families) to determine the completness and general
quality of the schedule and to detect problems re-
quiring detailed review. The initial reviewer ex-
amined each schedule B, section by section, giving
spectal attention to all notes made by interviewers
and fleld editors. At this point, the Initial reviewer
removed schedules for part-year consumer units and
incomplete schedules. These schedules were filed
for further study, but were excluded from subsequent
processing of the sample of complete schedules for
full-year consumer units.

The initial reviewer decided which schedules could
be sent directly for routine coding and ediling and
which should be routed for detailed review. Some
items, with a hislory of reporting problems inprevious
surveys, were referred consistently to detuiled review;
others were referred, if, in the judgment of the
initial reviewer, they required additional attention.
Referral to detailed review was automatic for sched-
ules on which reported receipts and disbursements
were out of baiance by more than 20 percent (page 22)
and for schedules with entries relating to: Business
use or rental of part of home; purchase or sale of
home or other real estate; membership in certain
types of plans for prepaid health care; business use,
purchase, or sale of automobile; reimbursement for
expenses for out-of-town travel; income from self{-
employment.

The initial reviewer attached a Hst of questionable
sections and items, with a brief explanation to guide
the detailed review to schedules requiring detailed
review. Approximately 65 percent of the complete
schedules in the 1960-61 urban sample were referred
for detailed review. A somewhat larger fraction
(77 percent) of the 1961 rural nonfarm sample in
metropolitan areas was referred to detailed review.
Possibly, this difference is attributable to large
numbers of automatic referrals beoause of the higher
incidence of self-employment and ownership and
business use of home and autos in rural nonfarm
compared with urban areas.

Detailed review

The staff assigned to detailed review oonsisted of
four to eight persons, usually economists in grades
GS-5, GS-7, or GS-9. They prepared written in-
struotions for all ohanges to be made by the coding
and editing staff, including an explanation of the
basis for the change. These instructions (on a form
identified as PB 721), were reviewed by a super-
yisory economist and became part of the permunent
reoord filed with the schedule.

30

As the detailed review progressed and procedures
for handling reourrent problems emerged, an in~
formal manual was compiled for internal use to
standardize procedures and to have 4 centralized
record of decisions reached in review. All reviewers
contributed to compiling this manual by submitting
written statements and by participation in staff meet~
ings. These procedural statements supplemented mun-
uals and training materials. used in the field or by
the Washington coding and editing staff. In developing
these specialized procedures, reviewers referred to
official tubles of real estate taxes; military pay
scales; income tax rates; and deductions for social
security or Federal retirement, etc., as guides to
the reasonablenees of entries.

Reviewers could request field supervisors to clarify
doubtful entries on individual schedules or groups of
schedules. To illustrate, the Washington staff ques-
tioned the lack of entries for real estate taxes on
schedules of numerous homeowners in one community.
The field clarified this by explaining that a homestead
exemoption law reduced or eliminated the tax liability
of many families. The field staff's knowledge of
local situations and personal contact with families
was recognized, and unless there was a clear-cut
basis for change, reviewers accepted the field editing.
As shown in appendix table B-4, Washington reviewers
rejected some 2 percent of the urban schedules be-
cause they had significant internal inconsistencies
which could not be reconciled by the combined efforts
of the Washington and field personnel.

Some examples will illustrate the types of changes
made in the detailed review. Sorting out a variety
of business-connected expenses to obtain a “clean”
record of faraily expenditures and income accounted
for a substantial volume of review work. This In-
cluded review of reimbursed expenses in section Q.
The guidelines for the principal transfers and ad-
justments of business expenses are indicated in the
definitions of {ncome in the glossary (page 2165).

Frequently, a family’s monthly home mortgage pay-
ment included principal, interest, taxes, insurance,
und other items. Respondents were encouraged to
refer to their personal records,? but some could
report only the total monthly payment. In the CES
classification, some items included in these monthly
mortgage payments were considered expenditures for
current consumption (i.e., property taxes, interest,
property insurance, and FHA mortgage guarantee
insurance) and were in the 3000 series of the section
codes. (See page 29.) Payments on the mortgage
principal, however, were considered decreases in
Mabilities in the 2000 series. The Field Editing

3 See p. 43.

Manual contained guides lor allocating these items
when the respondent was unable or unwilling to
furnish the detail. The field manual, however, did
not cover all contingencies, particularly for prop-
erties bought, sold, or refinanced during the survey
year. The Washington reviewers were responsible
for decisions in these circumstances. .

Washington reviewers also were responsible for an
analogous type of distribution of combinations that
involved only expenditures, i.e., items classified in
the 3000 series.‘ Often, families were unable to
separate expenditures for two items or more, vther
than those for which entries of combinations were
provided specifically, e.g., children’s clothing in sec~
tion K-V, tem 28. Allocations were made if the codes
of lhe combined categortes differed in the second or
third digit of their section codes. With few excep-
tions,* no allocation was made if the differences
were in the fourth digit only because of the time iv-
volved. Also, the allocation procedures were not re-
fined enough to warrant this detailed level of estima~
tion. The wide variety of nonfood articles routinely
purchased in food supermarkets resulted in many
instances of combined expenditures entered in section
J. Following the rule of allocating if the second or
third digits of the seotion code differed, a reviewer
might distribute an entry in section J of expenditures
lo grocery stores among tbe following major expend-
iture categories:

Section Expendicure
code category
Food purchased in greccry stores--- 3110 Foul

Laundry aad cleaning supplies,
ete. -

Tobseeo

Alcohvlit beverages

Toilet soap, cleansing tissues,
ete. <==

3260 Houseliwtd operations
3810 Tobacco
3820 Alcubolic beverages

3620 Pesonal cure

The allocations involved a determination of the
relative {importance of expenditures of the same
types as those in the combined group. In general,
the relative importances were obtained from a test
tabulation of 1960 CES data for Detroit.* Expendi-
tures at subcategory or section level for Detroit
families classified by family size und {ncome, were
used to compute the relative importance ratios. In
computing the ratios, certain income and family-
size classes were combined to avoid computations
based on too few families in a cell.

Another category of problem schedules requiring
detailed review was “sharing families."’ These
were families or individuals living inthe same houslag
unit who were financially independent (\.e., did not
pool their incomes), but each paid for part of shared
food purchases and possibly other shared household

al

_h

expenses. The Collection Manual instructed the inter-
viewers on u few sharing situations. However, these
rules did not cover the numerous variations in arrange-
ments for sharing expenses encountered among fam~
ities surveyed. In general, the presence of sharing
familles did not affect computations of average expend-
itures per family (computed by dividing aggregate ex-
penditures by number of families). However, question-
able price and quantity data resulted {f, for example,
half the price of a stove was reported on two sched-
ules. The reviewer tailored instructions for shared
items to fit the situation as realistically as possible.
No counts were made of sharing families, but it is
estimated that 8 to 9 percent of the nonfurm familles
shared their food expenses or had boarders (reported
in Section F-I).

Account balancing difference

If families kept complete household accounts and
reported them accurately to BLS interviewers, the
sohedules would balance; i.e., total receipts would
equal total disbursements. The long history of expend-
iture studies hag shown that such accounting perfec-

. tlon is almost never attained. In early BLS studies,

the difference between income and expenditures was
shown as a surplus (savings) or deficit (dissavings).
In its 1934-36 survey, the Bureau began its current
practice of computing savings from reported changes
in assets and Habtlities and introduced the concept
of “balancing difference” to represent the discrep-
ancies arising from the inability of families to recall
exaotly every financial transaction of the year. ©

The halancing difference is considered positive when
reported receipts exceed disbursements and negative
when disbursements are larger. Although both negative
and positive differences are found among the schedules,
excesses of disbursements predominate, historically.
The balancing differences for average groups of fam-
ilies tend to be negative. The computation of the bal-
ancing difference is illustrated by the following aver-
ages from the report for all urban families in the
United States in 1960-61:

4 Combined expenditures were transferred to section X of
Schedule B during the coding and editing. On schedules reviewed
iu 1961, combined expenthturer were returned vo rhe reviewers for
allocation ip the fust step of machine screening. (Sve discussion
of program 1401-D, p. 34.) In 1962, to reduce the volume of
puncheard corrections, combined expenditures listed in section X
were returned for allocation after coding und editing but before the
data were puached.

5 For technical reasons associated with the machine program,
allocations were carried to the fourth digit for about 20 items.

In the 1960-61 CES, 3,3 percent of the usable urban schedules
required allocation of combined expenditures,

6 Detroit was the major CES city used to test programs and
the first for which a set of machine tabulatious was completed.

7 Famlites were classified as sharing if they answered "Yes"
to section J, item 5,

& Lamale, op. cit. (monograph), pp. 21-27.


and taxes from the CES tapes in a study of the re-
distributive effeots of old-age income assurance
programs for a Joint Economic Committee com~
pendium,'* =~

The Office of Economic Opportunity’s far-reaching
attack on poverty multiplied uses of CES statistics
as both Washington policymakers and local planning
organizations sought objective criteria for defining
and measuring poverty. One such study!? undertaken
for OEO was to construct poverty cut-off levels that
take into account size of family, farm-nonfarm dif-
ferences, aud age of the family head. Another was
Eleanor M. Snyder’s, Measures of the Dimensions
of Poverty in New York City. This paper was part
of a larger study which the Urban Medical Economics
Research Project conducted on the indigent and their
relation to planning and financing health services in
New York City. The New York City Department of
Health and the Urban Research Center of Hunter
College jointly sponsored this project. The Community
Council of Greater New York also used New York
City CES tabulations for revising its standard budget.

The National Council on the Aging reported ex-
tensive use of CES information, and Sidney Goldstein
drew heavily on it in two articles: “Changing Lacome
and Consumplion Patterns of the Aged, 1950-1960,”
published in the October 1965 {!ssue of Journal of
Gerontology, and “Urban and Rural Differentials in
Consumer Patterns of the Aged, 1960-61,” in Rural
Saciology, September 1966. The California Slate Schol-
arship Commission found the survey helpful in a study
of student aid. The U.S. Department of Agriculture
used the individual city reports to compare cities
under consideration fax.testing the Food Stamp Plan.

Markeling research

Expenditure Patterns of the American Family, pub-

comrmounity that are involved in any aspect of
marketing consumer products and servioes.”

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce based an article,
“Preview of Your Markets in ’75," on the CES and
data from other Federal agencies. This article ap~
peared in the November 1964 issue of Nation’s
Business.

The Stanford Research Institute (SRI) made exten-
sive use of the survey data in Upper Income Fami-
lies, 2 report published by its Long Range Planning
Service for industrial and financial cilents. The SRL
also used CES individual area reports in projections
of retail trade in specifio communities.

The Super Market Institute, Inc. of Chicago olted
the expenditure surveys in A Guide to Source Ma-
terial for Store Location Research.

The U.S. Department of Commerce has used-family
expenditure data to estimate markets for particular
commodities and for selected groups of consumers,
To illustrate, they have studied trends in clothing
expenditures for what they may reveal about the
market for textiles. Andrew IF. Brimmer, while
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce, drew upon
the CES for a speech on “Economic Trends in the
Negro Market’ before the National Association of
Market Developers. A Guide to Negro Marketing
Information, issued in 1966 by Commerce’s Business
and Defense Services Administration (BDSA), shows
expenditure trends based on the 1950 and 1960-61
CES tabulations. Facts for Marketers, a regional
compilation of marketing information for major metro-
polilan areas, also issued in 1966 by BDSA, includes
summaries of family spending patterns for individual
SMSA’s in the CES sample.

A chapter on “Fact-Finding about Consumers” in
a book of readings on marketing entitled, Consumer
Bebavior and the Behavioral Sciences—Theortes and
Applications, '4 includes data from the CES which

lished by the National Industrial Conference Board
in 1985, exemplifies the value which business groups
attach to the BLS expenditure surveys for marketing
research. The foreword to this 175 page report, fi-
nanced by Life magazine, contains the following
appraisal:

“Based on a broad nationwide survey conducted
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United
States Department of Labor, it (the report) pro-
vides a statistical profile of how America lives.

. » There are market demand statistics for some
700 individual products and services. For many
years to come this book will be an indispensable
source of information, both for observers of the
social scene and for those sections of the business

72

the author characterized as “a true benchmark survey.”

Advertising agencies, newspapers, and other busi-
ness firms have used the published CES reports.
Some also have indicated {nterest in the CES data
for market analysis through their purohases of the
General Purpose Tapes or photocopies of tables.

12 BenJamiu Bridges, Jr, "Current Kedistributional Effects of
Old-Age Income Assurance Programs," Old-Age Income Assurance!
‘A Compendium of Papers on Problems and Policy lssues in the Public

aud Private Punsion System, Joint Economic Cominittee, ‘Con-
gress, Part Il: The Aged Population and Retirement Inco:

grams, 1967, pp. 95-176,
13 Elliot Wetzler, Determination of Poverty Lines and Equiv
ulent Welfare, Research Paper P-277, Institute for Defense Aualytes,
September 1966, p 23.
14 Edited by Steuart Henderson Britt and published by John
Wiley and Sons, nc., New York (1967).

Consumer information and counseling

Newspapers, magazines, and institutional publiaa~
tions have drawn ireely on published CES reports
for material on popular-style articles about typical
spending and saving patterns of American families.
Sytvia Porter referred repeatedly to BLS reports
to substantiate observations in her syndicated column,
“your Money's Worth.”

The Pittsburgh National Bank Initiated a new com-
puter service called “Family Money Profile” in 1966.
Families were inyited to fill out 2 confidential appli-
cation giving monthly income, age, famfly size, and
occupation. Computer analysis, based on CES aver-
ages lor similar families in the Pittsburgh area,
prepared a guide to spending and saving for the
individual family. The bank provided this service
“to encourage greater restraint and prudence in
borrowing and spending.”

Changing Times—The Kiplinger Service for Fami-
Nes published several articles based on information
from the 1960-61 survey. Typical of these were

73

“Why You Feel Pinched” in the November 1964
issue and “How Much to Raise a Child?” in the
February 1965 issue. In the April 1967 issue of
Changing ‘limes, Kiplinger offered on a nationwide
scale a computer analysis of CES data to prepare
individal family spending guides similar to those
introduced by the Pittsburgh National Bank. Also,
a Kiplinger book, Make Your Paycheck Pay Your Way,
organized as a handbook for a family budgeting
program, included family expenditures in selected
cities in the CES sample to illustrate typical spend-
ing patterns.

Uses listed ‘in this ohapter are illustrative rather
than exhaustive. They suggest the variety of users
and range of inquiries that are served by the Bureau’s
periodic surveys of consumer expenditures and income.
The Bureau hopes to extend ils analytical and pro~
cedura] studies based on the 1960-61 survey and to
follow closely the results of research undertaken
by purchasers of magnetic tapes containing the dis-
aggregated CES data.


Similar but less weighty reservations might be
noted for the other components showing small dif-
ferences between OSE and adjusted BLS aggregates.
Consideration of expenditure categories showing sub-
stantial differences (all exceeding 15 percent), how-
ever, seems more Smportant.

Housefurnishings and equipment aggregates from the
CES fell short of OBE data significantly for 1950,
especially after the OBE revisions. The 1961 CES
data indicate a larger discrepancy, the ratio being
84.2 percent of OBE compared with 87.1 percent
for 1950. A partial explanation {s that OBE tncludes
all sales of stoves, refrigerators, washers, and sim-
ilur appliances in its housefurnishings aggregate.
For dwellings in which any of these appliances or
other furnishings are included in the contract rent
or in the sale price of a house, the CES house-
furnishings aggregate would not reflect their cost.
This was a factor in 1950 and probably a more im-
portant element in 1960-61 because of the trend
toward built-in kitchen and laundry facilities. In-
directly, it could account for part of the apparent
overstatement of rent in the CES aggregate for rea-
sons noted earlier in the definition of contract rent.
Another consideration, mentioned in the discussion of
gifts, is that housefurnishings are an {mportant
category of gifts which are not reflected in the CES
expenditure aggregates.

Also, the housefurnishing and equipment group is
affected more seriously than other components by
exclusion of data for expenditures reported by part-
year consumer units from calculation of the CES
averages.’ Special tabulations of part-year units
(about 35 percent Whom were couples married
during the survey year but who had been members
of full-year consumer units prior to their mar-
riage) indicated that the inclusion of all part-year
units would have increased the aggregutes for house-
furnishings and equipment by 2.5 percent but would
have added only 1.4 percent to total consumption
expenditures.’ There is a more subtle survey prob-
lem if either the bride or groom purchased house-
furnishings while still living with parents prior to
marriage. Such expenditures might have been com-
pletely unknown to the parents (i.e., the full-year
unit) or forgotten by the time they were interviewed
for the CES.

The adjusted CES aggregate for recreation, reading,
and education is 83 percent of the 1961 OBE aggregate.
Both the unadjusted and adjusted BLS aggregates
for 1961 are appreciably lower than corresponding
data for 1950. Adjustments listed on page 61-show
allowances for some differences in the CES and OBE
recreation, reading, and education category that could

be identified. However, the greater problem of recon-
ciliation in this component probably lies in the spend-
ing by nonprofit organizations for library, educational,
and otber cwtural activities that OBE includes In
its personal comsumption expenditures. On the other
hand, toys, books and magazines, records, and photo~
graphic equipment are popular gifts, and, for reasons
stated earlier, gift items could not be included in
the expenditure cutegories in deriving the CES ag-
gregates. Further, the CES “Miscellaneous” category
includes all-expense tours, fees for camps, and allow-
ances to children, which unquestionably contained
some spending for recreation that could not be dis-
tinguished and quantified in the family accounts.

The two sets of data differ radically for five
relatively minor categories, which makeup only 10
percent of the CES and 14 percent of the OBE ag-
gregates. ‘hey are personal care, alcoholic bev-
erages, tobacco, lodging out of home city, and mis-
cellancous. Except for lodging, which was not shown
separately in the 1950 comparison, both the magnitude
and direction of the differences are quite similar for
1950 and 1961.

Unquestionably, household surveys here and abroad
consistently find that families tend to underreport
expenditures for alcohol and tobacco. The under-
reporting of alcoho) prohably is related to the over-
reporting of food away from home in the CES aggre~
gate. (See appendix table B-18.) In the CES, if
families could not separate the cost of food and
beverages when eating out, the total was recorded
as expenses for meals. In general, however, nothing
can be added to Lamate’s'® exhuustive treatment of
survey techniques for collecting expenditures for
alcuhol. There is the additional consideration that
the OBE data may overstate such expenditures.
Their estimates are based on tax records, which
permit no differentiation between purchases by con-
sumer units eligible for the survey and by individuals
or organizations outside the CES universe.

Personat care, for which the original 1950 com-
parigon indicated the survey aggregate was 76 per-
cent higher than OBE, remained 64 percent higher
after OBE’s revisions. For 1961, the comparable
figure was down to 48 percent. Personal care con-
sists of both supplies and services; and (he reporting
of toilet soap, toothpaste, and other personal care
supplies could be affected sharply by the change in

14 Sce pp, 53 and 102 for definition aud classification of
part-year consumer units. In effect, the’ part-year units are in~
cluded in the weighting system, which was applied to averages for

full-year units only,
15 This comparison was developed in CES Research Note

No. 1, cited in footnote 17, p- 54.
16 Lamale, op. cit. (monograph), pp, 124 and 137-141.

64

handling food store sales referred to earlier. How-
ever, Lamule had found that the 1950 BLS estimates
for personal care supplies and for personal care
services exceeded OBE by about the same per-
centages,'? and the same phenomena were observed
in 1961. The CES was 45 percent more than OBE
for supplies and 53 percent more for services.
The higher CES aggregates fur services might be
attributed partly to tips. Families included tips in
reporting their personal care expenses, but tips re-
ceived by employees would not be included in receipts
of barber shops or beauty parlors reported in the
Census of Retail Trade and similar sources used by
OBE in deriving their estimates.

For both the CES and OBE, “miscellaneous”
is a catchall for {tems that need to be included
in comparing the respective total expenditures. Re-
grettably, the components of the two miscellaenous
categories differ markedly. About half of the $14,642
million shown under “miscellaneous” for OBE in
1961 is nonmortguge interest paid by consumers.
(See page 61 and table 17.) In the CES, however,
finance charges for installment credit on automo-
biles and other consumer goods were recorded in the
purchase price and would be classified as expendi-
tures for transportation, housefurnishings, etc. Only
interest on personal] loans was in the “miscellaneous”
category of CES. Approximately one-fourth of the
OBE “miscellaneous” consisted of expenses for legal
services and for funerals and burials. These are
also classified as “miscellaneous” in the CES but
such expenditures necessarily are underreported in
household surveys to the extent that they cannot
include consumer units that disappeared because of
death during the survey year or prior to the survey
in the following year. Many legal fees would be part
of settlement of estates'® and, unquestionably, non-
profit organizations are responsible for some of the
legal fees and also of charges for bank, brokerage,
and investment services combined ato the “raiscell-
aneous” category for OBE. To summarize, the “mis-
cellaneous” category is included to complete the
accounting of consumer expenditures in both sets
of data, but for a variety of reasons the CES aggre-
gate fulls far short of the OBE total.

Saving

Reconciliation of the CES aggregates of saving
with independent estimates is even more difficult
and less definitive than the comparisons of income
and expenditures. As Lamale!? pointed out, saving
data in BLS expenditure surveys are of secondary
importance. Her observations on surveys through

65

1950 are equally pertinent to the 1960-61 CES.
Savings, measured as net change in assets and lia-
bilities, are obtained primarily to supplement the
expenditure data. Individual classes of saving were
defined and grouped to agree with family accounting
practices to facilitate reporting and balancing the
family account of receipts and disbursements. Partly
to avoid incumplete schedules from families who co~
operated in reporting detalled expenditures but were
reluctant to disclose their financial position, the CES
schedule did not require the detailed and specialized
treatment desirable for a high order of accuracy
on saving.

Personal saving, as estimated by OBE, is a re-
sidual obtained by subtracting personal outlays from
disposable personal income. The residual obviously
poses the same definitional and other problems of
reconciliation that have been discussed in the pre-
ceding sections on expenditures and income. OBE's
estimate of personal saving in 1961 was $21,151 mil-
lon, compared with the adjusted CES aggregate of
net change !n assets and liabilities of $21,614 million.
(See table 12.)

Lamale carried the analysis of saving as reported
in BLS expenditure surveys through 1950, comparing
them with data from independent sources including
the Federat Reserve Board (FRB) Survey of Con-
sumer Finances for 1950. The Board of Governors
of the Federal Reserve System has published a
technical paper that includes a comparison of saving
aggregates derived from the 1960-61 CES and from
FRB's 1963 Survey of Changes in Family Finances
with the FKB’s flow of funds data for 1960-61 and
1963. The FRB comparison {s reproduced in appendix
table B-19. In her analysis of this table, Projector
stated:

“... With respect to the total of saving in the form
of increases in assets, both sets of survey data are
in good agreement with the flow of funds aggregates.
However, as has been found in comparisons before,
the components that make up these totals are in
such substantial disagreement as to suggest that
the agreement of the totals is accidental. Saving
in the form of additions to demand deposits and
currency and savings accounts was $12 billion in
1960 and $18 billion in 1961 according to Mow of
funds estimates. The Survey of Consumer Ex-
penditures average for 1960-61 results in an ag-
gregate of less than $1 billion. In 1963 demand

17 Lamale, op, cit. (mouograph), p. 125.

18 See "Other money receipts, " Cloveury, p. 245.

19 Lamale, ep. cit. (monogruph), pp. 130-135. See also,
“Who Saves?” by Inwin Friend and Stanley Schor im Proceedings of
the Confereuce on Consumption and Saving, edited by Irwin Friend
and Robert Jones, Wharton School of Finance and Commerce, Uni-
versity of Peansylvania, Philadefphia (1960),



B-2. Summary of data collection in individual survey areas in che 1960-61 CES urban sample
ate saigo- Usable
Year Daw | assign. | PSP" | Part- | sched- [Response
Region, SMSA, or other survey [conecs | carve selen- | men | year | ules, rate
tirban pince con-” | Collec | Survey | meat lreaurrtn€| onsumer| full-year «(percent
Acted began pleted rater units cynsumner| ws! ble)
units _
Undud Statew 11,930 2.702 | sae | 9,342
Northeast... 4,460 m5 89 | 2,677
Boston, Mass AyOd Feb. 22 | Apr. 2! 188 48 4 eRe] The
1962) | Jan, 26 | Apr. 3 17 | 66 19 137 crt
New York, N.Y 1961 Feb. 28 | June 2 33 wh 8 cara 65.6
1962 Jan. 26 | Apr. 25 gle 107 an 236 75.2
Northeastern New Jersey « 196k Mar. 2 | May 15 250 56 4 168 64.9
1962 | Jan. 27 | Apr. 10 | 250 3 5 188 70.9
Philadelphia, Pa 1961 | Mar. 4 | May 4 168 2 5 155 78.7
rgoe | Jan. 26 | Apr. 20| 187 31 2 188 79.8
Pitrstargh, Pa eee 1961 | Feb. za | Apr. 18 188 25 5 153 78.9
1962 | Jan. 30 | Apr. 17 187 46 $s 170 84.6
Bullalo, N.Y 1961 May 23 July 19 250 a4 6 199 79,0
Hastiord, Conn 1962 | Apr. 19 | July 10 250 87 3 75 66.8
Portland, Maine _. 196) May 3 July 7 160 38 4 135 ALO
Laneaater, Pa 1962 | May 9 | June 23 160 32 3 151 90.4
Burlington, Vi 196) | May 12 | June 28 65 wz ° 52 76.5
Kingston, N.Y 1961 | Suty 1 | Aug. 18 65 26 3 a7 mee
Lewistown, Pa a 1961 June § daly 25 65 7 1 4) Ok
Athol, Maas ae 196¢ | dune 16 | Aug. 3 05 ub 0 60 84.5
Millville, Nod 3962 | May 10 | June 30 65 18 2 36 aly
Southbridge, Mass 1967 | July 19 | Aug. 17 65 22 3 53 alt
North Central 3,505 126 103 2,722
Chicago, IN. 1961 Feb. 23 | Apr. 26 250 52 4 182 10.8
1962 | Jan. 19 | apr. td 250 51 5 189 Riz
Cleveland, Ohio 1961 Feb. 27 | Apr. 29 188 al 3 155 60.3
1962 Jan. 29 | Apr. 4 187 a4 3 139 625
Detromt, Mich 1961 | Feb. 23 | Apr. 7 188 24 2 Mt 716
1962 Jan. 23 | Mar. 23 187 4g 4 149 76.9
St. Louis, Mo 1961 | May 16 | July 14 188 31 5 157 63.5
1962 Jun. 17 | Apr. 13 187 36 3 lee ble
Ludianapulis, Ind — 2961 May 9 Suly 13 250 $4 4 73 8.
Dayton, Onto ~ 1962 | Apr. 18 | duly 9 250 6 4 180 66.7
Wichita, Kane — 1962 Apr. 5 June I 250 37 10 189 76.5
Cedar Rapids, lowe ——~.. 1961 May 1 ine 30 160 24 $ 125 7h. B
Champaign-Urbana, ft. 1961 | May 1 ly 14 160 34 10 120 Bt
Green Ray, Wis igez) | Apr. 24 | my 7 160 40 3 130 79.3
Devils Lake, N.D.. 196) May 4 June 9 65 Is 3 ay 77.8
diay, Ohio 1961 | May 5 | June 2s 65 2 4 55 at
LaSalle, QL .. 1961 May IL June 21 65 IZ oO 5S 79.8
Niles, Mich ——. 1ye6d May 31 Avg. 2 65 6 4 6r ard
Owatonna, Minn ——___ 1961 May 10 | June 6 65 13 iH 5 48 76.2
Gambridge, Ohlo 1962 May! June 22 65 19 2 4s 57.3
Crooksten, Mann ——. 1962 Apr. 25 | June 1 65 12 1 6 87.2
Logansport, ud 1962, | May 7 | June 18 65 7 L 50 69.4
Manhattan, Kaos 1962. Apr. 26 | June ee bs vi 1G 45 75.0
Menasha, Wis —____ 19h2 Apr. 26 | June 7 65 s 0 58 B5.3
South eyeo | 552 7 | 2,307
Balturnore, Md .. 196) Mar. 1 Apr. 24 138 38 3 Laz 70.6
1g6z | Jan. 3U | Apr. 20 187 51 3 71 83.0
Washington, D.C 1961 | Mar, 2 | May 19 188 40 8 152 4.9
1902 | Feb. t | May 10 187 ul é a7 82.6
Atlanta, Ga -_-___..__.-~. = 1961 Mar. 0 Apr. 28 250 2s 6 198 73.3
Dellas, Tex -——-—____._- a 1961 | Mar. 3 | Muy 4 250 30 8 178 We
Nashville, Tenn -. 1962 Apr. 20 | June 15 250 39 4 01 4d
Austin, Tex... 1961 | May 17 | July 20 160 29 8 110 70.1
Orlando, Fla ——. 1961 May 17 | July 28 160 So 19 106 69.2
1
Ser footnotes at end of table,
B2

Li

1960-61 CES urban sample—Continued

B-2. Summary of data collection in individual survey areas in the
Daable
Year vate! Parts | cened- | Response
te —| Assay year | ules, tate
Region, SMSA, or other survey! Cotte | Survey | ment lreaulting |esgrumer|fall-yeur | (percent
urban place fone eee eeeY laadresees| alter [COnmeTM [Tl yenr | cbabte)
ducted | yegau | pleted nates Hees
jouth—Conttnue 4
Sotieton Rouge, La a 1962 | Jan, 26 | Mar. gu] 160 38 4 ue 8.4
Durham, N.C ig6e | San. 31 | Apr. 19 160 25 $ 35 78.5
Cleveland, Tenn 1961 | July (0 | Aug. 18 65 | | ° 43 6. ¢
Gnitin, Ga ————— 1961, | May 17 | Sune L7 és nol 0 oh 8.7
McAllen’, 1 a 1961 | May 22 | June 26 65 18
oe
Reserve, La 1961) June 22 | Aug. 10 65 8 9 ot ge
Union, $60 a 196 | May & | June 20 65 4 ; 50 58
bury, Muss i961 | May 22 | July 15 65 4 i ss 78. 6
Florence, Aly — 1962 | Juoe s | July 7 65 ‘0 8 4 0.6
Gainaville, fex 1962 | June 18 | July t7 65
1962 | May 6 | June 1s 65 Z y 38 u4.6
Martinsville, Va 19ge | Ap 8 | May 2, 65 ie 3 5s 3.4
mulger, Okla. aly ug. is ,
Raving Eel 1962 | May 11 | tune 22 65 25 0 57 86.4
| | e045 480 aa 1,636
Weel ono aa eant Dee | 5 16 179 72.2
= ahh 1961 | Fen. 21) Apr. 26] 250 50
Los Angeles-Long Beach, Caf a———— tyes | Fem 21) Apr 2 z50 x it PH me
-Gaklani 1gol | Feb. 27] May 12 188 58 2 :
San Francisco oekland, Colt 1962 | Jan. 26 | May 8 107 49 ul ers 19.4
8.6
Seamle, Wash 1961 | Feb. 24 | May 5 250 21 2 209 2.6
Denver, Colo — 1962 | Apr. 23| July 18 250 59 3 goa 29
Honolulu, Hawaii — 1962 | May 71) Aug. 1a] 250 8 3 z15 83.7
Bakeretield, Calig -——-—-————— 1962 | Apr. 24) July 1 '
86.6
Gellup, N.Mex 1961 | May 17 | June 30 6 B 2 sa 8b. 6
Klamath Falls, Oreg —~. eins 1961 | May 11 | June t4 8 “ 1 42 61.8
Eureka, Calif 2-2 1962 | July 24 | Aug. “ $8 | 4 sey StS
Orem, Utah —————————— tee | tame e4 | Aus. | f
1 See footnote 3, table 2. ;
4 XMethed of computation shown In appendix tuble B-4.
Doca not inrlude Anchorage, Alasks-
B3. Summary of BLS time records for daily ratcs* in ficld collection of 1960-61 CES dara
in urban and rural nonfarm areas
Daily rates Daily rates
‘Assignments : I ”
Nem edaresves hours paid
1961, U. $085 044 130.610
i Rural nonfarm inside “s
raetropoliten Areas m=. 5 soa 116,495
1960, US.: AN urban — — 5, 845 °
2 Rural vonfari wasid
© Retiropolton areas —— mm Qt (ol
Total 12,395 Lama 247,105
1 3 Rural nonfarin insiue ,
70 Se ae apelin asvee neem mn 2 Q)
1959, Anchorage, Alaska tis ‘
Total re. 1, 224 ©
—— — |

Daily rates were interviewers and field editor
2 ‘Putal number of lwuse lor which daily rates

from assignments, in office consultation,
This information

Strata Band Gin the 1960 urban sample,

their assignments in the survey 4c

Comparable data not available.

> This coral, plus the

un

editing,

is not avallable for assignments iu the
Data for 1961 were collected for th

the 1961

ete.

sample.

3,761 rural nonfarm aseigumynts outside p
equal the 14,702 urban and rural nonfarm assignments in appendix tables Bo

i<j

s hired in each survry a6
were patd while being tratned,

zara] nonfarm

a ata daily rate of pay.

segments of the

metropolilua areas for which USDA was

and B-S.

interviewing families, traveling to and

10 merropoliian areas in
ewe nonfarm {nmilies ws supervisure completed

responpible,


generally reported freely—the interviewer moved on
to “shelter” expenditures ¢ and related home financ-
ing data. This infurmation is generally of two types:
(1) Recurrent payments, such as for rent, mortgages,
taxes, or utility bills; and (2) irregular, but sometimes
large, outlays for home repairs or improvements.’Al-
though the homeownership sections contained difficult
conceptual distinctions, requiring painstaking training
of the interviewers about various types of mortgages
and insurance, the respondent usually was informed
or could consult records about his particular housing
payments.

The section on housefurnishings and equipment was
the first of the detailed checklists that requested not
only total expenditures, but also quantities bought and
prices paid for numerous items. These details, re-
quested for homefurnishings and also for clothing
items, were included to facilitate recall and to provide
specific quantity and price information needed to
determine CPI weights and the content of the BLS
budgets for different family types.

The section on food (J), which followed the housing
seotions, illustrates how the interviewing and recording
techniques were planned to overcome difficulties
peculiar to particular lypes of purchases. For example,
a family’s annual food exponditure customarily was
estimated by the housewife, who recalled the usual
weekly or monthly expenditure and adjusted it to an
annual total, by allowing for variations because of
changing family membership, vacations, holidays, and
other special occasions affecting the food bill. The
widening variety of merchandise in food stores of the
supermarket type leads to overestimates of food ex-
penditures beoause of the inclusion of nonfood items.
On the other hand, underreporting may result from
failure to recall expenditures for food delivered to
the home or purchased in special markets. The BLS
and USDA collaborated to adjust Section J from the
comparable section of the 1950 schedule. That version
bad been designed to obviate shortcomings in earlier
sohedules, such as those mentioned.

Similarly, the section for recording changes in
family assets and Habilities, other than those reported
in the expenditures sections, was adapted to the special
problems in collecting such data. Repeatedly, in pre-
1950 surveys, respondents had been reluctant to divulge
their total assets or liabilities. Since the Bureau
needed only the net change over the year in assets
and liabilities to complete the evaluation of the annual
family accounts, the Bureau concentrated un the change
rather than the level of assets*to minimize the risk
of refusals to complete the schedules. The complex-
ities of estimating net changes accurately without
recording total holdings at the beginning and end of
the year had contributed to serious underreporting in

18

previous surveys. A feature {ntroduced in 1950 ta
overcome the family’s reluctance to report total hold-
ings was therefore repeated in the 1960-61 schedules.
The first page of section V, Changes in Family Assets
and Liabilities, was designed as a tear sheet on which
the family recorded the aggregates needed to compute
tbe annual chunges recorded on the facing page. Lf they
preferred, respondents could therefore tear out the
first page of section V, complete it in private, and
keep it after they had reported the changes over the
year to the interviewer.

The growing number of employed wives and of
husbands who worked at more than one job, as well
as the increasing prevalence of stock ownership and
other sources of income through a wide range of
families caused the Bureau, in 1960-61, to repeat
the 1950 practice of recording income information
by famfly member and source. Some expenditures
also were recorded for individual members (e.g.,
clothing, medical care, transportation, and meals
away froin hume), to provide sex and age detail
needed for the CPl or budgets and to improve recall.

Food and Other ltems Purchased in a 7-Day
Period —BLS 2648C

At the completion of the food section on the annual
expenditure record, the interviewer filled in sched-
ule C for CU’s regularly buying food to prepare al
home. This supplementary questionnaire, involving
only a 7-day recall, was designed to get item detail
on food and related purchases in the week preceding
the interview. The approximate periods in which
schedule C’s were collected in each survey area
are shown in appendix table B-2, page 82. The
Bureau used this detail primarily in deriving CPI
food weights.’

4 See Glomury, p. 207.

5 For estimates of the wealth (ise., value of assets minus
debts secured Ly these assets) of individual consumers, see Dorothy S,
Projector and Gerrude S, Weiss, Survey of Financis! Characteristics
of Consumers, Bourd of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,
Washington, D.C., Auguse 1966.

Eliabeth Waldman, “Marital aod Family Characterisucs

‘of Workers, March 1966,” Monthly Labor Review, April 1967,
pp. 29-36.
7 Op. cit., Bulletm 1517, p. 50. Mail collection of

addiioual information for seasonal adjunment of weekly food ex-
penditures $s described on p. 27.

All averages of 1960-61 food expenditures published by the
Bureau in its basic statistical reports on Consumer Expenditures and
lucome, 1960-61, refer to the amsual data recorded 1a section J-
‘The National Industrial Conference Board has published Buseau tab-
ulations of weekly expenditures tn 1961 and 1962 recorded on sched-
ule 2648C for nonfarm families, classified hy selected family
characteristics, in Expenditure Patterns of the American Faust
(1965),

Other forms.

In addition to the three forms used in questioning
the family, two other forms were prepared for
each CU,

A summary sheet, BLS 2648D, was developed to
allocate the various section totals In 2648B to the
expenditures, income, or xsset/llabilities accounts.
Thus, the balance between the receipts and dis~
bursements as reported by the family was deter-
mined. The field editor filled in the *D” sheets from

the 2648B’s turned in by the interviewer. Lnitially, -

schedule D was used by the field supervisor in
evaluating the completeness and consistency of entries
on 2648B and in determining whether the schedule
should be reassigned to the interviewer to obtain
additional information from the family. (See also
pages 32 and 34.)

Assignment Record—PB 715, serveda dual purpose:
To furnish a record for cost accounting purposes of
the time required for completing and field editing
a schedule; and to provide information for evaluating
the quality of the data reported by the respondent.
The interviewer made entries on this form after
each visit to an assignment address.

Field Operations

Success in a survey using the personal interview
technique requires workers who can enlist the co-
operation of a high proportion of the individuals or
families approached and who can record responses
with precision, speed, and accuracy. Therefore, the
Bureau made great efforts to select and train the
large staff needed for this key phase of the CES and
to see that the Washington headquarters and the
regional offices gave the field personne] ample and
sustained support. .

Since the Bureau had had no funds for oonducting
expenditure surveys after completion of the 1950
operations, it approached the Cincinnati lead city
survey for 1959 with only a nucleus of staff with
field experience. The Branch of Enumerative Surveys
worked closely with the BLS regional! offices in Boston,
New York, Atlanta, Chicago, and San Francisco® tn
recruiting, training, assigning, and supervising the
staff necessary for a nationwide survey. In Wash-
ington, these functions were divided between the
Branch’s Section of Field Operations, which admin-
istered the field data collection for the CES and
other programs of the office, and the Section of
Technical Training. That section ascertained training
needs, developed training materials, and conducted.
training courses. (See chart 1, page 10.

2 a

Staff requirements

Staff was needed at three levels of field operatio
outside the Washington headquartere: (1) Senior sur-
vey supervisors in the regional offices, (2) field
survey supervisors who set up and were in charge
of temporary offices in each survey area, and (3)
interviewers, referred to as “daily rates” because
they were temporary employees hired looally for
u few weeks to Interview families in their city.

Senior Survey Supervisurs. The regional price
supervisor in each region assumed the added re-
sponsibilities of senior survey supervisor for the
CES. All had partictpated in the 1950. expenditure
survey either as senior supervisor or survey super-
visor. Since the field collection was to be spread
over 2 years and assistance was available from the
Washington headquarters, the senior supervisory staff
needed to be expanded tn only two regions.

Field Survey Supervisors. The only field super-
visors with experience in conducting a CES were
the few who had participated in the Cincinnati lead
city survey. Estimates of requirements for super-
visory staff were based on the decision to spread
data collection over 2 years (1961 and 1962) and
to begin collection as early as possible each year,
the production rate in Cincinnati, and the number
of assignment addresses in each survey area. (See
appendix table B-2.)

For technical and administrative reasons, it was
advantageous to begin data collection as early in
1961 or 1962 as possible. Technically, it was de-
sirable to interview families close to the end of
the survey year, 1960 or 1961, in order to reduce
errors of recall and to take advantage of most U.S.
families’ preoccupation with income and expenditures
for income tax reports to be filed in the spring, Ad-
ministratively, an early start increased the number
of surveys or reassignments each supervisor could
handle in a year. Holding the number of supervisors
to a minimum and reassigning them added to the
uniformity of the collection and field editing vf the
schedules and reduced the cost of recruiting und
training field supervisors.

Field supervisors were selected from three sources:
Staff regularly engaged in field collection of price
data for the CP{ and other BLS pricing programs
and who had participated in the CES in Cincinnati;
supervisors of the Bureau’s Comprehensive Housing
Unit Surveys conducted late in 1960; and new pro-
fessional personne] recruited by the, BLS regional
offices. New employees were selected from U.S.

& The Cleveland regional offace was established after CES
{Seld operations had begun; in July 1967 functions of the Cleveland
office were tausferred to Kausas City.

