . ................ 91.0 90.7−91.4 91.4 91.1−91.7 0.3

Does not carry anything to protect self ............ 88.5 88.2−88.8 92.5 92.1−92.8 *4.0

Home is considered safe ........................

Neighborhood conditions

94.1 93.8−94.4 95.9 95.7−96.2 *1.8

Free from traffic noise problems . ................. 75.4 75.0−76.0 78.6 78.1−79.2 *3.2

Free from street repair problems.................. 80.2 79.7−80.8 83.6 83.1−84.1 *3.4

Free from trash or litter in area ................... 88.8 88.4−89.1 91.8 91.5−92.1 *3.1

No abandoned buildings in neighborhood .......... 89.6 89.3−90.0 92.0 91.7−92.4 *2.4

No problem industry or business.................. 90.4 90.0−90.8 92.7 92.4−93.1 *2.4

No smoke or odors in neighborhood . . . ........... 92.6 92.4−93.0 95.1 94.8−95.4 *2.4

Would not move due to poor community services. . .

Meeting basic needs

94.3 94.0−94.5 98.2 98.0−98.3 *3.9

No unmet essential expenses . . .................. 85.9 85.4−86.2 86.0 85.6−86.4 0.1

Expect help from friends, family, or community ..... 84.4 83.9−84.7 86.5 86.1−87.0 *2.1

No unpaid utility bills . . .......................... 89.9 89.6−90.3 90.9 90.5−91.2 *0.9

No unmet need for dentist ....................... 90.3 89.8−90.5 92.1 91.7−92.5 *1.8

No unpaid rent or mortgage ...................... 92.2 91.9−92.5 94.6 94.4−94.9 *2.4

No unmet need for doctor........................ 92.3 91.9−92.6 93.9 93.6−94.2 *1.6

Phone was not disconnected ..................... 96.4 96.2−96.6 96.2 95.9−96.4 –0.3

Had enough of food wanted. . . ................... 97.6 97.5−97.8 97.8 97.6−98.0 0.2

* Percentage-point change from 1992 to 1998 is statistically significant from 0 at the 90-percent confidence level.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1991, 1992, and 1996 panels.
households had computers; by

1998, 42 percent did. VCRs and

microwave ovens made their commercial debuts in the 1970s, which

makes them newer than most other

items asked about in the SIPP.3

They increased in prevalence by 11

percentage points and 9 percentage

points, respectively, in the 1992 to

1998 period. Air conditioning

(though not a new technology) also

increased in prevalence during this

time.4

Some indicators of material wellbeing, however, showed no growth

or even a decline. Fewer households had freezers in 1998 than in

1992. A greater number of household respondents in 1998 than in

1992 said they sometimes stayed

at home out of concern for 

their safety.5

Many of the items that showed

slow growth or no growth between

1992 and 1998 had already

become nearly universal by 1992.

This was true of televisions,

stoves, refrigerators, and freedom

from housing problems such as

cracks in walls, holes in the floor,

and exposed wires. It was also

true of avoiding disconnection of

telephone service and having

enough food in the household. At

least 95 percent of households

already exhibited these indicators

of material well-being in 1992.6

4 U.S. Census Bureau

3 Microwave ovens were introduced in

1967, but less than 1 percent of households

possessed one until after 1971 (Liegey,

2001). VCRs were introduced in the late

1970s (Liegey and Shepler, 1999). 4 The increase in the possession of air

conditioners was not statistically different

from that of VCRs or microwave ovens. 5 The decline in the possession of

freezers was not statistically different from

the decline in not staying home for safety

reasons. 6 Although the percentage increase was

small, growth was statistically significant in

the percentage of households possessing televisions, having no cracks in walls, or not

having exposed wires.

Neither the slow growth nor the fast

growth items clustered in any one of

the five domains. In fact, the consumer durables domain included the

item with the fastest growth (computers) and several of the items with

the greatest declines.7 One domain

showed relatively equal growth

7 The apparent decline in the possession

of clothes washers and dryers may have been

produced by a change in wording of the questions between 1992 and 1998. Freezers were

not statistically different in their rate of

decline from clothes washers and dryers, and

also not statistically different from some

items in other domains: staying at home for

safety, meeting essential expenses, or having

phone service disconnected.

across items: all neighborhood conditions showed growth of 2 to 4 percentage points.

While the list of 39 measured items

provides a detailed accounting of

changes in material well-being,

focusing on a few items helps illuminate the change. The 2003

report on supplemental measures

of material well-being illustrated

the range of available indicators

by choosing 14 measures (U.S.

Census Bureau, 2003, p. 9). Of

these, 13 can be tracked from

1992 to 1998. As with the full set

Figure 1.

Households by Specific Measures of Material 

Well-Being: 1992 and 1998 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 

1991, 1992, and 1996 panels.

Computer

Dishwasher

Air conditioner

Clothes washer

No unmet essential expenses

No abandoned buildings

in neighborhood

No roof or ceiling leaks

No unmet need for doctor

No unpaid rent or mortgage

No smoke or odors

in neighborhood

Telephone

Had enough of food wanted

Stove

1992

(In percent) 1998

20.7

42.0

49.3

56.0

68.7

77.7

84.8

82.0

85.9

86.0

89.6

92.0

91.4

93.1

92.3

93.9

92.2

94.6

92.6

95.1

94.7

96.2

97.6

97.8

98.9

98.7
of items, the proportion of the

population that possessed items

in most of these areas increased

(Figure 1). This is especially evident in the three items that were

present in the smallest portion of

households: computers, dishwashers, and air conditioners (central

and room). Noticeably fewer

households possessed these items

in 1992 than in 1998. Overall, the

proportion of households with

these measures of material wellbeing increased for 10 of the 13

types.8

Evaluating changes in 

material well-being

This record of increasing material

well-being measured in the SIPP

matches up with Census Bureau

reports of trends in income and

poverty measured in the Current

Population Survey (CPS) over this

period of time. While many types of

material well-being were growing in

prevalence, household income was

rising and poverty was falling.

Median household income measured in the CPS in 1992, adjusted to

1998 dollars, was $38,482, and it

grew to $42,844 in 1998 (DeNavasWalt et al., 2003). The official

poverty rate, also based on CPS

data, was 14.8 percent in 1992 and

fell to 12.7 percent in 1998 (Proctor

and Dalaker, 2003). It should be

noted that differences in datasets

limit the accuracy of comparisons of

trends in material well-being with

trends in income and poverty.9

U.S. Census Bureau 5

8 The exceptions were unmet essential

expenses, having enough food, and possession of a stove. None of these measures

decreased significantly from 1992 to 1998. 9 Household poverty trends recorded in

the SIPP did not match trends in official

poverty rates. Official poverty rates fell during this period, but the SIPP household

poverty rates remained unchanged. Two factors may be responsible for this difference.

First, poverty calculated on a household basis

has quite different properties from the official

rates, which are calculated using the family as

the unit of analysis (Mayer and Jencks, 1993;

Bauman, 1999). Second, numerous differences in data-collection methods create differences in estimated income and other characteristics between SIPP and other surveys

(Coder and Scoon-Rogers, 1996). 

Nonetheless, the increases in these

measures of well-being from 1992

to 1998 did correspond with similar

trends in other measures of economic well-being. The agreement

of all three indicators increases confidence that overall well-being did

increase during this period.

That American households had

higher income, a lower prevalence

of poverty, and increasing presence of many indicators of material

well-being suggests that Americans

were, in fact, “better off” in a larger

sense. However, various subgroups of the population may have

participated in these trends differently—a possibility that will be

examined below.

For durable goods, and perhaps certain other material well-being measures, improvements in quality and

technology pose another problem

for interpretation. This is because

the measures used here reflect only

whether a household owns a

durable; they do not provide any

information about its characteristics

or condition. Changes in material

well-being may be understated

because quality improvements are

not counted, as is often the case

when the possession of appliances,

vehicles, and computers is

recorded. Alternatively, low-income

households may possess items of

older vintage that are more expensive to use. One indicator related

to the latter hypothesis, the energy

efficiency of home heating and cooling, is examined in Section Four,

which presents statistics from the

Energy Information Administration

(EIA).

Finally, indicators of material wellbeing may partially reflect tastes or

priorities rather than economic conditions. In some cases, for example, a household may not want an

item and may even consider itself

better off by not owning it. More

broadly, changes in the proportion

of households owning various items

may reflect general popularity and

not simply a change in ability to

afford them. It may be that popularity or changing tastes influenced

the observed decrease in ownership

of food freezers as well as the rapid

increase in ownership of computers.

Other observed patterns of material

well-being indicators may also have

been subject to similar influences.

Material well-being 

and poverty

Just as measures of material wellbeing increased from 1992 to 1998

for all households, they also

increased for households with

income below the poverty line

measured in the SIPP data10

(Table 2). Households below the

poverty line had large increases in

the possession of computers and

air conditioners (the difference in

the percentage-point growth in

these two items was not statistically

significant). The percentage of

households below the poverty line

that did not pay rent or mortgage

because of difficulty meeting

expenses decreased by 5 percentage points from 1992 to 1998; the

percentage with telephones

increased by 6 percentage points.

Of the 12 measures examined in

Table 2, 8 showed a significant

increase in the 1992–1998 period.

Household characteristics and

material well-being

Levels and trends in material wellbeing differ by age, sex, race, 

10 In this section, poverty refers to household poverty as measured in the SIPP, which

is similar to the official poverty measure

measured in the CPS, but is based on the

age and income of all household members,

rather than only those related by birth or

marriage. See discussion in footnote 9.