19


B14, Comparison of distribution
Urban United States

income before taxes from 1960 CES and Census,

Families of 2 porvons

en of 2p Indtviduata not in famities | All families and individuals
Money income T. 1939 959 TH3F
defore taxes GES. jDeceamat] SPS: | SES, |necenniai! SPS, | CES becennigh crs,
yg60! Pesenmel 1960 1960" PPecennial! 1560 r960r Pecenmal! 1349
Estimated number (in thousands}. | 33,406 | 32, 940 ©) [6.725 | 10, 434 (>) | 40,131 | 42,374 “
Percent distribution, toval ~. iv0.0 | 190.0 | iwo.0 | 00.0! 100.0 | 100.0 | 10.0 | 100.0 | 199,0
Under $1,000 ~ ta a 31 iz 35.2 | 28.9 24 ins 25
$1, 000-$1,999 - as 5h 6 25.1 wig | ale Ts 9.2 10.2
$2, 000-8 2,999 — 13 zo az 170 12.3 13.6 8.9 Ba 9.5
$3, 000-§ 3,999 91 a5 93 15.3 10.2 We 10.1 ae 29
$4, 000-§4.999 ~ aie 10.5 10.5 12.3 Bz 10.1 Ing 19,0 10.4
$5, 000-$35,999 — int 12.7 15.5 17 5.6 ol 12.2 10.9 7
$6, 000-87. 499 17.5 5.5 15.5
$7, 500-$9, 999 .— 19.2 oan ie 3.3 ad 2 16.6 ars 26.7
$10, 000-8 14, 999 184 12.3 1s Lo Le 9 113 6 8.9
$15, 000 and over a7 5.5 al 7 ‘a 4 4.0 a3 3.2
Average:
Mean nen $7,272 | $6,805 | $4,289 | $2,572 | $2,752 | $6,595 | $6,115 | $5,807
Median .—.. 6, 166 5, OLL 2,753 1,745 1,992 | 5,95) 5,199 a)
_!

"Frequency distributtons decived from unpublished tabulation

iures, 1960.61. Medians calculated Irom the distributions.

+ ‘Compiled from Cenvus of Population: 1960, Sources and Structure uf Family Licume, PC(2)-4C, tables 6 aad 7; and

General Social and Economic Characteristics, PG(I)-IC, table 95 (U.S. Department of Commerce, Lureau of the Census).

Income of Families and Persons in the United States: 1960, Current Population Reporis, Consumer Income, Series

P-60, No. 37, Jan 17, 1962, p. 25; and Trends in Income of Fainilics and Persons in the United States; 1947 to 1960,
Technical Paper No. 8, p. 37 (U.S. Deparument of Commerce, Bureau of the Ceasus).

“Distribution for families and individuals combined was calculated by applying the GPS distributions to the

from the 1960 portion of the Survey of Consumer Expend-

decennial
cenaua estimates of umber of tamilles (31,940,000) and individuale (10, 434, 000).
Not available,
NOTE: Because of rounding, sums of individual items inay not equal totals.
Bs. Selected characteristics of full-year and part-year families in urban United States, 1960-61"
T Average
Nurnbes [Number Mon
Family classification of of . | Age ey
ctite | weeks | Family | “GP 7 sncome
cu aie peas | before
existed _
Pact-year families or consumer units (CU! s) I
‘Yotal found at sample addresses 386 - : : -
Moved [rom rural areas ae ze : : : :
Total, excluding those from rural areaa 364 : : : 2
Nunber giving usable echedules, total... 2293 eb LT 29 $2,740
Classified by reason for part-year atatuy:
1. Married in aurvey year; ineligible for full-year
because both had been members of existing CU's 104 2 2.0 23 3, 380
2. Became independent GU {n survey year; inehyible
fur fall-year because of merobership in
existiag CU eens ~ 61 27 1.0 25 1915
1. Independent hefore marriage or joining auuther
CU during Ue survey year a a 26 a 35 2,707
4. Split of @ CU, wath or without break-up of marriage
by separation or divorce in ourvey year. 44 24 16 38 2,363
5. Retuened {rom military vervice, instivution, oF |
abroad ia survey year . au ar Za ae 2,789
Foll-year iamilies (CU's) giving unable schedules .. 9,476 Se Bl | a7 6,691

* Includes Anchorage, Alaska, surveyed for 1959.

The number of part-year fama

8 giving usable schedules differs fram the number found at sample addressen because
some schedules were ru

lacsified, incomplete, or from familles who moved from rural areas.

102

B16. Comparison of CES and Census (CPS) estimates uf money income before taxes, 1960-61 and 1950

‘umilics of 2 persone or more Individuals not in families All families and individuals
em Humber | Average] Agareaate] Nuniber | Avaraac| Aggregatc| Number | Average] Aggrepate
in annual | income in annual | income in annual | income
millions | income | (bilheas) | uullione | sacore | (billions) | millions | income | (billlons)
1960-61:
Census-(CPs)! ... 45.9 $6,510 $298.8 1 $2,659 $29.4 $6.9 $5,791 $229.5
BLS-(CES) -. 46.9 6,813 319.4 B.4 35070 25.8 $5.3 6, 246 345.4
Percent: CES of |
census —.—. 102 105 WT Th 1s BB a7 108 105,
1980: 4
Census -(CPS)—. 25.8 4,381 At3.0 6.9 1,745 12.0 32.7 3,826 125.0
BLS-(CES) -..—. 27.3 4,572 124.8 4.2 2,064 8.8 Shes 4,237 133.6
Percent: GES of
census 106 104, 110 er 9 73 96 ahd 107

i i

Data for all familics and unrelated indlvidvals combined from Herman ¥, Miller, income Distribution wm ue United States
(U.S. Departmenr of Commerce, Bureau of the Census), table 1-4, p. 11: average income for families and (er unrelated in-
dividuals from unpublished tabulations furnished by the Bureau of the Censne.

*Meten H. Lemate, Study of Cunsumer Expendiuurea, Incomes und Savings—Methodology of the Survey of Consumer
Expenditures in i950, (monogrape)., Whitlow Bhool ol Fitaeee oad Conimsree, University of Peneaylvenin, Philadelphia T950}-

NOTE: Because of counding, sums of individual aggregates may not equal tutal.

103


Sl —————

=
. oe oti , B13. Distribution of consumer units giving usable schedules in the 1960.61 CES nonfarm sample,‘
B-l2, Comparison of consumer units giving usable schedules aod other consumer units in the 1960-61 by detailed family characteristics
| CES urban sample, by selected family characteristics
} S h omen? Number of conanmer units Percent distribution
Characteristic Total “Jeheduler (nonresponse) code Characteristic Soar Tone | Rat Soar Gnas Rena
-—— nouiarm | 1960-61 erie nonfarm | 1960-61 ares ial
Total, consumer untrs 12,298 2476 2,822 — ~ ~
- AIL consumer units seen M.627 | 9,342 2, 285 100.0 | 100.0 100, 0
Income before taxes:
Number reporting 11,062 9476 1, 586 Headed by:
1 Male 9.468 | 7,490 1,978 80.2 86.6
Percentage distribution 190.0 100.0 100.0 2 Female - ziisy pasa 307 19.8 tha
Under $1,000 —. 27 23 5.7 .
$1,000 to 81, 999, 8.0 78 94 Education of head —. rez | 4,342 2.289 100.0 100.0
| $2,000 to $2,999 8.3 8.4 u7 u Leve than 8 yenra 157} 1,313 544 14.1 23.8
} $3,000 we $3,999 4 1 10.6 12 B years _.. 1,904 1,480 454 15.5 19.9
$4,000 to £4,999 - 10.4 10.3 10.8 B 9 through 1) years — 24s | 1.725 418 18.5 12.3
$5,000 to $5,999 Wa 116 10.7 24 | 12 years (high school eraduate) Zim6 | 2.458 488 26.3 214
$6,000 to $7,499 15.4 15.6 13.7 35 13 theough 18 years — 1,099 952 47 10. 2 od
$7, 500 to $4,999 18.9 8 113 36 16 years (callepe graduate) —.—. 897 290 107 8.5 a7
| $10, 000 to $14, 999 ~ 124 225 ng 7 More than 16 years (postgraduate) 490 423 67 £6 29
j $15,000 and over ... 5.3 4.6 1 8.2 16 Not reported WoW. 21 251 60 2.3 2.6
| Family size:
j Number reporting -——. — 11, 9R2 9,476 2,506 Family size —___ 11,627 9, 342 2,285 190.0 100.0
H | 1,0 person conn. viels | ts45 269 16.5 m8
j Percentage dlatriburron 100. 0 ! $00.0 100.0 Tilo 1.9 persons 181 150 n uz 3
Single cunvumer — 17.3 16.5 20.4 23 2.0. to 2.9 persona 3,276 | 2,614 vez 28.0 29.0
2 persons ——. 29.7 are 34 3.0 to 3.9 persons ziose | 1,703 383 13.2 16.8
3 persons ao L6 18.2 15.3 49 4.0 4.9 peryuns 1,905 | 1,945 360 16.5 15.8
4 persone. 16.6 1.5 ' 17.0 56 4,0 t0 5.9 persons 1, 232 97 261 10.4 14
5 persuns .. 10.4 10.4 10.6 67 6,0 to 6.9 persons 612 450 162 4.8 Wa
| 6 persone or more 8.9 a7 9.5 68 7.0 t0 7.9 persona — 286 210 7 az 33
69 8.0 persone and aver 235 154 wl N7 a5
Age of family head:
Number reporting .. 11697 ware zeae Family membership — 1627 | 9,342 2, 285 100. 0 100.0
| ; 1 Full-year members only a ro,038 | 8) us2 1956 86.5 85.6
| Pereeptngsetribation — rape ip.g 109.9 b | Rabovear meres only evs meg | pau | topes wee | aes
| 2510 34 oon 18,9 19.5 lea 3 Parteyear members only enn. @) () 1) ) (i)
34 ta 4a 24 2216 215
450 A oe 20.2 19.9 216 Relanionship of family members ———. 627 | 9,342 2, 285 190.0 | 100.0 100.0
j 5510 4 16.3 Hl 15.6 19.0 ‘ Single consumer .—. ve0g | alsar 2668 15.0 te 5 1.7
65 t0 4 1? ing 10.9 2 Husband and wife only — 21560 | ziole 544 22.0 71.6 24.8
75 and over 5.5 5.3 63 3 Husband and wife. own children, no
other persons an y s.4ay | 4,326 1,163 an 46.2 50.9
Occupation of family head: 4 Hnabend and wile, own children,
Number reporting 12,366 9476 1,890 other relarives mae. 80 ais 17 4a 4.0 a7
Satri 5 One parent (head), own children, no
Percentage distribution 100.0 100.0 100.0 ther persone an (emily cones bza saz Be 5.4 5.8 3.6
Self-employed ..— 6.8 GA 92 6 ° ee Yi
Salaried professional 17.9 ng 16.0 er parent (head), own children,
Salaried profes: a ive ine We other relatives -no ipa 7 26 Lo wae
| Wane eee om 1 Husband and wife, no own children, :
Be OAT  smskalled ——— 50.2 w.2 other relanves —-~. 201 164 37 7 1g 26
H sarees iso ise 8 Hnahand and wife, no own child
| Occupation nol reported « I 3 others not related 6 3 : a ! @)
| pegupation nol fs fa {5 9 AM other — 335 278 57 29 3.0 2.5
Nat working: 12.9 13.0 124 lAge of children of head nezt | 9, 342 2, 285 1we.0 | 100.0 100.0
fan za as ° No children a.ae9 | 3,984 905 42.0 ART 34.6
1 Oldest child under 6 yeart tesa | lzee 265 12.8 13.1 116
Race: 2 Oldest child 6 through 11, youngest
5 ‘ under 6 years aan Low 197 215 AT 8.> 14
Number reporting - 4,718 9476 2, 202 5 Al\ children 6 through 1) 2 531 430 Tot 46 46 44
Percentage dtatribution .—. 100, 0 100.0 100.0 4 All children 22 through 17 705 571 34 bod 6 5.9
White 26.7 86.5 88.2 5 Oldest child 12 tarougls 17, youngest
Negro so ire wd 10.7 under 6 544 401 143 43 6.3
Other 22 24 mt 6 Oldest child 12 through 17, youngest
er of full-ane en b through IW. 664 519 16s Pr) 5.6 72
Number of ee There: 1.726 9,476 2,250 7 Oldeat child 18 and over, youngest ander 6 139 104 35 he Lt 15
———— : a * 8 Oldest child 18 and over, youngest
Percentage distribution -— 190. 0 100.0 100.0 6 through 17 687 535 152 5.9 5.7 6.7
28.7 29.3 2h.2 9 All children 18 and over 2 947 m7 170 wt a3 7A
58.4 58.5 57.5
12.0 Ws M4 amber of earners —-— 11, G27 9, 342 2, 28> 100.0 100.0 100.6
t9 ? 19 0 No tatnily member employed 1,526 | 1151 375, Bt 12,3 16.4
Housing tenure: 1 Vfamaly member employed S14 | 4,696 1.099 49.8 $0.8 4a)
family member employed —— i391 | 2,769 22 yd . 27.
Number reporting -— 11, 823 9,476 2,347 3 3 family members employed - 672 537 135, 5.8 a7 3.9
Percentage distribution 100. 0 100. 0 100.0 4 4 fainily members employed — 198 157 4 1 17 1.8
Owner all year - 55.5 54.0 62.0 5-9 5 or more family members employed 45 ? 1s 3 +6
Renter all year 415 42.3 38.0
Other 3.0 37 . —_
See footnotes at end of table.
1 Compiled trom information recorded on thy back of Schedule Z646-A. (See p. 115), The classiications are not strictly
comparable with those for consumer unlts giving usable schedules. For example, the number of farmly iuymbers was re-
corded uo 2648-A as of the date of the interview. The nuimber of persons in families giving useble schedules represeals
the number of equivalent, full-year membere. (See explanation en p. 17). 4
298 99



EXPLANATIONS EXPLANATIONS
UNE couumn
NU NO COMMENT LINE JuoLuMN ~ xT
a comm
No | NO.
ALL OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS wer = 7 iF :
re ets GM INSTALLED KITCHEN FACILITIES OWNER OCCUPIED UNITS ALL TENANT-OCCUPIED HOURING UNITS WITH INSTALLED KITCHEN FACIIATIES ALL OCCUPIED.
——I mn (Col 4, code Land Gt Ni dg 1)
= (Gol 1, code 2) HOUSING
matt | cman | Buinronm Fecivaes | ame | cecum | oem] eum a » EQuipsent Included in the Rent in Col. 44 of 46.) Services Included in Rent ia Col. 44 or 461 A RENT UNITS
won | owe [caw [eee] OE | Or | raormor | "Tm | couaton | (BOE, | Smt cry Tae a. mate an pooner foe |e] es] ea] ee om fe or ‘amu Fama
nese f uraen | te | ae | ee [Ream | me creme = oun cd 1 tas | om om woot
an fie mane | Le 1h vie | few fe foe
Pee, | tom | gecame | bee free | come | er |e ote | the umn mt we Tite | nm | EMS. tee
se tee pe fue freee | ym Py [eee | kre “a A cer) bey
mom | eT [1 Ba | ou Chew a nee a 2
See” [open tae ie fe fica | ty | ST [ate] coe in m vit =n
fDi | | ie se | peg "0 | tea | ee «oe -
ee a ST Saw | ioe =
None [ee | Sto =
= sa
i eer 1 . to 7“
n a b a 2 7 .
, s %6 ® * w 30 ui” ” se [os | 6 x} tse | wo fia fa Too “ 6 “6 a
2 | ‘ :
5 : i” 1 z |
a 2
‘ —i
5 e 1 2
1 2
7 1 2
?
8 1 z
° i 1| 2
—_— te W | 2 |
10 : Hl
1 2
" —
n 2
rr — TM
1 2
a —L on F
1 2
14 |
+ ql
1 2
1s
- 1 2
110 411



Bt, Estimates of absolute and relative sampling errors

the 1960.61 CES urban sample

for selected items reported

by consumer units in

1 United North 5
Group or item Stace | Northeast Pana South West
Total expendilures for current consumptior
Average meme - $5,393, 00 $4, 834. 00 $5,272.00 $4,769.00 | $5,777.00
Sampling crror oem 46.00 81.00 61.00 114.00 116.00
Relative orror (percent 9 Ms 12 24 2.0
Average . 309.00 4, 203. 00 1112.00 1, 366.00
Sampling orrar 10. 00 7.00 21.00 40.00
Relatuve error (percent) — A 26 19 29
Food away from home
Average 274.00 303.00 255.00 239.00 311.00
Sampling eTror 5.00 8.00 10. 00 12.00 1100
Relative error (percent) 1.9 26 reat a ua
Housing, total:
Average 1,594.00 1,746.00 1,965. 00 1,408, 0¢ 1, 664.00
Sampling error — 18,00 39.00 23.00 414.00 20.00
Relative erroa (percent) oa ae 1s 31 Le
Shelter, fuel, Nght, etc. :
Average 991.00 1, 119,00 995. 00 820.00 1,025.00
Sampling error _ 10.60 29.00 12,00 22.00 14.00
Relanve error (percent) — 10 2.2 1.2 27 13
Rented dwelling, total:
Average eee 324.00 401,00 304. 00 745.00 345,00
Sampling error —.—— 5.00 12.00 6.00 9.00 13.00
Relative error (percent) Ls 2.9 2.0 48 3.7
Owned dwelling, tota
Average —— - 380.00 388.00 399.00 525.00 419.00
Sarnpling error ——. 8.00 16.00 10.00 20, 00 16.00
Relative error (percent) a bal 4.2 26 6&1 La
Taxes due in survey year, on owned dwelling:
Average a. J11. 90 137, 00 124.00 64.00
Sampling error —-——-——— 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
Relative error (percem) ——————— 2A 28 3.7 9.2
Househald operations, total:
319. 00 438. 00 241, 09 326. 00 338.00
jamnpling crror —...—~ 5.00 9.00 8.00 13,00 5.00
Relative error (perecat) | 1.5 27 26 41 LS
Lvcal telephone:
Average 69.00 81,00 68.00 $7.00 70.00
Sampling error, ae . 1,00 Kuo 1.00 2.00 2.00
Relative orror (percent) aece———— Ld 1.6 Ls 39 26
Houwefurnishings and equipment:
Average an. 277, 00 285.00 272.00 265.00 296.00
Sarnpling error —— 4.00 7.00 7.00 11,00 12.00
Relative error (percent) 16 23 2.7 41 4.0
Houwehold textiles, total:
Average — 36, 00 41,00 34, 00 32.00 37.00
Sampling error oon 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Relative error (percent) | 24 3.9 5.0 5.8 47
Towels:
Average 2.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Sampling error - == 8 119 12 13 a
Relative error (percent) ua 7.4 5.4 63 6.2
Furatture, total:
Average ~——— 83.00 86.00 RA. 77.00 86.00
Sampling erFor a 2,00 4.00 2.00 5.00 4.00
Relative error (percent) 2a 4.6 2.5 oe 50
Mayor appliances, total:
Average —. 76. 00 59.00 65.00 75,00 73.00
Sampling error -—————— 1.00 2.00 4:00 3.00 ron
Relative error (percent) —. 1.8 3 37 ug 3.9
Washing machines:
Average —— 13. 00 12,00 13. 00 12.00 15. 00
Sampling error ——-———— 100 ey 1 90 100 2.00
Relative error (percent) 4.6 3.9 4.0 10.0 13.8

See footnotes at end of table.

the 1960-61 CES urban sample—Continued

‘pal, Estimates of absolute and relative sampling errors for selected items reported by consumer units in

United : North ee
Group or iter! States Northeast Central South West
all appliances, total:

om Average $1.00 $7.00 37.00 97. 00
Sampling error : 225 33 143 154
Kelative error (percent) 3.4 5.0 63 8

+ total:

Motnverage anne 14, 00 15, 00 13,00 3.00 17.00
Sampling ecror ~ 1. ve 1. 00 1.00 1.00 2.00
Relative error (percent) —. 3.9 8.0 52 73 10.2
Jouning, inaterials, services:

iar tot a 554. v0 620, 00 539. 00 506.00 561. 00
Sampling error nn 7.00 12, 00 10.00 19. 00 12, 00
Relative error (percent) ————— 3 2.0 1g 3.8 2.2

Men, 18 years aud over—

Clothing, coral:
‘Average 44, 00 139.00 127.09 148. 00
Sampling error 2,00 4,90 5.00 6.00
Relative error (percent) a. —— 15 aa 4.0 oO
Suits. sports coats, and trouser
Sepverage no 45.00 50. 00 40.00 48, 00 42.09
Sampling error ———. 1,00 1, 00 2,00 2,00 3. 00
Relative error (percent) —————— Eat a4 43 4.5 6.2
Hosiery:
Average mene 6.00 7.00 6.00 5. 00 7.00
20
Sampling error -—————-— “10 13 18 : :
Relative error (percent) ——— 1.6 Ly 3.0 1.9 d.2

Boys. 16 and 17—~

Clothing, total:
‘Average ne 7.09 8.00 8.00 6. 00 5.00
Sampling erroe ay 2 198 1, 08 ‘61
Relative error (percent) ——. 0 18 12.9 1.4 ivan
Suite, wports coats, and trousers:
‘Avot 6p coremne me 2.00 2. 00 2.00 1.00
Sampling error =o n v2 Las 12s
Relative error (percent) ao ae 10.5 130 17.0
Hosiery: »
Average —-— 30 130 36 127 25
Sampling error a 102 roe 205 104 Los
Relative error (percent) —— 6.6 7.3 15.2 3.9 az
Roys, 2 te 1S—
Clothing, total:
“Average 47.00 47.00 47.00 43, 00 52.00
Sampling error —---—-——— 1,00 3.00 2.00 2,00 3.00
Relative error (perceat) ———— ee 2.6 &.0 43 4.7 5.2
Suits, aports coals, and trousers:
‘Average me 8,00 9.90 8. 00 7,00 7.00
Sampling error — 29 67 289 147 233
Relative error (percent) —— 3.6 mt 14 ba 4.7
Shoe
Average ——~-—— 19.00 9, 00 10. 00 9, 00 12, 00
Sampling error ———-— 126 157 1 46 38
Relative error (percent) ————. 2.6 é a 5.4
Women, 18 years and over—
owung. total:
ay i 216.00 255.00 20h, 00 191. 00 206. 00
Sampling error ——————— 4.00 8, 00 5. 00 - 00 ,
Relative crror (percent) ————— 6 3 2 4.1 3.3
Drea
Average oa 17.00 43.00 35.00 3a, 00 34. 00
Sampling error 1.00 1, 00 100 2.00 2.00
Relative ercur (percent) zo 3.2 2.8 5.8 48
net eage ——— 11,00 22. v0 17.00 14, 00 16. 00
Sampling error 31 263 44 178 “3
Relative error (percent) 18 29 26 5.4 2
See footnotes at end of table.
6



Births. The census count on April 1 included infants
born in January, February, and March, and could not in-
clude births occurring after April 1. CES counted all
infants born in 1960 in proportion to equivalent full-year
family membership during 1960. Adjustments for
births were based on Vital Statistics of the United
960, Volume 1, published by the Departmentof
1 Education, and Welfare. This publication
showed live births by moath. Total live births in 1960
were adjusted for length of family membership in 1960
by applying the following ratios lo the estimates for
each of the 12 months: January 12/12, February
11/12, . . . December 1/12. The resulting estimates of
full-year equivalent infants under 1 year of age were
comparable lu the “under 1 year of age” in the CES.

Deaths. Full-year equivatent family membership of
persons who died during 1960 wasestimuated from vital
Statistics records by analagous procedures.

Military Personnel, The Department of Defense esti-
mated that an average of 1,020,000 military personnel
lived on-post during 1960. They based this estimate on
the number of quarters avallable and average size of
family for military personnel—4.0 persons.

In 1950, when the military populstion increased
sharply because of the outbreak of hostilities in Korea,
it was deemed necessary to adjust for this ohange.
During 1960, the military establishment changed very
little, and in view of the busis for the estimate, it was
decided not to make any adjustment for ohange in the
number of military living on-base. (Had such an ad-
Justment been undertaken, the total civilian population
would have been reduced by about 21,000).

Institutiona}ized Persons. The Bureau of the Census
estimated 1,897,106 Inmates of institutions.° This
total was accepted as the best estimate of institution-
alized persons who were excluded from the CES
universe.

Net Civilian Migration. Because of changes in the
data available and in survey coverage, minor differ-

ences from the 1950 procedure were necessary for this
component. Net migration figures no longer are com-
piled. Accordingly, the arrival (i.¢., admitted for resi-
dence) data for 1960 supplied by the Immigration and
Naturalization Service were accepted as the basis for
calculation. An estimate of 83,005 full-year equivalent
members was computed by procedures analagous to
those used for births and deaths. On the basis of immi-
gration and emigratfon figures for 1948-57, the esti-
mated number of emigrants was slightly more than 10
percent of the number of immigrants per year. This
factor was applied to the arrival data adjusted to full-
year equivalent membership, reducing 83,005 to anes-
timated net immigration of 74,005.

38

Recapitulation. The effects of these adjustments are:

Census count ws of April 1, 1960

+ 179,323, 175
Birch:
Less births January, Febmiary, and March --~ =1,024, 936
Phus full-year equivalent family membership
Of intuts bor in L960 --2eeecn--—---neewenee 42, 261,794
Deaths: “
Less deaths April through December ---- -1, 235, 398
Plus full-year cquivaleut family member!
of persons who died in 1960 == 4909, 829
Military: '
Less estimated on-post military personnel —--2--0 -1,020, 009
Institutions lived persons:
Less instieutionaliced persons == =1, 897, 106
Migration:
Plus estimated aet civilian migration -------ee-= 474,005
Adjusted 1960 population tatal « 177,391, 360.

‘The total adjusted population was distributed among
the sampling strata in accurdance with the distribution
of the unadjusted population. The adjusted 1960 popula-
tion was used as urban weights for both 1960 and 1961.

Computation and upplication of weights

Weights were computed for 67 urban strata; including
Anchorage, Alaska, which was surveyed for 1959 (ap-
pendix table B-8), Since all SMSA’s having urban popu-
lation of 1,400,000 or more were surveyed, each of
these largest SMSA's was assigned its own adjusted
population. The remainder of the adjusted urban popu-
lation was divided equally among the sample of smaller
SMSA’s or other urban places in each regional city~
Size stratum. This assumption of equal area weights
within a size stratum wus derived directly from the
sampling operation itself. As a result of using the
method of probability proportionate to size (page 13),
the sample cities represented equal numbers of their
total regional city-size stratum.”

Rural nonfarm weights were computed for 42 strata—
34 SMSA’s and a farm operator ® and nonoperator
stratum for each of the four regions. Since farm oper-
ators were sampled at ahigher rate than nonoperators,
adjusting the nonmetropolitan universe estimates was
necessary to compensate for the oversampling of farm
operators. Thereafter, the weight calculations were x-
actly the same us those for the urban segment.

6 U.S, Census of Population: 1960, General Population Char-
acteristics, United States Summary, Final Report FC(1)-18 (U.S.

Bureay of the Census), p. 157,

For a single year such as 1961, we city weights differed
from the 1960-61 weights, cince cities surveyed In that year carried
the entire weight for their respective region cityesize stratum {n the
1961 tabulations. In combining 1960 and 1961, each year's sample
represented approximately half of the adjusted population, The 1959
data for Anchorage were weighted {nto the combined 1960-61 tab-
ulation for the West and the United States, but not into the tabu-
lations for 1960 or 1961,

A farm operator in the mua) noufsrm sample did not live
om a farm but operated one clsewhere,

The rural farm sample was designed to be self-
walghting within regions. To take care of differential
response rates, weights consistent with those used in
weighting the urban and rural nonfarm sample were ap-
plied to the rural farmaverages for the four regions to
obtain U.S. averages.

The estimated number of families or CU's in the uni-
yerse were the ultimate weights. These weights were
estimated by dividing the adjusted population in each
sampling stratum by the average famiily size for the
stratum aus determined from the survey. Altogether, the
etratum weights totaled 55,306,253 CU's in the universe
for the United States. The effective weights (“blow-up”
or “expansion factors”) were the estimated number of
CU's in the universe represented by each usable sched-
ule in a Sampling stratum; they were obtained by divid-
ing the estimated number of CU’s in the universe for
each sampling stratum by the number of CU’s in the
stratum for which there were usable schedules. ‘The
expansion factors averaged 4,029 for the universe of
urban and rural families (55,306,253 + 13,728 usable
schedules).

Data for selected urban areas inthe Northeastillus-
trate steps in deriving the 1960-61 expansion factors.

Ad~ Aver- Esti- Num-
justed age mated ber Expan-
1960 family CU's in of usable sion
popula- (CU) universe sched- factor
tion size (1% 2) ules (3 + 4)
Q 8) @ (8)
Boston, Muss: 2,408,729 3,0 802,910 206 2,995, ¢
Buffalo, N. 2,760,695 3.2 862,717, 199 4,335.2
Harttord, Conn: 2,760,695 3,3 836,574 17S 4,780.4

The estimated number of CU’s in the universe, the
number of CU’s giving usable schedules, and the ex~
pansion factors for each stratum are summarized tn
appendix tables B-7 and B-8.

Weights were applied mechanically. Preferably, all
weighted tabulations should have been obtained by ap~

hh

plying expansion factors to individual family data, ag-
gregating the results to the desired level, and dividing
the aggregates by the corresponding number of CU's in
the universe. For a variety of reasons, this method was
not followed for tables in the basio summary reports
and supplements 1 and 2. Tabulations for individual city
reports, based on self-weighting samples, were made
before the weights had been computed. Also, they were
run on an IBM 650 machine using cards, shortly before
BLS replaced the 650 with computer equipment nsing
magnetic tape. Adding weights to the cards would have
been cumbersome. Since the city tabulations were
available and because of the pressure to produce re-
gional and U.S. urban summaries promptly, weights
were applied to the city averages rather than to indi-
vidual schedules in the urban sample. This procedure
required multiplying the number of CU’s ineach family
characteristic class of the city tabulations by the stra-
tura expansion factor and then by the average expendi-
ture, income, etc. for the class. The regional and U.S.
averages were obtained by dividing the sum of the stra-
tum aggregates by the number of consumer units in the

universe for the class.

Since city averages had not been prepared in the for~
mat needed for supplement 3, aggregates for supple-
ment 3 were obtained by applying the stratum expansion
factors to the individual family records. Tor these and
other reasons associated with variations in the machine
programs for rounding and applying the weights,
weighted averages in supplement 8 may differ slightly
from those in other publications. Headnotes in the re-
ports alert users to these discrepancies in the
tabulations.”

5 Diseribucions of femtlies similar to those in appendix table
B-10 were included with each copy of the Supplement 3 so that
uscrt could see the actual aumber of individual family reports on
which published estimates for the universe of families were based.
Each such table cared the following caution: "Particular eare tx

reyuired am using the averages based on small oumbert of famulies
which may differ sharply in their spending patterns, "


dan

Appendix A. Comparability of che Survey of Consumer Expenditures in 1960~61
in

Esseutially data from the 1960-61 and 1950 expend-
Mture Gurveys are comparable. in designing the codes
and planning the tabulations (or the 1960-61 CES, com-
parability with 1950 was a peunary consideration.

The tollowing comparison is restricted to data com-
piled from Schedule 2648B lor the urban segment of the
1960-61 vample and published in BLS reports im Series 237
and the Supplemeats 1 and 2 to these reporte. Wathin
thease limits, it may br assumed that data from the two
curveys are comparable except as nuted below.

The comparison uues not cover classification codes
not used in the 1960-61 published reports nor the detail
Published im the Supplement 3's. In general, the [950
data were published im greater detail than appears in the
Supplement 3's.

Guides for comparing surveys of consumer ¢ rendulures lor 1960-61 and fur 1950

and

in 1950

Survey of consuiner expenditures, 1960-61
(CFS)

Survey of consumer expenditures, 1950
(CEs)

Agencies responsible

OS pebarument of Labor, Bureau of Labur Statistics (urban (U,5, Department of Lubor, Bureau of Labor Statistic

farailies and rural nonfarm families Living inside SMSA's) in
cooperation with U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural
Research Service (rural farm familiey and rural nonfarm
families outalde SMSA' 8).

Purpose of study

The primary purpone of the survey of urban families was to
collect formation on family purchases necded lo revise (he
Burcau''s Consumer Price Index. As was (ruc {n 1950 and
earher surveys, the data meet many other needs, particu=
larly in analyses o€ the relationship betweon level of Living
and general ccoaoinic and soclal conditions.

families.

The 1961 coverage was extended to rural areas uo that Jur the
first ume since 1941 information was available on spending
habits for a cross-section uf the total nonnstituctonal popy
lation in urban and rural aceaa of the U.S.

|Purpeses were the same as for the 1960-61 survey of urban

Nature and size of the universe

Civilian noninstitutional population Living tn the U.S, (including |Clviliaa noninstitutional po:
1S. (ini rag noninslitutional population plus off-post miluary per-
Alaska and Rawait) plus military persuane! not living on poats | wonnel living in urban areas of the contermiases Ura)

or banes.

Survey period

The calendar years 1960 and 1961. Urban parte of all of the
12 largest SMSA's were surveyed in both years with data
collected from half the sample of familles each year. Half
of the remainiug sample of omaller SMSA's and urbax places
was surveyed each year, ive., for 1960 and 1941. The cura)
farm and nonfarm sample was surveyed for 1961. Also, foud
Purchases in a 7-day perlod were collected at the tine trban
and rural nonturm families were interviewed in the spring—
suramer of 1961 and 1962. USDA did not collect weekly (ood
purchases from rural farm lamilles. (The collection period
extendea from late February through mid-August 1961 and
froma Jaouary through Auguet, 1962 see table 2. p.20).

The calendar year 1950. Also food purchases in a 7-day period
in the spring of 1951, (The total collection periad eateaded
from January through May 1952, with interviews in most cities
during the period February through April.)

Is

Guidca for comparing surveys of consurner expenditures for 1960-61 and for 1950—Continued

umer expenditures, 1960-61
(CES)

Sucvey of co!

Survey of conswner expenditures, 1950
(CES)

Sine and covers

ge of the sample

Complete and usahle questionnaires were obtamed from
9.4/6 families and stngle consumers in the 67 SMSA!s or
other urban places (including Anchorage, Alaska, surveyed
for 1959) selected to represent all urban places in the U.S.,
aud from }, 967 rural farm and 2, 285 rural oonfarm families
and single consumers selucted (0 represent the ealire rural
population. The national saniple was designed to permit

ation by region, degrer of urbanization, and SMSA, cross:

classified by income and other family characteristics.

Area sampling methods were used in the selection of the
ourvey families.

Complete and usable Interviews were obtained from [2,489 fam-

ites and single consumers in the 91 survey cities aclected to
be representative of all urban places in the U.S. The sample
allows or tabulation by community (city or urban Area}, cross-
classified by income and tamily characteristics.

Area sampling methods were used in the selection of the nurvey

families.

Survey repert forms

The schedule forms used in interviews were: (a) Housenold
record” {orm for determining eligibility of the consumer
unit and recording minimum information for nonrespondents;
(b) detalled questionnafre for obtaining an annual record on
family compositivn, housing arrangenients, expendiires,
income, and savinge: and (c) wchedule with detniled listing of
iterna of food and beverages, household supplies, tobacco,
aud personal care purchased ia 7-day period preceding in-
tecview. Facsimilta of these and other forms used in the
survey are shown in exhibrts, pp.

The schedule forme used were: (a) "Household record" form

tor deternmuing the eligibllity of the cansurner unit, (b) expend
Mure schedule carrying detailed yuestions on family conpoal~
ton, income, expenditures, and savings in 1950, (c) schedule
covering items of food, household supplies, tobacco, drugs and
personal care purchased In a 7-day period, and (d) schedule
Similar to that described (n "ec which was left with respond-
‘emt for self recording.

Collection methous

Rropondents furnished information voluntarily duruy personal
interviews in their homes.

Same as in 1960-61.

Definitions of Larnily and household

——

The family, or consumer unit (CU), referred to: (1) A group

of people uamally lving togetiter (includiag chilérea ternpo~
rarlly away from home at school or college) who pooled thelr
income and drew {rom a commen fund for tieir mayor
items of expense, or (2) a pernon whowe income and expendi
tures were not pooled with others, whether living alone or iat
ahousehold. However, never-married children living with
parents always were considered as members of the

Parents’ CU.

The household consists of all persons residing in the sample
living quarters. In addition to 1amily members 4 household
tay contain boarders, ruomers, gueats, or paid help.

Same av in 1960-62,

Same as in 1960-61.

Etigability requirements for tetal sample

Informatuon was recorded for the famfly as composed in the
survey year, ineludwug part-year members. Family mem-
bers were not cligibly for periods in the survey year that
they lived in wulitary caiaps, posts, or reservations; in in-
atttatuiuna; abroad (except on vacation, etc.): or were mem-
bers of another CU.

‘Fo qualify as a full-year consumer unit, the family muat in-
clude at least one memhor who was eligible over thy entire
5é weeks of the survey year.

Part-year consumer units, i.e, those with no full-year mem-
ber, were mterviewed on thelr expenditures, income, etc.,
for tat part of the survey year they were eligible, but their
schedules were uved only for special analytical research and
were nol included in the basic tabulations of corspletr and
vwable schedules.

Same as in 1960-61 (or full-year units.

Any family identified on the "Household Record” form as having
ay fwil-yeac member was not eligible for (urther interviewing.

74



Contents—Continued

Chapter 10. Reconciliation of aggregate fram CES, OBE, and other sources -.
Aggregate Income, expenditures, and savings _

56
- 36

Other comparisons -.....--- 66
Chapter 11, Uses of the survey data... 68
Updating BLS statistical measures ---. 68
Availability of data for other purposes -- 68
Uses of duta outside BLS and USDA 70

Appendixes:
A. Comparability of the Survey of Consumer Expenditures in 1960-61 and tn 1950 - 14
B. Supplementary tables — 19
C. Exhibits --- 109
217

mt

rare biaiain bits

Chapter 1.

‘The Survey of Consumer Expenditures, 1960-61 was
the seventh mujor survey of spending patterns of Amer~
an families conducted by the Bureau of Labor Sta-
tistics. These periodic investigations rank among the
Bureau's oldest data collecting functions. Although they
pave changed in purpose and design since their incep-
tion in 1888, all were based onthe premise that knowl-
edge of how families use their incomes is essential to
understanding and solving major economic and sociul
problems.

The need to revise the Consumer Price Index (CPI)
provided the immediate stimulus for the 1960-61 sur-
yey. The previous comprehensive revision of the
jndex was based on the Bureau's Survey of Con-
gumer Fxpenditures in 1950. During the fifties,
‘families’ real Incomes increased, extensive housing
‘developments surrounding major cities had been ac-
companied by growing proportions of home- and car-
owning families, and many new services and products
bad come on the market. These were some of the
numerous indications of changes {n buying habits
that needed measuring to update the CPI. In addition,
a large-scale survey would provide new detail for
analyzing consumers’ purchases which totalled almost
two-thirds of the gross national product (GNP).

The Bureau reverted to its pre-1950 practice and
spread the survey over 2 ycars, partly to hedge against
the possible abnormality of a single year. Asit turned
out, the 1960-61 survey spanned a mild recession that
began in the first half of 1960 and reached its trough
in February 1961. Unemployment was high in 1961.
(See table 1.) Sharp cutbacks innew home construction
occurred in 1960, and homebuilding remained at a low
level in 1961. Although 1960 was agood year for sales
of new passenger cars, volume dropped sharply in 1961.
Expansion of consumer credit and mortgage debt out-
Standing was restrained, partly because purchases of
major consumer durable goods were lagging. Never-
theless, the total picture was one of continued economic
growth in 1960-61, but at a slower pace than in the
remainder of the 1960’s. Personal consumption ex-
penditures increased, even on a per capita basis and
after allowance for risingprices. The Federal Reserve
Board’s industrial production index and the GNP also
continued upward.

Concepts, techniques, and publications for the Survey
of Consumer Expenditures, 1960-61, were planned to
provide maximum continuity and comparability with the
Bureau’s 1950 survey, and also to trace the historical
and theuretical background of family expenditure sur-
veys from the earliest European investigations in the
mid-19th century. The 1950? monograph summarized

_ _

Introduction

the extensive experimental work which contributed
to the development of methods for collecting and
analyzing the 1950 data, The present bulletin is a
sequel to the 1950 monograph. Its purpose is similar
to that set forth in the earlier monograph:

“Yo use the 1950 study properly, the analyst should
know something of its background and recognize the
diversity of purposey it serves and the complexity
of the experiences it attempts to record. The pur-
pose of this mongraph is todescribe the 1950 survey
in its historical setting and to summarize impor-
tant details of tbe technical and administrative pro~
cedures used in collecting and tabulating the data.
Some appraisal of the findings is included, but the
real evalualion must come from discerning use of
the data in specific analyses.”*

Historical Background

As part of a 5-year revision project for madernizing
the Consumer Price Index, Congress authorized the
Bureau to begin planning in June 1959 for a new ex-
penditure survey. The Bureau's coramitment to intro-
duce the new series with the January 1964 CPI governed
the timing and numerous other aspects of the Survey of
Consumer Expenditures (CES). This timetable called
for full-scale collection of CES data to begin early in
1961, following a lead city survey in 1960.

The Bureau has beeninterviewing American families
about their spending since 1888. For almost 75 years,
independeatly or in collaboration with the U.S. Depart-
ment of Agricullure (USDA) and other agencles, the
Bureau has conducted research on a wide range of
problems encountered in collecting and using such in-
formation. The diversity of this experience is sug-
gested by brief reference to the Bureau’s major family
expenditure surveys.’

The survey of expenditures for the period 1888-91
was made to study living costs of American workers
in cunnection with setting tariffs. Rupid changes in the

1 Helea H. Lamale, Study of Consumer Expenditures, Incomes

and Savings— Methodology of the Survey of Consumer Expenditures in
1950 (monograph), (Wharton School 6f Finance and Commerce,
University of Pennsylvania, Philadeiphia, 1959).

2 tbid.

3 The subject of famlly living studies before 1935 has aa
exceDeat bibliography in Studies of Family Living in the United
States and Ocher Countries by Faith M. Williams and Carle C
Zimmernian (U.S. Department of Agriculture Miscellaneous Publi-
cation No. 223, 1935), Miss Williams appended a bibliography of
consumer expenditures covering 1946 or later years to her chapter
on “International Comparisons of Patterus of Family Consumption,”
10 Consumer Behavior, Research on Comumer Reaction, edited by
Lincoln H. Clark (New York, Harper & Brothers, 1958).



The survey estimate for food and rent received as
pay was $1,512 million.

The adjustments of the CES data tended to bring
the OBE and CES distributions of 1961 income by
source closer together. The net effect was to reduce
the proportion from wage and salary earnings from
75.5 to 73.0 percent, compared with 70.6 in the OBE
estimates. The survey proportion from self-
employment and business income, Lhe second largest
component, was raised from 10.8 to 13.7 percent,
compared with OBE’s 11,4 percent. The adjustments
inereascd the levels of CES interest and dividend
income although the relative importance of these two
sources of income in the survey estimatcs was still
substantially below the OBE estimates.

The CES unadjusted average income per family
of $6,286 was 6 percent below the OBE average of
$6,697. After adjustment, the CES average was
$7,047, or 5 percent higher than the OBE average
‘The survey averages for two of the three major
sources (wage and salary earnings; and income
from social security, pensions, etc.) were equal
to or higher than the comparable OBE averuges
both before and after adjustment. For the third
major source (self-employment and business income),
adjustments shifled the CES average from 11 percent
below to 26 percent above the OBE estimate for
such income.

Adjustments to the CES increased the average
income from dividends from $98 to $149, and from
interest from $81 to $98, but the income from these
sources was still only half of the OBE average
dividend and interest income

The comparisvuns of the aggregate income estimates
derived from the CES and OBE averages, shown
in table 16, are affected by the difference in the es-
timated number of consumer units in 1961 as defined
for the two sets of data—56,003,000 in the CES
and 57,290,000 in the OBE. The OBE uses the cen-
sus definitivn of “demographic” family, while the
CES uses the “economic” family definition.”

The differences in the CES and OBE uggregates
of income in 1961 exhibit the same pattcrn as was
observed in the 1950 CES and in earlier BIS surveys.
There is rather close agreement for the major
sources after allowance is made for Wifferences in
definitions and coverage, but the survey estimates
are substantially below the OBE estimates for income
from rent, interest, dividends, and military pay,
etc. Part of the understatement in the CES rental
income may account for the overstatement in the self-
employment and business income component. Although
some attempt was made to eliminate military pay
which would not be received by families in the CES,

4 See discwsron p. 45,

Table 16. Comparison of CES and OBE Nationat Accounts estimates of average and-aggregate (amily moncy income by source of income.

1961 und 1950

Total usban a: rural United Staces ~ 1901!

Urban - 19507

Diffurence borweon Bureau of Labor Statimice and
ge, Percent: Consumer Office of Business Economics aggregates
WES?" sendivures Survey of Percent: Consumer Ferceat: Consumer
source of e Office of Business Expenditures Survey of | Expenditnres Survey of
Source of iavorm Econvmics Aggregate (mullions) Sitice of Business Office of Business
Economics Economics
Waadjustedt | Adjusted? | Unadjurted!] Adjuned® |Unadjwead!] Adjusted? | Uoadyusted | Adjusted
Consumer | Consmer | Consumer | Consumer | Consumer | Consumer | Consumer | Consumer
Expenditures [Expendieurcs | Expenditures Expenditures | Expenditures | Expendivures | Expeoditures | Expenditures
Survey Suve Survey Survey Survey Surveys | Surve Survey
Money income before taxes,
woul =~ -- 94 105 | $-31,600 | s411,008 v2 103 88 94
Wage aud salary earuiues 100 109 -5,159 | 417,326 98 108 98 95
Self-employment and :
buswess incvine --------~ 3y 126 38,586 | 420,171 3? 123 92 12s
Income from ront (Including
roomers and boarders) ---- 28 85 -1, 704 =1, 104 3 83 so 55
Military pay, allotments
pensions, ete 07 63 -2,322 -2, 238 66 67 82 80
Interest - 31 38 10,219 -9, 285 3 7 21 26
Dividends - 4 8 -8, 106 -5, 247 40 st 37 $5
Income from all other
cources 10R 108 41,496 +1, 381 tos 105 95 106
Estimuied number of families
and single concumers -~----- - - 98 - -1, 045, 000

1 Derived from table 13,
2 Lamale, ov. ci . 128-130,

¥

the adjustment may not have been sufficient. ‘lhe
CES and OBE estimates for interest and dividend
income are substantially closer in 1961 than in 1950.
The 1961 CES adjusted estimates were 37 and 61
percent, respectively, of the OBE estimates, while
in 1950 they were 26 and 55 percent.

Regrouping of expenditure categories

Adjustments of personal consumption expenditures
(PCE) required for optimum comparability with the

CES estimates for each category shown in table 17
o

ar
Cavegory Line number
food 1, footnote 1, minus 4 and €

To exclude feod furnsned government (including military) aud
commercial employees, alvohulic beverages, and tobacco,
For comparability, the CES estimates weie adjusied ww ex-
clude meals us puy und to include food produced and con-
sumed ow farms.

Alcohohie beverages 1, foolnele 1
Tobacco ©

Clothing, clothing materials, 7, minus 13 and munus 1/3 of 14
and services and 15 combined

To exclude standard clothing issued to military personnel and
to transfer estimated expense for lauudry sent out and lor clean=
ing and dycing, to houschold operarions.

Snelter, fuel, gh, and 23 plus 74
reirigeration

The OBE housing compoueut is inade up vol: Space-renral
value of owner-oceupied nonfarm dwellings (line 22), space
rent of tenapt-occupied uoalarm dwellings including lodging
houses (tine 23), venta) value of farmhouses (line 24), and
other, 4 e., transient hotels, motels, clubs, schools, and In=
stitutions (line 25). Space rent covers the living quarters,
heatiug, plumbing, lighting fixtures, etc., but excludes fur
nitnre, stoves, refrigerators, fucl, and utilities that may be
included in contract rent.

The CES housing component includes expendirures for con-
tract reat by tenants of all kinds of living quarcers and the
expenditures of owuers fur current consumption items, sich as
taxes, insurance, interest on mortgage, and repans and re-
placements, Morgue principal payments, cash purchases and
down payments, and expenditures for improvement, ure not
Classified us expenditures but as savings (Le, changes in assets
or habulties).

The basic deitmiion of expenditures for owner-occupied hons-
ing im the two sets of data are so different chat there 1s no
basis for compring estimated aggregates. However, since the
OBF definition of rent for tenam-occupied quaners dhffers from
the CES definition primarily in the tearment of fuel and util
ities, a comparison is made for rent (liue 23) plus howseholu
wulies (line 34).

Lodgiag our of home city 25
Housefurnishings and equipment 27, 28, 29, 30, 31

Houscholu operations 1/3 of t4 and 15 combined, plus

32, 33, 39, 40, 41, and 84 (Now-
ers, seeds, and potted plants)

61

Medical cure 42
Pemonal cur 18
Transportstion 60 plus 1/3 of B1 (wheel goods,
boats, arrcralts, ete.) plus 1/4 of

99 (fornign travel) plus line S$ of
table 3.3 (motor velucte Licenses)

To melude estimate of aircraft, boats, etc.; al transporturtion
anvolved im personal foreign travel; and of motor vehicle li-
cense fees.
Recreation, reading, and 77 plu: 93, plus 1/8 of 99, minus
education 1/3 of SL, uod minus 84

To include esrimate of recreation iavelved am personal foreign
vavel aud to tWansfer estimate af aircraft, hoars, ete, to
transportation, and flowers, secds, and potted plants to house-
hold operauous

Mimetlaneous 53, S4, 57, $8, 59%, and hue
25 of tuble 2.1 (interest pant by
consumers)

To include interest paid by consumers.

Of OBE’s $335,152 million total personal consump-
tion expenditures, $51,075 million or 15.2 percent
were excluded. In addition to the exclusions indicated
above, totalling $1,254 million, other accounts deemed
noncomparable with the CES estimates were:

Line uumiber

Lines 22 aud 24, sental value of owned homes --- $34,498
Lines $5 and SG, services furnished without pay

monc by nancial intermediaries and expenses

of handling life insurance woe 9, 001
Line 97, expeuditures unade_by
welfare activities
S/B of lie 99, dorergn travel and oth net,
which was assumed to be government aud
buseness uravel, with no effort to act for re=
minances to foreigners versus expenditures by
foreigner in the United States

4,420

1, 296

The two items not included in PCE by OBE but
equivalent to items {included in CES total expendi-
‘tures add $8,465 million to PCE: Interest paid by
consumers, $7,624 million, and motor vehicle Ji-
censes, $841 million. The total (in millions) for com-
paring PCE with CES is therefore $292,542 (i-e.,
$335,152 less $51,075 plus $8,465).

Comparisons of expenditures

For obvious reasons, agreement of two independent
estimates usually is accepted as tending to validate
both as approximating the true values involved,
barring compensating errors. In the present case,

10 Unies otherwise specified, line number refer to tuble 2. 5,
The a?_Income snd Product Accounts of the United Stares,

1929-1965, Statistical Tables.



ee na

Receipts Disbursements
Income after taxes ---~ $5,900 Expenditures for current
+ consumption --------- $5,390
Other money recelsts ~- 82 .
- Personal insurance --~--= 324
Decrease in assets -=-=-- 897 4
. Gifts and contriburions -- 303
Increase in hubitities -- 862 +
Increase in asset ~ 1,423
Decrease an habitities--- 514
Total ~~. -------- $7.954

Account balancing difference, $7,954 - $7,747 = -$207

The “percent balancing difference” is the percent
the cliference is of receipts or disbursements, which-
ever is the larger. Thus, the average balancing dif-
ference for all cities in the 1960-61 urban sample
was -2.6 percent, i.e., -$207 = $7,954 - -2.6. The
comparable average for cities in the 1950 sample
was -2.8 percent.”

in most of the Bureau’s expenditure surveys con-
ducted in the 1930's and 1940’s, schedules were re-
jected if the balancing difference exceeded a stipulated
percentage. In the Memphis pilot survey in 1949, an
experiment with the “revisit to balance” technique was
conducted. Records of changes in the original entries
were kept in order to analyze what items were chaaged
and the amount and frequency of the change. ‘The
Memphis test clearly indicated that the balancing dif-
ference reflects reporting errors in all three of the
major cutegories—income, assets and liahilities, and
expenditures—and cannvt be assigned to any one cate-
gory correctly. It also pointed up the danger of placing
too much emphasis on a balancing criterioa in the
editing process.” '°

Use of the balancing difference in the 1960-61 survey
followed the practice introduced in 1950. Sizable dis-
crepancies were constdered clues to the presence of
errors in incomes, expenditures, or assete and liabil-
ities, but no balancing difference percentage was
specified as allowable or disallowable ug such.

In the 1960-61 survey, the initial caloulation of the
balancing difference was made by the ficld editor on
BLS 2648), line 32. A large difference signaled pos-
sible errors or omissions (page 19), and was used to
guide interviewers on revisits to the family to find the
source of error. Similarly, a high balancing difference
alerted Washington reviewers to reexamine the sched-
ule and all explanatory notes. For example, a note in
section D1 might explain that the family used an inher-
itance for the downpayment on their house, If there was
no record of the inheritance on the “receipts” side of
the family accounts, the reviewer would write instruc~
lions to enter the amount of the downpayment as an in-
heritance in T-19 to bring the schedule into better

32

Tt

balance. A distribuliva of approximately 3,200 sched-
ules collected in 22 cities in the 1960 survey shows
that about 7 out of 10 of the schedules accepted ag
usable after review in Washington balanced within
plus or minus 10 percent. (See table 6.) Qu the majority
of those with a larger balancing difference, disburse-
ments exceeded receipts. This is in line withthe usual
survey experience of the BLS and others. Peuple tend
to underreport their income.'! Moreover, {n the
Bureau's expenditure surveys, the primary emphasis
is on a complete and reasonable record of family ex-
Penditures. If these conditions appeur to be satisfied,
the standards for completensss of the savings and
income record are less rigorous. On schedules having
notes giving some basis for estimating income or
changes in assets and liabilities, these {tems were
estimated in the Washington review. For example,
if only take-home pay was recorded’ in section S-1,
item 8, gross earnings could be approximated by
adding deductions from pay estimated from tables
for income tax and for social security rates.

To summarize, the balancing difference was une of
several criteria used in the Washington review to de~
termine whether schedules transmitted from the field
as complete were usable, whether they required some

Table 6. Distribution of urban fanilies completing usable schedules
in the 1960 CES, by percent of account balancing difference

Complete and
Account baluncing usuble schedules 2
dufference S
ference (percent) Number | Percent
Tora) ++ 3, 188 100.0
+20,0 and over - 68 Bt
415.0 to $19.9 - : 61 1.9
410.0 to 414.9 ~ 140 4.4
403 12.6
605 19.0
Total receipts greater than
disbursenseuts - - - 1,277 40.4
010 -4.9 614 19.3
-5.0 to - 563 17.6
-10.0 to 14.9 - 324 10,2
15.0 to -19.9 - 174 3.4
-20.0 and over - 236 74
Total recespts less than
disbunements -- 191 59.9

' The balancing percent for each schedule represents the dif-
ference herween the total receipts and the total disbursements, di-
vided by the Jarger of those two amounts.

* Compiled from records for 22 survey aress in the 1960
CES sample,

NOTE: Because of rounding, sums of indryidusl ttems may
not equa? torals,

9 Lamate, op. cit. (monograph), p. 27.
10 Lamale, op cits (monugruph), p. 25,
1 See pp. Si and 59.

adjustment, or whether they should be rejected. Some
schedules were rejected, even though they showed a
low balancing difference, if the schedule had incon-
sistent entries, the respondent had resorted to
“estimates” for numerous items, family and business
accounts were inextricable, or if there had been insuf-

ficlent probing, unsatisfactory explanatory notes, or

other evidence indicating a lack of care or interest in
preparing the schedule. The balance of some schedules
was improved by estimating income, assets and liabil-
ities, or other money receipts, when the reviewer
could determine the nature and approximate size of
the missing item. Such estimates were miude on only
about 50 of the approximately 4,900 usable schedules
from the 1961 urban survey. Mauy more schedules
that were out of balance by 15 percent or more were
accepted and tabulated if the schedules had acomplete
and reasonable account of expenditures, and the re-
viewer could not pinpoint the cause of the lack of bal-
ance as sufficiently serous to warrant rejecting the
schedule.

Manual Editing and Coding

Despite extensive use of printed codes and of pro-
grams for mechanical editing and coding, some cleri-
cal editing and coding of the schedules was required.
The Washington Coding and Editing Manual contained
specific Instructions for these operations. One of the
first steps in this editing was to carry out the
Washington reviewers’ instructions on PB T2\'s. The
manual also specified clerical verification of some
field computations.

Priority was given to coding and editing the annual
schedules, 26488, but the manual also contained In-
structions for the weekly food schedules, 2648C,
which were coded and edited as received from the
field without the intensive review giventothe 2648B’s.
The coding and editing of schedule C entafled adjusting
quantities and sizes of many {tems to standard units
(e-g., quarts, pounds) to permit mechanical summari-
zation of data and to provide meaningful price/quantity
relationships for the CPI revision and other tabulations.

Transfer of Data to Punch Cards

All information ingide the héavy black lines of sched-
ules 2648B and C was transferred to 80-column punch
cards. Eleven types of cards were used for schedule B
and three types for schedule C. Anaverage of about 200
input punch cards were used for each family (160 for

schedule B und 40 for schedule C). Most information
was recorded for the family as the spending unit. How-
ever, each family member was assigned 4 code (sec-
tion A, item 1), starting withthe headas number 01 and
other members as 02, 03, etc. Wherever the “Family
meraber No.” (FM No. ) was shown on the schedule
(e.g., section K, Clothing, or section S, Family Earn-
ings), informution was punched for the individual mem-
ber and could be combined for the family group.

Computer Editing, Coding, and
Summarizing Programs

Computer editing, or screening, followed punching
and was the final series of steps in getting the raw
punched data ready to tabulate. Typically, reports that
were indicated as questionable on the computer print—
outs underwent careful human review, and decisions
were made for resolving questions. Specifically,
screening of the schedule B data involved manual review
of the listings produced by three machine programs
(referred to as 1401-1R, 1401-2R, and 1401-D). These
programs provided checks onclerical computations and
on coding and punching errors, as well as consistency
checks on the reasonableness of the entries for individ-
ual schedules. Some errors were “flagged” mechani-
cally, i.e., they had assigned error codes that were
printed in specific card columns on the machine out-
put listings. The 1401-1K prograin included approxi-
mately 25 such error codes. Others were detected
manually; these required systematic comparison of
machine input and output data for all schedules to
determine the presenoe of errors. The principal phases
of screening schedule B data are described briefly.

Screening and coding of family characteristics

Program 1401-1R was used for screening five types
of characteristic cards, containing data from the sec-
tions of schedule B indicated below:

Card 10. Family characteristics, section A, col~

urnn (m)

Card 11. Individual family member character-

istics, section A, columns (b) ~ (1)

Card 12. Housing characteristics, section B, col-

unin (b)

12 Initial programs for ruechaaleal processing of the CES data
were written for IBM GSU equipment which used  puncheards ouly.
Data for the first 20 cities in the 1960 sample were screened op
the 650, Meanwhile, kite in 1961, the Bureau added the IBM 1401
computer, and the programs were rewritten for this more advanced

Whardware" that could use magnetic tape. The screening resuite
were similar, but oply procedures onthe new equipment are described,

3

-_


food'® or fur expense when traveling. Such expendi-
tures are accumulated over the year in “driblets”
and “dabs,” and the small proportion of families
consulting records for them !s consistent with inter~
viewers’ reports that slightly more than one-tenth
of the famtlies kept a budget which they consulted
during the interview. Table 8 also shows that the
use of records for a given category of information
varied little by city-size stratum. This consistency
is of interest, since it reflects interviewing tech-
niques and observations of numerous persons calling
on families {n various Lypes of urban places through-
out the country. However, guch {nformation—even if
tabulated for all consumer unils—{fs no more than
suggestive of the accuracy of response. Another pus-
sible analytical use of the PB 715’s—not explored —
would be to correlate use of records and the number
and length of visits to complete the sohedules.

10 For comparison of annual and weekly food eapendtrures,
reported ou schedule 2648B and 2648C, respectively, see p. 66.

OQ EE eS ee

Processing Errors

Review procedures and checks instituted In the
field and Washington offices to minimize processing
errors have been discussed in chapters 4, 6, aad 7.
Preparation of statistical reports for each city re-
sulted in another thorough review of the tabulations
of unweighted family data, and provided a final op-
portunity to correct the data on punch cards. This
intensive analytlea) review, and subsequent review
of regional und U.S. tabulations, concentrated un
classifications of families by the 10 charucteristicg
selected for publication. (Sce page 37.) The Bureau
also sold magnetic tapes containing selected CES
data under arrangements discussed in chapter 11.
Servicing users of these tapes has uncovered some
mistakes ia family characteristic codes that BLS
had not used in its tabulations. When informed of
questionable data on the tapes, the Bureau staff has
attempted to track down the explanation and extent
of the error. Periodically, BLS notifics all organiza~
tions having the tapes about errors, problems in
programing, etc. encountered by other users.

Table 8. Percentage of urban famifies ” using revurds in reporting specified (ypes of information for the 1960-61 CES

nba Population stranim
Type ol information United SMSA, SNSA, SIMBA Urban places
Starex 1, 400, 000 250, 000~ $0, 000- 2 500-
and over 1, 400, 000 250, 000 50, 000
_{Stevmm A) | (Stratum By | (Stratum C) | (Stratum Dy
| - Perceat of “applicables"* referring to records
Morgages sp
62 83 62
Utilities -- 39 4. 33 37 a
Major appliances -- a7 19 16 1B n
Food ~-=-=-~ y 8
ik
Medical expenses 33 3 i 3 3
Automobile expeuses - 36 38 3 3 y
Ont -of-home-city expenses 12 ab 13 2 in
Family income 63 64 62 ba 2
W-2 (income-tax withholding, form) -. 57 63 ol so 3
Taxes and insurance = 53 st ‘52 $8 3
Assets aud liabilities 32 33 26 30 2
29

Based on iniormation from approximately 2,700 of rhe 9,476 ucban fnmilfes and single cousumers furnishing usable CES schedules.

Information recorded on form FB 715 was tabulated for famihes in 18 survey areas selected from each clty-size stratuin und geographic region.
* percentage of families for whom @ specified type of uformution was applicable who referred to teceipis or other record: in

reporting it.

3 Section Q, schedule 264KB, (See exhibit E.)

Chapter 9. Comparisons Wi

One approach to gaging the extent and nature of
errors in sample surveys is to compare survey re-
sults with information from independent sources. The
feasibility of this method of evaluating the CES
results depends on the existence of independent
statistics on family characteristics, income, spending,
and saving for broad population groups. At best, such
comparisons are limited by differences in timing,
coverage, classification, definitions, and techniques
of the various studies. The 1960 Census of Pupula-
tion provided the sampling frame for the CES,! and
it is possible to compare distributions of families
according to various characteristics as obtained in
the CES with those in the 1960 Decennial Census
and the Current Population Surveys (CPS) of the
Bureau of the Census. Comparisons of aggregate
income, expenditures, and savings have been made
with the Department of Commerce's Office of Busi-
ness Economics (OBE) estimates from the National
Income and Products Accounts.

Differences in Definitions

All family characteristics serfes in the present
comparison cover the Civilian noninstitutional popu-
lation in urbun and rural areas, plus military per-
sonnel in the United States living off post. In defining
the income-receiving unit, the 1960 census also in-
cludes 2) military personnel on military posts, and
the CPS and OBE cover military personnel living
with their families on military reservations, al]
of whom are excluded from the CES.*

In each series, a distinction is "made between
persons Hving as members of a family and persons
living by themselves. These differences in definition
are outlined below:

1960 Decennial Census.

Families include: Two persons or more )iving
together and related by blood, marriage, or adop-
tion, plus:

Unrelated individuals include: Persons living alone
or with persons to whom they are not related,
including military personnel on post and unmarried
children living away from home while attending
school.

th Data From Other Sources

Current Population Survey

Femilies include: Same xs 1960 census, but in-
cluding children away from home at school, plus

Unrelated individuals include: Same as 1960 census
but excluding the students and military personnel in
barracks on post.

Office of Business Economics (consumer unit, or
families and woattached individuals)

Families include: Same as CPS, plus

Unattuched individuals include: Same as CPS un-
related individuals.

Burean of Labor Statistics (all consumer units, or
all families)

Famillfes of two persons or more inolude: Usu-
ally related and usually living together who pool
their income and draw from common fund for their
major items of expense, plus

Single consumers: Persons living alone or with
others with whom they do not pool income and ex-
penditures.

The most inclusive decennial census data that are
relevant for comparison with the CPS, OBE, and CES
distributions of families (including one-person families
or single consumers) relate to income distributions.
The decennial census income distributions show the
following totals: ?

Families and unrelated indivi 58, 305, 007
Families -- 45, 128, 393
Unrelated individuals (3,176,614

The compilation in table 9 shows that the several
series agree very closely with respect to the total
number of families of two persons or more. Differ-
ences in the totals of families and single consumers
combined are attributable to the larger number of
unrelated individuals who were counted as separate

1 See chapeer 3.

2 See Family lucome Distribution Statistics Published by Fed~
eral Agencies, Office of Statistical Standards, Bureau of the Budget,
Starlstical Evaluation Report No. S (December 1964), pp. 10-11,

3 1960 Census of Population, Vol. J, Characteristics of the
Population, Part 1, U.S, Summary, table 95, p. 1-225. Small
arlations in ounibers ol lamilies ‘and individuals are ‘explained
maiuly by whether the information was based on the complete count
or the 25upercent or Sepercem samples of the 1960 census,

46


Chapter 7. Tabulation and Publication

The initial tabulations from the 1960-61 survey were
directed towards determining expenditure weights for
revising the CPL. Therefore, priority was given toav-
eraging family expenditures for each item of consump-
tion goods and services purchased by wage-earmer and
clerical-worker families in each metropolitan areaor
nonmetropolitan place in the urban sample. Such
“Index” families’ numbered 4,860 of the total 9,476
urban consumer units giving usable schedules. How-
ever, earliest plans specified that the BLS should de-
sign and publish tabulations covering all families (re-
gardless of index status) in each sample urea. These
city tabulations were the “building blocks” to be com-
bined with population weights to obtain regional and
U.S. urban averages. This program, later extended to
include results of the rural surveys conducted in coop-
eration with the USDA, is referred to as the General
Purpose Tabulations Program. Its objective was to pro-
vide tabulations to serve the great majority of needs
for consumer expenditure data, as demonstrated from
experlence with earlier BLS and USDA surveys.

To release maximum information promptly and eco-
nomically, the publication program was built around
photo-offsets of printouts of standardized machine
tabulations designed for use es copy for photo-offset re~
production. Success in such a program requires inte-
gration of data collecting, coding, tabulating, und pub-
lishing plans as early us possible. The Bureau's
experience using machioes in tabulating its 1950 data
for publication by the Wharton School at the University
of Pennsylvania greatly facilitated the 1960-61 opera-
tions. Under its General Purpose Tabulations program,
the Bureau issued 182 reports and supplements (ex-
biblt K). These, plus 15 USDA rural farm reports using
the same table formats, contained nearly 6,300 pages of
«machine tabulations.

Classification of Items

In its General Purpose Tabulations, the Bureau con-
tinued to classify items into groups according to the na~
ture of the goods and services rather thanthe purpose
for which they were used. (See page 4.) Definitions of
groups and subgroups of !tems, as used inthe General
Purpose Tabulations, appear at the end of supplement 3
to each regional and U.S. report. Selected definitions
from Supplement 3 are reproduced in the Glossary.
The item classifications for 1960-61 and 1950 are gen-
erally comparable; differences ara listed in appendix A.

Computation of Averages

The averages and percentages in all tables were
based on all familles ineachclass, whether or not they
reported receipts or disbursements for a particular
item. Averages were calculated by dividing the aggre-
gate amount of income, expenditures, or savings by the
total number of families inthe class. Since all averages
for a class were based ona common divisor, they were
additive.

The percent of families reporting was obtained by di-
viding the number of families reporting the specified
item of income, expenditures, or savings by the total
number of families in the class. Average amounts for
families reporting 2 specified item canbe calculated by
dividing the average for all families by the correspond-
ing percent of families reporting.

The urban sample for each SMSA or other urban place
(i.e., the primary sampling unit) was designed to be
self-weighting, and tabulations in the individual city re~
ports are unwelghted summaries of all usable sched-
ules. Averages were shown for all classes of families
for which any observations were available, eventhough
only one reporting family fell in aclass. This practice
of eliminating no information had been adopted in 1950.
In publishing results of earlier surveys,’ it had been
customary to eliminate from labulations all averages
based on fewer than three or four observations, or to
combine classes unti) a sufficient number of observa-
tions for reliable averages was attained.

Before publishing data for individual metropolitan
areas, any schedule representing an entire class ina
tabulation was reexamined to make sure that nothing
published would permit identification of the respondent
and violate the Bureau's pledge of confidentiality of the
information he furnished. For guidance to users of the
data, the number of families included ineachclass was
printed in every tabulation of the city reports, and it
was assumed that analysts would recognize the limita-
tions of averagas computed for small numbers of fam-
ilies. An advantage of this procedure was that the in-
clusion of all observations in the tabulations allowed the
analyst to regroup the duta for his particular needs
without loss of {nformation and thus make maximum use
of the data. Each report carried the warning that partic-
ular caution was required inusing averages for families
at the extremes of the income scale. These averages
were based on small numbers of families that might
differ sharply tn their spending patterns.

U For critersa for “Index” fumilies, sce appendix A, p. 77-

2 The 1950 suvey was the first iu whach printouts of machine
tubulutions were used for copy for photo-offsct reproduction. Use of
standardized muchine printouts 1s more elficiemr if the tables are
published without modification.

36

Content of Statistical Reports

In November 1962, tne Commissioner of Labor Sta-
tistics and the directors of the BLS regional offices
netd press conferences to release simultaneously re-_
ports on 1960 spending and income of families in the
urban parts of the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area
and of a major SMSA ineach region. Earlier, staff from
the regional offices had met in Washington for briefing
on these reports and on the Bureau’s overall plans for
making CES data available.

Each “oity” report}? contained brief analytical and
interpretative text, definitions and statements on meth-
ods, and tables presenting averages for major compo-
nents of facily accounts for consumer units classified
py five characteristics: Family income after taxes,
family size, age of family head, occupation of the head,
and housing tenure. Supplement 1 to eaoh of these re-
ports presented the same information classified by four
additional characteristics: Education of the head, race,
family type, and number of full-time earners. These
characteristics are described on pages 46-51.

In supplement 2, datn for eight-family characteris-
tics in the above summaries were cross-classified (two
variables) with each of the selected oharacteristics,
as follows:

Loca-
tion
Fam- 2nd

In- ly size of Occu- Ten-
come Age type place pation ute Race

Family size =~ xX xX Xx Xooe - -
Age of head ~ Ko. - x x
Occupation of

head -------- Koo. - - - x x
Education of head Xo. - es - -
Race - oe - - x -
Number of full

Uume earners oe - - - -
Housng tenure ~ X= - - - - -
Family type ~ Xs - - - -

The standard table format used in the basic reports
and supplernents 1 and 2 is reproduced in appendix
table B-9.

Supplement 3 presented in detail the components of
consumer expenditures, income, and changes in sav-
ings, which were summarized in the basic reports and
supplements 1 and 2. To {Ilustrate, the category “auto-
mobile transportation” was broken down into 10 sub-
groups of expenditures. These detailed tabulations
provided data for consumer units cross-classified by
family size and incomo afler taxes and by family size
and location of the family’s residence inside or out-
side SMSA’s.

In addition, the BLS has published Clothing for Urban
Families: Expenditures per Member by Sex and Age,
1960-61 (Bulletin 1656). This bulletin 1s unique in the

1960-61 report series in thal it presents data for indi-
vidual family members. In al] other reports, the aver-
ages cover the entire family as an earning and spend-
ing unit.

Weighting Data co United States
and Regional Averages

No attempt was made to have the urban samples pro-
portionate or self-weighting except within each SMSA
or urban place. Because the Bureau published Con-
sumer Price Indexes for more than 20 individual areas
or cities, a minimum sample size ineacharea’ was
regarded as desirable. To describe the spending and
saving of all families in the United States, data from the
various CES samples were combined to regional and
U.S. levels.° Aside froin differential sampling rates
for strata representing the urban population, unequal
overall sampling rates were used for the urban, rural
nonfarm, and rural farm components. To compensate
for disproportionate sampling and for response differ-
ences, a system of weights based on the 1960 Census
of Population was used to summarize information for
each of the three urbanizations and for the entire
population.

Population adjustments

As a first step in deriving the weights, adjustments
were made in the census total of persons in the popula-
tion on April 1; 1960, to correct fordefinitional differ -
ences between the Census and the CES universe. The
instilutional population and on-post military personne},
which were not included inthe CES, were deduoted from
the census population. The CES data apply to the fuli
survey year, and family size is measured in year-
equivalent persons. Therefore, the census total on
April 1 was adjusted to take account of births, deaths,
and net civilian migration during 1960. For the United
States, the net effect of the adjustments was to lower
the population total from 179,323,175 to 177,391,360.

Procedures for adjusting the 1960 census data in
general paralleled those employed in 1950 and are de~
scribed briefly.

3 These were designated us advapce reports to distinguish
them from Ue subsequent regional and U.S, reports in the publica-

tion series BLS Repor 237 - «For u complete list of repons,
see pp, 203-4,
See p. B

The tumple was uot designed to provide tabulations by State.

37

=


such errors could have had little effect, since most
components for which fairly wide uifferences were
found were relatively small percents of the aggregates.

Table 17 presents the salient data for major ex:
penditure categories. The first five columns relate
to the 1961 comparison. The remaining columns refer
to the 1950 compariyon and are divided into two
parts; before and after OBE revisions. The pre-
viously published '' ratios of CES to OBE aggregates
employed OBE data as reported in the 1954 edition
of National Income. Subsequently, OBE revised the

Table 17. Comparison of CES and OBE National Accounts estimates of aggregate expenditures for current consamption, excluding owned

housing, 1961 and 1950

1950 data several times; the 1958 revision In par~
ticular resulted in very large changes, especially
for food. Recomputed ratios for 1950, substituting
OBF’s revised estimates for 1950, are shown in
the last two columns of table 17.

The 1950 CES covered only the urban population,
but it was suoh a large proportion of total popula~
tion (about 67 percent of all consumer units) that
comparison of 1950 and 1960-61 rativs of CES to
OBE aggregates casts considerable additional light.

11 Lamale, op. cit, (ionograph), table tf, p. 126,

‘Total wrban and rural Unites States, 1961 i Urban, 1950
T_Tercenr: Consumer
Expenditures Survey of | Perceut: Consumer Expenditures Suvey ot
Aggregate (millions) Office of Busmess Olfice of Business Economics
Ecouamics
c Consumer Before Oitice of After Office of
auegory Fepoudinares : joeee Ee
: Business Heengnncs | Businest Economics
‘Survey Oftice of revisions’ revisions
estimates Business
Economics | Uuadjusted| Adjusted [Unadjusted | Adjusted |Uuadjusred) Adjusted
1960-61 1961 _ | esmates Consumer | Consumer | Constimer | Consumer
unadjusted ! [adjusted 19613 txpendi- | Expendi- | Pxpendi- | Expeuds-
tures tures tures tures
_ F Suryoy | Survey _| Survey Survey
Lxpenditures for current con~
sumption, exeludiig owned
housing, plus goods and
services given to persv1
outside faintly ---— $264,052 |s2s4,%46 | $292,542 | 90.3 97.4 TC) - - -
Expenditures for curreut .
consumptiva 259,591 | 280,009 | 292,542] 88.7 95.7 95.4 28.6 0) ®
Food - 68,751 | 72,799} 70,774) 97,1 | loay 108.3 o,f 1211 123.1
Alcohohe beverages -->-~ 4, 308 4,627 | 10,805 | 39.9 42.8 37.8 38.6 38.5 39.4
Tobacco 5, 032 5,141 7,248 | 09.4 70.9 712 70,2 7400) 729
Rented dwelling, fuct,
light, andrefrigerution 328, 24% | 29,012, 26,102 ; 108.2 mid 103.6 103.1 102.1 101.5
Lodging out of home \
city ~ - 1,940 2,522 1,517 | 127.9 166, 2 (6 - - -
Household uperetions -~--- 15,984 | 17,860] 16,904 | 94.0 108, 3 42.9 98.5, 89.9 98.5,
Honscfuraishings and
‘equipment 14695 | 15,652 | 18,581 | 79.4 84.2 923 95.8 83,9 87.4
Clothing, clothing mave-
rials, and services 7 28,673 | 31,949 | 32,796 92.4 92,9 Me 88,9 93.6
Trawsportauion - 42,581 | 45,945 | 43,586 104.5 a7 100.9 91.9 95.1
Medical care ~ - 13,802 | 20,452 | 20,321 100, 109, 2 112.0 103.2 tos.8
Personal care ~ 8, 034 8, 601 5,792 148, 5 177 175,7 160.3 164.0
Recreution, reading, aad
16,443 | 18,005] 22,412 | 73.4 83,0 86.4 90.9 86,4 91.0
6,132 7,244 | 14,642 | 41.9 49.5 50.2 54.7 45.8 49.9)
Goods and services given to
persons ouside family -=--~ 4,401 4,837 0) - - (O} - - .

Averages us reported for 1960-61 in CES multiplied by the exrimated number of consumer unirs—S5, 306, 000,

See foomote 1, table 12,

* From The Natfonal Income and Product Accuunts of the United States,

1929-1965, Seatisucul Tables, 2 Supplement to whe Survey

of Current Business, adjused to conform with CES coverage and definitions.

@ Lamale, op. city, p. 126, These ratios were based om

Income Editton of Survey of Curreot Business.
Not included in 1950 comparison,

Survey estimares exclude meals as pay and include value
OBE inclndes such expenditures a respective categories; C!

ca tew

NOTE: Decause of rounding, sums of indivicual items may not equal total,

(See source for details of derivation. )
Developed from 1950 data reflecting revisions in 1958 und 1966 as published in source cited In footole 3,

Data not available to re-calculate total expenditures for curreot cousumption of whan consumer wits.

See text, pp. 56-58.
OBF. (there relerred vo as NID) estimates published in 1954 Nartonal

vf food produced and consumed on farms.
ES estumates were made only for total.

62

Becuuse available data do not provide a basis for
estimating total expenditures of the urban popula-
tion in the OBE accounts in the same manner as
Lamale estimated them, ber estimate ($111,534 mU-
Mon) was retained so that no change in ratio for the
total is shown after OBE revisionof National Accounts.

Gifts of goods and services to persons outside the
family were not taken into account in the 1950 com-
parison, primarily because the CES data could not
be allocated among OBE categories of personal con-
sumption expenditures (PCE). The same difficulty
applies to the 1960-61 survey data. Nevertheless,
such gifts (unlike gifts of cash) are included in PCE
by OBE which uses data that make no distinction
between purchases for family use and for gifts to
other families. Accordingly, CES gifts of goods and
services—$4,461 million unadjusted and $4,837 million
adjusted—have been added to the survey total expendi-
tures, increasing both the unadjusted and adjusted
ratios to ORE data by about 2 percentage points.
Again, data available did not provide a basis for
calcwating an adjusted aggregate for 1950, preventing
addition of gifts to the earlier comparison.

Because gifts are relatively more important for
some categories of expenditures (clothing, house-
furnishings, food, tobacco, and alcoholic beverages)
than for others, {t is unfortunate that these expendi-
tures cannot be allocated among the various CES
components as they necessarily are in the Nafionul
Accounts. To some extent, therefore, CES estimates
for each component are understated by the amount
of these gifts.

The CES estimate of total 1961 expenditures, ex-
cluding gifts, {alls more than 10 percent short of
OBE on an unadjusted basis and 4.3 percent after
adjustment. Each is sumewhat lower than the corre-
sponding 1950 ratios. Including gifts, the 1961 CES
estimates are 90.3 percent of OBE unadjusted and
87.4 percent adjusted. On the assumption that the
adjusted data constitute the better estimates of the
CES aggregate, such close correspondence with the
OBE estimate indicates that the survey covered
virtually all consumption expenditures of familles
since, as pointed out earlier, OBE includes non-
Profit organizations and persons not in the CES
universe.

The adjusted CES aggregates are within 5 percent
of the OBE aggregates fur food, clothing, medical
care, and transportation, and barely oyer this ori-
terion for household operations, The survey aggre-
gate for fuel, light and refrigeration, not shown
Separately in table 17, but itemized in appendix
table B-18, was 102 percent of tbe OBE data. These
Components were 67 and 71 percent of the OBE and
CES totals, respectively.

>

The 1961 CES adjusted food aggregate is 2.9 per-
cent higher than OBE. For 1950, BLS was 10 percent
higher before OBE revised its data and 23 percent
higher after revision. OBE reduced its figure for
1950 by ahout $5 billion on the basis of the 1954
Census of Retail Trade, which indicated that use of
annual retail sules figures as an extrapolator was
faulty because of shifting proportions of food and
nonfood items sold in food stores.'? That the CES
estimate is substantially closer to OBE in 1961 than
in 1950 no doubt reflects considerably greater effort
in the 1960-61 survey to assist respondents in dis-
tinguishing between food and nonfood expenditures in
food stores. Like all other components, of course,
differences in the two aggregates for food cannot
be explained fully; and it cannot be assumed that
differences result only from weaknesses in the sur-
vey data. As OBE indicates in all major reports
on its national income and product accounts, weak-
nesses in data available to them and the highly com-
plicated estimating procedures required throughout
their computations may result in considerable error.

‘Transportation {s another component for which the
1950 comparison was affected significantly by an OBE
revision in 1958. At that time, OBE changed its
ratio for allooating personal and business use of
automobiles from 70-30 to 83-17, respectively.!>
The change affected automobile purchases, gasoline
and motor oil, repairs, eto. For 1950, this increased
the PCE transportation aggregate by about $1.5 bil-
lion. For the comparison of the two sets of data,
it reduced the CES/OBE ratio from 100.9 to 95.1.
For 1961, the adjusted CES transportation aggregate
is 4.6 percent higher than OBE. Although reasons
for the difference cannot be quantified, several are
known. For example, OBE inoludes only the gross
margin on sales of used cars, whereas BLS reflects
total expenditure for purchase of used cars. Also,
presumably OBE does not include trucks in PCE;
BLS would reflect expenditures for their purchase
and operation to whatever extent families reported
they used trucks for camping or other nonbusiness

transportation,
It seems only fair to point to medical care as

an example of close agreement in the aggregates
in the face of fundamental differences between CES
and OBE coverage and definitions. The CES gives
the out-of-pocket expense of private households for
health insurance premiums and medical care goods
and services not covered by insurance. The OBE
component is defined as the value of medical care
consumed by the total population including institu-
tionalized persons and care paid for by insurance.
Claims are netted from premiums paid for insurance.

12 05. Income and Our
13 Ted, pp. 80-82,

pe 76.


Population stratum

All urban
Area places A B c D
Total, eligible full-
year consumer wnits--- [1,970 5,464 2,715 1,552 2,239
Percent of total elgible--- 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Usable schedules 79.2 78.9 781 80.5 80.3
lucomplete schedules~ 8.6 8.9 8.3 7.6
Refusals 10.3 10,4 12.6 9.9
Rejected schedule 1.9 18 20 2.2

The percentage of usable schedules in each city is
shown in appendix table B-2.