For a technical discussion of ways to

compare changes in the material well-being

of poor and non-poor households, see

Appendix C.
Hispanic origin, and other factors.11

To examine these differences, four

indicators of well-being were

selected to summarize trends in

their respective domains.12 The first

indicator measures whether a

household has all of the following

appliances: a telephone, a stove, a

refrigerator, a clothes washer, a

clothes dryer, and a dishwasher. In

1992, 45 percent of all households

had a complete set of these basic

appliances. By 1998, 50 percent

did (Table 3). The second indicator

was whether a household lived in a

6 U.S. Census Bureau

11 Among the factors used to describe

households is “household type” (see Table 3).

This factor includes the traditional Census

Bureau classifications of family or nonfamily

households (based on the presence of more

than one person related by birth or marriage)

and classification based on the presence or

absence of children under 18 in the household. Earlier reports found that the presence

of children was strongly related to lower

material well-being. 12 No generally accepted method exists to

summarize indicators of material well-being

in various domains. With the exception of

the indicator of neighborhood safety, the

summary indicators used here were chosen

to be consistent with previous Census Bureau

reports and to represent the full range of subjects covered by the individual measures

(Bauman, 2003). Neighborhood safety was

chosen because, among safety indicators, it

was close to the middle in terms of the

1992–1998 change.

dwelling free from broken windows,

a leaky roof, cracks in the walls,

holes in the floor, plumbing problems, exposed wires, and problems

with pests. In 1992, 73 percent of

households reported they had none

of these problems, growing to 79

percent in 1998. The third indicator, representing the domain of

crime and safety, was whether the

household considered its neighborhood to be safe. This measure

showed no change from 1992 to

1998, remaining at 91 percent in

both years. Finally, the fourth indicator, having fewer than two difficulties meeting basic needs, grew

from 88 percent to 90 percent in

the 1992 to 1998 period.

Different segments of the population had different levels of these

indicators of material well-being.

Among those with higher levels in

1998 were households with householders aged 65 and over, which

were more likely than younger

groups to be free of housing problems and to report fewer than two

difficulties meeting basic needs

(although they were below younger

groups in their rate of possession

of a complete set of appliances).13

Others with high levels of these

material well-being indicators in

1998 were households with householders holding bachelor’s or

higher degrees and married households without children.14 Groups

with low material well-being indicator levels included Black households, Hispanic households, households whose reference person was

not a high school graduate, and

unmarried households with children.15

Growth in at least some types of

material well-being measures was

13 The difference in freedom from housing problems between households with

householders 65 and older and households

with householders aged 45 to 64 was not

statistically significant. 14 The difference between married households without children and married households with children in the possession of a

complete set of appliances was not statistically significant. 15 Because Hispanics may be any race, data

in this report for Hispanics overlap slightly

with data for the Black population. Based on

data from Wave 8 of the 1996 panel of the

SIPP, 4 percent of Black households were also

Hispanic. Data for Asians and Pacific

Islanders and for the American Indian and

Alaska Native population are not shown in

this report because of their small sample size

in the 1998 panel of the SIPP. None of the

differences between Blacks and Hispanics in

the four types of material well-being shown in

Table 3 was statistically significant.

Table 2.

Households With Income Below Poverty: Percentage With Selected Measures of Material

Well-Being: 1992 and 1998

Indicator 1992 1998

Percentagepoint change

Stove ......................................................... 97.1 96.7 –0.4

Enough of food wanted ......................................... 91.1 92.4 1.3

Telephone ..................................................... 81.1 87.0 *5.9

No smoke or odors in neighborhood .............................. 89.7 93.2 *3.6

No unpaid rent or mortgage . . ................................... 81.4 86.8 *5.4

No unmet need for doctor ....................................... 84.2 85.9 1.7

No roof or ceiling leaks ......................................... 85.5 89.1 *3.6

No abandoned houses in neighborhood........................... 83.3 88.3 *5.1

No unmet essential expenses.................................... 68.4 69.3 0.9

Air conditioner ................................................. 52.6 67.7 *15.1

Dishwasher.................................................... 20.0 25.7 *5.7

Computer ..................................................... 7.1 18.4 *11.4

* Percentage-point change from 1992 to 1998 is statistically significant from 0 at the 90-percent confidence level.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1991, 1992, and 1996 panels.
observed for all population subgroups. With one exception,

households with a reference person aged 65 or over, all subgroups

examined here had greater freedom from housing problems in

1998 than in 1992. Measures of

the possession of basic appliances

and having fewer than two difficulties meeting basic needs improved

for half or more of the groups as

well.16 Perceptions of neighborhood safety, which did not change

U.S. Census Bureau 7

16 The change in the rate of possession of

consumer durables was statistically significant for all but the following: households

with a reference person aged 15 to 29,

Hispanics, households with a reference person with less than a high school diploma,

nonfamily households living with others, and

unmarried households without children. The

change in having fewer than two difficulties

meeting basic needs was statistically significant for 12 of the 22 groups.

for the population as a whole, also

did not change for most (20 of 22)

of the population subgroups examined here. Perception of neighborhood safety increased for households with a female reference

person and those with a Hispanic

reference person.

Table 3.

Percent of Households With Favorable Measures of Material Well-Being by Characteristics

of Householder and Household Type: 1992 and 1998

Household characteristic

Possess basic durables No housing problems

Consider

neighborhood

safe

Fewer than two

difficulties meeting

basic needs

1992 1998 Change1 1992 1998 Change1 1992 1998 Change1 1992 1998 Change1

All households

Total .....................

Age of householder

44.6 50.5 5.8 73.0 79.2 6.2 91.0 91.4 0.3 88.3 90.4 2.1

15 to 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.6 35.8 3.2 69.1 78.0 8.8 87.5 89.6 2.1 81.9 85.1 3.3

30 to 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47.7 53.5 5.8 69.1 77.2 8.1 90.5 91.1 0.6 83.8 87.1 3.3

45 to 64 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.0 56.4 4.4 74.3 79.7 5.4 92.5 91.5 –1.0 90.5 91.4 0.9

65 or older................

Sex of householder

37.1 45.0 7.9 79.9 82.3 2.3 92.3 92.7 0.3 97.0 97.2 0.2

Male ..................... 50.8 55.1 4.2 75.0 80.8 5.8 93.2 93.3 0.1 90.0 92.5 2.5

Female . . .................

Race and Hispanic origin

of householder

33.3 44.9 11.6 69.2 77.2 8.0 87.1 89.0 1.9 85.3 87.9 2.6

White .................... 48.2 53.9 5.7 75.3 80.3 5.0 92.7 92.9 0.2 89.6 91.6 2.0

White non-Hispanic ...... 50.3 56.8 6.5 76.7 81.5 4.8 93.9 93.8 –0.1 90.3 92.4 2.1

Black. . ................... 17.4 28.3 10.8 56.0 72.9 16.9 78.6 80.6 2.0 78.2 81.8 3.7

Other .................... 45.7 44.2 –1.5 69.6 73.9 4.4 89.8 90.5 0.7 90.0 90.6 0.5

Hispanic (any race) ........

Householder education

20.3 24.6 4.3 56.6 68.7 12.1 78.3 83.8 5.5 80.1 84.0 3.8

Not high school graduate . . . 20.3 23.1 2.8 65.5 72.2 6.7 86.5 86.3 –0.1 84.9 86.0 1.1

High school graduate ...... 40.9 46.1 5.2 72.6 79.8 7.3 91.0 91.3 0.2 86.4 89.1 2.7

Some college ............. 51.1 55.3 4.2 74.4 79.4 5.1 91.4 91.3 –0.1 87.3 89.7 2.4

Bachelor’s or more . . ......

Household type

67.3 70.1 2.8 79.2 83.1 3.9 94.9 95.1 0.2 95.2 96.1 0.9

Nonfamily alone . . . ........ 29.2 34.7 5.6 75.6 79.9 4.3 89.6 90.3 0.8 91.5 91.2 –0.3

Nonfamily with others ...... 36.3 41.9 5.6 69.1 78.1 9.0 88.0 91.1 3.0 84.8 88.7 3.9

Married, no children2 ....... 58.3 65.1 6.8 80.7 84.3 3.6 94.9 94.3 –0.6 94.8 96.2 1.4

Married with children2 ...... 56.1 64.2 8.1 70.6 78.9 8.3 93.0 92.9 –0.1 86.0 90.4 4.4

Unmarried, no children2 . . . . 32.7 37.8 5.1 69.5 75.6 6.1 87.5 90.5 3.0 87.5 89.2 1.7

Unmarried with children2 . . . 25.0 29.9 5.0 55.4 67.4 12.1 82.2 83.4 1.1 71.6 75.0 3.4

1 Percentage-point change from 1992 to 1998. 2 Children include all household members under 18.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1991, 1992, and 1996 panels.
8 U.S. Census Bureau Table 4. Percent of Consumer Units (CUs) Reporting Ownership of Selected Appliances and Vehicles by E

Decile: 1992 and 2002 Expenditure decile 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

Microwave 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.4 60.8 64.7 73.4 78.1 83.9 88.7 90.7 

2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77.1 89.1 90.6 94.5 94.8 95.8 96.0 97.9 

Refrigerator 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94.9 97.7 98.0 98.8 99.2 99.3 99.5 99.9 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95.3 99.0 99.0 99.5 99.9 99.6 99.9 99.8 Freezer 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.5 28.5 28.4 28.6 31.4 32.2 36.0 39.6 

2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.6 28.1 27.2 29.5 28.8 31.0 32.6 36.9 

Garbage disposal 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.2 20.4 23.5 30.4 31.7 38.2 43.4 47.7 

2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.2 28.1 35.8 39.1 43.8 49.4 53.1 60.6 Washer 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44.5 60.5 63.2 69.0 71.8 77.7 84.9 90.3 

2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54.0 68.0 71.6 76.8 78.7 84.9 87.5 89.9 

Dryer 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.4 46.7 52.8 60.9 66.1 73.8 82.6 87.3 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47.0 62.3 67.1 73.4 76.7 82.5 85.9 89.1 Color TV 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77.5 91.5 92.6 95.5 96.4 97.2 98.3 99.0 

2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92.4 97.1 98.1 98.9 98.7 98.9 99.5 99.1 

Computer 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 5.1 6.2 8.6 13.7 16.2 22.7 26.3 

2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.0 30.3 38.8 48.8 55.4 66.4 74.4 80.2 Sound components 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.5 35.3 43.6 50.3 54.7 62.0 68.1 70.0 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.9 57.6 63.5 71.6 72.0 76.8 81.8 83.7 

VCR 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.1 38.2 50.6 62.2 71.7 77.4 84.4 88.2 

2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55.9 75.0 82.8 89.9 89.1 92.8 93.6 95.6 

1 Stoves combined 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89.5 97.7 97.7 98.7 99.0 99.1 99.3 99.7 

2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91.1 99.0 98.3 99.0 99.1 99.2 99.4 98.9 

2 Dishwashers combined 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.5 22.0 29.2 37.6 44.4 51.3 59.6 65.7 

2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.8 35.7 39.9 48.3 54.8 62.3 69.2 75.9 

Auto, truck, van 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45.6 68.8 80.1 87.7 91.4 93.4 95.7 95.9 

2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48.0 73.1 81.7 89.5 91.4 93.5 94.3 95.2 

1 2 Stoves combined includes gas stoves, electric stoves, and other stoves. Dishwashers combined includes built-in dishwashers and portable d

Notes: Appliances that are provided in rental units are included in the above charts. Expenditure deciles are created by using an outlays definition 

ferences between total expenditures, as used in CE published data, and outlays are in the vehicle and home mortgage definitions. The outlays appro

with vehicle payments made during the survey reference period. Home mortgage principal payments are included in outlays, while the CE total expento be investments and does not include them. The information on appliance ownership is inventoried during the CU’s first interview and is carried forwCU purchases an appliance (which it previously did not own) in a subsequent interview, the inventoried information is not updated. Similarly, the first 

not updated if an appliance is sold or discarded in a subsequent interview. Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, unpublished Consumer Expenditure Survey Interview Data 1992, 2002.
Changes in indicators of

material well-being of

population subgroups

Although the rate of growth of indicators of material well-being varied

somewhat across subgroups, the

period from 1992 to 1998 did not

produce great changes in the

groups’ relative standing. Of the

few population subgroups that had

larger increases than others, most

had had lower material well-being

than the comparison groups did in

1992. This pattern was true of

Blacks and Hispanics, two groups

that made gains relative to nonHispanic Whites in freedom from

housing problems.17 Hispanics also

U.S. Census Bureau 9

17 Blacks were not statistically different

from Hispanics in their rate of change in

freedom from housing problems.

had a larger gain in perceived

neighborhood safety than did nonHispanic Whites. Similarly, households with a female reference person had a larger gain in their

possession of basic appliances than

households with a male reference

person, after starting with a lower

level of possession in 1992.18 The

share of married households with

children with fewer than two difficulties meeting basic needs

increased more than the shares of

nonfamily households living alone

and married households without

children. Both married and

unmarried households with children

18 However, this finding may reflect a

greater percentage of households identifying

women as the reference person in 1998 than

in 1992, possibly due to changes in interview procedures.

experienced larger growth in

freedom from housing problems

than did single-person households

and married households without

children.

Smaller increases in material wellbeing indicators occurred in two

groups that already had higher levels. Gains in freedom from housing

problems and in having fewer than

two difficulties meeting basic needs

were smaller for households with a

reference person aged 65 or over

than for most younger groups.

Households whose reference person

had a bachelor’s degree or more

education had smaller gains in freedom from housing problems than

households whose reference person

had a high school diploma.

One notable exception was found in

the pattern of greater increases in

material well-being occurring in

groups with previous low measures

of material well-being. Households

with working-age adults reporting

that they are limited in their work

due to disability have been found in

the past to have low levels of material well-being. This group continued to have low well-being levels

even after controlling for income,

assets, and other economic and

demographic factors (Bauman,

2004). Similarly, the relative position of households with disabled

members did not improve in any of

the four areas examined here, and

they fell behind in possession of

basic appliances and in considering

their neighborhoods safe (Figure 2).

In 1992, 36 percent of households

with disabled working-age adults

(aged 25 to 64) reported having a

full set of appliances, compared

with 46 percent of other households. In 1998, the proportions

were 37 percent (an increase of 1

percentage point) and 52 percent

(an increase of 6 percentage

points), respectively.

Figure 2.

Indicators of Material Well-Being by Household 

Disability Status: 1992 and 1998

Note: Households classified as disabled have one or more working age adults 

(aged 25 to 64) reporting that a health condition limits the work they can do.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 

1991, 1992, and 1996 panels.

Fewer than two difficulties meeting

basic needs - Not disabled

Fewer than two difficulties meeting

basic needs - Disabled

Consider neighborhood safe -

Not disabled

Consider neighborhood safe -

Disabled

No housing problems -

Not disabled

No housing problems -

Disabled

Possess basic appliances -

Not disabled

Possess basic appliances -

Disabled

1992

(In percent) 1998

32.7

89.6 

90.5

78.4 

77.7

91.5 

91.9

87.6 

84.2

74.3 

79.9

62.3 

67.0

46.2 

54.3

32.8 
10 U.S. Census Bureau Table 5. Average Number of Selected Appliances and Vehicles Owned per Consumer Unit (CU) by Expend

1992 and 2002 Expenditure decile 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

Microwave 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 

2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 

Refrigerator 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 

Freezer 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 

2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 

Garbage disposal 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 

2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 

Washer 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 

2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 Dryer 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 Color TV 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.9 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.9 

2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 1.6 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.5 

Computer 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 

2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.0 

Sound components 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 

VCR 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 

2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.6 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.7 

1 Stoves combined 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 

2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.1 

2 Dishwashers combined 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 

2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 

Auto, truck, van 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.9 2.1 

2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.6 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.1 

1 2 Stoves combined includes gas stoves, electric stoves, and other stoves. Dishwashers combined includes built-in dishwashers and portable d

Notes: Appliances that are provided in rental units are included in the above charts. Expenditure deciles are created by using an outlays definition 

ferences between total expenditures, as used in CE published data, and outlays are in the vehicle and home mortgage definitions. The outlays appro

with vehicle payments made during the survey reference period. Home mortgage principal payments are included in outlays, while the CE total expen

to be investments and does not include them. The information on appliance ownership is inventoried during the CU’s first interview and is carried forw

CU purchases an appliance (which it previously did not own) in a subsequent interview, the inventoried information is not updated. Similarly, the first 

not updated if an appliance is sold or discarded in a subsequent interview. Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, unpublished Consumer Expenditure Survey Interview Data 1992, 2002.
Similarly, households with disabled

working-age adults fell behind in

their perception of neighborhood

safety by 3 percentage points,

while other households gained by

1 percentage point. Larger proportions of households with disabled

adults reported freedom from

housing problems and fewer than

two difficulties meeting basic

needs. Those improvements were

about the same as the improvements for other households.

TRENDS IN THE POSSESSION

OF CONSUMER DURABLES:

1992 TO 2002

Data from the U.S. Consumer

Expenditure (CE) Survey also shed

light on material well-being.

Consumer units (CUs), rather than

households or families, are the

unit of analysis.19 Tables 4 and 5

and Figures 3, 4, and 5 include

information on the percentage of

consumer units reporting the ownership of selected appliances and

vehicles and the average number

of these durables in 1992 and

2002. Tables 6 and 7 show measures of their distribution over the

full 11-year period, 1992 to 2002.

The information presented is based

on appliance ownership collected

during the first interview.20

U.S. Census Bureau 11

19 A consumer unit consists of members of

a household related by birth, marriage, adoption, or some other legal arrangement; a single person living alone or sharing a household with others, but who is financially

independent; or two or more people living

together who share responsibility for at least

two out of the three major types of expenses:

food, housing, and other expenses. Also, students living in university-sponsored housing

are included in the sample as separate

consumer units. 20 The information on appliance ownership

is inventoried during the consumer unit’s (CU)

first interview and is carried forward to subsequent interviews. If a CU purchases an appliance (which it previously did not own) in a

subsequent interview, the inventoried information is not updated. Similarly, the first

interview appliance information is not

updated if an appliance has been sold or discarded by the time of a subsequent interview.

An appliance that is provided in a rental unit

is included and identified as “owned” although

the consumer unit does not own the item but

has exclusive access to it.

Table 6.

Concentration Indexes of Ownership Rates of Selected Appliances and Vehicles: 1992 to 2002

(By expenditure outlays)

Concentration indexes

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Refrigerator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01

Color TV. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01

Microwave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.12 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03

VCR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.19 0.17 0.15 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.07

Washer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.09 0.08

Dryer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.11 0.10

Sound components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.11

1 Stoves combined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01

Computer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.40 0.38 0.37 0.38 0.34 0.32 0.30 0.27 0.25 0.23 0.22

2 Dishwashers combined . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.27 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.20

Garbage disposal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.24 0.22 0.21 0.23 0.19 0.21 0.21 0.18 0.18 0.20 0.18Freezer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.08

Auto, truck, van . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.08

1Stoves combined includes gas stoves, electric stoves, and other stoves.