The proportion of usable schedules obtained from
the urban sample was somewhat lower in 1960-61 than
in 1950. (See table 4.) For 1950, records are not avail-
able to make an analysis inthe same detail as in 1960-
61, but {t 1s evident that the loss attributable to vacant
units was higher for the 1960-61 period than in 1950
when the post-war housing shortage was still a
national problem. 2

In addition to the full-year CU’s, the urban sample
also included 386 part-year familles, 293 of whom
gave usable schedules. (See appendix table B-4.) As
indicated in ohapter 3, the part-year schedules were
not included in computing the survey averages but
some analytical tabulations’ were made for this
group which made up 3 percent of the total 9,769 usable
schedules obtained from full-year and part-year urban
families.

The largest category of part-year familles—35 per-
oent of the total—was composed of persons who had
married during the survey year but had lived with
another CU prior to their marriage. The next largest
group—21 peroent of the part-year units—were indi-
viduals who left their families to become finanoially
independent. ‘his would include a son, for example,
who gut a job and moved into his own apartment.
Another 13 percent had returned during the survey year
from military service, an institution, or from living
abroad. The remaining 31 percent had joined or left
another CU during the survey year for avariety of rea-
sons, including married couples who separated or ob-
tained divorces.

Mail Questionnaires for Weekly
Food Expenditures

As indicated earlier, schedule 2648C (see ex-
hibit F) was used during tho interview to supplement
the information recorded on annual expenditures for
food,‘ beverages, household supplies, and related
items purchased frequently. The detail of such items
purchased during the 7 days preceding the interview
was essential for determining the CPI weights for
specific items of food. It also was necessary to

26

have some basis for adjusting the weekly information
to represent annual expenditures for individual items,
because of the seasonal variation in food purchases.
Ideally, such information is obtained by reinter-
viewing the cooperaling families at quarlerly or
more frequent intervals over a full-year oyole. This
was deemed impractical, primarily because of the
cogt of personal interviews.

Experimental survey in Cincinnati

Since it is cheaper to collect data by mail than by
personal {olerview, an experimental mail survey was
undertaken in the “lead city? of Cincinnati inthe spring
of 1961. The experiment was designed: (1)To compare
response rates for families previously interviewed
and for “new” families, and (2) to obtain guidance in
schedule design if it were decided to undertake an
extensive mail survey.

The new addresses, whioh were divided into two
groups of 150 each, were subsamples of living quarter
addresses drawn for experimental purposes at the
same time and following the same procedures used
in drawing the subsample of addresses visited for the
1959 CES in Cinctnnati. (See p. 13-)

Three simplified versions of schedule C (identified
as Cl, C2, and C3), were tested. All were limited to
the food and nonalcobolic beverages seotions of sched-
ule C and requested only minimal information about
family characteristics, specifionlly the number of per-
sons in the family and the number of persons served
each meal in the previous week.

Questionnaire C1 listed only the 28 major food and
beverage categories (¢.g., dairy produots) and left
space for the respondent to write in the quantity and
cost of each specific 1tem purchased.

Questionnaire C3 contained the complete cheoklist
of food and nonalcoholic beverages included in the basic
Schedule 2648C.

Questionnaire C2 combined features of Cl and C3.
Jt had a partial ohecklist of items and provided space
for the respondent to write in all purchases in some
categories (e.g., frozen vegetables).

Questionnaire Cl was mailed to one subsample of
150 new addresses, und questionnaire C2 to the other
150. Questionnaire C3, which was most similar to the
schedule C used in personal interviews, was mailed to

2 The decenniat censuses of housing show that the national
vacancy rate for avaslable yeareround sound housing in 1960 was
more than donble the 1950 race, See US, Census of Housing
1960, United States Summary, Final Report HC(1) = 1, p. xt.

3" These tabulations appear in The Concept of Part-Year
Families in Consumer Expenditue Surveys, CES Research Note
No. f, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Division of Living Con-
ditions Studies, October 1968, (mimeographed).

For 2 comparison of reported annual and weekly food ex-
penditures, see p- GO,

a

183 families who were famillar with the schedute.
These families had cooperated when initially inter-
viewed in the spring of 1960, and they had not refused
to cooperate in 2 second personal interview in which
schedule C was used to collect information on their
food purchases during a week in the period between
October 17 and November 18, 1960.

All three types of questionnaires were mailed on
April 30, 1961. Three weeks later, when response had
practioally ceased, a followup inquiry was mailed to
all nonrespondents. The response for the three sched-
ules is shown in table 5,

Table $, Comparison of response rates for three types of weckly food
sebedules used in experimental mail survey, Cincinnati, Ohio,
spring 1961

Number Percent of

of schedules schedules maited
edule Returned
Sched sane eu tora! |
ai sable
Torat | Usable |"?

Total-------- 470 | 173 | 125 | 368] 26.6
145 49 37 | 33.8) 25.5
144 st 33 | 35.4] 229
181 73 88 | 40.3] 30.4

1 Thirteen of the 483 schedules
Post Olive.

mailed were returned by the

On the basis of the response rates in the Cincinnati
experiment, it was deoided to rely on mail question-
naires to obtain information for seasonal adjustment
of weekly food expenditures needed for the C Pi weights.

Mail survey in selected cities

Successive matlings to families interviewed, regard-
{ng both their weekly food and other expenditures
(26488), was the preferred way to collect information
for seasonal adjustment of weekly food expenditures.
The reason was that the annual schedule contained
family characteristics for evaluating the effeot of non-
response in the mail reports. Although the Cincinnati
experiment showed that previously interviewed fam-
{lies returned the highest proportion of usable sched-
ules in the mail survey (the C3 groupin table 5) grave
doubt remained about the “slaying power” of such fam-
ilies over three quarterly mailing periods.

Therefore, a mail survey of seasonal food expend-
itures was undertaken, using two types of samples:

1. CES followup involved three successive mail-
ings to about 4,500 familles who had furnished weekly
food data on schedule 2648C when interviewed {nthe
spring of 1961 in all cities in the 1960 CES sample.

2, Independent consisted of approximately 16,000
addresses selected from the residual CHUS sample
in 16 cities after the CES samples had been seleoted.

27

Schedules were mailed to these addresses for only
one reporting period inthe 12 months, Ootober 1961-
September 1962. The sample thus consisted of 12
independent subsamples.

The schedule, BLS 2648CM, was the same for both
mail surveys, but the letters oa the cover sheet dif-
fered. (See exhibits I and J.) Form 2648CM was a
composite of the schedule formats used experimentally
in Cincinnati; the instructions and questions on page 2
were from questionnaire C2 and the complete check-
list of items from C3. After each mailing in both the
followup and independent samples, a second request
was mailed to all families who had not returned the
2648CM approximately 2 weeks after it had been sent.

Comparison of responses from the two types of sam-~
ples showed that the CES followup group maintained
a. better rate of return than had been anticipated in
planning the mail survey. To summarize, the com-
parison showed:

1, Over the entire period (October 1961-Septem-
ber 1962), the gross rate of return was about the
same from both surveys. From every 100 sched-
ules mailed, 38.6 were returned by families in the
followup sample and 39.5 from the independent
sample.

2. Families previously interviewed in the CES
returned a higher proportion of usable schedules
(32.1 percent) than did families approached only by
mail in the independent survey (28.2 percent).

3. The rate of return of usable schedules varied
more from month to month on the followup than
on the independent survey. However, in all but
2 months, the rate of return was higher on the
followup than the independent survey. Returns were
lowest in the late summer months on both surveys.
Low for the followup was 22.4 percent in Septem-
ber, and for the independent it was 28.2 percent
fn August.

Weekly food expenditures collected from both types
of mail surveys were used for seasonal adjustments
in deriving food weights for the CPI.> Plans for
collating famfly characteristics on the annua) sched-
ule with weekly data in the CES followup survey were
nol accomplished, mainly because of the shortage of
programmers.

Characteristics of Families Cooperating
in Cincinnati

Tabulations of families in the three collections of
weekly food data in Cincinnati are indicatlve of sample

5 See The Consumer Price Index: History and Techniques,
BLS Bulletin 1517, p. 50,



Exhibit D

sco me 1 aren « 9

v0 swTeLD suo

-sesanod 204 Led nok pyp Aw¥N} MUN ON AT

_ LAotlour v8 sok Gn Buz20)9
pun yuad (poo) mo so} 66d nod pip af reyI—sw— Iw] sBapuadeper sijwlousag HD 80%,

wea,
2 ppunsue tenured
‘pea fo aqantnn 207

“gone m exe jo meqatog ogy at3g separ 0
“pr o1 repos eiqeoyaar ogi Jo yowe Ie “skus ABTEN GOK IO IT 1

a *(@) s9pUN past] sTUvAs2M 40 ‘asopse0q ‘aIPMONZ INDE auo

“Tae RBIS Han TRATES TeUNNOT WOH AINA OWT

Dw,

{Mow atoy 100

— oe
Agia ||
SD penannn
agzigeames Mime | Yo fanart
uae f goteg || E Dios Pe ; :
Reig Emmons | subity | ramen <adae “Jowoos ‘asf ul-tanysusp
sits! | a Bs asioy sy Jo paeq aq OF drasuonETDs JT)
“me as otanver tena, | SONY a) Ish{ "ROWRU 11a] OX LOU asOY SAI] OYA
vate ps0 |
—— —.-- ‘side
A€ BMILN@ G'IORME NOM KE LON BNOSUEA LIORY ASV 'ON 41
LION GK LKQ dame ZaLp playa RFs ssurANOI IMAM s05K10A8 HO
© w ” » | # | on

oo

NOILY SUNS ISU LIS WEWASKOD,

AIERMR EWAN UVECAUVE ONY “TOL

KOLLAIMOSAG NV dIaSUaNAW ATOREENOR

~ panog sutiy) sauansi9 Jo saquin

{Mo 8 pu ‘eCBAsaE ‘BIOWTOOS ‘sIDBFUL ‘uaspIIya Zamunce ‘es0q oaty edoad Las soy (1)

“on auogdayay,

“ON ADOTET

"O°C "SZ NOLONIHS¥M
SDUSILVLS YOBY) 40 Nvaung
HOaVT JO INSWL8Vd3d “S°N

"on quomUsisy

quo0oaa GIOHASNOHK
"6 NI SSMMLIGNAdXA YAWASNOD dO ATAUAS

116

Exhibit C

“sisey asayp 20% op paudrsap sf Zurzew Apusan> aw am Aaamns aqy

-dauow 113) Tutpuads wou are ajdoad moy ino piny
ysnw neaing au ‘Afaresnaae saZanys aor asaup ainseaw o2 anunUoD Oo]

furpuads Arm) wy aauevoduy s19y) 01 2uiprosoe way) ZUG
-wo9 pus ‘siuauys!|qerss 9314195 puB sions []8393 Woy} sand so spuEsnoy)
Supsaqoo dq samy sayy sarveynate> sonsherg soqe-] Jo neaing ayy,

ey
eee es |

Ss cS |

9

1 a

“ CJ

2089 [RoIpaH
aie> peuassag

atiqnd poe apiqowore ‘uoneuodsuery,
sadqaias pus spoo? snoaueyja2sin
$1509 Pursnojy

paurqwos saayxi9s pur spoo¥ ny

1 C7 soUeinEssa) pur So100S ux poo
“1 oS Surpeas pux vorteaisoy
su Oo 4vae100) pus Sumpoy)

0961 © 0S6I - SSVSYONI dnouo

“¥ZE paseardur suait asus peuossad aiqm ‘porzad sip Gursnp ¥ BT
pasvaiout s2oi2d poo) ‘a[dumexa 10.7 “5141 WWD S59] 10 dJ0W pasvaioU swart
Jo sdnos¥ suasaj1q “YEzZ paswasour saorad 19uNS90> 96T 6 OG6 WOI4

‘sa2tatas pu spood
sayo pur 9329 jeuosiad
PUE [VoIP 10) 1U9H Sof
Wonvizodsuvs: 10F ua Sy
Auymor> 30) 13% $y
“av ‘Jany ‘aumpruing
“Sursnoy 20) 1ua% $gz
soFe19A9q
PUE poos 205 UOm STE

+ wads fap syfop yoea
304 ‘kvm rotour ind 30

ikem Gupeo][0) 3q) UE szE[Lop 419m) uads
san0 paw vorveyndod oogz Jo Santa ul Surat sarpwey ‘9Fe1aaw sy vo “Tey
PUNO} GGT UE S>NSIIVIg JOqUT Jo NEDIME oyI Aq apEM AdamnS ABLIUIS y

0S61 NI SNIGNAdS ATINVS

“SM AAIS NOA NOLL
-VHYOIN] SHL AO SISN aIA V SALVYASNTH WALLA SIHL 30 31S ASMAATY FHL

sonsnylg soqz'] Jo savorssrmmo>

angel ueeg

Zo

“simok dyn hs94

“‘uoyj> rmerodwr sep u)
vonesadoo> parssaqajoys snok somatasoyur sno oar nod seq Isanbod Apsowea |

“os 11 980 dp9y (Ta Aaans siyp UI uopedsonied mmox “o[gIssod sv a1eINI>" sv 3q 0111
swem a ‘ar0jsv94] -Ang nod STUN) aq) Jo1s09 ay wo FoUeDq yD0m—p © s¥y 21 sagn dUeU
siy gdnosy 20g ‘ded nok saouad ap v1 sa¥ueyD somnseaw Ajuo 100 xopwn ay, “sdnosd s0qe}
PUr ‘ssaursnq ‘JwuoIssajord ‘susaWeA08 Aq aps sUOTSID9p UF 10198} >1WOUOI9 wuLredal:
Ue St 31 pax ‘19 40m jo Suot] fw Jo safsetes puv sadam so uowIsalps ay) UI pasn s} x>poy
224d FawnsvOD ayL -Aem peuosiad A194 w OF nod oF 1avII0dW! 5} AanINS STH

“splogasnoy
soy0 Ave 40) vonreaioor repens Mia Vonoun{uo> ut ‘A{uo sasodind [Bo sT¥IS 10) p2sn 94
TH ysiwry 904 wrup Avy “soeapyvor rsax21Ins ay ar pray aq Tm 2a1F nod voeMZeyuY aq)
pus ‘Aaains atp yxte wol122uN09 B} pasn aq rou [TI ADaItIsod oueU Inox -aweu Aq nod or
san9 SIH) puas rowvED aa ‘ssauppe Ino K1Uo aay am 901g ‘asedind sty) 10) pars9{9s
Atyyasea vag sey (4219 snok ur sployssnoy za—po Auew yo ssaippe a\p pus) ssauppe mmoX
asipng dprmay snof rnoge sfum Jomo pue apeur axvy nok saseysind inoqe suonsanb nod
ASE ][}a Ome Jomayasaruy s3/>8] 142g oq] Jo N¥amM © Aq PorTstA aq []}m TOs uaog

wos oryseg, UF SDIESILVLS YOMVT AO

AVAYNG ay Aq poysrqnd sis0> Zurayy ut a8ueqo yo asnsvow ersyjo ay $1 YO1YR ‘XAGNI

BON YANNSNOO 2p Jo woresnaqes ays 203 papasu st UoMEMUojUT sEp-or-di “BUEAt] Jo

3509 943 Vo 13a))> 2]Qe12PIsUo peq Brey YOtye aay] afdoad moy wy ssFuEy> AueW G99 savy

219M “S61 22UIS ‘o8s sraa{ 0] apew sum adéa sup yo downs rs¥ BYL “Warp 10) hud Aay>

yanw moy pus Ang afdood sa3taias puw spoof Jo spusy mya ano puy 07 415 snod wY SIYAL
JANAGXT UAWNSNOD JO AFAYAS ¥ Farxea sy 30qv"] Jo watwirsdoq “s-y saL

ANAWNYSAOS YNOA
HOUd ADLLON LNVLYOdKI

“D'C ‘gz NOLOMIHEWA,
SD.LELLVIS ORV 40 NvauNS

YOsWT 40 LNAW Lda “SN

14



Chart 1. Organization Chart, Apri! 1960

OFFICE OF PRICES ANO LIVING CONDITIONS

[ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

and Price indexes

wision ot
Consumer Prices
and Price Indexes

O1vision of
Living Conditions
Sunches

Section of
Management
Services

Divi
Pra Opbrations

3
£

ag

Mot

Brans” of
Consumer Prices

Branch of
Conse nr Price

Indoxes

Section of
Corsumar

Price index

Mathodolagy

B38
be
Bak
gee
Eee
z Lee:
iin
£26
co lm .
é |i ri
1 2 *
r| sé i
st. | EE 8
pet gs 5
ges = é
ae

10

i
i
E

Fa
&

Uwmited continuag responsi

Chapter 3.

Customarily, the Bureau has seleoted samples of
coasumer units for expenditure surveys by probability
methods. For the 1960-61 CES, separate stratified
area samples were selected for urban areas, rural
areas in metropolitan counties, and rural areas innon-
metropolitan counties. A three-stage sample design
was used within each of these three segments to obtain
a sample of consumer units representative of all
United States consumer units as defined for this survey.

Urban Sample

The first stage in the urban sample was the selec-
tion of cities to be surveyed. At the second stage, 2
sample of living-quarter addresses was obtained in
each city from the Comprehensive Housing Unit Survey
(CHUS) conducted by the BLSor from listings recorded
in the 1960 Census of Population and Housing (pages
13-14). In the third stage, the CES samples were
chosen as subsamples of the housing unit addresses
obtained in the CHUS or census. This double sam-
pling procedure in each city was used because of
the small CES samples to be selected.

Selection of cities!

The primary sampling units (PSU’s) were Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSA’s), as defined
by the Bureau of the Budget prior to the 1960 census,
plus individual urban places in the nonmetropolitan
segment of the United States. For New York and
Chicago, the PSU’s were the Standard Consolidated
Areas, rather than the constituent SMSA's. However,
in the collection and analysis of the data, the New
York-Northeastern New Jersey Standard Consolidated
Area was divided into two subareas—New York,N.Y.,
and Northeastern New Jersey. The entire urban part
of un SMSA, including some small noncontiguous urban
places that were outside the “urbanized area,” was
included in the urban sample. (See also page 50.)

Tests? of the effectiveness of some of the more
obvious modes of stratification, such as region, size
of city, and climate indicated that no elaborate stra-
tification was justifiable for a sample ofonly 50 areas.
Region and size of city were selected as the most ef-
fective stratification variables. The four census
regions—Northeast, North Central, South, and West—
were used for the areas. (See chart 2 page 12.) The size
atratification was of particular {mportance because of
differential cost factors in the pricing program to
maintain the CPI in different sizecities. The measure
of size was the urban population on January 1, 1959,
as estimated in Sales Management, the Magazine of

n

Design of Samples

Marketing, published by Bill Brothers Publications,
since data from the 1960 Census of Population had not
become available.

Several possible size groupings were considered.
It was decided to retain the 12 largest SMSA’s then in
the CPI sample (the A stratum) as certainty selec-
tions, that is, to represent only themselves. On the
basis of the population data then being used, the lower
limit for this stratum was described as being 1,250,000.
However, when 1960 popuiation figures became avail-
able, the cutoff for the 12 largest areas in effect be-
came 1,400,000. For the other three population strata,
it was believed that commonly used size groups would
facilitate comparison with other data. The four size
strata were defined as follows:

A. SMSA's having a 1960 urban population of over
1,400,000.

B. SMSA’s with urban population of 250,000 to
1,400,000.

C. SMSA’s with urban population of 50,000 to
250,000.

D. Nonmetropolitan urban places with population
of 2,500 to 50,000.

Alaska and Hawai! posed special problems. Although
their urban population did not justify the allocation of
a sample city to each, their cities were so different
from cities in the other 48 States and from each other
that there appeared to be no alternative to making
each a separate stratum with s sample place for
each. The urban population of Alaska is concentrated
in Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, and Ketchikan. On
the basis of probability proportional to urban popu-
lation, Anchorage was selected to represent Alaska in
the CPland CES.? Honolulu was designated to represent
Hawaii, since almost seven-eighths of the State’s
urban population lived in the Honolulu SMSA.

The certainty selection of the 12 largest cities and
the allocation of one sample place each to Alaska and
Hawaii left 36 cities to represent the B,C,and D urban
strata in the remaining 48 States. These 36 were
divided among strata on the basis of the relative im-
portance of their urban population, and the estimated
annual costs of operating a pricing program in cities
of different size.

1 The selection of the city sample is described tn greater
detail by Marvin Wilkerson fn "Techuicel Note—The Revised City
Sample for the Comumer Price Index," Monthly Labor Review,
Cetober 1960, pp. 1078-1083, (BLS Reprim 2352.)

2 Analysis of variance techniques were applied to price
movements for three different time periods for 25 items and groups
of items; similar apslyses utilized expenditure data from the 1950

CES. See Wilkerson, ibid, p. 1078.
3 See p. 38.



Chapter 10.

Reconciliation of Aggregates From

CES, OBE, and Other Sources

The C&S furnishes the only complete compilation
of family expenditures that permils comparisons of
how different sizes and types of families living in
different localities use their income. As stated earlier,
the CES statistical reports show this information
as average expenditures per family for different
categories of goods and services. However, for such
purposes as forecasting the tax yield of excise or
sales taxes or the consumer market for 2 product,
or for distributing the Office of Business Economics
(OBE) national aggregates of consumption expenditures
among regions or smaller areas, users! may want
to convert the average expenditures per family into
totals or aggregates for specific types of families.
Frequently the next slep is to compare the estimated
CES totals with aggregates from other sources.

Aggregate Incomc, Expenditures,
and Savings

The National Income and Product Accounts, com-
piled by OBE, include estimates of aggregate income,
expenditures, and savings, which are more nearly
appropriate than other independent estimates for com-
parison with aggregates derived from the CES. How-
ever, major differences in concept, coveruge, and
method require a number of adjustments of both OBE
and CES data to facilitate a comparison.¢ Despite
these adjustments, certajiidifferences remain and their
effects cannot be measured in reconciling the two
sets of data. Within the relatively narrow residual
differences, however, 4 comparison provides a rea-
sonably sound basis for evaluating their validily and
gives clues to the nature of reporting errors in the
CES data. * :

One difference {s that the relevant OBE data relate
to the entire personal sector of the national econ-
omy.‘ In addition to the CES universe, the national
accounts include transactions of nonprofit organiza-
tions, inmates of institutions, and military personnel
on post. OBE data cannot be adjusted to eliminate
completely these sources of noncomparability, the most
important of which are the expenditures of non-
profit organizations.

Another difference is that for OBE purposes imputed
values for certain items provide a better estimate
than exclusive reliance on money receipts and dis-
bursements. The most important imputations are:
(1) Rental value of owned homes, and (2) services
furnished without payment by financial intermediaries.

56

estimates *

In both cases, the OBE und CES concepts and deti-
nilions differ so fundamentally that no basis for
comparison seems valid.

Derivation of aggregates from CES averages

Determining the most appropriate method for ex~
panding the CES averages per family into national
uggregates to compare with OBE aggregates involved
reconsideration of three procedures followed in de~
veloping the weighted avernges published for the
(960-61 CES and described in chapler’7. In brief,
they were whether to use: (1) The combined 1960
and 1961 samples of urban families; (2) the esti-
muted total of 55,306,000 consumer units in 1960 as
weights; or (3) the distribution of consumer units
by income after taxes as determined in the survey.
The unadjusted survey aggregates in tables 12 and 13,
developed by multiplying published survey averages
by 55,306,000 consumer unils, reflect the earlier
decisions.

In terms of comparison with OBE data, these
procedures involved actuul or potential bias. Failure
to take into account the increase in number of
consumer units from 1960 to 1961 clearly would
understate the survey aggregates. To the extent that
average incomes, expenditures or savings changed
Significantly between 1960 and 1961, the survey
aggregates might be over- or understated. More-
over, only urban data were available for 1960, which
would require estimating the proportion of OBE
aggregutes appropriate for the urban segment. A
cleancul 1961 comparison seemed preferable. The
comparison of 1950 survey dala with independent
and evaluations of the 1960-61 survey

b See chapter (1 for uses af CES dara.

Problems of comparing sie ORE time series and dhe CES
qos section data are anulyzed and discussed in detail by HS.
Houthakker und Lester D, Taylor m ch. &, "“Evideuce from [he
1960-61 Household Survey,” of their book Consumer Demand in the
Varted Stutes (second and ealargeu edition), scheduled for publica~
tion by the Harvard University Press, Summer 1970,

4 Fot a summary of earlier comparisons aud a detalled re-
port on the comparison of the 1950 BLS survey with independent
sources, see Lamale, op cit. (monograph), pp, 113-136,

4 OBE's officix! deteriptions of the pertinent segments of n2-
Uional accounts relied ow im this comparison are published by the
U.S, Department of Commerce in the Survey of Current Busiuess,
August 1965, pp. 6-22, and use series of supplements to the Survey
of Current Business under the following titles: National [ncome,
1954 Edicion (1954), U.S. Income and Ourput (1958), The National
Ingoine aad Product Accounts of the United States, 1929-1965, Sta-
Tistical Tables (1966).

5 Lamale, op. ci.

(monograph), mp, 107-113,

suggested that the CES distribution by income classes
might understate consumer units at the extremes

Table 12. Comparison of income, expenditures, and changes in savings as

of the income distribution, especially in the higher
incoine Clusses.

reported in the 1960.61 CES with estimates based on CES reports

adjusted by Office of Business Economics income distribution of families and unrelated individuals, total urban and rural United States

Average per CU Fee ce Aggregate (roiItons)
Category 1960-61 Toa Unatjusred | Adjusred | Udmered| Adjusted | Dilference
unadjusted | adyusted | Vovsdusred | Adiuse Wy i A (A) - (Uy
Money income before taxes $6, 246 257,054 - - $345,425 | $395,054 $49, 629
Other money receipts - Est oe OF - - 4,495 5,380 885
Moaey income after taxes - 5, $57 6,181 - - 307, 362 340, 17K 38, B16
Expenditures for cursent consumption,
totals 5.USA 5, 393 100.0 100.0 | 279,497 302, 289 22,792
Food 1,234 1,201 24.4 Bw 68,274 72,295 4,021
Alcoholic beverages - 78 63 1S 1.5 4,306 4,627 32t
4 92 18 17 5,032 5,141 109
658 700 13.0 13.0 36,398 39,175 2,777
Other reat estate 6 8 +2 al 338 453 AIS
Fuel, light, and refrigeration 249 262 49 4.9 13,787 14,086} 899
Household operations -----= 288 319 5.7 5.9 15,954 17, 860 1,906
Housefurnishings and equipment 266 279 5.3 5.2 14,695 15, 652 9os7
Clothing, clouuug materials, and
eee ae i oe 518 S70 10,3 10.6 23,673 31,949 3,276
Transponstion 770 813 15.2 15.1 42,984 45, 545 2 964
Medical care - 340 365 67 6.8 18, 802 20, 152 1,650
Personal care = 145 154 22 28 8,034 8,601 S67
Rucreation, reading, and education 298 332 5.9 6.1 16,443 18, 605 2, 162
Miscellaneous -~ ~ Wa 129 22 24 6,132 7,244 1,112
Gifts end contributions -- 280 320 - - 45,490 17,923 2,433
Personal insurance ~-~ 299 330 - - 16,523 18,463 1,940
Nec change m assets aud Labilivies -. 199 386 - 10,993, 21,614 10,62
Accownt balancing difference --- 186 156 - LU, 28/ -8, 744 1,543
1 Adjusted to (a) exclude 1960 urban data; (b) reflect ducrease from 190 to 1961 in estimated number of consumer wits (from
16,000 to 56,003,000); and (c) reflect CBE distriburion of {amilfes and unamached individuals amoug imcome clusses, Sec text,

55
ep, S6-58.

2 Exeludes occupational expenses (averaging $3Y) and includes gifts of cash from persons outside tle cuusumer unit (averaging $46),
which account for difference in average money income beiore taaes frum that shawn in table 13.

NOTE: Because of rownding, sums of indiwidus] items may ovt equal totals.

The specific decisions affecting derivation of the
CES aggregates can be summarized briefly. The in-
crease in the number of households from March 1960
to March 1961, as measured in the Current Popu-
lation Survey, was adjudged the most realistic esti~
mator of inereases in consumer units from 1960 to
1961. The increase of 1.26 percent applied to 55,306,000
consumer units resulted in an estimate of 56,003,000
units—an addition of 697,000.

The decision to exclude the urban data for 1960
rested primarily on considerations of presenting a
clearcut comparison for 1961 and avoiding the poten-
tial source of error noted above. OBE data for the
entire population indicated that from 1960 to 1961
per capita disposable persona] income increased
2.4 percent; personal consumption expenditures, 1.3

"57

-

percent; and personal savings, 22.7 percent. The
CES averages per urban family showed increases
of 2.2 percent in income after taxes, of 0.2 percent
in total expenditures for current consumption, and
of 44.1 percent in net changes in assets and lia-
bilities. Although the change in CES estimates of
total expenditures was clearly within sampling error,
as were changes in most of the major components
of expenditures, it appeared that including the 1960
data would tend to understate the income and savings
aggregates. (See appendix table B-11.)

& Households and Families, by Type: 1965, Current Popu-
lation Reports, Populution Characteristics, Series P-20, No. 140,
July 2, 1965, U.S. Department of Commerce, Burcau of the Census,

p 4



classified the family heads 1n three groups: White,
Negro, and other. “Other” included Japanese, Chinese,
American Indians, and all other. The racial distri-
butions of families in the CES sample and in the cen-
sus are very similar.

Housing tenure

Entries on the family’s tenure during all of the
survey year (section B, item 3b) provided a one-
digit code in which families were classified ag
owners, renters, or other (i.e., owner part-yeer,
renter part-year) “Owner” included owner-occupants
of cooperative apartments. “Renter” iucluded con-
sumer units receiving rent free. The census recorded
occupants as owners or renters at the time of the
decennial census. The CES and census definitions
of a bousing unit were generally comparable (page 14),
but the census classified rooming or boarding houses
which had five or more roomers as group quarters
and thus excluded them from the count of occupted
housing units. This, coupled with previously noted
differences between the census’ household and the CES
consumer unit, would tend to explain the somewhat
lower proportion of renters in the ceagus than in
the CES distribution in table 9.

Family type
CES families were classified in seven types on

the basis of the relationship of family members and
the age ofifie children of the head. Entries of relation-

ship to head (section A, {tem 2) were combined into
a one-digit code, as follows:
Code Category
1 Single consumer
2 Husband and wile only
3 Husband and wife, own children, 90 other persons in family
4 Husband and wife, own children, other relatives
S One purent (head), own children, 20 other persons in family
6 One parent (head), own children, and other relatives
7 Husband end wife, vo own children, other relatives
& Husband and wife, vo own children, others not related
2 All other

“Own” children were sons and daughters of the head,
including stepchildren and adopted children.

Families composed of a husband, wife, and one child
or more, but no other persons living with the family
(code 3 above), were subdivided into three groups,
according to the age of the oldest child as recorded
in section A, item 5. Codes for “relationship to head”
and “age of children” (appendix table B-13) were
combined into tbe following one-digit “family type”
code:

Family Relation- Percem
tyre ship of CES
code head cede Category faunties

1 2 Husband and wife only ---- 225

3 Husband and wife, own children ovly:

2 Olden chtld under 6 years - th
3 Oldest child 6 through 17 years 25.6
4 Oldest chitd 18 years aud uver ~ 10.3
s 4,7, 8 All other husband and wife families - BL
6 S One parent, own children only - Sel
7 1, 6, 9 All other families, includin,

sugle consumers 19.2

The seven classes in the CES distribution have been
combined into two broad classes for comparison with
census data for families including both hushand and
wife and for all other families in table 9. Comparable
Census data for age-of-children subgroups are not
available. Ihe nearest approximation is CPS data on
the proportion of husband and wife families with
children under 18 years of age. CPS data for March
1960 showed that at least 58 percent of husband and
wife families had some children under 18 years of
age.'° This was in the CES range: About 48 percent
of the CES husbund-wife families had children all
under 18, and the inclusion of families whose oldest
child was 18 or over raised the CES percent of
families with children to 62.

Location and size of place

At all stages of CES sampling, census definitions
and boundaries relating to Standard Metropolitan Sta~
tistical Areas (SMSA's) and to degree of urbaniza-
tion were followed. Except in New England, a stand-
ard metropolitan statistical area ig a county or group
of contiguous counties which contains at least one
city of 50,000 inbabitants or more, or “twin cities”
with a combined population of at least 50,000. Con-
tiguous counties are included in an SMSA {f, accord-
ing to certain criteria, they are essentially metro-
politan in character and are integrated socially and
economically with the central city. Central cities
are those appearing in the SMSA title and are the
largest city or cities in the SMSA. Definitions and
titles of SMSA's are established by the Bureau of
the Budget. |!

In general, the urban population comprises all
persons living in urbunized areas and in places of
2,500 Inhabitants or more outside urbanized areas.

10 Household und Famfly Characteristics: March 1960, Cur=
rent Populution Reports, Population Characteristice, Series 20,

No, 106, Jauuary 9, 1961, U.S, Department of Commerce, Bureau
of the Census, p16. This report dil not chow the proportion of
husband-wife tamities with the husbnad 65 years and over whe bad
children upder 18,

') Census of Population: 1960, Selected Ares Reports, Stand-
ard_Merropolhan Starstical Areas, Final Report IC (3)-1D, U.S.

Deparment of Commerce, Bureau of the Ceususy pp, vill-x.

L 2

rr |

The population not classified as urban constitutes
the rural population. An urbanized area contains a
central city or cities, as well as the surrounding
closely settled incorporated places and unincorporated
areas, referred to as the urban fringe. In most cases,
urbanized areas are smaller than SMSA'‘s and are
contained in SMSA’s.

The CES and census distributions by location or
place of residence in table 9 matoh closely.

Number of full-time carners

Each family member in the CES saimple who worked
35 hours or more a week, 48 weeks or more during
the survey year in a wage or salary occupation
(section S-I, items 4 and 5), or was seli-employed
at least 48 weeks (section S-Il, item 3) was counted
as a full-time earner. The number of full-time
earners in a family wus given a one-digit code,
and families were distributed as follows:

Fomilies Families of
and single 2 persous
Code Category consumers or more
o No full-time earners - 20.8 25.2
1 1 fwi-time earuer 57.5, 61.
2 2 full-time earners 10.8 127
3-9 3 full-time earuers or more ~ 8 1.0

No comparable census data are available. The de-
cennial census classified families by the number of
persons in the labor force (employed or unemployed)
in the week prior to the census inquiry. The Current
Population Survey cross-class{fied families by the
number of earners and money income in 1960; the
number of earners included all persons in the family
who earned at least $1 from wages, salaries, or
self-employment. '*

Family income before tuxes

A comparison of the 1960-61 CES distributions of
families by income before taxes with those from the
Census Bureau’s decennial census and CPS and from
the OBE national accounts {s shown in table 10.
The estimated number of families and average income
for each series are also shown. Additional compari-
sons with oensus urban data and for the 1950 CES
are shown in appendix tables B-14 and B-16,

The CES distributions of income and the averages
and aggregates based upon them, differ significantly
Irom those published by the Census Bureau and the
OBE. Numerous studies have been made to identify
the reasons for these differences and to measure

,

3)

the effect of eaoh contributing factor.'*? Recognition
of the fact that none of these sources was specifi-
cally designed to provide family income distribution
statistics is essential to understanding the differ-
ences and to proper interpretation and the use of
the income statistics from each source. Of the three
household surveys, the 1960 Census was designed as
ademographic survey; the CPS to obtain current
labor force data; and the CES to obtain detailed in-
formation on the level anddistribution of family ex-
penditures. The OBE family income estimates and
size distributions were derived from the national
income accounts, reflecting the concepts and defini-
tions appropriate for that system and utilizing data .
from tax returns, household surveys, and other
sources. Thus, for each series the definitions and
procedures used in collecting and summarizing the
income data, in varying degrees, were dictated by
the broader studies of which they were a part.

The differences observed in the income distri-
butions and averages shown in table 10 are the net
effect of variations among the sources in the def-
inition of the “family,” f.e., the income-receiving
unit and the time reference used in determining
its composition; in the definition of “income” and
its time reference; and in the completeness of income-
reporting.

Family definilion. The 1960 census, CPS, and OBE
use essentially the same demographic family defini-
tlon. As explained at the beginning of this chapter,
variations in the coverage of on-post military per-
sonnel and children away from home at school ex-
plains, in part, the higher total number of families
in these series than obtained by use of the CES
economic family definition. The CES definition which
resulted in a greater number of families of two
persons or more but relatively more small and
fewer large families than in the other series, also
contributed to variations among the series in the
leve) and distribution of income. However, these ef-
fects cannot be {solated from those resulting {rom time.
reference factors.

dee ee p29 of source cited in foutnote 1, tuble 9.
13Sue uble footnote references, Also, Family Incoine Distri-
bution Statistics Published by Federal Agencies, Office of Sratistica]

Standards, Bureau of the Budget, Statistical Evaluatiun Report No. 5
(December 1964), reprinted in ‘The Americun Statistictan, February

1966, Val. 20, No. 1, pp, 18-23;
Lenore A, Epstein, Measuring the Size of the Low-Income
Population, in Studies iu income and Wealth, No. 33, Published by

the National Bureax of Economic Reseurch, Inc,, New York, 1969,
and other volumes iu this series; Lamale, op. cit. (monograph),
pp. 107-113;

Edward C. Budd and Daniel B, Radner, “The OBE Size Dis-
inbution Series: Methods and Tentative Results for 1964, " American
Economie Review, May 1969, pp. 435-449; and

The Dismibutson of Personal Income, Joint Economic Committee
Print, BAth Congres of the United States, 2nd Session, December
1964, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1965.



technique rather than “free-listing,” i.6., providing
blank space for writing in each item the respondent
recalls purchesing.'! The global and free-listing tech-
niques have obvious advantages if a short schedule is
desired. On the other hand, the growing use of elec-
tronic data-processing equipment favors maximum use
of precoded checklists from which data can be trans-
ferred directly to punch-cards or other machine input
with a minimum of manual editing and coding.

Sequence of questious. The sequence of questions
is an (mportant consideration ina successful interview.
in the long history of family expenditure surveys, cer-
tain common-sense guidelines have evolved:

“Questions should be arranged logically if con-
fusion and misunderstanding are to be avoided. When
information is to be secured by the interviewer
method, the questions should be grouped so that con-
versation leads logically from one question to the
next. If general and specific questions are used, the
general ones should precede specific ones. The
opening question showd have human interest appeal.
If interest is aroused at the start, the respondent is
less likely to refuse to cooperate. The opening ques-
tions should be easily answered... .

‘Those on economic status, those that reflect on
the knowledge or ability of the respondent, those of
an Intimate personal nature are best asked after
rapport has been established with the inter~
viewers... .”'*

Adherence to these United Nations guidelines is
evident in BLS schadules used for both the 1960-61 and
the 2950 surveys.!? Questions on living arrangements
and housing expenditures, which were recalled easily
or for which records frequently were readily avail-
able, were asked early to help establish rapport be-
tween respondent and interviewer. Atthis time, income
from roomers, boarders, or rental property was re-
quested rather than delayed until the latter part of the
interview when questions on earntngs and other income
were asked. Similarly, the concensus was thatamounts
of debts outstanding were recalled more easily when
information was recorded on home mortgages, auto-
mobiles, and other goods and services purchased on
credit, rather than when assets and liabilities were
discussed generally at the very end of the question-
naire.!*

Classification and tabulation
The immense detail obtained in expenditure surveys

requires careful classification into a manageable num-
ber of major expenditure categories for analysis. The

importance of historical continuity has influenced the
Bureuu's classification system over the years. The
United Nations and International Labour Office have
worked toward standardization of classifications to
facilitate international comparisons.

In principle, the prevalling practice has been to
classify household expenditures according to the kind
of commodity or service, not according to the occasion
or purpose of the purchase. To illustrate; all fvod,
whether purchased in connection with a wedding, at
schuol, or during a vacation trip, is classified under
“food” rather than “other expenditures,” “education,”
“recreation,” etc. In practice, it 1s not possible to ad-
here strictly to this principle. Cost of meals may not
be shown separately in bills rendered for all-expense
tours or by summer camps and resort hotels.!®

Present classifications bear a strong resemblance
to those suggested by Engel and other early students
of family expenditures. Changes in the scope and pur-
poses of the surveys, as well as shifling emphusis In
spending, have lengthened the list of major categories.
For instance, transportation, which had become the
third largest category by 1960-61, was included in
“sundries* prior to World War L.

Historically, it has been customary to cross-classify
expenditure data by some indicator of family composi-
tion and by income or expenditure level. The BLS has
used annual family income as the primary family char-
acteristic classification in all of its major surveys,
except for the 1934-36 period.!* However, a measure
of expenditure or consumption level is preferred for
some purposes, especially in countries where income
data are particularly difficult to obtain. Choice of
other family characteristics for classifyiog the BLS

M Sce p. 26.

12 United Nations, op. cit., p. 135.

13 Schedules used in 1960-61 are reproduced in exhibit,
pp. 117-91. Schedules used in U.S. Department of Labor surveys or
1901, 1918, and 1950 were reproduced in Lamale, op. eft. (mono-
graph), appendixes B and C.

* 44 See also discussion of revislors after survey In Cincinnati,
AT,

15 This classification principle has had general international
acceptance, See United Nations, op. cit, p. 103.

However, the Japanese class\fy expenditures in two ways: By
we and by kind of commodity. Beginning in Jamuary 1953, they
have classiGed expenditures according to 2 we classification in
summing fanuly sncome and expenditures. Prior to then, they
classified expendinwes according to 2 Commodity classification. tor
the sake of comparability between the two series, expenses of one
third the current sample are reclassified monthly according to the
commodity classification. See Geveral Report on the Family 1

come and Expenditure Survey, 1946-1962 (Bureau of Staustics, Office
of the Prime Minister, Japan), p. 34.