2Dishwashers combined includes built-in dishwashers and portable dishwashers.

Notes: Concentration indexes are a bivariate analog of the Gini coefficient. A concentration index will have a value of zero when there is no inequality in the ownership of a particular durable across the expenditure outlays distribution. In other words, the percentages of consumer units owning a particular durable are equal across the deciles. Indexes of higher

values indicate that inequality in outlays favor consumer units of higher outlays, while indexes less than zero indicate a concentration of ownership among consumer units with lower

outlays. For these indexes, consumer units are ranked by total expenditure outlays.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, unpublished Consumer Expenditure Survey Interview Data 1992, 2002.
As presented in the 2003 report on

supplemental measures, results are

shown by deciles. First, consumer

units are ranked by expenditure

outlays from lowest to highest

expenditure level and then divided

into 10 equal groups of CUs

according to this ranking.

Percentages of ownership and the

average number of durables in

each decile are then produced.

Expenditure deciles are created by

using an outlays definition, as in

the 2003 report. The primary differences between total expenditures used in CE published data

and outlays used in the tables and

charts in this report are in the vehicle and home mortgage definitions. The outlays approach

replaces vehicle sales price with

vehicle payments made during the

survey reference period. Home

mortgage principal payments are

included in outlays, while the CE

total expenditures definition considers them to be investments and

does not include them.21

As shown in the 2003 report on

supplemental measures of wellbeing (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003)

and by others (noted previously as

well), the majority of consumer

units own or have access to most of

the appliances and vehicles inventoried in the CE (exceptions are freezers and garbage disposals, and in

12 U.S. Census Bureau

21 The updated values for vehicle ownership for 2001 are different than those

reported in the 2003 report on supplemental

measures of well-being (U.S. Census Bureau,

2003). The values reported here were produced by first ranking all consumer units by

total expenditure outlays. Then the ownership rates and average number of durables

owned in each decile of consumer units were

produced. The 2001 results for vehicles

published in the 2003 publication were

based on ranking consumer units by expenditures using a family size adjustment. The

appliance results for 2001 are slightly

different from those reported in the 2003

report because of a slight modification to

the construction of the ranking and the

creation of deciles. 

1992, computers and dishwashers). 59.3 percent did (Table 4 and 

The percentages of ownership for Figure 3). Consumer units in the

refrigerators, stoves, and color tele- higher deciles were more likely than

visions are consistently high over those in lower deciles to own comthe deciles from 1992 to 2002. The puters (Table 4 and Figure 5). This

greatest gain in ownership from trend is also exhibited by the con1992 to 2002 is for computers. In centration indexes shown in Table

1992, 18.6 percent of all consumer 6: the higher the concentration

units owned or had access to a index, the greater the concentration

computer in their homes; by 2002, of computers in the higher

Figure 3.

Ownership of Selected Appliances and Vehicles 

by Consumer Units: 1992 and 2002

1

 Stoves combined includes gas stoves, electric stoves and other stoves.

Dishwashers combined includes built-in dishwashers and portable dishwashers. 

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey interview data, 

1992 and 2002.

Freezer

Garbage disposal

Dishwashers combined1

Computer

Sound components

Dryer

Washer

VCR

Microwave

Auto, truck, van

Color TV

Stoves combined1

Refrigerator

1992

2002

99.2

32.8 

30.8

37.3 

47.0

48.7 

58.1

18.6 

59.3

57.3 

72.5

68.5 

77.1

75.0 

80.0

68.1 

86.9

76.8 

93.2

85.1 

85.7

94.7 

98.2

98.0 

98.3

98.7 

(In percent)
expenditure outlay deciles.22 The

concentration index has been

U.S. Census Bureau 13

22 A concentration index is a bivariate

analog of the Gini coefficient. The index is

based on the distribution of one variable in

combination with another variable. For

example, in Table 6, the concentration index

represents a particular relationship between

the distribution of the ownership of a

durable and the rank of consumer units by

total expenditure outlays. Graphically the

index can be represented by the plot of the

cumulative distribution of consumer units

owning a particular durable on the y axis by

consumer units ranked by total expenditure

decreasing over time, indicating an

increasingly more equal

outlays on the x axis. 

A concentration index will have a value of

zero when there is no inequality in the ownership of a particular durable across the

expenditure outlays distribution. In other

words, the percentages of consumer units

owning a particular durable are equal across

the deciles. Indexes of higher values indicate

that inequality in outlays favor consumer

units of higher outlays, while indexes less

than zero indicate a concentration of ownership among consumer units with lower

outlays.

distribution. The average number

of computers owned also increased

from 1992 through 2002 (Table 5).

In the top deciles, each consumer

unit had on average more than one

computer in 2002; in 1992 it was

less than one.

Other large increases in ownership

rates occurred for microwave

ovens and entertainment equipment such as VCRs and sound

components. Microwaves were

almost as prevalent as refrigerators

by 2002 (Table 4), and their distribution became fairly equal over the

deciles as evidenced by the concentration indexes decreasing from

0.12 to 0.03 from 1992 to 2002

(Table 6). The average number of

microwaves in a consumer unit was

one or almost one for each decile

by 2002.

Entertainment equipment, represented by VCRs and sound components, increased in ownership and

prevalence over the time period.

About 87 percent of all consumer

units in 2002 owned a VCR, compared with 68 percent in 1992

(Table 4). The 1992 and 2002 percentages for sound components

were slightly lower than the percentages for the same years for

VCRs. The average number of

videocassette recorders owned in

the upper deciles doubled to about

two per consumer unit in 2002,

from less than two in 1992 (Table

5). The number of sound components was 1.5 in the upper decile

in 2002. The concentration indexes

reveal that the ownership of VCRs

varied along the expenditure outlays distribution but that consumer

units all along the distribution

were becoming more likely to own

a VCR in 2002 (index = 0.07) compared with 1992 (index = 0.19)

(Table 6). Sound components were

somewhat concentrated among

consumer units in the upper

deciles (Table 4) but were

Figure 4.

Average Number of Selected Appliances and 

Vehicles Owned by Consumer Units: 

1992 and 2002

1

 Stoves combined includes gas stoves, electric stoves and other stoves.

Dishwashers combined includes built-in dishwashers and portable dishwashers. 

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey interview data,

1992 and 2002.

Freezer

Garbage disposal

Dishwashers combined1

Computer

Sound components

Dryer

Washer

VCR

Microwave

Auto, truck,van

Color TV

Stoves combined1

Refrigerator

1992

2002

1.1

0.3 

0.3

0.4 

0.5

0.5 

0.6

0.2 

0.8

0.7 

1.0

0.7 

0.8

0.8 

0.8

0.8 

1.4

0.8 

1.0

1.6 

1.7

1.6 

2.1

1.1 

1.0

1.1 
becoming more equally distributed

(Table 6) (2002 index = 0.11 versus 1992 index = 0.18).

On average, by the year 2002,

most consumer units owned or had

access to only one each of the

durables with a few exceptions

(Table 5). The average was about

one-half for food freezers, garbage

disposals, and dishwashers. The

average overall ranged from 1.4 to

2.1 for VCRs (already discussed),

color televisions, and vehicles. The

average number of color televisions and vehicles was greater

than one for most deciles, with the

average for color televisions

greater over the deciles and over

time. The average number of vehicles owned changed very little over

the 1992 to 2002 period. The distribution of vehicles was more concentrated among consumer units

with greater expenditures than

among those with lower expenditures. Compared with vehicles, the

possession of color televisions was

relatively more equally distributed

across the total expenditure distribution (Table 7).

ENERGY USE AND POVERTY:

1981 TO 2001

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of

Energy conducts the Residential

Energy Consumption Survey (RECS)

every four years. The RECS collects

data on energy consumption and

expenditures and energy-related

subjects for the household sector of

the U.S. economy.

Between 1981 and 2001, the total

number of households represented

by the RECS increased by 28.8 percent, from 83.1 million in 1981 to

107.0 million in 2001 (Table 8).

Over the same period, the number

of households with household

income below the poverty line

increased by 36.4 percent, from

14 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 5.

Ownership of Selected Appliances and Vehicles

by Consumer Units at the First and Tenth

Expenditure (Outlay) Decile: 1992 and 2002

1 Stoves combined includes gas stoves, electric stoves and other stoves.

Dishwashers combined includes built-in dishwashers and portable dishwashers. 

Note: Expenditure deciles are created by using an ‘‘outlays’’ definition of expenditures. 

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, unpublished Consumer Expenditure Survey Interview 

Data 1992, 2002. 

First (lowest) expenditure decile

Tenth (highest) expenditure decile 

(In percent)

1992

2002

1992

2002

1992

2002

1992

2002

1992

2002

1992

2002

1992

2002

1992

2002

1992

2002

1992

2002

1992

2002

1992

2002

1992

2002

Refrigerator

Stoves combined1

Color TV

Auto, truck, van

Microwave

VCR

Washer

Dryer

Sound components

Computer

Dishwashers combined1

Garbage disposal

Freezer

94.9

99.9

95.3

99.9

89.5

99.8

91.1

99.4

77.5

99.4

92.4

99.7

45.6

96.0

48.0

94.6

39.4

94.3

77.1

97.7

22.1

93.6

55.9

97.6

44.5

95.0

54.0

95.3

30.4

93.4

47.0

95.1

26.5

84.9

39.9

89.5

4.1

45.8

21.0

91.1

11.5

87.8

23.8

88.1

14.2

66.8

23.2

71.3

20.5

42.3

21.6

37.8
11.0 million in 1981 to 15.0 million in 2001.

Total annual Btu consumption per

household decreased by 17.5 percent between 1981 and 2001 from

an average of 111.7 million Btu to

92.2 million Btu. Among those

households with household

incomes below the poverty line,

total Btu consumption was lower

and the decrease between 1981

and 2001 was larger. Total Btu

consumption per household for

these households decreased by

23.7 percent between 1981 and

2001 from an average of 92.7 million Btu to 70.7 million Btu.

Among households with incomes

above 1.25 times the poverty level,

total annual Btu consumption per

household decreased by 16.9 percent between 1981 and 2001, from

an average of 115.8 million Btu to

96.2 million Btu.

After adjusting for inflation, total

annual energy expenditures among

all U.S. households decreased by

16.9 percent between 1981 and

2001, from an average of $1,760

to $1,463 in 2000 dollars (Figure

6). Among the households with

incomes below the poverty line,

total energy expenditures

decreased by 22.1 percent, from

an average of $1,431 to $1,115.

Among households with incomes

above 1.25 times the poverty level,

total energy expenditures

decreased by 16.5 percent, from

$1,832 to $1,529.

Home heating

Paralleling total annual space heating Btu consumption, total annual

inflation-adjusted space heating

expenditures decreased by 33.5

percent between 1981 and 2001,

from an average of $705 to $469

(Table 9). Among households in

poverty, total inflation-adjusted

space heating Btu expenditures

were lower and the decrease

U.S. Census Bureau 15 Table 7. Concentration Indexes of Average Number of Selected Appliances and Vehicles Owned: 1992 to 2002 (By expenditure outlays) Concentration indexes 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Refrigerator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 Color TV. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.13 Microwave . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.12 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04 VCR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.24 0.22 0.21 0.20 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 Washer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.10 0.09 Dryer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.11 0.10 Sound components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.22 0.22 0.21 0.22 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.19 0.17 1 Stoves combined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 Computer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.42 0.40 0.39 0.41 0.37 0.35 0.34 0.32 0.30 0.28 0.27 2 Dishwashers combined . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.27 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.20 Garbage disposal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.24 0.23 0.22 0.23 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.18 0.19 0.20 0.19 Freezer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.08 Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.19 0.20 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.19 1Stoves combined includes gas stoves, electric stoves, and other stoves. 2Dishwashers combined includes built-in dishwashers and portable dishwashers. Notes: Concentration indexes are a bivariate analog of the Gini coefficient. A concentration index will have a value of zero when there is no inequality in the ownership of a particu- lar durable across the expenditure outlays distribution. In other words, the percentages of consumer units owning a particular durable are equal across the deciles. Indexes of higher values indicate that inequality in outlays favor consumer units of higher outlays, while indexes less than zero indicate a concentration of ownership among consumer units with lower outlays. For these indexes, consumer units are ranked by total expenditure outlays. Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, unpublished Consumer Expenditure Survey Interview Data 1992, 2002.
between 1981 and 2001 was

larger. The average total annual

space heating expenditures for

these households decreased by

37.7 percent from $608 to $379.

Among households with incomes

above 1.25 times the poverty level,

total space heating expenditures

per household decreased by 32.9

percent between 1981 and 2001

from an average of $723 to $485.

Two space heating energy consumption and expenditures measures providing insight on the

“energy burden” for a housing unit

are Heating Btu Intensity and

Heating Dollar Intensity. Heating

Btu Intensity is a measure of the

number of Btu consumed per

1,000 square feet of heated living

space and heating degree-day.23

Heating Dollar Intensity is a measure of the dollars spent per 1,000

square feet of heated living space

and heating degree-day.

Heating Btu Intensity for all U.S.

housing units has been decreasing

since 1981, when it was 9.0, to its

2001 low of 6.4. These decreases

were observed for all income

groups (Table 9). Heating Btu

Intensity was highest for households whose income was below the

16 U.S. Census Bureau

23 A heating degree day is a measure of

how cold a location is over a period of time

relative to a base temperature, most commonly specified as 65 degrees Fahrenheit.

The measure is computed for each day by

subtracting the average of the day’s high

and low temperatures from the base temperature (65 degrees), with negative values set

equal to zero. Heating degree-days are

summed to create a heating degree-day

measure for a specified reference period.

Heating degree-days are used in energy

analysis as an indication of space heating

energy requirements or use.

24 The level of 12.8 for Heating Btu

Intensity for households with income below

the poverty threshold was reached in 1987.

See “Additional Data” at the end of the text

of this publication for information on how to

access these data. 25 Information on 1993 is taken from tabulations that will be published separately by

the Energy Information Administration.

poverty level, ranging between 8.7

and 12.8,24 and lowest for those

housing units whose household

income was greater than 1.25

times the poverty level, ranging

between 6.1 and 8.6. Clearly, the

“energy burden” is greater for

households below the poverty line

than for more affluent ones.

Heating Dollar Intensity for all U.S.

housing units decreased from its

high in 1981, when it was 9.6, to its

low of 6.3 in 1993.25 In 2001,

Heating Dollar Intensity increased to

6.9. This pattern of decreases

Table 8.

Energy Consumption and Expenditures by Selected Household Characteristics: 1981 and

2001

Characteristic

1981 2001

Number of

households

(millions)

Total Btus1

per household

(thousand Btus)

Total dollars

per household

(inflationadjusted

U.S. dollars)

Number of

households

(millions)

Total Btus1

per household

(thousand Btus)

Total dollars

per household

(inflationadjusted

U.S. Dollars)

All households..................... 83.1 111,720 1,760 107.0 92,202 1,463

Household income

Less than $10,000................. 23.3 94,160 1,453 11.0 65,248 1,019

$10,000 to $14,999................ 12.5 104,135 1,630 7.7 69,704 1,101

$15,000 to $19,999................ 10.7 103,669 1,633 8.9 80,479 1,265

$20,000 to $29,999................ 17.7 114,696 1,848 14.0 83,380 1,289

$30,000 to $39,999................ 10.1 132,567 1,986 13.9 86,881 1,370

$40,000 to $49,999................ 4.3 130,480 2,152 13.2 92,804 1,488

$50,000 to $74,999................ 3.1 149,313 2,521 21.7 102,516 1,650

$75,000 or more . ................. 1.4 204,742 3,181 16.6 124,675 1,993

Income relative to poverty threshold

Income below poverty threshold. .... 11.0 92,733 1,431 15.0 70,697 1,115

Income 1 to 1.25 times poverty ..... 4.8 98,311 1,508 5.1 87,421 1,370

Income above 1.25 times poverty . . . 67.3 115,779 1,832 86.9 96,192 1,529

1

British thermal unit (Btu): The quantity of heat required to raise the temperature of 1 pound of liquid water by 1 degree Fahrenheit at the

temperature at which water has its greatest density (approximately 39 degrees Fahrenheit).

Notes: Household income is income from all sources, self-reported by the household respondent. Consumption and expenditures are for

major fuels used by the household, including electricity, natural gas, fuel oil, kerosene, and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) as applicable.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Forms EIA-457 A-G of the 1981 Residential Energy

Consumption Survey and 2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey.
followed by an increase was

observed for all income groups.

Heating Dollar Intensity (after

adjusting for inflation) was highest

for households whose household

income was below the poverty level,

ranging between 9.7 and 12.3, and

was lowest for households whose

income was greater than 1.25 times

the poverty level, ranging between

6.5 and 9.2.

Air-conditioning

In 1981, 47.6 million households,

or 57.3 percent, used electricity for

air-conditioning their homes. In

2001 this number increased to

80.8 million or 75.5 percent.26

Despite the fact that air-conditioning Btu consumption per household rose by 8.5 percent over the

U.S. Census Bureau 17

26 Unpublished tabulations from the RECS.

1981–2001 period, annual per

household expenditures (after

adjusting for inflation) fell by 

16.5 percent from $231 per year in

1981 to $193 per year in 2001

(see Table 10). This result reflects

the fact that the cost, in inflationadjusted dollars, of electricity, the

principal source of energy for airconditioning, decreased 22.5 percent over this period.

Table 9.

Home Space Heating Consumption and Expenditures by Selected Household

Characteristics: 1981 and 2001

Characteristic

1981 2001

Dollars for

space heating

per household

(inflationadjusted

U.S. dollars)

Heating Btu1

intensity

(Btus per

thousand

square feet

and

degree-day2

)

Heating dollar

intensity

(inflationadjusted U.S.

cents per

square feet and

degree-day2)

Dollars for

space heating

per household

(inflationadjusted

U.S. dollars)

Heating Btu1

intensity

(Btus per

thousand

square feet

and

degree-day2

)

Heating dollar

intensity

(inflationadjusted U.S.

cents per

square feet and

degree-day2)

All households (that use either

electricity, natural gas, fuel oil,

kerosene, or LPG for heating ...... 705 9.0 9.6 469 6.4 6.9

Household income

Less than $10,000................. 656 11.4 12.4 372 8.7 9.8

$10,000 to $14,999................ 670 9.3 10.2 389 7.9 8.8

$15,000 to $19,999................ 692 8.7 9.6 439 7.9 8.5

$20,000 to $29,999................ 695 8.2 8.8 447 7.9 8.5

$30,000 to $39,999................ 745 8.2 8.0 448 7.2 7.7

$40,000 to $49,999................ 758 7.4 8.1 479 6.2 6.7

$50,000 to $74,999................ 887 8.1 9.0 488 5.6 5.9

$75,000 or more . ................. 1,168 8.9 8.9 585 5.3 5.5

Income relative to poverty threshold

Income below poverty threshold. .... 608 11.5 12.3 379 8.7 9.7

Income 1 to 1.25 times poverty ..... 676 11.5 12.4 443 8.2 8.9

Income above 1.25 times poverty . . . 723 8.6 9.2 485 6.1 6.5

1

British thermal unit (Btu): The quantity of heat required to raise the temperature of 1 pound of liquid water by 1 degree Fahrenheit at

the temperature at which water has its greatest density (approximately 39 degrees Fahrenheit). 2

Heating Degree-Days (HDD): A measure of how cold a location is over a period of time relative to a base temperature, most commonly

specified as 65 degrees Fahrenheit. The measure is computed for each day by subtracting the average of the day’s high and low temperatures from the base temperature (65 degrees), with negative values set equal to zero. Each day’s heating degree-days are summed to create a heating degree-day measure for a specified reference period. Heating degree-days are used in energy analysis as an indication of

space heating energy requirements or use.