AG In the 1934-36 study, the mayor classification was by total
anmual unit expenditures, called economic level or consumptior
level. This clusification involved grouping the families by number
of equivalent adult males, based on family-size scales far food,
clothing, and all other commodities, and determining the total ox
pendinse per equivalent adult. This, the economic Jevel was de-
Gined us the annual unit expenditure for the family, i-e., 1% com
sumption level. See Lamale, op. cit. (movograph), pp. 32-35.

r

expenditure data has varied over the years, depending
on the areas and population covered by the survey and
the purposes it is to serve.

Preliminaries to 19G0—GL Survey

Two important decisions guided the Bureau in pre-
paring for {ts new nationwide expenditure survey. First,
the Bureau set up the Consumer Expenditure Survey
Advisory Committee, composed of experts from ac-
ademic and marketing research circles. Members
were chosen for the contribution they could make in
advising on consumer expenditure survey content and
coverage, sampling, evaluation and appraisal of the
reliability of the data, classification of expenditure
data, tabulations and publication, and methods of mak-
ing consumption data available for research purposes.
The members were:

Dorothy S. Brady, Chairman Robert J. Lampman
Wharton School of Fiance Department of Econontics

and Commerce University of Wisconsin
University of Pennsytvansa

Ruth P. Mack
Nabonw Bureau of
Economic Research, Inc.

Angus Campbell
Survey Research Center
(Alternate: Ida Lene Hess)
Unversity of Michigan Joseph A. Pechman
The Brookings Institution
Robert Ferber
Bureau of Economic and
Business Research
University of Ilinois

Mabel A. Rollins
New York State College
of Home Feonouncs
Bizabeth Gilboy Cornell University
Department of Economies
Harvurd University Edwin H, Sonaecken
Market Plunamg Corpo-
ration, Division of

Communication Affiliates, Inc.

Sidney Hollander, Jr.
Sidney Hollander, Associates

Second, the Bureau decided to conduct a lead city
survey early in 1960 in preparation for the {full-scale
field collection to he started in 1961. The lead city
survey was conceived as a “dry run” for schooling
personnel in survey techniques and for obtaining cur-
Tent experience in the administrative, operational, und
technical procedures in all phases of the survey, in-
cluding tabulation and utilization of the results.

The Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA)
of Cincinnati was selected for the lead city survey.
Among the criterie for choosing a lead city were the
following: It should be reasonably representative of all
urban places in terms of population, industrial com-
Position, income, and climate; it should be a city sur-
veyed in 1950 and preferably in the sample for the CPI;
and it should be close enough to the Bureau's Washing-
ton headquarters to permit observation and travel at
reasonable expense but without interfering with normal
operations of the field staff.

In addition to the sample for tho leud city survey,
the Bureau submitted to the Bureau of the Budget a
proposal to select a supplementary sample of Cin-
cianati families for use in a series of experimenta)
studies related to the CES. The initial proposal, sub-
mitted in January 1960, included the following eight
projects:

Project 1.

Long-range expenditure surveys. The major pur-
pose of this project was to develop a proposa) for
maintaining an expenditure survay program between
major CPI revisions. Emphasis was on experimenting
with alternative methods of (a) sampling, e.g., contin-
uous panel of the same families, partially overlapping
samples, and independently drawn samples in eucces-
sive years; and of (b) data colleotion, e.g., abbreviated
schedules to identify the amount of detail on expendi-
tures, and income and savings needed for classifying
families and estimating the leve) of total consumption
expenditures.

Project 2.

Long-term income. The purpose of this project was
to provide gata for use in the analysis of the perma-
nent income hypothesis as it relates to the quantity-
income elasticity technique, which is basic to the
Bureau’s methods for deriving quantities specified for
some components of its standard budgets.!’ It would
(a) obtain income of the same or similar families over
several years, and (b) test the possibility of obtaining
a 4-year record of income change in connection with
periodic expenditure surveys.

Project 3.

Annual food expenditure estimates. This project
was designed to resolve differcnces between BLS and
USDA in the method of obtaining estimates of annual
food expenditures, USDA emphasized laking account of
seasonal variation in food purchases, and BLS was
concerned primarily with removing purchases of non-
food items in food stores from estimates of food ex-
penditures.

Project 4.

Changes in assets and Habilities. In connection with
projects using an abbreviated schedule of expenditures
(e.g., project 1), the purpose of this project was to ex-
periment with consolidating all questions on debts in
one part of the schedule rather than distributing them
among the expenditures sections.

AT For an explanation of the quantity-incume elasticity cech-
migue, see Helen H, Lamale and Margaret S. Stotz, “The (nterim
City Worker's Family Dudget," Moathly Labor Re Angust 1960,
pp. 802-805.



Table 1. Selected ecomomic indicators, United States, miected year, 190369"
Total [Personal consumption | Consumer | Mactzage] Civilaan Total Consumer Private | Factory
gross expenditures cred. [debt cus | uncmploy- | industria! price uoufarm | sales of

Year national [To yoy | Per capita, foustanding| etaading | ment production index housing | passenger
product | (pintigns) {1958 Prices} (billions) | (billions) | (percent) index (1957 -S9=100)| starts cars
(bilMons) (dollar) (1987 -59=100) (thousands)| (thousands
$256.5 | $176.8 | $1,451 $17.4 $62.7 5.9 64.7 83.0 1,429.8
284,8 191,0 1, 520 21.5 72.8 5.3 74.9 83.8 1,908, 1
328.4 206. 3 1, 509 22,7 82,3 3.3 B13 90.5, 1,419.8
441.1 281.4 1,683 45.0 156.5 4.3 100, 7 98.0 1,1/4.8
44) 290.1 1,666 AS. WLS 6.3 93.7 100, 7 1,314.2
403.6 | 311.2 | 1,735 51.5 | 190.8 5.5 105.6 101.5 4,494.6
$03.7 | 325.2 | 1,749 56. | 206.8 5.6 108.7 103,11 1, 230.1
520.1 338.2 1,755 $8.0 226,2 6.7 109.7 104.2 1, 284.
- 355.1 1,813 63.8 248, 6 5.5 118.3 105. 4 1,499.6 6, 933.2
- 375.0 1, 86S 7 274,35 3.7 124.3 106, 7 1, 582.9 637.7
- 401.2 1,945 80.3 300, t S.2 132.3 108.1 1,502.3 S18
- 432.8 2,044 9.3 325.8 49 143.4 109, 9 1,450, 6 9, 305.6
-| 749.9 | 465.3 | 2,123 97.5 | 347.4 3.8 156.3 413.4 1,441.5 | 8,598.3
1
793.5 492.3 2, 1bt 12.1 1370.2 3.8 158, 1 416,3 1, 264.4 7,436.8
865.7 | 536.6 | 2,250 13.20 }?397,5 3.6 165.5 324.2 1,483.6 Fs, 822.2
932.3, 576.0 2, 293 122.2 424.7 35 172.7 127.7 1,445.5 8, 822.2

1
Prelunmary,.

SOURCE:

Economic Reporr of the President, Transmitted to the Congress, February 1970, Together With the Aanual Report of the
Council of Ecouomre Advisers (U.S, Government Printing Office, Washington, 1970); and Auromobile Manufacturers Association, nobite
Facts and Figures (1969 Edition, Automobile Mauufacturen Association, Inc., Detron, 1969).

price leve) at the close of the 19th century and during
World War I led to new large-scale urban surveys in
1901 and during 1917-19. These two surveys formed
the basis for developing the original Consumer Price
Index, then called the Cost of Living Index. The main
purpose of the Burcau’s urban surveys for 1934-36
and in 1950 was to revise the “markethbasket” of goods
and services to be priced for the CPI.

In the severe and prolonged econvmic depression of
the 1930's, interest in consumer surveys expanded
from study of the welfare of selected groups to general
economic analysis. To this end, the Bureau cooperated
with four other Federal agencies in the Study of Con-
sumer Purchases in 1935-36, which was undertaken
to show consumption of all segments of the population
in both urban and rural communities. The Bureau also
collaborated with the USDA {n a smaller scale nation-
wide survey of urban and rural families in 1941-42,
to obtain facts on which to base decisions for the civil-
ian economy during wartime:

Thereafter, the Bureau conducted a series of urban
surveys. Its Survey of Prices Paid by Consumers in
1944 covered a nationwide sample of urbun families.
For each year from 1946 through 1949, the Bureau
collected information on consumer income and ex-
penditures in 1 to 3 large oities. These surveys,
culminating with the 1949 Memphis Consumer Expend-
iture Survey, produced both substantive and procedural
results.

The Memphis survey, which was based on four equally
representative samples of 150 living quarters each,
was designed to serve us a test of various procedures
that might be used in the nationwide urban survey for
1950. The principal tests pertaining to schedule design
and data collection are:

1, Diary (or account) vs. recall for reporting tood
purchases (page 11)."

2. Interviewer- or respondent-recorded sched-
ules (pages 14-15).

3. Question wording and design and content of
schedule (pages 19-20).

4. Interviewer revisits to balance accounts (pages
24-25).

Experimentation with publicity, supervision, editing,
and use of machine tabulating equipment was also part
of the 1949 pilot survey.

Collection of data

The importance of comparability with 1950 data and
the short time available to prepare for the 1960-61

4° Results of these Meiphis tests were summarized on the
indicated pages of the 1950 Methodology Monograph cited in foot~
uote 1,

¥

survey led to basically the sume Lype of “test” sched-
we und methods used in 1950’ that was the first large-
scale expenditure survey in which the Bureau used
machine tabulating equipment to produce tabulations
ready for reproduction in published reports. The ex-
perimental work in that area greatly expedited sched-
ule design and other plans for collecting and tabulating
the 1960-61 data.

The principal procedural features of the 1960-61
survey which were carried over frum 1950 andearlier
experience will be discussed briefly.

Schedule or diary (account). Families rarely keep
complete records of their spending and savings; thus,
the basic choice of a method of collecting such infor~
mulion was between the schedule and the accounts
method. ‘I'he schedule method relies onan interviewer
to record information supplied by responsible family
members from memory or partial records. ‘The alter-
native is to leave an account bovk or diary in which
family members keep a daily record of household ac-
counts with varying degrees of supervison and follow-
up by, interviewers.

Historically, the choice of methods has hinged on a
variety of considerations. These include the length of
the recording period; whether the objective is to obtain
a complete staleiment of family accounts or expendi-
tures for a single category, such as mediczl care or
housing: the availability of records (e.g., income tax
returns, mortgage payment books, and department
store bills) which the respondent may consult; the
frequency and seasonality of purchases of various
goods and services; the literacy of the population; and
the availability of interviewers. Each method has ad-
vantages and disadvantages.* The account book method
has been used generally in Europe. In the United
States, the schedule method has been preferred for
large-scale surveys of annual expenditures and in-
comes of families, but it is recognized that more de-
finitive research and experimentation is needed tode-
terminc the specific areas where account keeping
could be used effectively.”

Split_or complete schedules. The time and effort
required for cooperating families to give a complete
report of their annual income, expenditures, and sav-
ings suggest that the total list of expenditures might
be “split” into separate categories; e.g-, housing,
food, clothing, etc. Thus, information for the separate
categories could be obtained from different subsamples
of families. The category averages (mean) would then
be combined to obtain the complete pattern of expendi-~
tures, representingall families. Proponents argue that
the reduction {n interview time would increase coop-
eration among respondents and would reduce the
response error caused by fatigue. Limited experi-
mentation in the use of splitschedules ina BLS survey

in Indianapolis, Ind., in 1945, showed that the refusal
rate was not reduced by usinga shorter schedule.’ The
design of the Indianapolis experiment did not provide
for a control sample. ‘Therefore, there was nu basis
for statustical tests of the accuracy of the expenditure
averages obtained by the split-schedule method.

The USDA conducted a similar test of the split-
schedule technique, using acontrol sample. According
to a report based on that test: “It was found that the
split-schedule technique was open to considerable
field error. It required a larger sample than did a
complele schedule; it increased travel and supervi-
sory costs.” For these and other reasons, USDA con-
cluded that this technique “probably should not be at-
tempted in a survey of a heterogeneous population,
especially {f interrelationships of several factors are
to be studied.”” The split schedule also precludes
examining reports for completeness by comparing re-
ported expenditures and savings with reported income.

Global _or detatled questions. Tests made by BLS
and USDA prior to the 1950 survey indicated that global
estimates of broad classes of expenditures were in
most cases substantially below totals obtained by
itemizing the detail of expenditures within the class.
More recent research by the Bureau of the Census”
confirmed findings that a detailed probing question-
naire was needed, particularly if small expenditures
are of significance. Use of a detailed questionnaire
in effect presumes the use of the “check-listing”

5 After the 1950 survey, the Bureau had virmally no staff
available for research and colirctian and tabulation of tafermation
on family expenditures.

6 United Nations Statistical Office, Handbook of Howelold
Surveys: _A Practicul Gude for Inquiries on Levels of Living, Pro-
Visional Edition. (Studies in Methods, Series F. No. 10, Umted
Nations, New York, 1964), pp. 53-54 and 137-139.

bxtensive research ov this and numecrots other aspects of sur-
vey techmiques has been conducted in recent years as pan of the
U.S. National Health Survey. The smdies huve been couducted
an cooperation with the U.S, Bureau of the Census, and the results
published by the U.S, Department of Health, Education, aad Wel-
fare. See reports from the National Health Center for Health Sta-
tistics, Public Health Service Publication No, 1000—Series 1, Pro=
grams and Collection Procedures aud; Series 2, Data Evaluation
Methods Research. See also, Methodology in Two California Health
Surveys, Public Health Monograph No. 70, These publications arc
for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Friutiug Office, Washington, 2.C.

7 BLS and USPA experiments with the diary and schedote
method have been mainly in collecting food data, Results of some
experiments with the wo methods of obtaining expenditures for both
food and nonfood item» 10 other countries arc summarwed im: "Some
Problems in the Measurement of Price Changes with Special Refer-
ence to the Cost of Living—A Discussion Gpened by Dr. S.J. Prais,"
jownal of the Royal Statistical Society (Sertes A (General), vol. 121,
pt. 3, 1958), pp. 312-332.

& Lamale, op. cit. (mouograph), pp. 16-17. Sex also p. 24.

9 Barbara B Reagan and Evelyn Grossman, Rural Levels of
Liviug in Lee and Jones Counties, Mississippi, 1945, and A
parison of Two Methods_of Dats_Collection (U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Agricultural Information Bwletin 41, 1951), p. 3.

10 Joba Neter and Joseph Walsberg, Resporse Errors 1n Collec-
tion of Fxpenditures Data by Howehold Interviews: An_Experi-
‘mental Study (Bureau of the Cemsus, Technical Paper No. 11, 1965),
pp. 14-15 and 73-79.



attrition over approximately 1 yeur. Of the 227 fam-
ilies reporting weekly food expenditures to an inter~
viewer in spring 1960, 126 (about 56 percent) furnished
data when reinterviewed in fall 1960, and 49 of these
126 (almost 40 percent) returned a usable mail ques-
tionnaire in spring 1961. (See appendix table B-6.)
The 44-percent loss between 1960 spring and fall
interviews was divided about equally between farn-
ilies who were contacted but did not give a usable
schedule (25 percent) and those who were not reached
for reinterview because they had moved, were not at
home, etc. Nonrespondents to the spring 1961 mail
survey cannot be classified by the reason of non-
response.

Comparisons of characteristics of famtlies coop-
erating in the three Cincinnati weekly fuod surveys
suggest that the loss in response was greatest among
the youngest (head under 25 years) and oldest (head
65 years or older) families, among one-person fam-
ilies, among those whose heads had completed less
than 8 years of education, ond among the nonwhite
population. The average money income after taxes in
1959 was $6,534 for the families stil cooperating in
spring 1961, or about $1,000 higher than the 1959 in-
come for the 227 families interviewed the previous

28

spring. The 49 families cooperating for all three
periods reported higher weekly food expenditures than
the families participating inonly 1 or 2 weekly surveys.

This information is presented as illustrative—and
not necessarily 2s typioal or representative—of the
differential nonpuarticipation that may be experienced
over time among families with various characteristics.
The 227 families had cooperated in providing 2 full
account of their expenditures and income In 1959, but
those who cowd notor didnot wish to contloue through
the mail survey resembled the families who refused to
be members of the M.S.U. Consumer Panel in Lansing,
Mich., in 1951-58.

6 "Studies of reiusuls {fo be pancl membersJ indicated that:
(1) Housewives with lower education were more apr to refuse thau
housewives with Iugher educations, (2) high and low income fam-
thes were les cooperative than mediuin income frailies, (3) sve
of family made uu significant difference, (4) cingle person house~
holds au "ull other households were less cooperative chan the
bnsband-wife or lwsbund-wife-children types, aud (3) older housc~
wives were less likely to accept panel membershfp than younger
See G.C, Quackenbush and J,D. Shaffer, Collecting Food

State University, Agricultural Experiment Station, Deparment of
Agricultural Economics, East Lansmg, Mich, (August 1960),
poe 11-12,

Chapter 6. Preparation of Schedules for Tabulation

Maximum utilization of electronic data~processing
equipment was the criterion for virtually all decisions
in handling the CES schedules after they arrived
in Washington from the field. Briefly, programs
were written for using electronic equipment at all
stages of checking, editing, coding, compzting, and
generating copy of tabulations for the printer. This
required early and extended involvement not only
of staff representing all organizational subdivisions
of the Office of Prices and Living Conditions, but
also of the Bureau's Office of Systems Analysis
and Economie Growth, Division of Data Processing,
and the then Division of Publications, and their
organizational counterparts in the U.S. Department
of Agriculture.

Precoded Schedules

The machine coding system for the 1960-61 CES
followed the pattern developed for the 1950 survey.
The classification codes may be summarized under
three broad headings: (1) Family cberacteristics,
(2) items measured in dotlar values in family ac-
counts, end (3) information items

More than 40 characteristic codes, consisting of
1, 2,0r8 digits, were developed to classify fumilles.!
Codes for a few characteristics were printed on the
schedule, (e.g., sex of family members in section A,
item 4). Programs were written for mechanical coding
of approximately a fourth of the characteristics
{e-g., family income after taxes and family size).
The remainder, such as occupation and Industry,
were coded by the clerical staff.

The classification system for the family accounts
and information items is based on a 4-digit section
code and a corresponding 3-digit item code. The
code for each item was either printed onthe schedules
or has been written on the schedules facsimiles in
exhibits E and F.*

The first digit of the section code indicated the
major distinctions in the classification system, and
successive digits identified lower levels of sum-
murization or item detail. Thus, a zero (0) In the
first diglt of a section code indicated an information
ftem, e.g., all items describing a family’s housing
pattern in section B.

Other numbers (1 through 7) in the first digit of
a section code identified major categories of family
accounts as follows:

29

1000 Inco:ne

2000 Assets and liabilities

3000 Expenditures for current consumption

4000 Insurance, gifts, and contributions

5000 Other money receipts

6000 Goods and services received as pay or gifts

7000 Food received through public or private
assistance

The following example {llustrates the upplication
of the coding system for family accounts:

Secuon
code Mem
Expenditures for current consumption --=~ 3000
Housing ~. - 3200
House(urnishings and equipment - 3270
Houschold textiles -. R271
Bedspreads ~- - 3271 035,

See schedule B, section I, item 57, p, 14,

Review of Schedules

Extensive mechanical tabulation of family expendi-
ture schedules was introduced in the 1950 survey. That
experience, and awareness of the variety of inter-
related machine programs planned for the 1960-61
data, led to the decision to have all schedule 2648D’s
carefully reviewed in the Washington office prior to
the clerical editing or coding outlined {in the Wash-
ington Coding and Editing Manual. This so-called
“professional review” was primarily to determine
the conformity of the entries to the survey concepts
and techniques. It also provided instruction for unusual
situations that were not covered explicitly in the
various manuals and training guides. This Washington
review was done in two stages; initial review and
detailed review.

Initial review

The initial reviewer examined all 2648B’s re-
ceived from the field (including those the field super~
visor classified as incomplete or for part-year

' The characteristic codes used to classify families in the
General Purpose Tabulation Program are described on p. 46. The
complete family churucteristic codes were assembled for internal
use and for Mmited distribution in Survey of Consumer Expenditures,
1960-61, Classification Codes (revised December 1964 and wah addi-~
Tions September 1965), Mimeegraphed, 31 pp. See also appendix
table B-12.

2 The item reference codes were listed in wumerviu! order for
internal use und for limited distribution in Survey of Consumer, Ex-
penditares, 1960-61, Coding System—Classification and Coding of
Item Detail in schedule 26488 (November 1961, revised Octo-
ber 1962) Muttilthed, 48 pp.


program. Anulyses of expenditure data from previous
consumer surveys indicated a much higher variability
in spending patierns among small places than among
large cities. Consequently, the CES resources avatlable
to supplement the regular CPI sample were allocated
to urbun places with populations of less than 50,000.
The 16 additional small cities, plus the core sample
of 50 CPI cities, resulted in a 66-area sample for
the urban CES,

The total number of living-quarter addresses? in
the 1960-61 urban sample was approximately 12,000.
An additional 5,000 addresses were allocated to rural
areas. The inclusion of 275 addresyes inthe 1959 sur-
vey for Anchorage, Alaska, made a nationwide sample
for the combined urban and rural population of ap~-
proximutely 17,300 addresses. (See table 4, p. 25.)

A minimum sample size in each city was regarded
as necessary, because the Bureau publishes individual
city price indexes and budgets for a number of major
areas. Samples for cities having individual CPI’s
ranged from 250 to 625 assignment addresses. The
minimum city sample was 65 addresses. The distri-
bution of assignment addresses among the 66 cities
in the urban sample is shown in appendix table B-1,

Determination of sample sizes for individual cities
was based on the cost of data collection and process-
ing, the city size, and the estimated variability tn
the reported data. The 1960-61 allocution amoog
cities followed the pattern for the 1950 survey. That
pattern, in turn, had been developed from the Bureau's
1934-36 study of Money Disbursement of Wage Earners
and Clerical Workers. Tabulations of 1934-36 data
collected in 42 cities provided cocfficients of varia-
tion in expenditures for major classes of gonds and
services within and between cities, which served
as guides in determining the size of the samples for
the 1950 study. °

The sample of rural families was to be large enough
and of a design that would provide separate tabulations
for families residing in (a) rural nonfarm, and (b)
rural farm areas. This subdivision of families in the
rural sample corresponded to the census classifica-
tions of demographic and economic data which would
have to be used in combining and analyzing the CES
data. The total of 5,000 addresses in the rural sample
was divided about equally between the farm and non-
farm segments. A sample of 2,500 families in each
segment was considered essentially the minimum
necessary for publishing averages for the census’
four broad regions, cross-clussified by the family
characteristics contemplated in the tabulation plans.
The rural farm sainple was more than double the
size that would have been allocated solely onthe basis
of the population distribution.

BLS Organization for CES"

The Office of Pricey and Living Conditions was the
center of BLS activities for the Survey of Consumer
Expenditures. Other parts of the Bureau provided
significant support to the survey in advisory capacities
or in specialized operations. Chief among these were
the six regional offices, the then Division of Statistica)
Standards, the Division of Datu Processing, and the
then Division of Publications.

Within the Office uf Prices and Living Conditions,
the added activities occasioned by the survey were,
with few exceptions, superimposed on regular func-
tions of the organization. In general, the Washington
office was responsible for the planning and adminis-
tration of the survey; for maintaining liaison and
cooperating with the USDA in the rural segment of
the survey; und for the review, tabulation, analysis,
and publication of information recorded in the field.

The field staff was assigned to administrative and
operational units established in cities in the survey
sample. These temporary offices were responsible
for collecting the information specified on the sched-
ules by persona} interviews with families in the sam-
ples. Operations of the field offices and their rela-
tionships to the regional offices and the Washingion
headquarters are discussed in chapter 4.

The accompanying chart shows the organization of
the Office of Prices and Living Conditions in April
1960, when the field staff was interviewing families
in the lead city survey in Cincinvati. Pressures built
up by a nationwide survey of this scope pervaded the
entire office. However, some divisions" had limited
continuing responsibilities, but their staffs served
generously in consultative and advisory capacitics as
required. The Division of Consumer Prices and Price
Indexes and part of the Division of Living Conditions
Studies were in a sense customers for semifinished
products of the survey—namely, CES data on machine
input tapes ready fur tabulation and arranged to their
specifications. The staffs served on various com-
mittees and reviewed manuals and other instructional
materials to make certain that Lbeir requirements
were met.

On July 1, 1961—about the half-way point in the field
collection timetuble—a total 149 full-time positions
were budgeted: for the CPI revision project, of which

5 For definition, sce p. 14.

6 Sce Lamale, op. cit., (monograph) pp. 84-85.

7 The orgamzation of the Bureau po longer corresponds to
that described in this chapter, One change was the establishment
of the Olfice of Data Collection and Survey Operations in 1967.
This change was to Implement a recommendation that the Bureau
make a basic distiuction between field dara collection and survey
operations; and program development, survey specifications, and
research and unulysis.

@ Indicared by shading ow chart 1, p. lO.

Tr

120 were filled. These positions were set up in the
Office of Prices and Living Conditions and in the field
as follows;

Budgeted Filled

Total, full time ~~ 149 120
Professtonal and supporting 70 56
Section of statistical services 45 37
Field --- — aoe 34 7

In addition to this full-time staff, it was estimated
that about 85 man-years of part-time employment,
also referred to as “daily rate,” would be necessary

fur data collection in the fiscal year beginning July
1961.

None of the above figures included full-time or part~
time positions for the CPL Revision in the BLS outside
the Office of Prices and Living Conditions. These were
principally for machine tabulations and related work
in the Division of Data Processing.

In planning overall staff requirements for a nation-
wide expenditure survey, it should not be overlooked
that the USDA had staff in Washington and In the field
engaged in collecting and processing information from
the farm segment of the CES sample.



Chapter 8. Reliability of Information

The accuracy of statistics obtained from any sample
survey is affeoted by two kinds of errors: Sampling
errors, which result from conducting a partial, instead
of a complete, enumeration of the population under
study; and nonsampling errors, which occur whether
the enumeration is partial or complete. Nonsampling
errors include both; (a) nonresponse errors, i-e., the
failure to obtain full cooperation of all units approached
in a survey relying on voluntary cooperation; and (b)
response errors, {.e., either accidental or deliberate
inaccuracy in reporting or recording information.
Techniques for measuring and controlling sampling
errors have reached a relatively high level of develop-
ment. Measurement of nonsampling errors is ina com-
paratively elementary stage

Sampling Error

The Bureau originally planned a rather complete pro-
gram oferror computations relating to sampling errors
both in individual city data and in regional and national
averages. Limitations of personnel and computer facil-
ities, however, prevented implementation of this pro-
gram. A short-cut method of computing error estimates
for the urban CES data was substituted. This procedure,
which was similar to that used in the computation of
sampling error in the CPI, compared estimates for
“paired” cities.’ The basis for pairing citles was sim-
ilarity in stratum size and geographic location. This ap-
proach is a variation of the commonly used “ultimateTM
cluster” procedure for estimating sampling errur. No
suitable pairing was possible for either Anchorage or
Honolulu. Since Anchorage carried less than 0.1 percent
weight in the CES and Honolulu about 0.3 percent, their
omission cowd uot significantly affaot the results.

Table 7 shows the list of pairings for SMSA’s and
urban places in the CES. The list includes all cities
surveyed in either year, and is applicable toestimates
of error for the combined 1960-61 tabulations. Acom-
parable procedure for the 1960 and 1961 tabulations
would require pairing only cities surveyed for those
particular years.2 This pairing would be somewhat
difficult for stratum B and C cities, since only five of
each size group were surveyed each year. Thus, such
Pairings as the following would be required for 1960 B
cities: Buffalo-Indianupolis, Dallas-Atlanta, with Se-
attle left unpaired. Similarly, {n 1961, C pai rings would
be Lancaster-Green Bay, Durham-Baton Rouge, with
Bakersfield unpaired.

40

Between-city variances were computed using alj
cities, because of an uneven number of cities in each
survey year. These same variances can be used for
1960 and 1961 individually, adjusting the weights to take
care of the half sample of cities. It might be argued that
since the estimates for a single year are made from
half the cities, the widely separated pairings are ap-
propriate. It should be remembered, however, that it
was necessary to collapse strata for the 1960-61 pair-
ings. Since the half sample is used for an individual
year, the cullapsed strata ure, infact, the actual strata
used for separate years. Conceptually, the collapsing
for 1960-61 would cause same overstatement of the
Samopling variance, since the collapsed strata ure
larger than those effectively used. Since in any single
year only one city was actually surveyed in each col-
lapsed stratum, the conceptual overstatement is non-
existent. To collapse strata further would he to rein-
troducc this overstatement.

Most pairings invalve comparisons between 1960 and
1961 data. For each of the 13 largest SMSA’s (stra-
tum A), the half samples for euch year were paired.
This procedure presumably would include any trends
from one year to the next. Although this is appropriate
for 1960-61 averages, the sampling error for a single
year perhaps would be overstated. This method, how-
ever, appears to be the most acceptable of alternate
expedients.

In the actual computations, which were performed
with electronic computers, the averages for each ex-
penditure item, group, subgroup, etc., had the val-
ues X, and X, for each pair ofcities. It was necessary
to derive an appropriate measure of the sampling vari-
ance for each stratum before computing the sampling
variance for summary estimates across strata. The
variance for the i-th stratum, oj, is computed as
follows:

(1) In paired cities,
2 _ x)?

ots

i 2

(2) In stratum A cities, which represent only
themselves,

-x.)2
2, %%,)

95 z

{Marvin Wilkerson, “Measuremeut of Sampling Error in the
Consumer Price Index: First Results," 1964 Proceedings of the Busi-
ness and Economies Section—American Statistical Asociation (Wasb=
ington, 0.C.), pp. 220-230. See ulsa The Cousumer Price Index:
History und Techmgues (BLS Bulletin 1517) pp. 28-29.

@ See appendix sable B-2,

Table 7, Pairings of SMSA’s and other places in the 1960-61 CES urban sample for computation of

sampling error

Stratum Puired SMSA‘s of cxties Region
Aa Bostow, Muss. i) Northeast
New York, N.Y. rs) Northeast
Northeastern: New Jersey a) Northeast
delphia, Pa. (1) Northeast
Pa, G) Northeast
Cincugo, M1, a) North Central
Cleveland, Ohio () Nosth Cenerat
Dewoit, Mich. a North Central
St. Louis, Mo. ) North Central
Baltimore, Md. a) South
Washingtou, D.C. my South
Los Angeles-Long Beach, Calif. e Wes
San Francisco-Oaidand, Calif, o West
B? Hartford, Conn, Bultulo, N.Y. Norheast
Duyzon, Ohio Indianapolis, Ind North Cemual
(Balas, Tex.7 Wichita, Kans. North Central
Dallas, Te: South
Atlan, Ca. South
Denver, Colo. Seattle, Wash. West
c? Lancaster, Pa. Portlaud, Maine Northeast
Champaign-Urbana, 01. Cedar Rapids, lowa_ North Contra!
Green Bay, Wrs. &edar Rapids, lowa/ North Central
Durham, N.C. Orlando, Fla. South
Austin, Tex. Baton Rouge, La. South
[Rystm, Tex} Bakersfield, Calif, West
bo? Southbridge, Mass, Athol, Mass. Northeast
Kingston, N.Y, Burlington, Vt. Northeast
Mulville, N. Lewistown, Pa. Northeast
Findlay, ©) Cambridge, Ohio North Ceutrut
Logauspon, Ind. laSelle, 1 North Central
Niles, Mich. Menasha, Wis. North Central

Crookston, Mian.
Devils Lake, N. Duk.
Martinsvitle, Va.
Union, $.C.

Florence, Ale,
Vicksburg, Masse
Mangum, Okla,
McAilen, Tex.
Orem, Utah
Klamath Falls, Oreg.

North Cencral
North Central

Owatonna, Minn,
Manhattan, Kans.

Grlitiu, Ga, South
Sebruig, Fla. South
Cleveland, Teu South
Okmulgee, Okla. South
Reserve, La. South
Gainesville, Tex. South
Gallup, N. Mex, West
Pureka, Cala. West

1 Half samples lor 1960 and 1961 paired,

2 Each city in che first columa is prired wath opposite city in uext column. Cay i brackets /—_7 is

used in special pairing to compute variance estimates

If the average stratum expenditure is represented
by X 4, and the weight for the strutum by W;, then
the United States urban average expenditure and sample
variance would be:

XK = mW, X,

and

2 ,
a = EW i? o2
X

No division was required for the United States, since
the sum of the weights was 1.00. For the regional esti-
mates, however, tbe cumulated values were divided by
the sum of the stratum weights and the corresponding
squares of these weights. The population weights used
{n combining the variances were uniform for all items.

a“

=

for other city in pair.

Error estimutes are presented in appendix table B-11
for miscellaneous items, groups of items, total expend-
itures, income, and net changes in assets and liabilities.
For the United States, the sampling error (one sigma)
for total expenditures for currentconsumption was $46,
or 0.9 percent of the total expenditures estimate of
$5,393. Money income after taxes had a slightly higher
sampling error, $59, or 1 percent of the average
($5,890) for all families. Major groups of expenditure
items, such as total food, housing, clothing, transporta-
tion, medical care, personal care, recreation, reading,
and education had smaller absolute errors, but except
for food, they had slightly higher relative errors. Items
infrequently purchased, such as washing machines,
small appliances, etc. showed higher relative errors.”


CONSUMER
EXPENDITURES 2
AND DIURES 27

Survey
Guidelines
BULLETIN 1684

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Bureau of Labor Statistics

/)

LAC

Ne



B46. Comparison of weekly food expenditures of CES housekeeping families who
responded in 3 surveys with those who responded in 1 or 2 surveys,

Cincinnati,

Obio, 1960 and 1961

i ;

| Number of Average weekly expenditures
Kopurting period farmhee
in sampie | Per family | Per person! | Per meal
Jone @-July 7, 1960. interview

Total reporting —————____ 2e7 $21.80 $7.70 $0. 366
Couperating in fall . 126 21.82 174 = 368
Nunresponse in fall—— a ior e178 7 ba 2303
Cuvperating tn spring 1961 a 49 £2.76 R. 04 38
Nonrespunse in spring 19¢) -——————_ 178 Zi, 55 Tot 2362

Oct. [7-Nov. 18, (960° Reinterview—

Total reporting, —— 126 20.29 ©. 90 27
Cooperating in spring 1961 ————--—-- “9 £2.96 7.78 -370
Nourewpunse in spring 1961 —— 7 19, 05 O31 £300

Apr. do—Tune 6, 1961: Mail—
‘Total reporting. ---— 49 26.52 414 an3
Based on average houselivid size,
86

B-7. Estimated number of consumer units in universe, number giving usable 1960-61 CES schedules,
all urbanizations, by region

and effective weights or expansion factors.

Urbanization and location inside
and outside SMSA’s

Total

United States

7
Noruwast | Nurth Central South

West

Total urban and eural ~

side SMSA's
Outside SMSAts +

Urban -
luiside SMSA's +
Outside SMSAts | -——

Rural nonfarm
Inside SMSA's
Outside SMSA's

Farra operator s————————
Nonnperators

Rural fare —
Lisale SMSAt
Outside SMSA's

otal urban and rural -~——————__

Inside SMSA's =
Outside SMSA'»

Urban:
Inside SMSA's | -—-werennenernnmnn anne
Outeide SMSA's !

Rural wentacin
Inside SMSA' 3!
Outside SMSA's —-———.

Farm operators
Nonuperators—

Rural fara —

Inside SMSA's —
Qutside SMSA's —

Urban
Rural noniarm
Inside SMSA's. --—-——-—————______
Outside SMSA'
Farm aporators
Nonoperator s—
Rural fa

Utimate weights (es!

1aled number uf Consumer units in universe)

55, 306, 253 14,198,490 | 15,774,941 | 16,566,576 | &, 766, 285
35,237, 447 1,440,698 | 9,382,428 | 8,073, 283 6, 340,931
20, 0u8, 906 2:757,753 | 0,392,506 | $,493,291 | 2, 425, 354
40, 139, 895 11,705,292 | 1.135.161 | 10324457 | 6,965,985
31, 804, 152 ru, 397,503 | 8,988,754 | 7, 060, 484 5,857, 410
8’ 320,743 307, 728 | 2.438, 07 | dlagaota | (roel 7s
11, 663, 237 250, 415 3,273,325 | 1,056, 454 1) 4R2, 943
4) 094) 529 gress | "Tei sae | otros |” 430, 207
8, 508, 708 p27 ete | 2.491981 | 4,744,795 +052, 656
97, 821 7,942 34,888 | 40, 069 14, 632
8,471,187 Le7ilssa | 2,457,093 | 3,708,726 | 1, 038, 024
3,812,121 cazb44 | 1, $60,455 | 1,585, 065 317, 357
34K, nan 71,955 | 117,337, | 102, 140 53,234
3,173) 455 170,689 | 1,254,118 | 1,484) $25 264) 123

Number of cons mer units giving wsable sendules
4,092 4,580 2, 228
2,432 Lagat 1, 568
660 2) 269 660
2,677 4,782 2,307 1,770
2, S08 2.197 1,676 1, 438
309 5258 631 332
406 628 948 303
154 174 | 176 104
2d 404 Tre 199
4 is ea 7
248 238 758i 192
145, var | 925 155
43 er | 59 26
102 es | 866 129

i

Effective weights (expansion factors)

@ ay | a)
) ®) Oo
3,.983,0 2,180.5 1, 908.0
5,126.4 5,609.8 4981
Vera Vaal & U7a.2

2, 090. 3
5, 406. 4
2,047.5

See appendix table B-8 for sampling strata represen

» population segment.

87



—_—

In the urban fringe, a first-stage selectionof census
enumeration districts (ED's) was made. Since census
block statistics were not available for areas outside
central cities, the sampling of blocks (or segments)
and of addresses within blooks was based on BLS
ficld surveys using central sources or personal ob-
servation. An apartment block- nonapartment block~
classification was used here also.

If there were only a few urban places outside the
urbenized area of the SMSA, all were covered, using
the two-stage central city procedure. Lf these places
were numerous, a first-stage sample of the places
was selected with subsequent sampling of blocks
and of addresses within blocks.

Sampling fractions for each stage were selected
so that the entire urban part of the SMSA was sampled
at a uniform rate; that is, the product resulting from
the two or three sampling fractions was uniform for
all strata wilhin the SMSA.

All separate living quarters or housing units in
sample blocks were listed by address on BLS 2549.
(See exhibil A.) A housing unit was defined asa
group of rooms or a room occupied or intended
for oocupancy as separate living quarters by a family
or other group of persons living together or by a
person living alone. To be considered a housing
unit, the room or rooms must have a separate en-
trance and/or separate oocking equipment (either
installed or portable). Housing units in detached
or row houses; apartment buildings; hotels and rooming
houses where more than half the units were rented
to nontransients; and in occupied trailers, houseboats,
etc, were listed. Units in publio housing projects
were listed separately for inclusion in the CES
sample,® but units on military reservations or posts
were not listed.

To the addresses listed on BLS 2549, the indicated
tn-block sampling ratio was applied. Living quarters
that fell on the ratia were classified by type of
housing unit, occupanoy status, and a number of other
characteristics of the housing unit and occupants as
shown on BLS 2549,

Jn selecting the CES urban sample from this
larger sample, punch cards containing CHUS data
were stratified by variables known to influence con-
sumption patterns, the most important being size
of family and income level. Specifically, each living-
quarter address was arrayed by type of unit and loca-
tion (1.e., in the central city or in the surrounding
urban area). The curds were then sorted by race,
family income, and number of persons in the housing
unit. From these arrays, a systematic selection was
made by choosing a random start and selecting every
n-th unit in the array, n being selected to give a
primary sample of the desired size (i.e., number

of assignment addresses) for each city shown in ap-
pendix table B-1. Then beginning with the unit 1m-
mediately following the first primary sample unit,
every n-th unit was drawn for a matched alternate
sample of the specified size. For the largest SMSA's
(stratum A), the matched pairs of primary and al-
ternate addresses were divided into two subsamples,
one subsample to be surveyd for 1960 and the other
for 1961.

For some of the smaller cities? (stratum D),
time did not permit a CHUS before selecting the
sample for the 1960 CES. Therefore, with the co-
operation of the Bureau of the Census and observing
procedures respecting census confidentiality restric-
tions, samples of addresses were selected from
enumeration schedules used for the 1960 census.
A double sampling procedure also was used to take
advantage of census information on family char-
acteristics. Briefly, a first-stage sample of approx-
imately 500 addresses of living quarters (housing
units and group quarters) was selected by starting
with a random number and taking every n-th address.
Census information for each of the 500 addresses
selected was transcribed to cards. The cards then
were arrayed, keeping housing units separate from
group quarters (such as rooming and boarding houses,
but excluding dormitories, student nurses quarters,
etc.). Housing unit cards were arrayed by race of
occupants, and group quarter cards were arrayed
similarly. Using a random starting point and a
sampling ratio to end with 65 addresses, the starting
point card and the next card were selected, and the
process was repeuted until 65 pairs of cards were
selected from the arrays of housing units and group
quarters.

Rural Sample

Selection of the rural sample followed similar
procedures. The first stage in selecting the rural

sample in metropolitan areas utilized all 34 SMSA’s

14

selected for the urban sample. In the second stage,
BLS conducted a Rural Housing Unit Survey (RHUS)
which consisted of a listing of housing unit addresses
in a stratified sample of census ED's anda subsample
of smaller segments or blocks in the designated ED's.
Each housing unit was visited and classified as farm
or nonfarm, and as to whether the family included

8 — Units in projects with "adjusted rent,” Le., rent adjusted
on the basis of tenant's income, and lower than economic rent,
were included In the sample for the CES but not in the CPI rent
sample.

9 See footnotes 5 and 8 appendix table Bl.

a farm operator.!° In the third stage, subsamples
of rural nonfarm ind rural farm housing unit ad-
uresses were selected from the RHUS listing by
applying a ratio based on census data for rural
farm and rural! nonfarm households in each stratum.