Notes: Household income is income from all sources, self-reported by the household respondent. Consumption and expenditures are for

major fuels used by the household, including electricity, natural gas, fuel oil, kerosene, and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) as applicable.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Forms EIA-457 A-G of the 1981 Residential Energy

Consumption Survey and 2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey.
Annual per household expenditures for air-conditioning were positively related to income relative to

the poverty level. Annual expenditures by households with incomes

below the poverty level were lower

than those by households with

incomes greater than 1.25 times

the poverty level. The 1981–2001

decrease in expenditures among

households below the poverty level

was 26.4 percent, compared with

15.5 percent among more affluent

households.

Cooling Btu Intensity for all U.S.

housing units has been decreasing

since 1981, when it was 4.5, to its

2001 low of 2.8. Decreases were

observed for all income groups.

Cooling Btu Intensity was higher

for households whose household

income was below the poverty

level, ranging between 4.8 and 3.4,

than for households whose household income was greater than 1.25

times the poverty level, ranging

between 4.5 and 2.8.

As was the case with Cooling Btu

Intensity, Cooling Dollar Intensity

(after adjusting for inflation) also

decreased from its high of 14.6 in

1981 to its 2001 low of 7.1.

These decreases were observed for

all income groups. Cooling Dollar

Intensity (after adjusting for inflation) was highest for households

with incomes below the poverty

level, ranging between 15.7 and

8.2, and lowest for households

whose household incomes were

greater than 1.25 times the

poverty level, ranging between

14.7 and 7.0.

TWO DECADES OF CHANGE

This report has presented measures of material well-being from

three separate survey programs,

covering the period from 1981 to

2002. During the 1990s, improvements were observed in the possession of most types of consumer

durables, in most housing and consumer durables from 1992 to

neighborhood conditions, and in 2002. During this period, the CE

meeting basic needs. Possession data showed that the lowest

of consumer durables continued to expenditure decile maintained or

climb through 2002. increased its rate of possession of

13 types of durables. According to Notable growth was observed in SIPP data, groups defined by age, the possession of newer goods sex, race, Hispanic origin, educa- such as microwaves, computers, tion, and household type (married and VCRs during the entire 1992 or unmarried, with or without chil- to 2002 period. On the other dren) increased their possession of hand, no clear trend appeared in

consumer durables, reported fewer perceptions of crime and safety

housing problems, and had less during the period 1992 to 1998.

difficulty meeting basic needs Some crime and safety indicators

between 1992 and 1998. In con- rose during the period while at

least one fell; people were more trast, households with a disabled

likely to have stayed at home out working-age adult showed lower

of concern for safety in 1998 than gains than the rest of the populain 1992. tion in the possession of consumer

durables and freedom from the

Nearly all groups participated in fear of crime.

the gains in possession of

18 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 6.

Total Inflation-Adjusted Energy Expenditures 

per Household by Income Relative to 

Poverty Threshold

Sources: Energy Information Administration: 1981, 1987, 1993, and 2001 

Residential Energy Consumption Surveys.

1981

1987

1993

2001

$1,529

$1,760 

$1,522 

$1,460 

$1,463 

$1,431 

$1,274 

$1,202 

$1,115 

$1,508 

$1,330 

$1,300 

$1,370 

$1,832

$1,579

$1,519

Income above

1.25 times

poverty

Income

1 to 1.25 times

poverty

Income below

poverty threshold

All households

(Inflation-adjusted year 2000 dollars)
Lower income or expenditure foot and per-degree-day basis; across expenditure deciles, which

households increased their posses- these costs fell greatly over the meant that the share going to the

sion of many consumer durable period 1981 to 2001, and to about lowest-expenditure households

items. Quality of consumer the same extent as for other increased. The association of

durables was not observed in households. material well-being measures with

these surveys, but an aspect of poverty over this period was not Lower-income households gained quality could be observed in the examined. ground on higher-income house- energy efficiency and cost of heat- holds in the possession of con- Further evidence on areas of mate- ing and cooling of their homes. sumer durables. Over the period rial well-being other than consumer Households with low incomes had from 1992 to 2002, the ownership durables from SIPP data collected higher costs associated with heat- of most consumer durables in 2003 will be available later. ing and cooling on a per-square- became more equally distributed

U.S. Census Bureau 19

Table 10.

Home Space Cooling Consumption and Expenditures by Selected Household

Characteristics: 1981 and 2001

Characteristic

1981 2001

Dollars for air

conditioning

per household

(inflationadjusted

U.S. dollars)

Cooling Btu1

intensity

(Btus per

thousand

square feet

and

degree-day2

)

Cooling dollar

intensity

(inflationadjusted U.S.

cents per

thousand

square feet and

degree-day2)

Dollars for air

conditioning

per household

(inflationadjusted

U.S. dollars)

Cooling Btu1

intensity

(Btus per

thousand

square feet

and

degree-day2

)

Cooling dollar

intensity

(inflationadjusted U.S.

cents per

thousand

square feet and

degree-day2)

All households (that use electricity

for central air-conditioning). . . ..... 231 4.5 14.6 193 2.8 7.1

Household income

Less than $10,000................. 170 4.3 14.2 126 3.1 7.7

$10,000 to $14,999................ 190 4.4 14.0 132 3.0 7.3

$15,000 to $19,999................ 196 4.8 15.2 159 3.2 7.9

$20,000 to $29,999................ 240 4.5 14.8 143 2.9 7.1

$30,000 to $39,999................ 263 4.7 14.7 170 3.1 7.8

$40,000 to $49,999................ 324 4.4 13.8 187 2.8 6.9

$50,000 to $74,999................ 383 4.7 16.0 230 2.9 7.2

$75,000 or more . ................. 444 5.3 19.5 280 2.6 6.7

Income relative to poverty threshold

Income below poverty threshold. .... 193 4.8 15.7 142 3.4 8.2

Income 1 to 1.25 times poverty ..... 161 3.7 13.4 170 3.4 8.1

Income above 1.25 times poverty . . . 239 4.5 14.7 202 2.8 7.0

1

British thermal unit (Btu): The quantity of heat required to raise the temperature of 1 pound of liquid water by 1 degree Fahrenheit at the

temperature at which water has its greatest density (approximately 39 degrees Fahrenheit). 2

Cooling degree-days (CDD): A measure of how warm a location is over a period of time relative to a base temperature, most commonly

specified as 65 degrees Fahrenheit. The measure is computed for each day by subtracting the average of the day’s high and low temperatures from the base temperature (65 degrees), with negative values set equal to zero. Each day’s cooling degree-days are summed to create a cooling degree-day measure for a specified reference period. Cooling degree-days are used in energy analysis as an indication of airconditioning energy requirements or use.

Notes: Household income is income from all sources, self-reported by the household respondent. Consumption and expenditures are for

electricity used for central air-conditioning.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Forms EIA-457 A-G of the 1981 Residential Energy

Consumption Survey and 2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey.
References Current Population Survey and Well-Being,” in D. B.

the Survey of Income and Papadimitriou and E. N. Wolff, Agresti, Alan, Categorical Data Program Participation,” Survey of Ed., Poverty and Prosperity in Analysis, Second Edition, Wiley Income and Program the USA in the Late Twentieth Series in Probability and Participation Working Paper Century, St. Martin’s Press, New Statistics, Number 359, John Series, No. 215, U.S. Census York, 1993. Wiley & Sons, New York, 2002. Bureau, Washington, DC, 1996. Proctor, Bernadette D. and Joseph Bauman, Kurt J., “Age and Material DeNavas-Walt, Carmen, Robert W. Dalaker, Poverty in the United Well-Being in the Survey of Cleveland, and Bruce H. States, 2002, Current Population Income and Program Webster, Jr., Income in the Reports, P60-222, U.S. Census Participation,” 2003

United States, 2002, Current Bureau, Washington, DC, 2003. Proceedings, American Statistical Population Reports, P60-221, Association, Social Statistics Short, Kathleen S. and Martina U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, Section, 2004. Shea, Beyond Poverty, Extended DC, 2003. Measures of Well-Being: 1992, Bauman, Kurt J., Extended

Fienberg, Stephen E., The Analysis Current Population Reports, P70- Measures of Well-Being: Living of Cross-Classified Categorical 50RV, U.S. Census Bureau, Conditions in the United States:

Data, Second Edition, MIT Press, Washington, DC, 1995. 1998, Current Population Cambridge, MA, 1980. Reports, P70-87, U.S. Census Slesnick, Daniel, “Gaining Ground:

Bureau, Washington, DC, 2003. Greenspan, Alan, “Income Poverty in the Postwar United

Inequality: Issues and Policy States,” Journal of Political Bauman, Kurt J., “Shifting Family Options,” Remarks at a sympo- Economy 101:1, 1993. Definitions: The Effect of

sium sponsored by the Federal Cohabitation and Other U.S. Census Bureau, Money Income Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Nonfamily Household of Families and Persons in the Jackson Hole, Wyoming, Relationships on Measures of United States: 1978, Current (August), 1998. Poverty,” Demography 36(3): Population Reports, P60-123,

315–325, 1999. Liegey, Paul, “Hedonic Quality U.S. Census Bureau, Washington,

Adjustment Methods for DC, 1980. Bresnahan, Timothy F. and Robert Microwave Ovens in the U.S. J. Gordan (eds.), The Economics U.S. Census Bureau, Supplemental CPI,” BLS Draft Paper, Bureau of of New Goods, Studies Income Measures of Material Well-Being: Labor Statistics, and Wealth Volume 58, National Expenditures, Consumption and <www.bls.gov/cpi/cpimwo.htm> Bureau of Economic Research, Poverty 1998 and 2001, Current accessed June 25, 2004, The University of Chicago Press, Population Reports, P23-201, Washington, DC, 2001. Chicago, IL,1997. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington,

Liegey, Paul and Nicole Shepler, DC, 2003. Citro, Constance. F. and Robert T. “Adjusting VCR Prices for Quality Michael (eds.), Measuring U.S. Department of Health and Change: A Study Using Hedonic Poverty: A New Approach, Human Services, Measures of Methods,” Monthly Labor Review National Academy Press, Material Hardship, U.S. (September): 22–37, 1999. Washington, DC, 1995. Department of Health and

Mayer, Susan and Christopher Human Services, Office of the Coder, John and Lydia Scoon- Jencks, “Recent Trends in Assistant Secretary for Planning Rogers, “Evaluating the Quality Economic Inequality in the and Evaluation, (April), of Income Data Collected in the

United States: Income versus Washington, DC, 2004. Annual Supplement to the March Expenditures versus Material

20 U.S. Census Bureau
U.S. Census Bureau 21

APPENDIX A: DATA SOURCES

The Survey of Income and pling error into account and are

Program Participation significant at the 90-percent confidence level. This means the 90- The data in Tables 1 to 3 and in

percent confidence interval for the Figures 1 and 2 in this report were

difference between the estimates collected from three panels of the

being compared does not include Survey of Income and Program

zero. Nonsampling errors in sur- Participation (SIPP). Data for 1992

veys may be attributed to a variety were collected from two panels:

of sources, such as how the survey the 1991 panel third wave (interwas designed, how respondents view) and the 1992 panel sixth

interpret questions, how able and wave. Data from both these panels

willing respondents are to provide were collected in the same months:

correct answers, and how accu- September to December of 1992.

rately answers are coded and clas- These data do not include imputasified. The Census Bureau employs tions for item nonresponse, therequality control procedures fore frequencies are based on

throughout the production actual responses. For the most

process, including the overall part, nonresponse levels for these

design of surveys, testing the questions were in the range of 1 to

wording of questions, reviewing 2 percent. Data from the 1996

the work of interviewers and panel were collected during August

coders, and conducting statistical through November 1998 in the

review of reports, to minimize the eighth wave. Unlike the data from

chance of errors. the 1991 and 1992 panels, these

data include imputations for nonre- The SIPP employs ratio estimation,

sponse. The comparison of num- whereby sample estimates are

bers of households in Table 2 is adjusted to independent estimates

affected by the change in handling of the national population by age,

of missing responses. However, race, sex, and Hispanic origin. This

the imputations have little impact weighting procedure partially coron comparisons of percentages. rects for bias because of undercoverage, but how it affects different The SIPP is a longitudinal survey

variables in the survey is not pre- conducted at four-month intervals.

cisely known. Moreover, biases may The population represented (the

also be present when people who population universe) is the civilian

noninstitutionalized population liv- are missed in the survey differ from

those interviewed in ways other ing in the United States. The instithan the categories used in weight- tutionalized population, which is

ing (age, race, sex, and Hispanic excluded from the population uniorigin). All of these considerations verse, is composed primarily of the

affect comparisons across different population in correctional institusurveys or data sources. tions and nursing homes (91 percent of the institutionalized popula- Information on the source of data

tion [4.1 million] in Census 2000). and the accuracy of estimates from

the 1991 and 1992 panels of the Statistics from sample surveys are

SIPP, including the use and compu- subject to sampling and nonsamtation of standard errors, is avail- pling error. All comparisons preable in the “Source and Accuracy sented in the sections of the report

Statement for the 1992 Public Use using SIPP data have taken samFiles From the Survey of Income

and Program Participation,” at

<www.sipp.census.gov/sipp

/sourceac/S&A92_puf.pdf>.

Information on the source of data

and the accuracy of estimates from

the 1996 panel is available in the

“Source and Accuracy Statement

for the 1996 Public Use Files From

the Survey of Income and Program

Participation,” at <www.sipp

.census.gov/sipp/sourceac

/s&a96_040501.pdf>. For further

information on statistical standards

and the computation and use of

standard errors, contact John L.

Boies, U.S. Census Bureau,

Demographic Statistical Methods

Division, at 301-763-4150 or via

Internet e-mail 

(John.L.Boies@census.gov).

The Consumer 

Expenditure Survey

The current Consumer Expenditure

(CE) Survey program began in

1980. The Census Bureau conducts the survey for the Bureau of

Labor Statistics. The principal

objective of the survey is to collect

information on the buying habits

of consumers living in the United

States. The survey consists of two

components:

■ A Diary, or recordkeeping, survey completed by participating

consumer units for two consecutive one-week periods.27

■ An Interview survey in which

expenditures of consumer units

are obtained in five interviews

conducted every three months;

the inventory information analyzed in this study are from the

Interview survey.

Survey participants report dollar

amounts for goods and services

27 For a definition of consumer units, see

footnote 19.
purchased during the reporting on small, frequently purchased describing the consumption and

period, regardless of whether pay- items that are normally difficult for use of energy and the characterisment is made at the time of pur- respondents to recall. Detailed tics of the consumers. Publications

chase. Expenditure amounts records of expenses are kept for and electronic data files can be

include all sales and excise taxes food and beverages (both at home viewed and downloaded from the

for all items purchased by the con- and in eating places) tobacco, Internet through the EIA Home Page

sumer unit for itself or for others. housekeeping supplies, nonpre- <www.eia.doe.gov> or more directly

Excluded from both surveys are all scription drugs, and personal care at <www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs>.

business-related expenditures and products and services. Expenditures The survey is conducted in two expenditures for which the con- incurred away from home overnight phases. In the first phase, the sumer unit is reimbursed. or longer are excluded from the energy-related characteristics of Diary survey. Although the diary Each component of the survey the household and data on the was designed to collect information queries an independent sample of fuels and equipment used in the on expenditures that could not be consumer units that is representa- housing unit are collected during a recalled easily over a given period, tive of the U.S. population. In the personal interview with an eligible respondents are asked to report all Diary survey, about 7,500 consumer adult member of the household. expenses (except overnight travel units are sampled each year. Each Building and energy characteristics expenses) that the consumer unit consumer unit keeps a diary for two for rental units are collected from incurs during the survey week. one-week periods, yielding approxi- rental agents, landlords, and apartmately 15,000 diaries a year. The T ment managers during telephone he Residential Energy

Interview sample is selected on a Consumption Survey interviews. The second phase of

rotating-panel basis, surveying RECS collects data on fuel con- The Residential Energy Consumption about 7,500 consumer units each sumption and expenditures by Survey (RECS) is the Energy quarter. Each consumer unit is housing unit from the suppliers of Information Administration’s (EIA) interviewed once per quarter, for energy to the housing units in the benchmark national survey provid- five consecutive quarters. Data are RECS sample. ing data on energy consumption collected on an ongoing basis in and expenditures in conjunction The RECS also collects data for the 105 areas of the United States. with characteristics of housing units U.S. Department of Health and

The Interview survey is designed to and their residents. The RECS is Human Services (HHS)

capture expenditure data that conducted every 4 years, most Administration for Children and

respondents can reasonably recall recently for data year 2001, the Families (ACF). In 2001, ACF

for a period of three months or eleventh time the survey was con- funded a supplemental survey of

longer. In general, the data cap- ducted. Data are collected via vol- 500 Low Income Housing Energy

tured are relatively large expendi- untary computer-assisted personal Assistance Program (LIHEAP) recipi- interviews with a probability sample tures, such as spending on real ent households residing in the of about 5,000 housing units nation- property, automobiles, and major areas targeted for sampling. Prior wide, and via mandatory follow-up appliances, or expenditures that to 2001, the RECS collected LIHEAP

occur on a regular basis, such as mail collection of energy data from data from a supplemental sample the sample households’ energy sup- spending on rent, utilities, and of approximately 800 low-income pliers. Almost all of the housing insurance premiums. Including households. unit data are provided by a responsi- global estimates of spending for ble householder, but the interviewer food, it is estimated that about 95 Among the household characteristics

does measure the floor space of the percent of expenditures are covered collected are the number of househousing unit, which is a crucial vari- in the Interview survey. hold members and total household

able explaining energy use. Expenditures on nonprescription income from all sources. These data

drugs, household supplies, and per- permit the construction of identifiers The RECS estimates are based on a

sonal care items are excluded, but of household income relative to the statistical sample using an area

are collected in the Diary survey. poverty line and an identifier for eli- probability sampling design. The

The Interview survey also provides gibility for federal assistance (i.e., sampling unit is the housing unit.

data on expenditures incurred on LIHEAP). The former identifiers are The information obtained in the

leisure trips. The Diary survey is the basis for the tables and figures RECS is used to construct a

designed to capture expenditures presented in this report. database on the household sector

22 U.S. Census Bureau
∑ (2) = = 10

ji i 1 ji pji rr

(1)

x

Cy = 1 - 2 I Fi [ g (x) ] d F ( x ) 0

U.S. Census Bureau 23

APPENDIX B: CONCENTRATION INDEXES FOR DURABLE GOODS

The Concentration Index is computed as one minus twice the area

under the concentration curve

(defined below). This is similar to

the equation used to compute the

Gini coefficient; however, the Gini

is based on the area under the

Lorenz curve.28 The curves represent cumulative probability distributions (CPD).