In the first stage of the USDA’s design!! for
the rural sample in nonmetropolitan areas, counties
were grouped by State Economic Areas into 126
strata equal in weighted counts of rural farm and
rural nonfarm dwellings, as the sample of counties
was to be used for both farm and nonfarm house-
holds. For each stratum, the county was chosen
at random with a probability proportional te its
weighted count. Counties were selected from 41
States. At the second stage, within each sample
county, a selection of rural! segments was made
separately from rural places (100 to 2,500 inhab-
itants) and the open country. Addresses of all housing
units in these segments were listed and classified
as farm and nonfarm. Farm operators also were
identified. In the third stage, subsamples of nonfarm
and farm housing unit addresses were selected from
the survey listings.

Definition of Consumer Unit and
Eligibility Requirements

The survey was planned to represent a year's
income, expenditure, and saving experience of all
noninstitutional consumer units living in the United
States. All persons residing at a selected sample
address were eligible for the survey except for
periods in the survey year that they resided in
military posts, camps, or reservations (except for
periods of 45 days or less for training with National
Guard or reserve units); {no homes for the aged,
asylums, jails, and similar “long-stay” institutions;
or in foretgn countries (except on vacations or busi-
ness trips).

The family or consumer unit (CU) refers to: (1)
A family of two persons or more usually living
together who pooled their income and drew from a
common fund for their mujor items of expense, or
(2) a single consumer—who is financially independent
of any family group. The single consumer (or onc-
person famlly) may be living either by himself in
a separate housing unit; as a roomer in a private
home, lodging house, or hotel; or sharing a unit.

With rare exceptions, the members of a family
are related by blood, marriage, or adoption. Groups
of unrelated persons who share both income and
expenses seldom are found. In classifying persons
{nto CU's, related persons living in one housing
unit were considered as one CU unless it was very

clear that some of the group, suchas married children
living with parents, kept their household finances
separately. Never-married children, regardless of
age, alwuys were considered members of the CU.
Even when there is an apparent separution of finances,
and the unmarried children pay a specified sum for
room and board, they usually do not pay prevailing
rates, have more privileges than generally are ex~
tended to a ruomer, and sometimes ure partly sup-
ported by or partly support the CU.

An unmarried child living away from home or at
school was considered a member of the CU if the
parents provided the major part of his support.
Other persons supported by contributions from the
famfly {ncome but not living in the housing unit
were considered separate CU’s. Foster children
(ie., children for whose care the family is paid
by a welfare agency, parent, or other person, and
whose major expenses for clothing, medical care,
etc., are not paid by the family) were considered
boarders.

If more than one family or single consumer lived
in a housing unit aud shared household expenses but
did not pool their incomes, they were counted as
separate CU's. A family meraber working away from
home during the survey year but contributing regu-
Jarly to the pooled family fund and returning home
as his work permitted was treated as a member of
the consumer unit unless he was living in a military
camp or reservation.

Interviews for the 1960 and 1961 CES were con-
ducted in the spring and summer of 1961 and 1962,
respectively. (See table 2, puge 20.) Interviewers
asked for expenditures, income, and savings for the
calendar year 1960 or 1962, and recorded this infor-
mation for the family as it was composed during
that year, i.e., the “reconstructed family.”!2 In
about 7 of 8 cases ( appendix B-13), the composi-~
tion of the family (or CU) did not change during
the survey year. The remaining families had part~
year members (i.e., persons who joined or left
the family during the survey year) because of mar-
riages, births, deaths, military duty, or other reasons.
Income and expenditures for part-year members were
recorded for that portion of the year they were in
tbe family and were combined with information for
the full-year members of the consumer unit.

10 These classifications, which were on the basis of ceusus
deGnitions, enabled BLS to refer addresses of all households meeting
the census definition of farm operator or farm resident to the USDA
for inclusion tn the rural sample, (See exhibit B. )

11 See Consumer kxpenditures and Income, Rwal Farm Poy
wation, United States, 1961 (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agn-
cultural Researeh Service, 1965, Consuwer Expenditure Survey Re~
port 5), pp. &-9.

12 For u desemption of.the effect of this definition on family
size and income, sce pp. 52-54.

16



Chart 2. Survey of Consumers Expenditures, 1960-61

Location of Cities in the Urban Sample

UNITED STATES, by Geographic Region

5

°
ARK. TENNS

OKLA,

TEX

a

‘& Large cities in 1960 and 1961 samples

ies in 1960 sample only, and Ancharage, Alaska, 1959

sin 1961 sample only

12

¥

An important goal in sclecting the specific cities
was to achieve good regional dispersion. After con-
siderable consultation and experimentation, the BLS
decided to utilize the procedure usually referred toas
“controlled selection.”* This procedure involves the
probability selection of a sample “pattern” from a set
of patterns which have been purposively established
so that, taken as a group, they give to each primary
sampling unit its proper chance of appearing in the
final sample. Each pattern is set up according to con-
trols, which may be as rigid as desired, to insure that
it satisfies selected criteria of proper distribution.
In selecting the CES sample, controls were used only
on size of city and location, with the latter control
carried to the State (or group of small States) level.

To expedite the work, the BLS established patterns
for each of the four regions of the country separately.
Briefly, the BLS procedure consisted of establishing
for each region a set of selection “patterns,” each of
which satisfied certain criteria of representation of
different sizes of cities, as well as being reasonably
well spread over the region. Probability values based
on population factors were assigned to each pattern
und one was selected by random means, Althougheach
pattern was set up purposively, prvbabilities were so
assigned that the entire set of patterns constituted a
probability system that retained the initially assigned
probabiiities of selection. These were proportional to
the size of the PSU as measured by urban population.

The Bureau also selected two alternate city samples
in the event that an expanded CPI sample was desired
later. Analyses of consumer expenditure data from
previous surveys indicated a much higher variability
in expenditure patterns among small places than among
large cittes. Consequently, the resources available to
supplement the regular CPI sample were allocated to
the D stratum, permitting the sample size in this
stratum to be doubled. Accordingly, the sample for
the CES included the 16 “D” stratum citiesin the first
alternate sample as well as the 16 nonmetrupolitan
places in the basic CPI sample.

Since CES interviews with urban families were to be
conducted in 2 years (in 1961, covering 1960 expend-
itures; and in 1962, covering 1961 data), it was nec-
essary to divide the sample into two balanced subsam-
ples, each representing the United States urban
population. In the 12 largest SMSA’s, data were col~
lected each year from half the sample of living-quarter
addresses. Cities in the B, C, and D strata were as-
signed alternately to the two subsamples. Because of
a special price program in Alaska, the expenditure sur-
vey for Anchorage covered 1959.% The cities in the
CES sample are listed in appendix table B-1 by stratum
and survey year.

a

13

Selection of samples of consumer units

The samples of consumer units for the urban CES
were drawn as subsamples of living-quarter uddresses
enumerated by the BLS in the Comprehensive Housing
Unit Surveys (CHUS) conducted in each city® and in
the urban part of each SMSA lateinthe year preceding
the CES field work. The housing unit surveys were
based on area block samples designed to give propor-
tionate representation to all noninstitutional living
quarters, including nontransient accommodations in
hotels and rooming houses. Because the CHUS also
wus designed for use in the CPI, the actual size
of the CHUS sample in an area was determined
primarily by the sample desired to measure price
changes in rents for the CPI and by the proportion
of renters in the area, as estimated from census
data. The total of approximately 130,000 addresses
of homeowners and renters enumerated in the CHUS
was many times larger than the CES sample: The
overall CES ratio for urban places averaged } oul of
every 12.24 CHUS addresses. (See appendix table B-1.)

The CHUS covered the entire urban portion of the
sample SMSA’s including: (a) The central city or
cities, (b) the urbanized areas surrounding the central
cities, and (0) noncontiguous urban piaces within the
SMSA. Census maps showed the urban boundaries.
For urban places outside SMSA’s, the CHUS covered
only the city prover.

Slightly different procedures’ were used to sample
the three urban segments inside SMSA’s. A two-stage
design was used in the central citles: A probability
sample of blocks was chosen from Census Block
Statistics Books, anda subsample of addresses seleoted
within blocks. A classification of blocks by size was
{ucorporated in the design with varfable-block (and
within-block) sampling fractions for large and small
blocks (based on number of housing units) and for
apartment and nonapartment blocks.

4 This method was recommended at the {nitial meeting of
the CES advisory committee. It fs described by Roe Goodman and
Leslie Kish in "Controlled Selection A Technique in Probability
Sampling,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, Sep
tember 1950, pp. 3509372,

For the [950 survey, the Latin Square technique had been
used to select the city sample. See Lamale, op. cil. (souograph),
pp 43-48, and Marvin Kogan, “Selection of Cites for Conrum
Expenditures Survey, 1950," Monthly Lahor Review, April 1951,
pp. 430-436. (BLS Reprint 2060. )

$ See tootnote 7, p, 38

6 Because of the shortage of lime, the BLS did not conducr
a CHUS in ull sample places with population of 2,500 ta 50,000.
(See p. 14.

7 Steps im selecting these samples are described iu a pub-
lished paper by Marvin Wilkerson, Sampling Aspects of the Revised
CPI (US. Department of Labor, Bureau of Vahor Statistics), Octo-
ber 1964, pp. 48. The Cormumer Pnce Index: History and Tech-
niques (BIS Bulletin 1517), pp. 40-42, contain more extensive
‘excerpts from Mr, Wilkerson’s paper than those presented here.



‘Bed ou Bursa918 220389 SPTS weyrO VO enUTIUOD
or
60
80
bb
”
$0
‘0
i
a 20
4 _| 4
te -
3 to
wg Wp wm |) on] won| Tey Ty 13) ts cw mm [| wo
YOST Siow Jo OE | SORTS 3040 DIN —
000" O18" W os unya asai-¢ | 200td wyur-van'n| ex0m so oCzt's
666°6 = | aTKo aT aueovA'h tegou 40 92098 Arvo || 6nzt 02 058"2] 62428 es0m launsonuss sa
000°St" aeui0'¢) eT OL 30 wants word! ovetd seuro-22n"¢/0S¢ UPUa seep [zo or- Tend’ ¢ frunsonuss 40}
aso | 666'm - SMOSURd| OVB9M" 2] 3UsU"C exon 40 05282 . (6 04 dTAS) LTO Lithd LTH dO avou YO
000 2¢'2| . earua’ tT] seuno" 2) oSz¢ veya SseT T eoeTs ayuy-coX'2|B9VId SIAL WOUd| ot aeur lon MOLLYSOT BO}
gorado| 000°Z¢ ao qumueL’T) teagse of ueua| (6 02 dyes) On’ T| SLoMGoUd Mud | Seot-Teany’Z MOILYDOI YO. }LUIULS dO YN
sepun 1 aoe Eset Jo oo8Td mod | JGNYT LY XHOR HO|dO STIVS TVOMAY (10a Stxs) fant “ON Laas
‘THOINT eae MUNNGL | SOVTZ HTHLO WOWd CIOS Wud ¥ BLvUadO “Sptq ade "OM LKid LUV Y| ——
RTHVa BIINGOMA WYVE dO BOTVA CIONRSOON THE dO (‘to ur [ao sot £430°C ToTITiNaGdl
- wom | =: [2 too'y so ¢ 202 jTJ| wats anv sgoa_|¢ 20 2 200 yx) |zovIa 40 aane wWOLivotail
- oe aa dg EO Sper HSOTEOL
[ Tas oe
L 1) 03 20K —_—_—"on 49018
From sea weTe Lovee soy 2uy4ST1
“Lane PAIOAUT (ereag pue £119)
AaAUNS LIMA ONISAOK TUDE Levens pee Ato) es
sofed Jo ofay 1
to ‘a (Gz uoxSUTUERN ZONECL ANOS
2grtk-< saryoxe Teaosddy SOFISTIBIS AOQeT JO neemg NI GIGH ZH
O2T9-hn' OM NBeINE 325—NE waVI JO INBNLUYdad *S°O TLIA SLuOdat €9L2 Sia’
i
g
2|3
o/s
E
s
Z
a
a
%
Fd |
a
| =
£
i Hy 1
. . ; |_|
2p
2
&
£2 1
22 i
i

r
|

——



Gutdes lor comparing turveys of conaumer expenditures (or 1960-61 and for 1950—Centinued

Survey of consumer expenditures, 1960-61
(Ces)

Survey of consumer expenditures, 1950
(CES)

Summary calugories used in generai purpose tabulations

(Cor complete 1960-61 summary categories, bee page 99}

Peraonal insurance:

Includer disability income imsurance (i.e. protection
agaist lowe of income because of disabihty) when net
part of a general health policy; and other persoual in-
furance, excluding compreltensive (homeawners' policies).

Houving, total:
Includes exper on real estate not used fev fasnily busi-
ness and not occupied or rented,

Clothing, clothing matertals, and services:
Includes all apparel and footwear.

Medical care:
"Prepaid care" docs not Include disability sncome in+
sarance. See "Personal insurance,"

Recreation:

Dove not include athlete clothing or anoey for participa-
tion ta sports. Sec "Clothing." P

Other expenditures (nivcellancaus):
Does nat inciude expenses on real estate not used for

LD. Medical care:

F, Other expenditures (miscellanea:

A. Personal insurance:

Excludes disahility income 6 (sce "M
tacurance (nce "Medical care!

below); and other persona} insurai (see "Orn,
fice (sor "Other expendt
Dives, iuycellaneous"). Pent

B. Uoustug, total:
See "Other expenditures."

Clowning, clothing materials, and servicen:

Excludes athletic clothing and special athictle shoes.

“Reereation.” See

"Group phan:

and (nsurance” imciudes disability ince:
insurance. Y desenue

EL Recreatton:

Includes athletle clothing a

family business, ete. (see "Housing"); and does not ins
other persunal insurance (see

{nxes, interget, sndurance, maintenaney, ec. on
tate not used for lamily business and not occupied
or reoled, and other personal anvurance. ecules

7

Appendix B. Contents

B-1. Summary of samples from Comprehensive Housing Unit Survey used in
selecting 1960-61 CES urban samples -.
B-2. Summary of data collection in individual survey areas in the 1960-61 CES
urban sample panne.
B-3. Summary of BLS time records for daily rates in field collection of 1960-61 CES
datu in urban and rural nonfarm areas ——.
B-4. Analysis of returns for the 1960-61 CES urban sample -
8-5. Analysis of returns for the 1961 CES rural nonfarm sample, inside and outside
metropolitan areas —
B-6. Comparison of weekly food expenditures of CES housekeeping families who
responded in 3 surveys with those who responded in 1 or 2 surveys,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1960 and 1961 —--———
B-7. Estimated number of consumer unils in universe, number giving usable
1960-62 CES schedules, and effective weights or expansion factors, all
urbanizations, by region
B-8. Estimated number of consumer units in universe, number giving usable
1960-61 CES schedules, and effective weights or expansion factors, urban
and rural nonfarm population, by region and sampling stratum -—-
B-9. Summary of family expenditures, Lncome, and savings, by income class, al!
urban and rural families and single consumers, United States, 1960-61 ——
B-10. Number of consumer units giving usable CES schedules, by income class,
family size, and region, total urban and rural United States, 1960-61 ——-———
B-11. Estimates of absolute and’ relative sampling errors for selected items reported

by consumer units in the 1960-61 CES urban sample o —
B-12. Comparison ofconsumer units giving usable schedules and other consumer units
in the 1960-61 CES urban sample, by selected family characteristics ----~——-——-——-——-—-—

B-13. Distribution of consumer units giving usable schedules in the 1960-61 CES
nonfarm sample, by detuiled family characteristics —-—--- - a=! -
B-14. Comparison of distribution of families by money income before taxes from

1960 CES and Census, Urban United States ---—------~--—-——
B-15. Selected characteristics of full-year and part-year families in urban

United States, 1960-61 — a: ao os
B-16. Comparison of CES and Census (CPS) estimates of money income before taxes,

1960-61 and 1950 none a=: —

B-17. Comparison of expenditures of CES families classified by income before and after
taxes, all nonfarm families and single consumers, United States, 1960-61
B-18, Comparison of CES and OBE national accounts estimates of aggregate expenditures

for selected sub-categories of current consumption, 1961 —e- ——
B-19. Comparison of survey estimates of change in assets and liabililies with flow of
funds aggregates for the household sector, 1960-61 and 1963 —

B-Z0. Comparison of data on ownership of selected household durables, reported in
CES and Census, United States, 1960-64 -—---

79

Page

80
82

83
84

85

86

87

88
80
92
94
98
99
102

102

104
106
107

108


to these differences in the distribution of families
by income, but the specific effect is practically im-
possible to quantify. In the 1960-61 CES, Information
was collected frum part-year families but not in-
cluded in the statistical summaries! However, ap-
pendix table B~15 provides a suinmary of the charac-
teristics of such families in the urban sample, in-
cluding their average income before taxes for that
part of the year when they existed as independent
consumer units.

In general, part-year units were about 3 percent
of the total usable schedules obtained from full-
year and part-year urban famillfes in the 1960-61
CES. On the average they existed for hulf of the
year; contafned 1.7 persons compared with 3.1 for
full-year fumilles; were headed by u person 29 years
old, compared with 47 years for head of full-year
families; and had {ncome which averaged $2,740 for
26 weeks, compared with $6,691 for 52 weeks for
full-year fumilies. They were classified in five cate-
gories of reasons for their part-year status. More
than one-third were couples married during the year,
both of whom had previously been members of other
consumer units. About one-fifth were persons who
set up one-person households during the year. The
Temainder was made up of consumer units that formed
ox broke up during the year, returned from mili-
tary services, or were outside the survey coverage
during part of the year.!7

Income definition. Variations in the definition of
“income” which also contribute to differences in
the {noome levels and distributions in the four series
compared in table 10 may be summarized as follows:

Wages und salaries, includ- gy Included in all series, but ia CES
{ng commissions, bonuses, <“iiFe net of occupational expeuses,
and Ups, before payroll de~ aod in OBE are net of employee

ductions. contributions to social secunty.

Net income from sclf-em- Included in atl, but iu OBE are
play ment in business or pro- net of contributions ta social se-,
fession. ewity.

‘Income other than earings:
From rent, interest, divi-
dend, social security, pen~
sions, disability insurance,
tnt funds, private and pub-
lic assistance or other gov~
erumentl payments, und
regular contributions from
persons outside the family.

Included in all, but in OBE inter~
personal transfers, such #8 alimony,
contribucions from perons ouside
the famfly, etc., are excluded,

Other moncy receipts, sich
ty inheritances, lump-sum
settlements, gifts, receipts
from sale of assets (eg.y
house}, and withdrawal of
bankdeposits or money bor-
rowed, etc.

Excluded from «ll,

Nonniuney (ems. Excluded from census, CPS, and

CES except thut food and housing
received #s pay is sacluded in CES;
OBE includes wager received in
kind, net rental value of owner-
occupied homes, an allowance for
the return on the value of 2 per-
son's equity 1a Life insurance, and
value of services of banks and other
financtal wmtermedteries reudered
to persons without specific charges.

Essentially, the census, CPS, and CES use a
family money income definition, and the OBE uses a
family personal {ncome definition in their income~
distributions. The {nclusion of nonmoney items in
the OBE series results in the major portion of
the difference between the OBE and CES average
incomes. '*

Completeness of income reporting. Of the three
household surveys, the CES achieved more complete
reporting of income than the decennial census or
the CPS both in 1960-61 and in 1950. This has been
attributed to the fact that the CES obtained: (A
detailed report of income by source for each income-
receiving member of the consumer units, and (2) a
complete account of receipts and disbursements from
each unit which permitted internal consistency checks
and return visits to the family to clarify and complete
Teports. The decennial census and CPS used much
less detailed questioning and recorded only totals
for broadly defined types of iacome, @.g., wage and
salary, nonfarm self-employment, etc. The 1960-62
CES average annual income of ali families and indi-
viduals was 8 percent higher than CPS, and the CES
estimated aggregate {ncome was 5 percent higher.
(See appendix table B-16.) These are somewhat
narrower differences than were observed in the 1950
CES covering urban families, for which the compara-
ble percentages were 11 and 7 percent, respectively.

Since the OBE reports of total money income used
in the family personal income series are obtatoed
from records of business and government transac-
tions, they are the most complete record of aggre-
gate family money income available. However, the

16 In deriving the population weights uscd fn the nationul and
regional statistical summaries of the 1960-61 CES (see p. 37), the
estimated number of CU's in the universe remlted from a conversion
of the total noninstitucional population (Including members of part-
year families) in 1960 to "equivalent full-year families.” Wher
these estimated pumbers of CU's are used as mulupliers with aver-
age family expenditures w obtain aggregate income and axpendl-
tures, there is an implicit assumption that the average incomes and
expenditure: of part~year units are the same as chose of equivalent
full-year families, Thus, for example, aggregates so derived would
be overstared for classes of expenditures for which partaycar units
spend Jess than fullayear units and understated for the opposite situe
ation, The effect with respect to income averages and aggregates
would be similar,

17 The Concept of Parr-Year Families in Consumer Expendi-
tume Surveys, CES Research Note No. 1, October 1968, (Available
on request from the Office of Prices and Living Conditions, BLS.)

18 See also pp. 58-59,

FF

OBE personal income distributions ure based on
tabulations of Federal tax returns and other gource
data which may contribute to over- and under~-
statements in these estimates.

Family income before und after taxes

In the preceding comparison familfes have been
distributed according to their total {ncome hefore
deductions of income taxas, because the decennial
census and CPS household surveys ask only for
vefore-tax income. The BLS introduced the ‘efter
tax” or “disposable income” refinement of income
to classify families for expenditures analyses in re-
ports based on its Survey of Prices Paidby Consumers
in 1944.'° The Bureau's previous survey had shown
that in 1941 the ‘average urban family paid income
and other personal taxes of $37 on a before-tax
money {income of $2,409. Rural nonfarm families
paid $12 on income of $1,311.°° The shift to the after-
tax concept followed the increase in Federal income
tax rates early in 1942, shortly after the United States
entered World War II. Income after the deduction of
income aod other personal taxes was considered a
better classifying variable because such taxes reduce
the amount of income the recipient is free to use as
he sees fit.

The spread between before- and after-tax income
widened {n subsequent expenditure surveys, as family
incomes climbed. Also, State and local governments
turned increasingly to Income taxes as a source of
revenue.

Tabulations from the 1960-61 CES provided for the
first time a comparison of spending patterns of
families classified by their total money income and

the income remaining after payment of income and
other personal taxes. The shifting of families between
income classes was greater in the higher income
classes, but the boxed figures in table 11 show that
throughout the income range the majority of families
remained in the same broad income class after tax pay-
ments were deducted. This explains, in part, theclose
correspondence of the before- and after-tax “pairs”
of expenditure distributions in each successive Lacome
class, shown in appendix table B-17.?! This table of
spending patterns of the estimated 51,795,000 nonfarm
families and single consumers, classified on the alter-
native income bases, is presented to facilitate relating
the Bureau's periodic consumer expenditure infor-
mation to distributions of families by income before
taxes compiled by other agencies.

The comparison of consumer spending patterns re-
lated to before- and after-tax classes indicates that
within each broad income class throughout the entire
income range:

1. The level of average iacome and total expendi-
tures for current consumption as well as the level
for each subgroup of expenditures, is higher for
the after-tax group of familles than for the cor-
responding before-tax group, but

2. The percent distribution of total expenditures
among the major categories are very similar for
each pair of before- and after-tax groups.

19 Seo Wartime Food Purchases (BLS Bulletin 838, 1945), p.

20 See Family Spending and Saving so Wartime (RLS Bul-
jenn 322 1945), pp. 73 aud 102,

21 Minor differences between the distributions for tor! families
in table 11, and the percentage disributions of families at the top
of appendyy table B-17 result from the inclusion of rhe 1960 seg-
ment of the entire urban sample in table B-17, while table 11 in-
cludes only the 1961 segment.

Table 11. CES fumilies cross-<classified by income before and after taxes, all nonfarm families and single

consumers, United States, 1961

Money income before taxes

Money focome ‘Tora! 33,000 ] $5,000 | $7,500] $10,000 | $15,000
after taav> Under to te to to and
$3,000 | 54,999 | s7.4990_| 9,999 | $14,999 | over
Percent distribution
Total ----------- 100. 0 | 22,7 2.1 28,7 16.6 and 3.8
Under $3, 000 - -- 24,2 Sa - -
$3,000 ro $4, 999 23,9 Let . - -
$5, 000 to $7, 499 28.4 : Go3) 8.0 -
$7, 500 to $9, 999 at - - - Ga Ve
$10,000 to $14, 999 - a4 - - - T .
$15, 000 and over ~ 20 - - 2 - 7

} The appurent inconsistency of income after taxes betug higher than before taxes may be explained
by the fact thar past of the tax paid im the survey yeur and tax refunds in the survey year are based on

ancome received in earlier years.
Less than 0.05 percent.

NOTE: Because of rounding, sume of individual {tems may not equal lotals.

— ©

56


B-8. Estimated number of consumer vnits in universe, number giving usable 1960-61 CES schedules, B-8. Fstimated number of consumer units in universe, aumbcr giving usable 1960-61 CES schedules,
and effective weights or expansion factors, urban and rural nonfarm population,! and effective weights or expansion factors, urban and rural nonfarm population,
by cegion and sampling stracum by region and sampling scratum—Continued
Urban, 1960-64 Rural nonfarm, 196) Urban, 1960-61 Rural nonfarm, £961
Region, population stratum, Cay tated TRumner of Esumated | yycaber ol Region, population stratum, city [Epumeted Ty Evtimated
location SMSA, or city code | number of [NUMPEr Sf) expansion | numbor of | PE? °f) Bypansion focation SMSA, oF ealy code | gamber ne [Number of] pon | pumber cr [Number of To
CUts in seayle factor CUls in yee lteg| FcR cuts in usabic factor Cuts in usable aepansion
universe | Schedules universe! | cehedules 3's schedules schedules | {etor
universe wt uumveree!
Northeact—anside SMSA's 0,397,504 | 2, 368 154 South—outside SMSAty == | 4, 26, 973 631
Population 1, 400, 000 and over— Population 2, $00 to 50, 000— i
Boston, Mass ————_ | 07 802, 910 268 9 4, $04.6 Cleveland, Ten: m——————— | 55 280, 626 B 6,665.7 - - .
———— | 36 |3,55¢,389 | 9 4au 15 4,047.9 Griffin, Ga ——-———. 59 237, 490 or 5.893, 5 - : :
37 1,240,402) $96 : " 4,034.7 McAllen, Tex —-—-———~ 3h 730, B93 38 6,070.4 - - -
al 1,203,885 | 343 2 9, DB6. 0 Reserve, La —-——____ 06 a ba 3710.8 7 . I
42 628, 007 323 l4 7,983.4 Union, $C — 48 244, 475 50 4,889.5 - - :
Vicksburg, M 49-230, 755 55 4,726.8 | - : :
Ponulation 250,000 to 1 Flurence, Ala -——-—— 2a 268, 134 54 | siybsia - : -
Buffalo, 8. ¥ — 08 B62, 117 ye 4,335.3 165, 344 2 7,873.5 Gaineeville, Tex 57 Sor, a57 be] ReagTs4 : : :
Hartiurd, Conn 23 836, 574 175 4,760.4 139, 257 a ©, 030.3 Mangum, Okla 3e 307, BST 50 6) 157. : : :
; Martinsville, Va —--—-— 3 277, 072 35 5,051.7 : - :
Population 5, 000 to Okmulgee, Oklo —————- fa 319, 698 46 6, 660. 4 7 7 7
lancaster, Pa ze bea, 54g 151 4,136.0 142,639 25 5,705. 6 Seorang, Fla ——————-—-_—— | 67 286; 626 57 5,028. 8 : : i
Portlanc, Maine: 43 646, 078 135 4, 705.8 14g, 634 co} 5, 486.1
West—ineide SMSA\ 5,857,419 | 4, 458 430, 287 104
Northeast-- cutaide SMSA's o- 1, 307, 788 309 Population 1, 400, 000— i
Pepulation 2, 500 to 50, 000— Los Angeles—Long Beach, Calif —-~ 30 2,191, 078 388 5,48, 7 24,597 10 2,459.7
Burlington, Vt— 583 198, 109 52 3,809.8 - - : San Francisco-Oakland. Cali 45 965, 026 soz | xt97 4 40! 479 12 337302
Kangstun, N.Y 26 243, 827 a7 5,107.8 - - :
Lewistown, Pa, 61 218, 603 al 5,331 8 : - : Population £50, 000 to 1, 100, 000-
Athol. Mass — 32 243, 627 60 4, 063.8 - - ~ Seattle, Wash -——-————-——_— 46 978, 430 209 4,685.5 125, 721 zz 3,714.0
Millville, N.J ——— 4 192, 106 36 3,430.5 - - : Denver, Coto: ee er 946, BER 204 4) 6415 90, 191 th 5,636.9
Southbridge, Ma at 221, 316 53 3,987, oo - : Honolulu, Hawaa -—— 7 136, 783 215 636.2 37, Bb 17 2) 228.6
North Central—iuside SMSA's —— 8, 488,754 | 2,197 781,344 174 Population 50, 00U ts 250, 000—
Populanon 1, 400, 000 and over— Bakersfield, Calf -—-—-—_—__—- | _ 04 838, 025 129 5, 316.9 14,404 27 4,126. 4
Chicago, "1——— - mi | 4,927,370 an 5,199.1 45, 061 12 7,088. 4
Cleveland. Ohio oa Bin 912 294 Wwaue 18,327 u 12u1 5 Weet—vutside SMSA's 1, 108, $78 32
Detroit, Mich 17 |, 068, 644 290 4) 685.0 56, 982 13 4,283.2 Population 2, 500 wv 50, 000—
St. Mo a a4 545, 701 319 1,710.7 44, 647 u 4,088.8 ‘Anchorage, Alaska —| o 26,513 134 : - :
Gallup, No Mex se | 58 245) 674 3B - - :
Pupulatsun £50, 000 to 1, 400, 000-—~ Klamath Falls. Qreg-— 2 34g, (By 44 : : :
Indianapolis, Ind ===. 25 975, 922 173 5, 641.2 23 22 Eureka, Calif — 56 240, 342 2 : : :
Dayten, Ohie ————— 15 914, 927 iso | 5,082.9 75 25 Oren, Ulan a 39} 203,857 54 : : :
Wichita, Kana - 5 aa7, 202 199 | aleve 9 4 i A
Pupulatiun 50,000 tu 250, 000— | ' Inside SMSA's only.
Cadar Kayids, Jowa ———————— | 09 557, 126 125 4,459.4 22 4
Champaiga-Urbana, U1-——-———-— | 10 51, 007 126 4,571.5 7 5
Green Bay, Wis SS 523, ba2 330 4, 028.0 109, 677 21 7
Nurth Central—vutside SMSA', -— -- 2, 64h, 407 5a5
Puputation 2,500 to SU, 000
Devila Lake, N. Dakk~ 1s 236, 150 ay 4,819.4 : -
Findlay, Ohio — 20 268,722 | 55 4,884.9 : - -
LaSalle, 60 251, 385 55 4,570.6 - :
Niles, Mich—- ———-| 268, 722 6 4, 405.3 : : :
Owatonna, Minn -| 65 268, 722 48 5, 598.4 - : :
Cambridge, Ohio — 54 Suu Te 45 7, 249.3 : : :
Graokston, Minn 13 286, 628 61 4731.6 - : -
Logansport, Ind 29 278, 320 50 5,566.4 : - :
Manhattan, Kans 62 251, 385 45 5, 586.4 : : :
Menasha, Wis ies 222, 655 58 3, 838.9 - - -
Suutl—anside SMSA' = { 7,040, 484 1, 676 911,659 176
Population 1, 400, 000— H
Baltimore, Md 05 ou, 542 33 1,496. 3 24,994 12 5,416.2
Washington, D.C 50 585, 345 323 ree | 42, se5 1S 3, 258.8
Population 250. 000 Lo 1, 400, YOO
‘Atlan, Ga oe | 1, 226, ea 198 6,192.1 8b, 652 19 t 4, 560.6
Dallas, Tex sa fi coe 69 178 TTA 128, 580 20 6,429.0
Nashville, Tenn — 25 | 1) Zoo, Bt 20: 6; 30219 170, 787 16 1) 549.2
Population 50, 000 to 250, 000—
Ausun, Tex————— 0s 593, 250 110 5,393.2 436, 54 9 7, 187.4
Orlando, bla ——| 40 574,113 106 5,416.2 128,285 28 Sala
Baton Kouye, La. ———————~- Ob 523, 156 yz 4673.7 92, 030 a 4,382.4
Purham, N.C ee 556, 17e 135 aCe 111, 405 3h 3,594.7
See lootnote at end of table.
88 89



Time _refereuce. The time period to which the
composition of the family and its income refer,
Telative to the date of the interview, differs signi-
ficantly among the series and contributes both to
differences in the estimated oumber of families and
in the income levels and distributions. The 1960 census
and CPS define the composition of the family as of
a point in time (April and March, respectively) and
record its income as of the preceding calendar year.
OBE estimates families and their previous year’s
income as of December 31. BLS “reconstructs” the
family as it was composed throughout the calendar year
preceding the dale of the interview and records the
income which each family member received while
they were in the family or consumer unit. !#

The CES reconstruction procedure retrieves a con-
siderable amount of income which is excluded from
the census data and provides more appropriate income
estimates for use in analyses of family expenditures,
However, since the family size is hased on full-year
equivalent membership in the family, the reconstructed
families may be fractional in size i.e., full-year famt-
lies with part-year members, or part-year families.
Families having more than 1 full-year member were
classified as “families of two persons or more”
for the CES income summaries.'> To be classified
as “individuals not in families,” the CES one-person
1 See discussion p. 15, and Epstem op. cit. pp. 167+170,

- 45 Consumer units ranging in sive from 1.3 to 2.9 were classi_
fied as 2-person famulies. (See table 8-13.)

Table 10. Comparison of distributions of families by income before taxes from 1960-6) CES and other sources,

total usban and rural United States

T Goso2 Consumer] Current Office of
sncome before taxes ! Deccaaiay | PxPtpdteures | Popularion | Business
‘ Surveys, Survey, Economics
census 1960-61 1961 1961?
Families of 2 penons or more
Estimated number (in thousands) -- 45,149 46,917 46,34) 46,190
Percent distribution, total - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Under $1,000 - 5.6 14 5.0
$1,000 -S1, 999- 7.5 6.5 I 15
$2,000-$2, 999 - 8.5 3.0 8.7 .
aS 8 9.4
11.0 11.0 10.5 10.5
12,3 12,2 11,7 1143
30,7 16,1 31.0 16.2
L 17.8 - 17S
10,5 12.0 11,3 13.5
4.6 4.2 47 19
$5,976 $6,813 $6, 616 $7,797
5, 663 - 5,737 -
Individuals not in families
Estimated number (in thousands) --- 13,171 8,390 11, 163, 11, $00
Percent distrthution, total -.---------- 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Under $5,000 ~- 37.6 16.5 32.4
$1, 000-$1, 999 20.8 7.9 22.0 35,6
$2, 000-$2, 999 12.0 15.4 12.6 19.1
$3, 000-$3, 999 9.5 13.1 9.7 16,5
$4,000-$4, 999 7.4 9.5 7.9 11,9
$5, 000-$5, 999 3.0 a4 6.0 6.8
$6, 000-87, 499 5.9 4.8 7.0 5.2
$7, 500-89, 999 - 3.6 -
$10, 000-14, 999 1.8 14 1S
$15, 000 and over - a4 2 7
Average:
Mean 12, 351 $3,070 $2,734 $3,321
Medan 1,597 - 1,755 -

See foomotes at ond of table.

52

Table 10, Comparison of distributions of families by income before taxes from 1960-61 CES and other sources,

total urban and rural United States—Continued

z Consumer | Curent Office of
1 1959 Expenditures | Population Business
Income before taxes Decenntat | “Sunveye. | Survey Economics
Census ig60-61* | 19614 | 196s
AIL famifies and individuals
Estamated aumber (10 thousands) -~ $8, 320, 55, 307 57,504 $7, 290
Percent distribution, total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Under $1,000 -. - 12.8 3.7 10.4
§1,000-81,999 - 10.5 9.8 10,5. 12.9
$2,000-82, 299 - 9.2 1.0 4 a4
$3,000-$3,999 - 3.5 10,3 6 10.3
34, 000-84, 999. 10.2 10.8 ° 10.8
$5, 000-85, 999. -. 10.7 tis 6 10.5
Sb, 000-87, 499 ~ 25,1 14,3 i 14.1
$7, 500-89, 999 - 15.6 - 14.7
$10, 000-$14, 999 12.0 10.4 94 ve
$15,000 and over - 3.7 4.0 6.5
Average:
1§5, 696 $6, 246 Iss, k96 "$6,930
4,791 - | $,009 -

1 As defined by each agency. Decennlal census, CES, and CPS (Current Population Survey) deta are

family money income; OBE data are fumily person income. Mean incomes tor Lamilies ond unrelared tn~
dividuals for decennial census and CPS are from Herman P. Muller, Income Distibutton_in the United States ~
‘A 1960 Census Monograph (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Centus), table 14, p. tf and

table [1-3, pp. 43-46, The OBE {961 average (meun) family movey income was $6,626, according to

Miller, op. cit.

% Census of Population: 1960, Sources and Structure of Family Income.

the Census), tables t and 6,

PC(2)-4C (US, Bureau of

Frequency distributions derived from unpublished tabulations. For unweighted distributions of {ainihes
tn whan, mural nonfarm, and total nopfurur CES sample by income before taxes, see appendix luble Bel3; for

weighted distributions of nonfarm farailies,

4 Income of Families and Persons_in
Income, Series P-00, No» 39, February 28,
P.

e table 11,
e_Umted States:
1983 (U.
; and Trends in the Income of Familivs and Persons in the United Sraros, 1947-1964, Technical Paper 17

Cuwrent_Po}
rat of Commerc!

soy Reports, Consumer
of une Census),

Depart

(Bureau of the Censn), p. 371.

5 Jeaunette M. Fitzwilliams, "Size Distribution of Income in 1963," Survey of Current Business, April

1964, pp. S-6; und Muller, op. cat.

NOTE: Because of rounding, sums of individual stems muy not equal rorals,

families had to have lived as single consumer units
throughout the survey year. Families withno full-year
members were classified as part-year families and
exoluded from the CES statistical summaries, al-
though individual members of part-year families were
included as part-year members of full-year families
if they had had that status for part of the survey
yoar, and the full-year family was in the sample.

The net effect of theye time and definitional dif-
ferences was that the 1960-61 CES reported more
multiperson families, but a significantly smuller
percent of such families at the lower end of the
income distribution than were reported by the 1960
census and CPS: 7.9 percent under $2,000, compared
with 13.1 and 12.7 percent, respectively. The CES
average (mean) income for multlperson families was
$6,813, compared with $5,976 for the decennial census
and $6,616 for CPS. These comparisons in table 10
refer to all urban and rural families; a simtlar com~
parison for urban families is presented in appendix

table B-14. As compared with the OBE, the CES
percent of multiperson families with incomes under
$2,000 was about the same, but the CES average
income of all multiperson families was substantiully
lower, primarily because of the OBE definition of
income ay discussed on page 54.

More importantly, however, the CES reconstruction
procedure resulted in an estimated 8.4 million full~
year single consumer units, compared with about
11 million in the CPS and OBE and over 13 million
in the decennial oensus. Furthermore, as expected,
the proportion of CES one-person families reporting
incomes under $1,000 (16.5 percent) was very much
smaller than the census and CPS showed for indi-
viduals not in families, 37.6 and 32.4 percent, respec-
tively. The average income for CES single consumers
was $3,070, compared with $2,361 for the census and
$2,734 for the CPS.

The exclusion of part-year families from the CES
and their inclusion in the other series contributes

53



Project 5.

Weekly food expenditures and food consumption.
This project developed out of differences in the kind
of food data collected by the Bureau (expenditures)
and USDA (consumption). It was pruposed to test the
operational feasibility of collecting food consumption
data along with a full-scale expenditure survey and
to compare the two types of data.

Project 6.

Nonresponse on expenditure surveys. This project
proposed analysis of data collected on other projects.
The characteristics of matched supplementary and
primary sample families could be compared directly.
Hypotheses as to the effects of actual and assumed
nonresponse could be evaluated more fully than when.
only actual alternate family data are available.!®

Project 7.

Where goods are bought. The purpose of this
project was to test the feasibility of recording the
percent of purchases families made in each type
of store or other outlet instead of only a check (v)
to indicate the type of outlet in which purchases
usually are made.

Project 8.

Rural nonfarm survey. The purpose of this project
was fo collect the regular consumer expenditure
schedules from a small number of rural nonfarm
families in the Cincinnati metropolitan area to obtain
operational data in antic{pation of extending the nation-
wide survey into rural areas.!?

The pressures of other work in preparation for
starting the lead city survey in mid-May led the
Bureau to decide, late in February 1960, to postpone
projects 2, 3, 5, and 8. Other experiments are re-
ferred to later in this report. °°

The CES advisory committee first met with the
Bureau staff in mid-April, about the time field work
started in Cincinnati.’ Plans and objectives for the
full-scale pilot survey, as well as the experimental
projects, were discussed, and the questionnaires ex-
amined in detafl. One of the committee’s suggestions
for utilizing the Cincinnati experience was thal the
Bureau prepare a form for questioning the interviewers
on their experiences with families in the Cincinnatt
sample. Acting upon this advice, the Bureau obtained
from the interviewers numerous suggestions which
were helpful in revising the schedules and instruction
manuals, as well as insights into ways of enlisting

the family's cooperation on the initial visit. The most
important of these were to:

1. Stress the confidentiality of the data.

2. Seli the respondent on the interviewer’s sin-
cerity and integrity.

3, State at the outset that the schedule is not
brief, that it may take more than one interview,
but that the length and timing of the interviews
will be entirely at the respondent’s convenience.