Consider a variable, y, that is some

function of total expenditures, x;

i.e., y = g(x), and consumer units

are ranked in ascending order of

x—their total expenditures in this

case. The concentration curve for

y is defined as the share of total y,

for example the total percentage of

consumer units who own a television, for consumer units with total

expenditures of x or less, Fi

[g(x)],

graphed against the population

share of those with total expenditures no greater than x, F(x). The

28 The Gini coefficient (or index of income

concentration) is a statistical measure of

income equality ranging from 0 to 1. A

measure of 1 indicates perfect inequality;

i.e., one person has all the income and the

rest have none. A measure of 0 indicates

perfect equality; i.e. all people having equal

shares of income. For a more detailed discussion, see U.S. Census Bureau, 1980.

concentration index is one minus

twice the area under the concentration curve; i.e., 

The concentration index lies

between –1 and +1. It could be

negative if low-income people had

a higher ownership rate than highincome people. This is in contrast

to the Gini coefficient that lies

between zero and one.

Using percent ownership

To produce the concentration

indexes for ownership, the percent

ownership rates by decile are

transformed into a discrete probability distribution and replace y in

equation 1. This is shown in equation 2:

where pji is the fraction of all

households that own durable good

j that are in total expenditure

decile i and rji is the actual ownership rate of good j for the ith

decile. By construction, the sum of

the pjis is equal to one. For goods

that have ownership rates that are

relatively equal across deciles,

regardless of the level of the ownership rate, the probability distributions are fairly flat with values

for pji close to 0.1. For goods that

are more concentrated among the

affluent households, the probability distributions tend to rise across

the income deciles.

Using average number owned

When using the concentration

index to describe the distribution

of average number of durable

goods owned, the computation is

the same as in equation 2 except

that the percent ownership in each

decile is replaced by the average

number owned in each decile.

Using average value

For each decile, the average expenditure on durable goods for those

consumer units that purchased a

durable good is calculated. This

amount is multiplied by the average number of vehicles owned (by

decile). This yields a proxy for the

value of the vehicles owned by

each decile.
24 U.S. Census Bureau

APPENDIX C: STATISTICAL APPROACHES TO COMPARING TRENDS IN 

MATERIAL WELL-BEING

This appendix discusses several period, households with income among households with income at

approaches that can be taken to below poverty increased their rate or above poverty in 1992 was 0.29

compare the relative performance of computer ownership by 2.6 divided by 0.08, or 3.9. In other

of households with income above times (7 percent to 18 percent), for words, households with income at

and below the poverty threshold, a 161 percent gain. or above poverty had almost 4

with a focus on the example of times the odds of having a com- The two methods for examining computer ownership by poverty puter as households with income the relative increase in computer status in 1992 and 1998. below poverty. ownership by households with

Relative performance of house- income at or above poverty and The odds ratio of 3.9 shows

holds is not as easily described as households with income below greater prevalence of computers

absolute performance, because rel- poverty yield opposite conclusions. among households with income at

ative performance can be The 23 percentage-point gain in or above poverty than among

described in different ways. computer ownership by house- households with income below

Percentage point change in the holds at or above the poverty level poverty, and confirms what was

percent of households having a was larger than the 11 percentage- stated above using simpler statisparticular material well-being indi- point gain of households below tics: households with income at or

cator is the percent having an indi- poverty. At the same time, the above poverty were more likely to

cator in 1998 minus the percent 100 percent gain in proportions own computers. Where the odds

having that indicator in 1992. The owning a computer of households ratios provide additional insight is

prevalence of computers in house- at or above the poverty level was in the examination of changes

holds with income at or above smaller than the 161 percent gain between 1992 and 1998. In 1998

poverty grew from 23 percent to of households below poverty. the odds ratio favoring computer

45 percent from 1992 to 1998, ownership among households with To address these complications, while the corresponding growth in income at or above poverty was statisticians have proposed the households with income below 3.7, not statistically different from odds ratio as a possible way to poverty was from 7 percent to 18 the value of 3.9 observed in 1992. represent these relationships percent (Table 11). The percent- In other words, as measured by the (Fienberg, 1980; Agresti, 2002). age-point shift in possession of odds ratio, the relative computer “Odds” compare the probability computers is the 1998 percentage ownership by households with that an event will occur to the minus the 1992 percentage, or 23 income at or above poverty and probability it will not, and the percentage points for households households with income below “odds ratio” is the ratio of two above poverty and 11 percentage poverty did not change between odds. The odds of a household points for households below 1992 and 1998. with income at or above the poverty (see the first two columns poverty level having a computer in Across all 12 items on which odds- of Table 12). 1992 was the percentage that had ratio comparisons between 1992

Another common measure of com- a computer (23 percent) divided by and 1998 were made (Table 12),

parative growth is the percent the percentage that did not have a none showed a statistically significhange in the proportion of house- computer (77 percent), or 0.29. cant change. Despite the absolute

holds having a material well-being The odds of a household with increase in 8 of these material

indicator. Using the same exam- income below the poverty level well-being indicators by houseple, the proportion of households having a computer in 1992 was the holds with income below poverty,

with income at or above poverty percentage that had a computer (7 there was no increase or decrease

possessing computers doubled percent) divided by the percentage in their position relative to houseduring the 1992 to 1998 period that did not have a computer (93 holds at or above poverty during

(23 percent to 45 percent), for a percent) or 0.08. The odds ratio this period.

100 percent gain. Over the same favoring computer ownership
U.S. Census Bureau 25

ADDITIONAL DATA

Tables with additional information <www.census.gov/population Also, the Energy Information

on the topics covered in this report /www/socdemo/wellbeing.html>. Administration has produced a set

are available from each of the of detailed tables on energy use by Additional tables on possession of three contributing agencies. The households, energy efficiency of consumer durables and related Census Bureau has produced sev- heating and cooling, and other top- information from the Consumer eral reports on measures of mate- ics, at <www.eia.doe.gov/emeu Expenditure Survey are available rial well-being, including detailed /recs/contents.html>. from the Bureau of Labor Statistics tables, which are available at at <www.bls.gov/cex/home.htm>.

Table 11.

Percentage of Households With Selected Measures of Material Well-Being by Poverty

Status: 1992 and 1998

All households At or above poverty Below poverty

Indicator

1992 1998 1992 1998 1992 1998

Stove .................................... 98.9 98.7 99.2 99.0 97.1 96.7

Enough of food wanted .................... 97.6 97.8 98.6 98.5 91.1 92.4

Telephone ................................ 94.7 96.2 96.7 97.5 81.1 87.0

No smoke or odors in neighborhood ......... 92.6 95.1 93.1 95.4 89.7 93.2

No unpaid rent or mortgage . . .............. 92.2 94.6 93.8 95.7 81.4 86.8

No unmet need for doctor .................. 92.3 93.9 93.4 95.0 84.2 85.9

No roof or ceiling leaks .................... 91.4 93.1 92.1 93.7 85.5 89.1

No abandoned houses in neighborhood...... 89.6 92.0 90.6 92.6 83.3 88.3

No unmet essential expenses............... 85.9 86.0 88.4 88.3 68.4 69.3

Air conditioner ............................ 68.7 77.7 71.1 79.1 52.6 67.7

Dishwasher............................... 49.3 56.0 53.4 60.3 20.0 25.7

Computer ................................ 20.7 42.0 22.6 45.3 7.1 18.4

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1991, 1992, and 1996 panels.

Table 12.

Comparison of Indicators of Material Well-Being of Households by Poverty Status Using

Three Measures—Percentage Point Change, Percent Change in Proportions, and Odds

Ratio: 1992 and 1998

Percentage point change in

households, 1992 to 1998

Percentage change in

proportion of households,

1992 to 1998

Odds ratio of households

above poverty and

below poverty1

At or above

poverty

Below

poverty

At or above

poverty

Below

poverty 1992 1998

Stove ................................. –0.3 –0.4 -0.3 –0.4 3.9 3.2

Enough of food wanted ................. –0.1 1.3 -0.1 1.4 7.0 5.5

Telephone ............................. 0.7 5.9 0.8 7.3 6.9 5.7

No smoke or odors in neighborhood ...... 2.3 3.6 2.4 4.0 1.6 1.5

No unpaid rent or mortgage . . ........... 1.9 5.4 2.0 6.7 3.5 3.4

No unmet need for doctor ............... 1.5 1.7 1.6 2.1 2.7 3.1

No roof or ceiling leaks ................. 1.5 3.6 1.7 4.2 2.0 1.8

No abandoned houses in neighborhood. . . 2.0 5.1 2.2 6.1 1.9 1.6

No unmet essential expenses............ –0.1 0.9 -0.1 1.3 3.5 3.3

Air conditioner ......................... 8.0 15.1 11.2 28.7 2.2 1.8

Dishwasher............................ 6.9 5.7 12.9 28.6 4.6 4.4

Computer ............................. 22.7 11.4 100.0 161.2 3.9 3.7

1 For definition of odds ratio, see text.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1991, 1992, and 1996 panels.
U.S. Department of Commerce FIRST-CLASS MAIL Economics and Statistics Administration POSTAGE & FEES PAID

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU U.S. Census Bureau

Washington, DC 20233 Permit No. G-58

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for Private Use $300