4. Point out, if the respondent notes the size
of the schedule, that all parts are not applicable
to any one family.

Actual interview time averaged 8 hours per as-
signment in the Cincinnati survey, compared with a
ational average of 8 hours in 1950.°° Widespread
concern about the length of the interview, in terms
of its effect on the refusal rate and inaccuracy of
reporting because of fatigue, as well as the cumu-
lative effect on survey costs, added pressure to
shorten and simplify the schedules. Some sections
were eliminated; others were consolidated.

Major schedule changes would necessitate revi-
sions in machine programs, because the schedule
was precoded for transferring data to punch cards
for automatic data processing. The shortage of pro-
gramers and the tight time schedule for the nation-
wide survey resulted {in a decision not to writea
complete set of programs for tabulaling the lead
city schedules. At this time, data from the Cincinnati
schedules were used for only one set of preliminary
tabulations for Bureau use. Hence, the lead city survey
fell short of providing the full range of experience in
machine editing, machine tabulating procedures, and
publication of reports developed around machine
printouts that had been anticipated.

The CES advisory committee met again in mid-
October 1960, to discuss materials compiled by the
BLS staff from the Cincinnati experience. They also
considered proposals for tabulating the nationwide
data for publication, and alternatives for making it
available for more specialized research projects.
The committee’s suggestions will be noted in sections
describing procedures for the 1960-61 survey.*?

18 For explsuationof use of alteruates, see pp. 14, 16, 25, and 42

19 Seep. 7. :

20 See pp, 17 and 24,

21 At the request of the Bureav of the Budget to avuid com
Mice with the Deceuutal Census of Population taken for Apr. 1, 1960,
BLS did not begin field work on the lead city survey of approximately
300 families until mid-Apnl.

22 See Lamalc, op. cit, (monograph), p. 61
% See pp. 13, 17, 42, 43, and 69,

Chapter 2.

Multi-Purpose Survey

The 1960-61 survey was plamned to collect infor-
mation on annual family expenditures, income, and
changes in assets and liabilities. The primary pur-
pose was lu obtain detailed expenditure data to revise
the Coasumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners
and Clerical Workers (CPI).' From the outset,
however, the Bureau planned to conduct a multi-
purpose survey of urban families generally, from
which information for families meeting the index
criteria * would be selected. This broudened cov-
erage had been customary since the mid-1930's,
when the {mportance of consumer expenditure studies
for economic research and policymaking was recog~
nized. Specifically, the Bureuu planned to use the CES
data: (1) To continue work it had initiated in the
1940’s on the development of family budget standards
and intercity comparisons of living costs, and (2) in
a broad program of family living conditions studies.
Beyond these needs, the survey would provide data
to public and private users responsible for developing
economic and social policy and for marketing and con-
sumption economics research.

Largely on the basis of its 1950 experience, the
Bureau planned to resume its practice of extending
its infrequent large-scale surveys over more than a
single year. As already indicated, a longer period
presumably would improve the chances of obtaining
typical spending patterns.’ Further, this time spread
bad administrative and operational advantages. It would
permit recruitment and training of a smaller number of
field supervisors who could be utilized over a longer
period.

After the urban survey was underway, the Bureau, in
cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA), extended the 1961 survey to families living in
Tura) areas. The primary objective of widening the
scope of the survey at this time was to obtain con~
sumer income, expenditures, and savings data for
rural families which could be combined with the urban
data to obtain averages for ull United States consumers.
Thus, for the first time since 1941, information would
be available for a cross section of the population in
urban, rural nonfarm, and rural farm areas of the
United States; and, for the first time since 1935-36,
from a sample large enough to permit extensive cross-
Classification of rural families. (See chapter 7.)
However, throughout the survey—in the design of
the sample and the questionnaires, and in the pro-
graming and running of the initial tabulations—CPL
revision requirements and time schedules had priority
over other uses of the data.

Purpose, Scope, and Organization

Joint BLS—USDA Responsibility

About 73 percent of the families in the universe for
the 1960-61 survey lived in urban places, 21 percent
in rural nonfarm areas, and 6 percent in rurul furm
areas of the 50 States and the District of Columbia.
The CES classification of families by place of residence
foliows the definitions adopted for the 1960 Census of
Population. The urban segment includes persons living
{n incorporated or unincorporated areas of 2,500 popu-
lation or more and in the densely settled (urbanized)
areas immediately adjacent to cities of 50,000 popu-
lation or more. The rural population, located outside
these urban areas, is subdivided {nto the rural-farm
population, which constitutes all rural residents living
on farms, and the rural-nonfarm population, com-
posed of the remaining rural population. A farm,
according to the 1960 census, is a place of 10 acres
or more from which the sale of crops, livestock
products, etc. (und government furm program pay-
ments) amounted to $50 or morc; or a place of less
than 10 acres with sales (and payments) of $250
or more.

The BLS was responsible for collecting data from
all urban residents. The BLS and USDA shared this
responsibility in the rural areas of Standard Metro-
politan Statistical Areas (SMSA's), and the USDA had
sole responsibility for interviewing rural households
in nonmetropolitan areas.

Considerations Affecting Sample Size

The selection of a new sample of clties* in which
prices of commodities and services would be collected
was part of the CPI revision project. Continued repre-
sentativeness of the sample for measuring national
changes in consumer prices was the overriding con-
sideration. A core sample of 50 cities for CPI pricing
was established as the maximum size consistent with
anticipated resources for continuing the CPI pricing

' For a detailed account of this revision, see The Consumer

Price Index: History and Techniques (BLS Bulletin 1517, 1956),
‘See appendix A

2 The outbreak of hostilities in Korea in June 1950 gave
an inflationary stimulus to an alrcady prosperous cconomy. Buying
of consumer durubles, particularly, expanded faster than income in
the second half of 1950,

4 Although the CPI sample consists ef che urban portions
of SMSA\s, as well as urban places outside SMSA's, customarily it
is referred Ww us the "city" sample and the selected localities as
“cities. "This is partly duc to historical wage daling from periods
when CPI dtu were collected in Jarge cities only, and partly be-
catse use of the term “city” emphasizes the whan coverage of the
Index. The term “city” is used ta this bulletin to designate the
entue urban part of the SMSA.



1

Card 13. Facilities included in rent, section C,
column (b)

Card 14. Automobile characteristics, section P-1,
column (b).

After extensive testing and experimentation, the
1401-1R program was used to:

1. Check the validity of the characteristics cudes

2. Check the punching of cards 10 and11by com-
paring “hash"’? totals punched in card 10 with totals
from card 11 for each family

3. Compule 12 averages or machine codes

4. Test the consistency of certain codes

5. Test for missing cards ur duplicate cards

6. Move 20 family characteristic codes into family
member cards (card 11) in the output deck.

Detailed instructions were prepared for detecting
and correcting mechanically “flagged? and other
errors. A few examples will illustrate how lhe screen-
ing program was used to detect errors.

Error codes flagged invalid codes for sex (only codes
1 or 2 were valid), marital status (codes 1 through 6
were valid), eto. Error codes also appearedif the sum
of weeks at home and weeks away from home, or weeks
working and not working, was greater than 52 weeks for
any family member listed in section A.

Error codes indicated inconsistencies in the housing
data. To illustrate, if a stove, refrigerator, garage,
etc., was checked as included in the rent in section C,
an error code appeared if the same item was not
checked in the list of factlitles available inthe housing
unit in section B.

Manual screening (i.¢., without machine codes to flag
errors) of the 1401-1R listings was used to verify cleri-
cul coding of occupation and to determine consistency in
certain items listed, 6.g., marita) status and sex codes
or housing tenure and rental or market value of occu-
pied housing. To illustrate, in husband-wife families,
the Listings were scanned to make sure the husband was
coded male and the spouse, femaie.

Screening data from schedule B, with its many
interrelated items, was a pioneering operation that
took advantage of the rapid advances in electronic
data-processing techniques after 1950. Toadegree, the
choice between mechanical and manual screening of
family characteristics was determined by expediency.
Some consistency and other checks initially planned to
be done mechanically were done manually, because pro-
graming them would bave delayed getting the 1401-1R
program operational.

The characteristios coded '* mechanically by pro-
gram 1401-1R included: (a) Education of each famuy
member, (b) family size based on the average number

34

of persons in the family during the year, (c) family
type, (a) age of each family member, (e) market value
of owner-ocoupied boustag, ({) monthly rent paid by
renters, and (g) change In housing occupancy during
the year.

Checking dollars values on schedule B
against schedule D

A computer program, referred to as 1401-D, pro-
vided the basic check of the punching of dollar values
from schedule B aguinst the balance sheet, schedule D.
This 1401 computer program obtained about 100 totais
from the dollar values punched from schedule B
end had error codes to flag mismatched cards (i-e.,
cards thut did not match the list of valid codes) or
misfiled cards (i.e., cards out of numerical sequence
in the coding system). Clerks compared the 1401-D
listing and schedule D lne-by-line, checked dis-
crepancies against schedule B, and wrote instructions
for card corrections. This combination of manual
and mechanical checks detected a high proportion
of punching errors, invalid ilem codes, and also some
errors made in the field or in subsequent processing
of the schedules. On schedules colleoted in 1961,
allocations of combined expenditures were inoluded
with instructions for card corrections on program
1401-D, but in the following year, the allocations
were made before the schedules were sent for
punching. (See p. 31.)

Summarization and tests for reusonubleness
of expenditures

The next program (referred to as 1401-2R) sum-
marized each family’s expenditures to major group
levels‘and computed the percentage of each group to
total expenditures. It further summarized the family's
accounts to higher levels—total receipts and total
disbursements. At this stage, the totals and subtotals
for individual families were developed to correspond
with the summarization tables designed for publica-
tion. (See appendix table B-9.) On the basis of this
summarization, the 1401-2R program also developed
the following family characteristio codes:

(a) Family income before taxes
(b) Family income after taxes
(c) Savings
(a) Income-savings ratio
(e) Family member income
13 “Hash” rorals are sums of codes or other items for checking +
purposes only; these wtals may be meaningless

"4 See also p, 29 for description of principal family charac-
teristic codes.

Fr

The 1401-2R program also printed two types of error
cades or “flags” for screening the individual family
records. First, for housefurnishings (section I) and
clothing (section K), error codes flagged items for
which expenditures did not equal the product of quantity
and price, with a 5-percent allowance for sales tax. If

such errors had been introduced in punching, they were *

corrected routinely. However, if fleld entries were in-
consistent, despite field verification and editing, it was
difficult in the 1401-2R soreening in Washington to de-
termine whether the error lay in quantity, price, or the
field multiplication. To minimize questionable price-
quantity data in calculations for the CPI, the following
rules were followed in screening these errors:

a. If the difference between total expenditures on
the schedule and the machine-computed product of
quantity times price plus tax was greater than the
cost of an additional unit, the expenditure on the
schedule was accepted and price and quantity were
deleted.

b. If the difference was less than the cost of an ad-
ditional unit, all three entries (quantity, price, and
expenditure) were accepted.

The second type of error code compared the
family accounts with predetermined “tolerance lim-
its” on: (a) The quantities and prices of housefurnish-
ing items (section I) and clothing (section K), and
(b) the proportions of total expenditures reported for
the following 11 major categories of goods and
services:

Lower Limit Upper limit
(in percent) (an percent)

10.0 50.0
5.0 30.0
Fuel, Nght, refrigeration,
ad water —— * ° 45.0
Houschold operations 1.0 15.0
Howelurnishings and equipment - 1.0 20.0
Clothing and clothing services~ 1.0 25.0
Transportation 0 30.0
Medical care 1.0 10.0
Personal care 1.0 5.0
Recreation, reading and
education ~~~ 20.0
‘Other (including alcohol and
tohacco) ~=====--n---nann eneenee ° 15.0

These tolerance limits had been determined on the
basis of experience in the 1950 family expenditure sur-
vey. They were reviewed after preliminary tabulations
became available from the 1959 Cincinnati lead-city
survey and the 1960 Detroit survey.

“Flagged” amounts were compared with the schedule,
and, again, punching errors were corrected routinely.
If the schedule had notes that housefurnishings or
clothing items had been purchased second-hand, at
wholesale, etc., this explanation was noted on the list-
ing, and the entries were accepted. Occasionally, the

price tolerance “flag” caught an item miscuded because
it had been written on the wrong line (€.g., ski boots
listed as “rubbers and boots” rather than as “special
sport shoss”). Such miscoding was corrected, but gen~
erally the flagged item was accepted after review.

Schedules flagged because the distribution of expend-
itwres fell outside the tolerances were reexamined to
establish the cause for the deviation, e.g., an elderly
couple Hving in a mortgage-free home might have
atypical distribution of expenditures because of large
medical and funeral expenses, At thie final stage of
screening, before the individual family records were
approved for tabulation, particular attention was given
not only to “flagged” schedules, but also to those
having large differences between income before and
after taxes, to those having low incomes (including those
with negative incomes from business losses), to those
having unusually high Incomes, or to those having large
gifts or other money receipts. Ln brief, this screening
was used as an opportunity for a final pretabulation re-
view of the schedule B data, including changes intro-
duced in the Washington review, coding, and editing.

In retrospect, both BLS and USDA participants were
disappointed somewhat inthe computer screening of the
CES data. Primarily, these operations had not reduced
the clerical Joad or speeded up data processing as much
as anticipated. Expectations may bave been unrealistic.
Further, 8 mammoth screening program was under~
taken without benefit of the “dry-run’, using the Cin-
cinnati lead-oity schedules as ortginally planned.
Nevertheless, CES experience would seem to warrant
endorsement of the following evaluation:

«.. . it is obvious that we have just soratched the
surtace of the potential of computer review. The
human review of enormous masses of data is not
only inefficient, but is so deadening that it constructs
a vicious circle resulting often in the overlooking of
some very significant errors which would have been
detected by any well-constructed computer routine.
It also quite often results in the underutilization of
highly experienced clerks who have developed a ‘feel’
for the data which should be focusedon figures which
have a high probability of error, The development of
an integrated man-macbine screening logic has the
effect of designating human roles which require
truly human skills, and mechanical processes which
require unfeeling machine capabilities. Thus, it can
be of advantage to data quality, cost reduction, ma-
chine utilization, and perhaps most importantly, the
dignity of the human being.” '*

15 Walter J, Stuart, “Computer Fditing of Survey Dura—Five
Years of Experience in BLS Manpower Surveys," Journal of the
American Statistical Association, June 1966, p, 383,

35


ee

B20. Comparison of data on ownership of selected houschold durables, reported in CES and Census, Appendix C. Exhibits
United States.' 1960-64

Percent of families* owning specified items

Exhibit A

Source and year Home  Glothes if Cloth i y bs T
Slothes Air | Television « | aeteig-
food wanking | Radio’ }Dishwasts
| teconer_| wracking’ | _dtver feonditionert ser? | [erates pe her
-- — T t
Survey of comumer oxpend- j i nudge: Burcaw No. 44-K 1001.2
itures (CES) ae 1901 ia | roo | wes 14.8 gis | tsi 827 $7 Bis 2549 REPORTS WILL BE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR ode .
1geo | 1300 66.2 19 4 89.3 aL 79.9 3.7 Rev 5-160 HELD IN CONFIDENCE Bureau of Labor Statistics ;
Census of housing 1900 | 13.0 | 10.4 17,0 Mae 89.4 92.4 Cy (*} BLOCK BOUNDARIES. ‘Washington 25, DC Bleck No Page. of Pages
Census quarterly survey of | | Nonh
famtions? en wed yf m2 2.8 re 90.5 °) 85.4 __ COM PREHENSIVE Sa ba —_
. — 1963 ey | zs | 21a Bly) ag () i gals bere HOUSING UNIT SURVEY fees
1962 a TLé 19.9 12.4 88.8 | aa ch Listing Form
1961 (*) me | tar 9 wae () BSL $8) USurwetan, Area)
1900 i (Sh | 74.5 WW 12.8 86.7 (*) | 86.1 West
e JL ! lneBloch Rutw 1 Gy ke a Page No |
n-Block Raw 1. Noe for 4
' CES and Cenous of Housing data are for the urban population; infarmation (row the Survey of Consumer Buying Inten- " Nido |
tons ig far the entie urban and rnral population represented in the sample af the Curreu: Population Survey. oo
* Genaus of Housing data represent percents uf oceupiod housing city with apecified itema, except that clothes washing FLL HOUSING UNITS ALL ALL OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS

machines and dryers were to be iuported only if owned by a member ot thy household. Machines euch as those provided by

(Ga > cose or 2)
the management uf an apartment building were not (0 be ceporied. Data trom the CES and Survey of Consumer Buying Inten-

IDENTIFICATION

NOSE (Col 5, cede Lvs Band uw emery in Col 10)
ONUTS:

tiona represent percents of families owniny [he equiprrent. — 1 Te
Inctudes combination washer-dryers. ] pees en poe
* Uicludes demouatable room units and central air-conditioning systems, The Census of Housing showed 2.1 peseunt of Y dame: = 1 Omer .
the housizy units equipped with central air-conditioning and 12,1] percent with Lt rucm unit or more. " ter Eira tne
Includes teluvasiun combination sete, n is > Dicuss ‘ "
6 The census couuted all households having radios, whether separate or In coabinatwwn with another wtem. lae CRS sn | wet i re Pod
recorded separately families who had radios and thoae who had radio-phonogruph sev. Siace soi families had both, the sum oa . a wT he $a
of the peccentagea of the families whu had cach type eaceaded 190 percent. ‘he CES also obtained separate counts for wasting woe Leute Pe ai =
{ machines and washer-drycr combinations, central air-conditiuning and demountaUle reum units, and LV aud TV combination — eo
sets. However, for purpoars of comparison with census data, the combined nercentages fur these items are shown here since nom as
the possible double counting of families having Uieve items seemed wegligivle. pony _
Docs not include cadio-phonograph sets. — 7 7 7
* Not available. ‘ z : 4 s 6 7 e 9 10 s 4
1 Data are fur Janmary | of each year. mm
NOTE: This as a ceprint from Monthly Labor Review, October i¥ed, tabie I, p. 1132. ’ =f
SOURCE: Genaus of Housing: 1460, Vol. f, States and Small Areas, United States Summary, Finn’ Report HC(I)+1 2
(U.S. Bureau of the Consus], p. XLUl und Cuereni Population Reorts. Series Pohs- Norv Consumer Buving Indieatot - - -
(U.S. Bureau of the Census), February 28, 1964, p. Il ;
: 4
5
‘6
7
{ 8
°
10
~
" |
12 it
} us
“
: 6 i
"Cole **1f column 5, code t, complete reverse side.

Flooc Number:Ist FL, 20 Flee, FeFront Rr -Right
B.Rasement Left R.Rewr lorernewer

108 109



Chapter ll.

Because the CES 1960-61, was a multipurpose
inquiry, the results were tabulated and released in
a variety of forms. The purposes can be divided
into two broad categories: (1) To provide the basis
for revising and expanding BLS statistical measure-
ments, and (2) to make available maximum infur-
mation for broader types of analytical and policy
determination purposes both within the BLS and
elsewhere.

Updating BLS Statistical Measures

Consumer price index

The Bureau's primary use of the 1960-61 consumer
expenditure information was for another of its peri-
odic revisions of the Consumer Price Index. Although
the survey covered e cross-section of ull United
States consumers, the index reflects spending patterns
of urban wage-earner and clerical-worker consumers
only. Top priority was given to tabulating expendi-
tures of “index” families to obtain a new sample
of items representative of the kinds of goods and
services these families hought in 1960-61 and to
derive expenditure weights for the new list. Infur-
mation on inventories of household durable goods
and prices paid for selected items was tabulated to
develop pricing spéiifitations and to supplement
expenditure data in determining the weighting pattern.
Uses of the expenditure data for the revised index
(introduced in the Jaouary 1964 CPi report) are
described in greater detail in the BLS Bulletin 1517,
The Consumer Price Index: History and Techniques.

Family budgets

The Bureau used additional special tabulations of
the 1960-61 expenditure data for selected groups of
urban consumers to revise and expand its work in
deriving budgets for different standards of living.
Such budgets measure the total costs or amounts
of income required to maintain a speoified level
of living (e.g., intermediate) according to prevailing
standards. The survey data, along with other {nfor-
mation, have been used to translate a generalized
concept of an intermediate budget and budgets lower
and higher than that level into lists and quantities
of commodities and services which can be priced.

Uses of Survey Data

Prices collected {n selected urban areas throughout
the United States in the fall of 1966 were updated
and annual costs of the budgets at three levels were
calculated at spring 1967 and at spring 1969 prices.
In addition to their use as a measure of income
adequacy and changes in the standard of living, they
provide a basis for compuring intercity or place-
to-place differences in living costs. Revised budgets
for two types of families—four-person, husband-wife
family which has two school-age children and a re~
tired couple—are described in a series of BLS bul-
letins and articles.!

Since it has not been feasible to prepare sepa-
rate budgets for the many different sizes and types
of families for which they are needed, the BLS and
others have used expenditure data to derive “family
equivalence scales” for estimating budget costs for
other famtly types. Following techniques developed
to utilize its delailed 1950 expenditure survey data,
the BLS made special analyses of income and food
expenditures reported by urban families inthe 1960-61
survey to update its “scale of equivalent income.”
The scale assumes that families spending the same
proportion of income on food have attained equal
levels of living. When applied to costs of the City
Worker's Family Budget, this scale provides the
basis for estimating budget custs for families of
different size, age, and type. Concepts and methods
of the latest revision of the scale are disoussed
in another bulletin on budget research.?

Availability of Data for Other Purposes

Statistical reports

Publications based on the Bureau’s General Purpose
Tabulations Program and comparable rural farm re-
ports published by the USDA’s Agricultural Research
Service (chapter 7) were designed to provide family

1 See Three Stundards of Living for um Urban Fumily of Four
Persons, Spring (967: (BLS Bulletin 1570-5, 1969), and "Measuring
Retired Couples’ Living Costs in Urbau Areas," in Mouthly_Labot
Review, November 1969, pp, 316, See also Three Budgets for?
Retized Couple in Urban Aress of the United Stares, 1967-68 (BIS
Bulletin 1570-6, 1970).

2 See Revised Equivulence Scale for Enimuting Equivalent
Income or Budget Costs by Famnly Type (BLS Bulletin 1570-2, 1968).

68

a

accounts tabulations that bolb agencies’ experience
had indicated were needed most frequently. Despite
this extensive publication program, the Bureau re-
celved numerous requests for addittona) information.
A variety of arrangements were devised to permit
maximum use of the data, compatible with the Bu-
reau’s resources of etaff and facilities and with its
nondisclosure regulations.

For requests that could be filled from unpublished
machine tubulations, the Bureau arranged through
its regional offices to provide photocopies of tubles
at a nominal cost. In general, this service made
available for the urban segment of each of the
34 metropolitan areas in the sample detail similar
to that published in supplements 2 and 3 to the
regional and national reports, described on page 37.

At the request of the National Industrial Confer-
ence Board, the Bureau also made some special
tabulations which combined for the total nonfarm
family universe some information that the BLS and
USDA had published for the urban and rural nonfarm
segments separately. The NICB planned their tabu-
lations fo supplement BLS publications and issued
them? in two reports, the first entitled, Expendi-
ture Patterns of the American Family and the second,
Market Profiles of Consumer Products. The NICB
volumes concentrated entirely on expenditures, whioh
were shown in somewhat finer detail than in the
Bureau's supplement 3's, and with different family
characteristic classifications. They also included pre-
viously unpublished data on weekly expenditures for
almost 200 items of food, beverages, tobacco, and
household supplies recorded on BLS schedule 2648C. ‘

Magnetic tapes for electronic data processing

Difficulties and delays in completing its Generat
Purpose Tabulations Program demonstrated that the
Bureau had neither staff nor computer facilities to
undertake special tabulations of the survey data
as originally contomplated. The desirability and the
problems of making disaggregated family expenditure
and income information avnilable for microeconomic
analysis were discussed with the CES advisory com-
mittee, the committee for the Preservation and Use
of Economic Data of the Social Science Research
Council, and other groups and individuals. Various
means of disseminating data were considered—
including supplying the records on magnetic tapes
to a university-affiliated service center which would
tabulate the data as requested.

Ultimately, the Bureau decided to prepare a Gen-
eral Purpose Tape containing seleoted information
for each of the 13,728 urban and rural consumer
units giving usable schedules. Since BLS had no

69

funds for such work, the sale of each tape had to
cover all costs to the Bureau in preparing and serv-
icing the tape. Purchasers of the setofthree standard-~
length (2,400 feet) reels of magnetic tape were pro-
vided binders of descriptive material on use of the
tape, and experienced staff was made available for
consultation.

Before undertaking this experiment in making its
basic records available for others to analyze with
clectronic data-processing equipment, the BLS pre-
pared a preliminary proposal on the content of the
General Purpose Tape. This proposal was circulated
by the Bureau in answer to inquires, and by the Social
Science Research Council and the Federal Statistics
Users Conference. Alter reviewing comments on
this preliminary proposal, the BLS determined the
content of the General Purpose Tape. In the tape’s
final form, the item detail was nearly doubled over that
proposed initiully, more family characteristics were
included, and records for consumer units in rural
areas were added with the USDA's cooperation. As
is customary in all its basic data collection opera-
tions, the BLS had obtained the CES information
from each family with the understanding that the
information would not be made available outside the
BLS In a form that identified the family with the
data. Observanoe of the Bureau’s nondisclosure rules
restricted the amount of detail that could be included
on the tape; for cities which have populations of
fewer than 50,000 the city identification code was
deleted.

Early in 1970, 28 universities and business or-
ganizations had purchased the tape. In addition, BLS
made available copies of the master tapes used by
BLS and USDA tn their tabulation programs to six
Federal agencies on a long-term loan basis for the
cost of preparation. These agenoies agreed to enforce
the Bureau’s nondisclosure regulations and not to
make the tapes avatlable to others.

Analytical reports

Historically, expenditure survey data have been
used with other economic and demographic data
to describe and evaluate the living conditions of
American families and to compare the economic
status and consumption patterns of various groups
in the population. Such interpretative reports of the

3 The NICB supplied machine programs which the BLS ran
on a reimbursable cost basis with the understanding that the data
would be made available to others.

4 Atthough initislly inched in its General Purpose Tabula
tions Program, the BLS tubulated this weekly information from sched-
ule C (p. 177) only in the form and to the extent needed for re~
vising the CPI.


1960-61 findings, prepared by BLS staff, were published
in BLS Report Series 238 (page 205). Some of these
reports evaluated changes that had occurred sinoe
the Bureau’s previous large-scale survey in 1950
and probed for fundamental changes in family living
arrangements, in prices, in population movements, and
other economic and demographic developments that
have influenced family spending and are road signs
to future trends. Other reports, prompted by in-
tensified interest during the 1960’s Ln Improving the
lot of the poor, discussed the analytical methods
appropriate for using the 1960-61 expenditure data
to define poverty and to describe the level and man-
ner of Mving of the poor. Approaching the defint-
tion of poverty from the consumption side focused
attention on the limitations of current money income
as & measure of the total resources of families in
the low-income classes.

The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) of the
Department of Agriculture also augmented its series
of basic statistical reports on expenditures of rural
farm consumers with a number of analytical reports
covering both urban and rural families. Many of
these appear in its quarterly publication, Family
Economics Review. ARS also used the family ex-
penditure reports to develop a series of estimates
of the cost of raising a child from birth to age
18 years.°

Uses of Data Outside BLS and USDA

Publication of staffStieal reports, initlated in the
fall of 1962, was completed in the summer of 1966.
Delivery of magnetic tapes began in 1965; the ma-
Jority went to other Federal] agencies or to univers-
ities. These data dissemination methods give the
BLS less specific knowledge of uses of the CES
than would have been the case if the Bureau had
established a central service to provide special
purpose tabulations. However, the price of tapes
included consultative services that gave BLS staff
gome “feedback,” and they have accumulated some
information on planned or completed projects using
the 1960-61 CES tabulations or tapes which are
summarized below.

Economic analysis

Family expenditure surveys provide the sole source
of information for benchmark estimates of many
components of personal consumption expenditures used
in estimates of the gross national produst. The

70

1960-61 expenditure data for an extensive list of
items (concentrated in the areas of housing, trans~
portation, recreation, and such services as appliance
repairs, moving and storage, and postage) were made
available in advance of publication to the U.S. Depart~
ment of Commerce, Office of Business Economics
(OBE), for their latest comprehensive benchmark
revision. Results of this large-scale effort were
summarized in un urticle, “The National Income and
Product Accounts of the United States: Revised Es-
timates, 1924-64,” in the August 1965 issue of Survey
of Current ess. OBE also has underway a fea-
sibility study of the use of regional detail from the
1960-61 CES to distribute their national estimates
of personal consumption expenditures by State. This
would complete the extension of a major comgonent
of the national income and product accounts to a
regional basis.

In addition to using CES data in its national and
regional estimates of personal consumption expendl-
tures, the Department of Commerce obtained un-
published CES detai) for individual metropolitan areas
and smaller urban places for several special re~
search projects to assist in policy formulation and
evaluation. Among these were studies of the demand
for passenger transportation inthe Washington- Boston
corridor as part of a broader investigation requested
by the Congress on the feastbility of high-speed
railway facilities along this corridor. Another use
was to develop improved estimates of the secondary
effeots of Area Redevelopment Administration ac-
tivities on various communities throughout the Nation,
information also requested by the Congress. °

The U.S, Treasury Department relied on family
expenditure detail for two major projects. The Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) used average expenditures of
families classified by income and family size in {ts
1964 revision of the “Average State Sales Tax Tables”
which taxpayers may use in filing individual income
tax returns, Forms 1040 and 1040W. These tables
reduce the taxpayer’s burden of itemizing and sub-
stantiating sales tax deductions and provide standards
for IRS agents in auditing. The second project was
undertaken by the Treasury's Office of Tax Anal-
ysis (OTA) following the 1964 excise tax hearing
before the House Ways and Means Committee. OTA
obtained CES data in advance of publication to !m-
plement a suggestion made at the hearing that Treasury
undertake studies of consumption of taxed items
by families of different income levels. The expen-
ditures surveys also have potential value in Treasury

5 Jean L Pennock, “Cost of Raising = Child," Family Eco-
nomics Review, March 1970, pp. 13-17.

6 This work is uow under the new Department of Transpor~
tation, which alto fs using CES data as background for its study of
the probable relative costs to families of the use of electric mater
vs, interas! combustion engine automoblles,

L 2

a |

studies of proposals for other types of taxes, e.g.,
negative income tax.

Privately sponsored studies of national taxes using
{nformation from the 1960-61 surveys included: Eco-
nomic Aspects of the Social Seourity Tax and Tax
Burdens and Benefits of Government Expenditures
by. Income Class, 1961 and 1965, published by the Tax
Foundation, Inc. (1966 and 1967, respectively); and
Joseph A. Pechman, Federal Tax Policy, published
by the Brookings Institution (1966).

The Bureau’s data have bean used {n formulating
models for consumer demand. The National Planning
Association, under contract with the Office of Emer-
gency Planning, Executive Office of the President,
originated a persona! consumption model using 1950
CES data to compute regressions of expenditures
on income for groups of related items by family
sizé.?7 They used the 1960-61 data to make the
regression analysis necessary to check the preliminary
equations derived from the 1950 analysis. The Battelle
Memorial Institute also used the Bureau’s 1950 and
1960~61 consumer expenditure studies to develop
projections of consumer spending.&

In his book, The American Economy to 1975: An
Interindustry Forecast,’ Clopper Almon, Jr. cited
use of two basic bodies of data: The 1960-61 survey
to determine the effect of income increases on con-
sumption; and the tlme series in OBE’s national
accounts to determine the influenoe of prices, the
rate of growth of {noome, and other trends.

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
Board regards the CES as a basic source for its
projected studies of consumers’ ability to use con~
sumer credit to purchase automobiles and household
durables. In a related area of inquiry, the National
Planning Assoctation was applying CES data to the
question, “How much oan a nonfarm family at a given
income level afford to pay for shelter?”

. Other articles and books that have drawn exten-
sively on survey data include: ‘

Carolyn Shaw Bell, Consumer Choice inthe American
Economy, New York, Random House, 1967.

Marguerite C. Burk, Consumption Economics: A

-. Multidisciplinary Approach, New York, John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1968.

Betty G. Fishman, Economic Effects of Internal
Migration - An Exploratory Study, West Virginia
University (Morgantown), Bureau of Business
Research, Business and Economic Studies, Vol. 10,
No. 4, June 1968.

Elizabeth Gilboy, A Primer on the Economics of
Consumption, New York, Random House, 1968.

lester C. Thurow, “The Optimum Lifetime Dis-
tribution of Consumption Expenditures,” Amer-
Scan Economic Review, June 1969, pages 324-30.

71

These uses, though diverse, had {n common a
national or regional orientation. Individual city data
have been studied in connection with similar eco-
nomic problems at the State and local level. These
included studies of tax structures by State tax com-~
missions, projections of retail sales under various
assumptions, plans for urban renewal, and justifica-
tions for grants under programs of the Office of
Economic Opportunity and other Federal agencies.
Local utilities have used expenditures for telephone,
gas, and electricity by families at different income
levels in hearings before public utility commisst{ons.

Individual area data also have been referred to in
studies of pay differentials. For example, the U.S. De-
partment of State referred to data for Washington,
D.C., in reviewing its cost-of-living indexes for
overseas personnel.'° The CES also was cited as
a source in Geographioal Wage Standards for Re-
classification of Work Looations in the Telephone
Industry, a report prepared by Robert R. Nathan
Associates, Inc., for Communications Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, January 1965.

The potential of CES area data {n a relatively
new field of economic analysis—the costs of air
pollution—is being explored. For example, Helen H.
Lamale presented a paper, “The Uses of Consumer
Expenditure Data in Air-Pollution Control,” at a
seminar held at American University (Washington,
D.C.) with the support of the U.S, Public Health
Service."

Social welfare research

Many social welfare research studies have used
family expenditure data—both at the national and city
level. Foremost among these are projects of the
Social Security Administration and the Welfare Ad-
ministration in the U.S. Department of Health, Edu-
cation,and Welfare (HEW). Expenditures for medical
care and spending patterns of the aged and of low-
income families with children have been especially
relevant in HEW studies. Also, the Sooial Security
Administration used tabulations of transfer payments

7 éleanor M. Sayder and J. Harvey Edmonston, "Personal
Consumption Model," NREC Technical Report No. 15, National
Planning Amacistion, Washington, D.C., October 1963,

Joseph W, Duncan, "A Framework for Forecasting Socioe
Economic Change," Battelle Technical Review, Vol. 15, Sep-
tember 1966, pp. 12-13.

9 Published by Harper C Row, New York (1966).

10 “U.S. Department af State Indexes of Living Costs Abroad
(Excluding Quarters)," Labor Developments Abroad, October 1966,
pe 17.

11 See ‘The Economics of Aig Pollution - A Svmposium, edited
by Harold Woloua, New York, W.W. Norton and Company, Inc.
(1966, pp. 115-26,


—ssSSS9393ummn nena ee

\ B.13. Distribution of consumer units giving usable schedules in che 1960-61 CES nonfarm sample,' B13. Distriburion of consumer units giving usable schedutes in the 1960-61 CES nonfarm sample,
| by detailed family characteristics—Continued by detailed family churacteristics—Contioued
| -
Nursber of consumer units Percent distribunon Number of consumer units Percent distcibution
Code Characterisnc Total Uevan | Rural Total Urvan | ee cons Charactersiic Teta! Gronn |] ourarm |, Total Urban | ara
] nonfarm | 196061 [RMAF | noniarm | 960-61 | NYY L [nonfarm | rue-61 | “Sam | nonfarn | t9e0-61 | P99)
\ ~ _ . Family income befa-e taxes - 11,627, 342 2,265 10.6 100.0 100.0
| ot | Negauve income 4 2 2 eC) Cy O.1
\ Earner componition -— 11.627 9,442 | 2,285 100.0 100.6 100.0 02 0 to $499-— 5A zu 147 31 2.3 64
0 | Head only empioyed = 4.434 | 1,003 46.9 47. 40) it $1,000 503 266 137 43 29 59
1 | Head and wife only eiployed ~ 2,096 478 221 22.4 20.9 te $1,500 539 ae 165 ae 40 72
2.| Head and onty FM’s 18 and over 2 $2. cu0 529 390 § 139 45 4 et
employed. not wile ——-araarnee 667 546 121 9.7 5.8 5.3 22 $2,500 552 403 HBr Bp} a 66
3 | Head and only FM's under 18 employed, 30 $3,000 « Ls 867 24s 9.6 a3 1019
not wile —— a 203 159 44 na 1g 40 $4,000 11220 967 262 10.6 lola Mla
4 | “lead and any FM's of other age combinations 50 $5,000 1,363 1,087 276 3118 116 42d
employed, nor wife — ane 158 135 23 La aot 6! $6,000 P1196 1,005 191 10.3 108 a4
» | Head and any other carner cambination, 62 | $7,000 51a 454 a4 4b ag 37
including wate — ~ 62 491 130 5.3 5.3 a £7,500 52 435 86 45 4.7 3.8
6 | Head not empluyed: no other FM H 7 $8,000 to $8,999 -——. a8 am 17 TA 7.6 5.1
i employed —- a ——_— 1aq7 1092 $95 12.7 WT 16.8 a $9, VOU to 9,999 ~ 595 509 a6 5.1 5.4 38
7 | Head not employed, wife only employed 173 134 39 ns 4 1? ar $10. GU0 to $12,499 930 ass 97 80 a9 4.2
8 | Head not einployed: any FM of any age 82 F212, 500 to $14,999 368 317 51 a2 4 2.2
employed, except wife - 206 208 58 23 Re 45 yt $15,000 to £19,999 — 285 255} 30 25 7 13
9 | Head not employed, any other es 3 $20,000 to $24,999 —. 74 45 8 te} M4
canmuination including wile a= st 47 4 4} 3 2 on 825,000 and over ~ 101 93 8 9 Lo l4
Family income after tuxes — 11,627 9, 342 2,285 200.0 100.0 100.0
loceupation of head -—~. L127 8.342 285 109.0 100.0 4uy.0 o 6 4 2 ay eC) 4
co | Not working, but not retired ————— m1 54 187 60 55 8.2 oz 357 210 47 a1 2.2 6.4
| u 515 380 135 a4 at 5.9
| Self-employed: iz 572 396 176 4.9 ae nT
110 | Prufeesional and technical ~ 9 86 9 8 ” 4 21 592 439 153 54 47 67
| §z0 a 609 AS2 157 5.2 4.8 0.9
A2t 674 483 19t 5.8 5.2 84 30 1,285 1,002 283 mt 10.7 V2.4
122 4l 20 au 4 +2 9 «0 1,573 1,249 124 BG} 18.5 at
130 | Helping in family business. without pay 2 0 2 ey 0 wt 50 11505 ies? 268 lo ise Wt
| 199 | Occupation not reported anna enna ° ° 0 0 o 0 61 1319 are 203 13 ig Bg
bz Sis 438 7 44 4.7 3.4
| Balacied and wage earners: 1 458 462 6 9 at 33
| 210 | Professional and technica! ——-—-——-—. 1,189 1,047 1az 10.2 verd 6.2 Te $8,000 to $8,999 720 (2s 95 b2 Ot 4.2
| 220 | Managera and officials 13 $9,000 to £7,999 — — aye 431 61 42 a6 27
22a Except farm 741 19 122 6 66 Pe) gi $10,000 to $12,499 —— 619 538 al 5.3 5.8 3.5
| zz Farin == H 3 a) (by ta 82 § 12/500 (© $14,999 240 215 25 Pa) 203 ni
| 230 | Clerical and sales 7 $15,000 to $19,999 143 130 13 12 14 7
231 Clorical- : B40 m 67 ae 83 4.0 92 $20,000 to $24,999 87 5a $ 15 26 a]
H pe Sales = 504 429 3 43 46 Bs 93 $25,000 and over ——— Su a4 é la Is 13
! 240 | Skilled aud sein:-skilled: Income-savuige rata § ——. 11,627 9, Maz 2, 285 100.0 100.0 100.0
i 24d Craftsmen, furemen, etc 1816 1,485 BL 15.6 15.9 14.5 1 Net savings of 1U percent or more: 4,408 2, 685 723 29.4 28.7 SLT
' 242 Operatives and kindred workers~ 1, 696 1,323 373 6 14.2 16.2 é Net savings of 1 tu 9.9 percent ——. 2.358 1953 405 20.3 20.9 17.7
250 | Unskilled: 3 No savings (net savings ur dixsavings
: 231 Secvitu workers (except honsechold) 741 L46 95 64 6.9 42 ratiu of lesa than } percent) - | 1340 098 242 WS 18 10.6
252 Hous hold workers 169 14s 26 1a 1.5 Ma 4 Net dissavings of | ta 9.9 percent — 1,746 1,392 354 1510 18.9 15.5
253 Laborers [except farm}———— 573 400 13 49 ay 16 > Net diseavings ul 10 percent or more~ 2,761 2,205 556 23.7 216 24.3
254 Farm laborers aa 96 27 69 28 3 2.0 6 All other $a. 9 5 7 a ta
i 260 | Members of Armed Force Housing occupancy - 9.342 2,285 100° 0. 100.0 100.0
i 261 Enlisted personne)--——— | 19 bb 13 .7 .7 16 1 Owner all year, same dwelling 6,365 4.841 1.474 $4.7 52.4 64.6
262 Commissioned officers u 29 2 3 3 a é Quner all year, changed dwelling—— 193 144 4g 7 ns zt
H 299 | Qceupation not reported 21 19 z te 12 a $ Owner end of yeac, center earlier 15 225 90 27 z4 3.9
300 | Retired, not working for pay 1,298 1,008 290 wee 10.8 12.7 Renter end af year | 627 9. 342 2, 285 100.0 100.0 100! 0
3.- | Retired, partially employed. but earning 4 House ——_—— ~ | rlese 1.277 575 18.9 13.7 25.2
less than retirement income ———— a 226 85 27 2 37 5 Apartinent, (n{———— 2.589 2.519 70 22.3 27.0 3.1
é Room(s) ——— 268 245 r) 23 2b 10
| Industry of head —~-—-—————- 44,627 9,242 | 2,285 100.6 100.0 100.0 7 13 10 3 a a a
| 0 Industry avt reported ‘— 2,082 1,592 490 179 17.0 2t4 9 2 31 1 3 aa @)
| 1 Agriculture, lurestry, fisheries 238 9 145 20 10 63 Year of hame purchase — 1a, ed7 9.342 2,285 tov! 0 100.0
| 2 Mining ae ae 62 de 43 +8 22 1.9 ° Renter end of year 4,734 4, 002 or 40.7 29.4
3 Construction === 00 513 227 6 61 9.9 Owner end of year, bought home in
4 Manulucturing - 3, 000 2,485 515 25.9 26.7 22.6 1 407 180 v27 zo 5.6
| 5 ‘Cranepurtution, communication. and 2 476 372 104 at 4.6
: other public atilates z 876 710 166 7.5 1.6 73 3 546 415 13H a7 S.7
6 Trade (wholesale and retail)~ 1,826 4,259 2e7 13.0 13.5 wi? 4 39 243 30 58 az
7 Finance, insurance, and real estate ——— 370 3h 44 3.2 3.5 1g 5 3R2 296 06 Bs 36
8 Services (business, personal, 6 2.338 1,890 aap 20,1 19.5
Tecreation, and profes 1,806 1 544 15 168 1s | 7 e9@ 526 166 bo 74
9 Public administration 867 741 126 75 7.9 5.5 8 — ——— an 480 160 5.5 zo
9 Refore 1940, of nu report—————-——_ | 1.072 178 294 9.2 12.8
Sinan af wark of head 11,627 3,3az | 2,285 100.0 100.0 100.0 Houveheeping arrangements -—-———-—-———ne | 11, 627 9, 342 2.285 100.0 100.0
o I° Not repurted *— 2. vos Ube7 Ath 172 16.3 20,8 1 Housekeeping during survey year — 11,196 8.959 2,237 96.3 97.9
1} Private 5113 6.570 | 1.543 69.8 70.4 67.6 “ Nonhousekeeping a i, at 383 4s 3.7 zl
2 vai 1,245 266 1310 14 16 | i
' | Bees not include Anchorage, Alaska, surveyed in 1959 hhgibil ;
Schedules for consumer umis containing no member who met the eligibility requirements for the eatire surve
a
See footnotes at enu uf (able, { Inclades faresiy heads who were not working for pay
* The rato ot ner savings of digsavings to family income alter taxes.
© Includes consomer units with negative income.
NOTE: Yecause uf rounding, sums of audividuul lems may not equal totals.
100

101


units in the decennial census,‘ and to distinctions
between whether the individual was living in a house-
bold or in group quarters.

Im 1960 census usage: °

An unrelated individual is either: (1) A member
of a household who is living entirely alone or
with one person or more al! of whom are not
related to him, or (Z) a person living in group
quarters who is not an inmate of an institution.
Unrelated individuals who are household heads are
called “primary individuals." Those who are not
household heads are called “secondary individuals.”

Group quarters are living arrangements for institu-
lionel inmates or for other groups containing five
Persons or more unrelated to the person in charge.
Group quarters are located most frequently in
institutions, lodging and boarding houses, militury
and other types of barracks, college dormitories,
fraternity and sorority houses, hospitals, homes
for nurses, convents, monasteries, and ships. Group
quarters also are located in u house or an apart-
ment in which the living quarters are shared by the
person in charge and five persons or more un-
related to him.

Census detail* for “unrelated individuals” is as
follows:

In households ~~~
Primary wdivicual

10, 434, 328
7, 990, 80S

Seeandary individual - 2,437,823
Ip group quarers 4,901, 676
Institution~inniate 1, 886, 967
Other =~ 3,014,709
Rouming or boarding houses 633,732
Military barracks ~ 867, 803
College darmit 829,112
Inscitution-restdent staff 90, 511
Other - 593, 551
Total unrelated individuals, except Inmares -- 13, 449,037

By definition, tbe CES universe includes all unrelated
individuals in households and part of those in group
quarters—spectfically those in shared apartments or
houses and in rooming or boarding houses. The es-
timated total of 55,307,000 consurcer units falls about
midway between the decennial census totals for fami-
lies and unrelated individuals on which the distribu-
tions In table 9 are based. The CES total is below
the larger census figure which includes all of the
on-post military and counts students in dormitories
as unrelated individuals. lt is somewhat higher than
the census total of 53,024,000 families and the “pri-
mary individuals” in households. The latter total is

46

conceptually closer to the CES definition of total
consumer units, which alse would count as separate
units for at least some of the “secondary individuals”
in households and some living in group quarters, such
as rooming or boarding houses. The CPS total of
56,335,000" families und unrelated individuals as of
March 1961 also falis between the two totals from
the decennial census

Distributions of Consumer Units
by Characteristics

The BLS and USDA selected 10 famlly character-
istics for classifying families in the General Purpose
tabulations of consumer expenditures, incomes, and
Savings. CES classifications and codes and compari-
Sons with census data for eight of these family char-
acteristics are shown in table 9.8 Comparable census
data are not available for the other two oharacter-
istics—rooney income after taxes and number of
full-time earners. Ilowever, a Special analytical com-
parison has been made of the distribution of census
income and CES money income before taxes. (See
page 51.)

Family size

Differences in definitions of the family and in the
period to which the family composition referred are
very important when comparing the CES distributions
with those of the decennial census and the CPS. The
time period to which the family composition relates
is the date of the interview for the 1960 census and
the CPS (in April and March, respectively). The CES
measure of family size is the number of equivalent
full-year family members. It fs an average obtained
by dividing 52 weeks into the total nuraber of weeks
during which both full- and part-year members be-
longed to the family, recorded in section A, ttem 8(m).?

4 See U.S, Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
Income Distribution in the United States, by Herman P. Miller (a
1960 census monograph). Goverament Printing Office, Washington,
D.C. 1966, pp, 183-185,

5 See source cited in fooinote 3, pp. LV and LIX,

§ Compiled from 1960 Census of Population, Val. 1 Charac~

fetisties of the Population, Part 1, U.S; Summeapy tables 181 and
182, pr 1-444 and 1-453, -

This sletail is based on “sample data and the total may
Giffer from information derived from 2 complete-count hatis. (See
p. LXXXIX of volume cited in this footnote, )

7 This toral was adjusted upward slightly after the 1960 census
results become available. See foomote [, table 9

See also appendix table B-13 for greater detail for these
characteristics and for classificstions of nonfarm families by, addi-
tional characteristics,

Unless otherwise noted, this and similar references are 10
section, line, and coluran in BLS 26488, reproduced in Exbrbit E,

si

Table 9. Comparison of faroily clraracteristics data from 1960-61 C!

and other sources, total urban and rural United States

Famulies aud single consumers Fumities of 2 persons or more
ES Consume: | 1960 Decennist Census} Current | Consumer 1200 Current
& * . wpendite < Population
Charwceeristic xpenditures| Families } Popnlacion|Expenditures Pe
cn P "Survey. and Survey! | Survey |Pecenmal | suiyey!
ry90-61 | 1 | primary 1961 ryev-G1 | Census 1961
indiv duals
lEscimared number (ati sawusands) 7 | 458,305 | 353,024 56,235] 46,917 | 445. 149 45,435
Fstimased number (2ti savusands) ==--- , , q 9 3, a8 ‘
JAverage size (mean number of persons) « ---- 3.2 - 3.38 3.36 3.0 3.6
Percent
ee - 2100.0 7100.0 Fo, - - -
t puso - 22.6 130 15,3 - wot a
2 pene - 577.4 85.0 80.7 100.0 100.0 100.0
2 pean - 25.4 27.7 26.4 35.5 32.7 32.
5 [tenons 20 - 16,7 18.4 16.9 2h
a tenon - - 15.4 17.0 16.5 19.0
$e gewom - 9.9 10.8 10.5 12.3
3 6 persons or more = : 10,1 1d 10.4 12,0
fee al 1ov.0 | 7100.0) 100.0 | 100.0 10,0
1 Whute soeees 89,3 89,7 90, 3 Ba7 89.7
2 \Negen or i 10.3 9,7 10,3 H 23
3 Other i - - - :
Housing tenure: soo. . 9100.0 - ‘0.0
57.1 - 61.9 - 60,4
2 3.0 - 381 - 35.2
3 3.9 - - - 4.4 ~ -
Years of education of family hevd : to0.0 — | ate . 100.0 | 4100.0 -
a . 0 :
1 |b years or lees - 36.5 - 40.5 : 350 aa :
2 | Uwough 12 years (high school) - - 43.1 - at : 14.8 ‘2. -
3 |13 through 16 years (college) - 16.4 - \ . : 63 \ ; :
4 [Gver 16 yeun (postgraduate) 4.0 - -
fee “pont meas - 100.0 | '100,0 | Tr00,0 | 8 t00,0 100.0 } '7100.0 ® 100.0
1 under 28 years - 4.8 27.0 5.1 5.0 49 25.5. as
2 fas to 34 yoars - 18,5 * 13,4 48.3 20.3 , 13.9
55 to 44 y - 221 20,9 224 22 24,7 2a. 2.9
4 a8 to 54 yours 19,7 35.2 20.4 20.3 20.9 36.7 21.6
5 |ssto ot yeun 15.9 - 16,5 1b 14.8 - 15-8
& [es wo 74 yen 1 16.9 wat 17.5 10.4 13.5, .
your am © - 5.4 : 4.0 - :
7 |7S years und over 32
ion of family Bee 100.0 ~ 100.0 - 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0
‘oral = .
asa 11.0 - - - 12.0 - -
° a. Self-employed -- +0 > : 12.0 : :
1 b. Salaried professional, techateal, - 15.6 - 16.5 wt
c. Subtotal (2 1d) - 26.6 - ase : 25.8 24
2 d, Clerical und sales - toy - pis : tus 107
a e, Skilled - \< - 25 188 1K
- 14.1 - 14,5 - .
4 f, Semiskilled . 14.3
s fe Unkslled = : 13,2 - 08 : 128 o.
6 « Occupation nor reported - 2 - x : 2 -
é - 137 - 24,3 - oe H 21.9

See footnotes at end of table,

47


B18. Comparison of CES and OBE national accounts
sub-categories of current consumption, 196t

estimates of aggregate expenditures

for selected

B19. Comparison of survey estimates of change in assets and liabilitics with flow of funds aggregates
for the household sector, 196061 and 1963

(in billions uf doltars)

Aggregate (millions) Percent: CES af OBE 1900-01 1963
Sub-category CES eutimatey OBE Flow of funds transuction category Survey of J Survey | Sarvey of Survey
TROceT TET oeiupaies Unadjusted | Adjusted conuumec | Flow of | less flow changes Flow of | ieee Low
unadjueted! | adjusted? tres nes’ vt tunds | pances, und of funde
Food prepared at home « $54,693 | $57,286 |  g57, 395 95.8 99.8 rR
Food away from home - isjsal | ctsoia | #12204 110.6 1223 Net ancrease in aagele 30.3 ob4 uy 45.8 39.8 5.
Remt, tenant -cccupicd dwellings “14, 401 14, 32u 12, 702 Wag reg 1 Residential conutruction zee Bo 20.4 1.0 Ta
Foel, light, and refrigeration 13,784 14) 686 14) 400 95.7 2 Net invewtment in aoncorporate business ve as nS 6.2 5
Gas and electricity 31790 9,095 8,755 190.4 5 Demand deposits and currency - : : ae “ad aa
Major appliance sig | Vote | iat | "ele 3 Sang Seposns “ Postea ] ake ko
Telephone end telegraph — 4,321 41058 laze 89.6 SUS. savings bonda? --—— Le 15 are
Cloting, men’ a and boys’, except loowwear ve Bale 9.451 8.220 102.2 2 USL Rovurninent eeevrities otner than savings : . he
Clathing, women and cluldren's, except footwear 11, 698 43, 270 18,115. I4 onde - 8 1 z.3 he
Foote SY) leas | Uitet | aisio | go 7 sine and local sbligations aA 44 4 a
‘Automobile purchase 16.538 vite Eden we 8 Corporate and foreign bonda a -1l0 at
Autornootle Pinctor oil wees | tes | 33 | 88 2, Germerate stock a ls a
Persunal care supplies 4) 426 4640 3h199 138.4 BECO wane “6 23 a
Personal care services 3008 31961 1391
Speettge urlasions ~ ~ : 3,008 398 391 Net increase in Mabilittes — 17.0 9 13.7 24.9 wth
Television, radio, and musical saviranivats spa $332 ars 96.1 Li 14 farnily mortgages — 0.2 “io tha 4s 7
Reading, total ——- - 2, a6r 635 | 29 70.4 1d tnstallment automobile paper ia to =) 209 2317
: 29 . | Tt oe 15 Installment credit other than autornohile so 14 8 siz 2410
u 14. Nontnarailment credit excluding charge accounts? —— Lo no 5
T averagen as roportsd for JOW)-61 ww CES smuluplied by che saber of conauner on 1g. Rani loan noon — } ay
1, Averages ae reported for 1y6U-61 1m CES multiplied by the eatimated number af ¢ units—55, 306, 000. 1g Secucity erodin 55 5 > xi y
\ From ‘fhe National Income acd Praduet Accounts of the United States. 1929-196 17 Other Loans mmo ° 74

the Survey of Current Business, adjusted to coniorm with GES coverage and deft
SS“ORE calimates for food and beverages adjusted tv food only by BLS esumate of

beverages for ronsumpuun at home vs. away from home.
Excludiag repairs paid by tenant and special fees.

106

‘See text

P.
ratio of expenditures for alcoholic

Average of flow of fundy data for 1969 and 1961.
for flow of funds figures, net investment in noncorpurate business less the Nability category “other mortgages."
For flaw of lunds figures, accrued interest haw been deducted

Less than .05, NOTE: N.c.c.-nut elsewhere classified.

* th flow 01 funds accounts included in the Lrausaction category

“coneumer Uredit"; shown separately in cu

wuier credit

cures.
NOTE: For purposes of this comparison changes 11 assets and liabilities are grouped a» follows:

Survey uf Consumer Expenditures Survey of Changes in Pamaly Finances

Line 1 Purchase, improvement, and wale o own nonéarm Own home gross of debt
dwelling
Line 2 WeeSHMTE ae tusiess other real property: improve- Dasiness, profession (yuncorporated only); business aot
mente to farm dwellings; less murtzaye on other Tnanaged by the unit (umucorporated only): equity in in-
real property Vestmeat real estate
Cheeling accuunte
Line 3 ,
Line 3 4 Gash un bank, on hand, money awed to family Savings account
Live 5 U.S. eavings bonds
Line 6 U.S. government inarketable scourities grove ot debt
Line 7 State und local government marketable securihes gross of
Stocks and bonds debt
Lane 8 Corporate and foreign government marketable sucucites
other ilu stock gross of debt
Line 9 Publicly traded lock gross of debt
Line 10 See line 3 Mortgage assets
Line 11 Mortgage va own nonfarm dwelling Debt secured by own home
Line 12 Money owed on the purchase of automobile Autoinobile installment debt
Line J Money owed on the purchase ol liousefurnishings and Other installment debt
‘equipment; mousy owed en the purchase of other
gonda and services
Line 14 } Noninstaltment debe
Line 15
Line 16 | Money owed to banks, insurance cumpames, wt Debt secured by stock: dedt secured by marketable secu-
ities viher than sinck
Line 17 Deht on life insueance

NOTE: This is a reprint from Prosector, op. cit, table 6, pe Ley

SOURCE: 1V6U-G1 data (rom "Survey of Consumer Expyaditures, " Consumer Expenditures and Income, Total United State.
1960-61, Supplement J—Part A to BLS Report 237-93 (USDA Report CRS15), 1966.



Contents

Chapter 1, Introduction
Historical background -
Collection of data --—~
Classification and tabulation _.
Preliminaries to 1960-61 survey --~

Chapter 2. Purpose, scope, and organization .-~
Multi-purpose survey--
Joint BLS-USDA responsibility:
Considerations affeclug sample size
BLS organization for CES —-~

Chapter 3. Design of sample --.
Urban sample -
Rural sample -
Definition of consumer unit and eligibility requirements
Substitution procedures -:

Chapter 4. Data collection
Reportlag forms -—.
Field operations --
Timing and man-hours in the field operations

Chapter 5. Analysis of sample returns --—
Samples assigned for interviews —--.
Mall questionnaires for weekly food expenditures
Characteristics of familles cooperating in Cincinnatt ---.

Chapter 6. Preparation of schedules for tabulation
Precoded schedules
Review of schedules
Manual editing and coding —
Transfer of data to punchcards
Computer editing, coding, and summarizing programs -—-—-.

Chapter 7. Tabulation and publication -
Classificution of items ----
Computation of averages ---
Content of statistical reports -
Weighting data to Uniled States and regional averages -

Chapter 8 Reliability of information
Sumpling error --—-
Characteristics of nonrespondents
Response errors -:
Processing errors

Chapter 9. Comparisons with data from other sources
Differences in definitions ---—-
Distribution of consumer units by characteristics -

Page

1 wae

ean


B-4, Analysis of cecurny for che 1960-61 CES urhan sample!

) 1960 T 1961 1960-61 combined!
em | [Etecuve vel T jective
" Master /Alteruate |PUCSUYS | Master Master | Alternate Fife
tet | mele? | Sample | sample | eample? | pte?
T 7 r ~ T ~
Assignment addresses: | 5,gas } 1, ter 6, 085 1,926 2,208] 2,772
Vacant unite amore | 269 | 90 sol 126 51 es
Requiring aiternates === 267 358 646
: 42 90 % 126 45 223
S13 oc) 571 120 1,129 248
487 522 1,049;
26 1ia 52 120 80 248
Contacted addresses — -- | 5,063 a7 s.isy | 1,276 10,425] 2,301
Additonal CU's at contacted | | |
addressee a 306 56 | 437 0 155 1e2
‘Total CU's at contacted i
addreaaes 030 5.587 | 1,396 | vars} 2.483
20 76 28 164 04
40 136 31 305 a1
Eifective sample of (ull-year
curs see | 5,168 ore | 5,71 | s.ara | a.aze | 6052 | 10.709] 2,338 11,970
Usable scheaules —~ aazd_; 639 | 4,463 | 3,974 905 | 4,879 1.905] 1.571 | 9,476
Incomnple: - 473 a9 562 339 103 4az 298 1031
Refasals — 195 | 224 951 | 284 52d
Renutring alternates —-—~ 427 Gaz |
Others” a 368 | za sue 309 24 593 522 1,229
Reyouted schedules # —--— 7% | 18 ree 109 29 138 4? 234
i I. }
Percent
T T T ~
Avsigumnent addresses — 100.0 | 100.9 ° 190.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0
Vacant unlis a6 | 7.6 5.9 83 5.3 8.0
No contacts 8.8 lot a4 19 43 8.9
|
Eulective sample of full-yrar i
U's = awv.o | 100.0 { ro.0 | tooo | 19v,0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0
Usable schedules 74.0 65.9 TBé 74.0 68.5 80.6 73.8 | 79.2
Incomplete senedules 9.2 9.2 a5 6.3 1B 13 7.8 | 86
Relusals --— — 15.4 2st 10.4 17.7 21.5 98 16.7 10.3
Rejected schedules - me] Sve | re | he] Zane fo Be | a] a
| |

2

| Alaska, which was surveyed for 1959.

The sampling procedure provided that a speeviic substitute address was to be drawn from an altecuate sample, if the
unit 1 the master sample wag vacint or the addcass could not be located, na contact could be made with the occupants. oF
the occupants refused or were unable to give Lie minimum information reqnired to cumplete a nonresponsr sheet,

The potential quiber of consumer unsts (CU's) from whom a schedule could be expected alter alternate assigameut
addresaca were substituted, ¢.g.. for 1960, 5,168 + 970 - 427 = 5,711.

Vacant units recorded here for the master sainple were unoccupied second living quarters found at address from
which a schedule was obtained from uccapants of first living quarters and thereluce ng alternate was drawn.

No contacts with occupants at alternate assignment addreases or with additional consumer units found at addresves
in manter sampie; uo further substitution possible,

AU CU'y residing at a sample address were eliguble fur clusion in the survey except for the Ume in the survey
year cariug which they were Hving in military camps, posts, of reservations (other than periods of 45 days or teas in a
reserve or National Cuard unit); in institutions, in rural commanittes (applicably uuly for 1960 and dropped for the 1961
survey which was extended tu rural areas); abroad (except on vacation, etc.), or were members of another cunsumer unit.
For purposes af tabulation, lowever, the sample included only full-year consumer units, 1.¢., omits with at east | member
who was elgible for the entire survey year.

Kespondents in the maazer sample whu gave the minimum information to complete a aonresponse sheet bur refused
or were unable to participate iarther an the survey; and all respondents at alternate assignment addrecses who refused to
participate, regardless of whether they gave complete information ivr the nonresponse sheet.

Schedeles counted as complete in the Geld but rejected after review in Washington.

Includes Anchors:

B-s. Analysis of returns for the 1961 CES rural nonfarm sample, inside and outside metropolitan areas

T Inavte

H Ourside
lem | metropolitan || metropuliten
| areas! i areas
Number

Assignment addresses an master sample 736 1, 764
Net transfers of addresara?~ 19 134
Assignment addresses requiring alternates* f ly? 132
Addstconal CU's at cuntacted addresses <a i 28 58

Total CU's vistted oF attempted. - a6 2,088
Inenigible CU's 4 19
Addresses requiring allernates~ \ar 132
Vacant units sn alternate sammie “a
No rantacts in alternate sampie$ « -- 10 9
Part-year CU's! 8 27

Total not effective sample- - 239
Usable schedules ~ bos 1,677 2,285
Imevinplete schedules 40 58 3B
Relusals Yevanemenen él 56 137
Rejected scherules v0 Bu 96

Total eifective sampie of tull-year CU's 79 2.636
Effective sample of full-year GE's ———— 100.0 100.0
Usable schedules -—— 84.5 81.5 ab.7
Incomplete schedules ———. 5.6 40 37
Refucals 81s 5.0 bo
Rejected echedulue Ma 4.5 6

f

1 Phe Bureau of Labor Statistics was responsible for collecting data from convurner units (CU's) in rural nonfarm arcas
inside Standard Metropolitan Statiatieal Areas {SMSA) and the U.S. Department of Agricultere (rom those in rural nonfarm
areas outside SMSA's,

The sumpling procedure provided that a specific substitute address was to be drawn (rom an alturaate sample if the
unit in the master sample was vacant or the address could not be located. no contact could be made with the occupants, oF
the occupants refused or were unable to give the minimom information required to complete a nonresparse sheet, Data were
nor available to RIS to classify the schedules cequsring alternates in the USDA sample in the sume detui: ve was done for
the BLS sample.

Some assignments were made incorrectly on the hasis nf the housing, wal surveys. I BLS intererewera found a farm
operator at an address, the assignment was tranaferred to USDA; similarly. i an address originally aasigned to USDA did
not inc’ude a farm operator. 1 was returned to BLS. Withiu USDA, transters were made between their samples of rural
nonfarm and rural farm fumaliew.

All CU's residing at a sample address were eligible for ynclusian in the survey except luc tune an the survey year
dung which they were living in military cemps, posts, or reservations (other than periods of 45 days or less in a reserve
or National Guard nit); in inatitutions: abroad (except on vacation, otc,): or were members of another CU. For purposes
of tabularion, however, the sample included only full-year CU's ie., units with at least | member who was eligible for thy
entire survey year.

Vacant units or no contacts with occupants at alternate assignment addresses oe with additional consumer unttn found
at addresses in master sample; no further substitation porsihle,

Respondents in the master sample who gave the munuaum imformation to complrte a nonrespunse sheet but refused
or were unable to participate further in the survey; and alt sespondents at alternate assignment addressee who refused to
participate. regacdtess of whether they gave cornplete information for the nonresponse sheet.

Schedules counted as complete in the field but rejected after review in Washington,



Appendix B. Supplcmenrary Tables

B-l. Summary of samples from Comprehensive Housing Unit Survey
used in selecting 1960-6t CES urban samples

| Seonrave Aessganent [Anvign
Population stratum, ! . Samplin, HAs Stanmenty
SMA" on other Sey | proce | mg: | ONSuTM | steer | pausing
urban place addresses? | FCES | ample | addreseves
United States. total urban? 12,205 2,772
Areas with CES sample selected from
CHUS 130,726 bene. 2d 10 648 2,405
Other aress—-- 512,000 1.560 367
Baltimore, Md——- - 1960-61 422 6,127 375 86
Soston, Mare — 1960~o1 2TH 3,459 378 4
Chicago, Ir 1960-01 418 4,087 500 ios
Cleveland, Uhio —- 1 1960-60 255 4,554 $25 60
Detroit, Mich —--—-- 1960 61 656 8.078 375 78
Los Angelea-Long Beach, Calf —~--——. 1960-62 245 3,041 500 95
New York. N. ¥—— 1960-61 440 3,786 ozs 200
Northeastern New Jersey” 1960—i1 95 1,256 ; 500 131
Philadelphia, Pa —- 1960-61 Aq2 7.039 we 375 80
Pittsburgh, Pa 769-61 298 5,0an ta 375 7
St. Lous. Mo— iPho-61 392 4,445 ta 375 87
Washington, D, C—- 1960-61 473 4,627 1.9. 67 375 cal
Stratum B-SMSA 250,000-1. 400. 000—
Atlanta, G 1960 292 4.04) 1:6. 17 250 25
Bulfalo, N. 1960 220 4,091 450 BA
Dallas, Tex 1960 27s 4,437 250 30
Inthanapolis, Jud — 1960 256 4.406 250 34
Seattle, Wash ——- 1960 338 S.23h 1:20, BR 250 33
Dayton, Ohio 1961 585 4,453 1:17.83 250 61
Denver, Colo--—-——- 1961 254 3,481 113.94 250 sy
Hartford, Gonn 1961 240 3,060 Metz. 25 250 87
Honvlulu. 1961 a9 %, 698 114, 76 250 18
Wichita. Kans 1961 268 3,502 Weta. 09 250 ST
Austin. Tex~ 1960 17 “a1z t6u “go
Cedar Rapids. lowa 1960 180 2,557 160 24
Champaign-Urbana, 111 1960 8B 1,253 160 34
Orlando. Fla 1960 229 3,472 160 36
Portiand, Maine 1960 Io 1,547 1o0 38
Bakersfield, Calif —-—-—~--~——~- 1968 236 44,057 360 31
Raton Roage. La —--- = 196) 146 1,659 160 38
Durham, N.C — ——- 1961 BR 1,245 160 25
Greor Bay. Wie 1961 146 1, R4% 160 40
Lancaster, Pa 1962 230 2,063 160 at
Stratum D-urban places 2,500-$0, 000.
(in CPD) S—
Devils Lake, N, Dak— 1960 os 9
Findlay, Ohio — 1960 6s wz
Kingston, N. ¥ eens 1960 65 26
Klamath Falla, Oreg— 1960 65 JB
Nites, Mich—--———_——- 1960 os 6
Union, S.C 1960 65 14
Crevksion, Minn —-—— 1 96h 68 646 1:29.94 65 12
Fiorence, Ala—-—-—---—-~ 1961 126 7R2 1:12, 02 6S WwW
Loganspor:, Ind ——-_—. 196! 1s 769 Vt aa 65 WW
Marta ite, 196) $5 4lg 1.6.49 65 Ve
Millville, NJ 1961 84 451 V4, 63 65 1B
Orem, Utah 1961 B86 1,545 ‘23.77 65 Ww
Southbridge, Mass 1962 30 342 1:5.26 65 22

See fnoinnces at end of table,

80.

Bl. Summary of samples from Comprehensive Housing Unic Survey
used im sciccting 1960461 CES urban samplcs—Continued

Separate ssignment | Avsignmenta
SMSA, oF other Block |S mntio | ASSES caauiring
urban place year fo auare | for CES
v | addresse sample addresses
Not in PLS

"Burlington, Vt — 1960 6s 12
Cleveland, Tenn 1960 65 16
Gailup. N. Mex 1960 65 13
Griffin, Ga~ 1960 65 YW
LaSalle, M1] = 1960 b> 12
Lewistown, Pa 1960 65 7
Owatonna, Minn 1960 65 1%
Reserve, La~ 1960 65 8
Athol, Mass-—— 1961 i 65 ry
Cambridge, Oho: 1961 | 65 19

gel 65 29
Gamsviite, Tex~ rer | ! 65 20
Manhattan, Kans 1961 | i 65 9
Menasha, Wis- 1961 65 13
Olunulgse. Okla 1961 . 65 14
Sebring, Flu 1961 | 65 25

t

Clasnified on basis al estimated urban population as of Jan. 1, 1959.
Tncindes untta in public housing projects.
Includes Anchorage. Alaska. surveyed for 1959.
Does not welude $89 addresses in Auarin, Tex., and 802 addresses in Dakersteld, Cali, which were selects to
augment the CHUS after the CES sumple waz drawn; alan does not include CHUS addresses for 8 cities listed in footmote 8.

£ The CES sample for each Stratum J) cily nut im the CPI. and for those CPI cities listed in fnocnote 8 was a subsample
of 65 addreases drawn from a sample of apyroxunately 500 addresses per city selected from records of the 1940 Census of
Housing and Population.

Standard Cunwolidated Area, Chicago-Northwestern Indiana,

7 Standard Consolidated Area, New York-Northeastern New Jersey.

5 In Stratum D cittes in the CPL. but foc which the 1960 CES sample had been drawn from Gensus records. it later was
necessary to conduct Comprehensive Housing Unit Surveys to obtain samptes for CPI rent pricing, ‘he (otal of 5. iving
Guster addrosece obtained in the GHUS for these B cities war distributed as follows.” Devils Lake, 557. Findlay, 685,
‘angston, 646; Klamath Falls, 713, McAllua, 71]; Niles. 734; Union, 648; and Vickshurg, 587.

Y Orem is now classified by the Bureau of the Budget us part of the Prove-Orem SMSA, but was not at the
CES sample of cities was selected.

2
3

ime the



Civil Service Cummission registers of persons who
had passed the Federal Service Entrance Examination
qualifying them at the GS-5 or GS-7 level.

Thirty-two supervisors were trained for the field
operations that began early in 1961. Late in 1961,
15 new employees were hired and trained to replace
losses and to build up the supervisory staff for the
1962 collection.

The number of field supervisors for the 2 years is
summarized in table 2. In February 1961, temporary
field offices were opened in the largest SMSA's.
Thus, in Round 1, the entire supervisory staff was
distributed among 12 Stratum A cities (population of
1,400,000 and over) and 3 Stratum B cities (250,000—
1,400,000 population). Five field supervisors were
ussigned to field offices in New York City (3) and
Newark, N.J. (2), with responsibility for 563 addresses
in the New York-Northeastern N.J. Standard Con-
solidated Area. Two supervisors were assigned to
each of the other “A” and “B® cities which had sam-
ples of 187 to 250 addresses. (See appendix table
B-2.) Each supervisor set up a separate office and,
except for interviewer training, operated independ-
ently, having complete responsibility for half the
sample.’

Toward the end of April, the reassignment of field
Supervisors to Round 2 cities began. This included
the remaining “A* and “B” cities, all *C” cities,
and 13 of the 16 “D” cities. In late June, three
supervisors began third assignments in the remuin-
ing “D” cities. Only one supervisor was assigned
to each “C” and “D® city which had samples of
160 and 65 addresses, respectively.

Table 2, Span of data collection period for 1960-61 CES

A similar assignment pattern was followed for
the second year’s field Operations. However, the
15 new supervisors had heen brought to Washington
for training late in 1961. Both Staff and materials
were in a greater state of readiness for the 1962
field operations than they had been in the previous
year, Thus, supervisors began opening offices early
in January 1962—about a month sooner than in 196].

Sixteen field supervisors remained throughout the
2 years and contributed substantially to the continuity
and uniformity of data collection for the CES. The
majority of supervisors completed two to four sur-
veys each, but four conducted five surveys and one
conducted six surveys over the 2-year period. Six
completed one survey. In 1961, two-thirds of the
supervisors were men, but in 1962, replacements
pwled the proportion down to less than half.

Local Interviewers. Historically, the BLS has used
local people as CES interviewers. The majority of
these short-time “daily rate” workers have been
housewives or retirees. The number of “dally rates”
needed in each city was determined by the number
of survey assignments; the must effective supervisor-~
interviewer ratio; and the production rate in Cincinnati.

In 1960-61, the BLS used the same method of re-
cruiting “daily rates” which {t hed developed in co-
operation with the U.S. Employment Services (USES) for
the 1950 survey, but ona wider and goore successful

9 In 1950, assignmams were made co a team of une super~
visor and one editor traiued in Washington. The maximum oumber
of arsignments for s one-supervisor-editor team was 250. A single
team was used in all but 10 cities, where the sample was too large
for one team to camplete the stevey {n an acceptable time spun,
See Lamale, op. cit. (monograph), p. 61.

urban sample,’ by population strarum

survey year aad Date? Number of
Population stratum Collection Survey Survey | Field Assign~
began completed areas | Super | ment
visors | addresses
Towl, 1960 -
, 39 5,845
Serarum A, Round | ----- | Februury 22, 196 | June 2, 1961 12 24 2 Ser
Stratum A, Round 2 -. May 17, 1961 July 14, $961 1 2 at
Stratum By Round 1 ~ Februnry 24, 1961 | May 5, 1961 3 6 750
Stratum B, Round 2 May 9, 1961 July 19, 1961 2 4 500
Serarum C, Round 2 May 1, 1961 July 28, 1961 5 5 800
Stratum D, Round 2 May 4, 1961 ‘August 18, 1961 16 16 1, 040
Toul, 19613 40 6, 085
Stratum A, Round 1 January 17, 1962 Muy 1 2
, ; lay 10, 1962 1B a 2,74
Stratum B, Round 2 ~ ‘April 5, 1962 August 14, 1962 6 12 00
Stratum C, Round 1 ~. January 26, 1962 April 19, 1962 2 4 320
Stratum C, Round 2 ‘April 24, 1962 day 14, 1962 3 6 460
Stratum Dy Round 2 ~ April 18, 1962 August 28, 1962 16 16 1,040

} Does not mclude Anchorage, Alaska, suveyed an

spring 1960,

3 This Information for mdividuul survey areas is shown in appendix table B-2,

Concurrently with the 196t urban survey, supervisors also handled 465 raza) nonfarm

side SMSA's tm the 1961 sawple, distributed as follows:
Round f (59) aad Round 2 (107), Figures in
SMSA's in Strata B and C in the 1Y60 sample,

20

assignments in
Stratum A (172); Struum B (147), and Stratum C,

this table do not cover 271 rural nonfarin assigaments inside

scale. In 1950, the USES Aptitude Test Battery B-210,
consisting of five tests from the General Aptitude
Test Battery, was set up, and nurms for the battery
were based on aptitude scores for four general ap-
titudes. These were: (1) General Intelligence, (2) verbal
ability, (3) numerical ability, and (4) clerical per-
ception.'° The USES Test Battery 8-210 had been
used by State and local employment offices for all
types of interviewing requests since 1950. The scoring
procedure had been refined in a decade's use.

In advance of opening an office, the BLS regional
supervisor notified the local State Employment Service
of the starting date for the survey, the approximate
number of interviewers required, and the estimated
duration of their employment. Also, the supervisor
asked the employment office to test applicants whom
the CES field supervisors could interview in the
first week of survey operations in a city. For ex-
ample, for the Cincinnati survey, the Ohio employ-
ment office was asked to supply 60 applicants for
interviews from whom the CES supervisors could
select 35 to 40 “daily rates.” Among other things
discussed during the interview were the applicants’
availability for 6 to 8 weeks, their willingness to
work irregular hours and their willingness to travel
ta specified addresses in the survey sample. There
were no specific educational requirements for the
inlerviewers, but, because of the complexity of the
survey, some formal education beyond the high sohool
level was des{rable. Applicable types of experience
were social work, teaching, survey work, home
economics, economics, and statistics.

The rate of pay for “daily rates” was $14.48 for
and 8-hour day, or $1.81 an hour for each hour
worked. Interviewers were never required to work
more than 40 hours a week, but might work less
because of difficulties in scheduling appointments
with respondents.

Each Cincinnati supervisor had supervised only
six or seven interviewers and had only $0 assign-
ment addresses. However, it was evident that they
could manage more interviewers.!! Balanced against
the supervisors’ capacity was the knowledge that
there are measurable limits to the number of Inter-
views that a field agent can handle successfally. '*

For 1960-61, supervisors in most metropolitan
areas (Stratum A, B, or C) had between 80 and
125 assignments and were permitted to hire as
many as 16 interviewers. Hirings depended some-
what on the supply of qualified applicants, and most
supervisors started training classes with approxi-
mately 12 interviewers. In “D” cities, having 65
assignments, 5 to 7 interviewers were adequate.
Where there were twa supervisors or more in a
city, interviewers in the first office to complete

its assignment might be reassigned to another super-
visor so that more efficient use of interviewer time
resulted. On the average, supervisors gave 10.5 as-
sSignments to each “daily rate” interviewer in 1960-61.

The Bureau’s long experience has indicated that
women usually are better qual(f{ied than men for
collecting family purchase data (much of which is
obtained from the housewife). They also are more
Available for short-term employment. In the 1960-61
survey, only about 10 percent of the interviewers
were men.

Training

The two levels of fleld supervisors met in Wash-
ington for training at intervals throughout the CES.
Their training was planned around the following series
of manuals and other materiale developed for the
CES by the Section of Technica! Training:

Film Suip “Some Melpful
Guides t0 Interviewing”
Flannel Graph Board and
Characters (for use in
leaching famly composition)
Field Supervisors’ Manual

Training Guide

Interviewers’ Collection Manual

Interviewers’ Work Book

Interviewers’ Work Book (Answer
Book) and Sample Schedules

Field Ediung Manual

Senior Survey Supervisors. The regional super-

visors attended a briefing conference in September
1960 to discuss changes in survey procedures and
materials on the basis of the Cincinnati experience,
and to determine and coordinate timetables for su-
pervision of the upcoming surveys. Following com-
pletion of field operations in the 39 survey areas in
the first year’s program, senior supervisors returned
to Washington for a critique to evaluate the work of
the field supervisors assigned in their respective
regions and to appraise the management of the sur~
veys in terms of production rates and the similarity
and dissimilarily of problems encountered by in-
dividua! supervisors. Finally, they reevaluated the
supervisors’ assignments or workload from the stand-
point of improving supervision of interviewers.

10 Fora duscripuiou of the experimental results, sve Beatrive J.
Dvorak, Frances C. Fox, and Charles Meigh, "Tests for Field Sur-
vey Interviewers,” he Joumal of Marketing, pt, 1, January 1952,
Pp. 301-306.

4} On the basis of earlier experience, 4950 staffing plans
took into consideration: “The training and review of the inter~
viewers! work Is such that one supervisor and one editor cannot
operate efficiently with more than about 1S to 20 interviewers,"
See Lamale, op, cit.,(monograph), p 61.

12 See Lamale, op. cit. (monograph), p. 61, tm the 1950
CES, it was found that the time and cost of the firm few interviews
by # "daily rate” were high but decreased very rapidly as the Inter-
viewer gained experience. Mimmum cost was achieved by the
fife interview and was maintained through about the twelfth or
fifteenth interview, Thereafter costs rose, and the interviewer's
efficiency and enthusiasm seem to reflect the strain of the Job,

2


seuowzinger paystiqndun pue :zpr cue ‘eg ‘Ar “dd "Igag1 aenynoSy yo yeurnaeded “sp pae seqeT
jo wacnsedag “s+) ayy 4q patonpucs Aeains & uo paseq preog eaverqsuoy [epssnpuT TeuoreN aul Aq pezedard) Ruey uerirouy oq jo sussneg srmipdsdea pue 177 -d
“(5961) ch-uc? 140day STA ‘19-0961 TeAMY pUE Legs “EsIeIg para pric, Sulosg) pue searipuedxs aWMsUOD %1g-0961 SoAnipUsdXy ToLwUNAVSD 10 KBAINE tFDYNOS

*syeio renbs jou Avur eurezr yenpraypur jo suns ‘Surpunoa jo asnz29g “LON

sarge amin wy Ajoieredes daisy tou ae yorm ‘peruss to perdnore you ‘spousng AEE roy psn roU sieIse Jeet UO Sesuedxe saDnpoUT |

T
er or 92 cz | 2-2 ot ot 27 Soyo saraiipuadya 29410
a ad or RT Pas fal zt ot snr wonerzodsues1 pur 124821 19119
ont 2 pal Soh fal phat oh cal ortgowomny
cH ochre BST Lot tor a°St Deo z°51 eterna: uonnersedsaes st,
Bz 92 pa peal on 6 ‘ge ot er Mone upg o
s 5 oT le & é: & 6” cettcrenemnnsacronnacmenemnseseesems: BUTDEDY Oo
we faa os Se 4 Cs oF ft OF muon ieet20% =
19 im 29 23 bere 69 39 a8 sesresenseee= 9489 TEDIPOTL
ee | ee Lez ace 6% 67 62 62 worm ages yeuos43ag
aa zz en stl 9-0 Tot 66 7-01 or reemreateenressossenssons 9914495 PUT
qerrereu: Bury “BuN1075
ee FS ss 5s 56 6 s*6 <s oe or iF a5 + qwourdyaba pue FSucysternyasnoy
ee cos 19 875 7s es 5°6 $°s os e's a5 a's coor swonerede proyssnont
we Ss" or oF vr oe ar ép 75 cL oh be anromnresneemans 3942 PUL
H tuctiesaiyayax ‘infty ‘yang
oe er a 6 L cf oe s a z e a a se" 2an} aus 43th
88 re ze 18 18 2°8 ob 6°9 o's ay a s ion — Buramp pau
ut 12 F2 Bz sc ae 0's es Fe “8 2 2° rs soon Suteamp pause
s:21 e721 en eu era get 2-01 eer Let ort t 1 zen sms An 94S
ara 1G? fue €rL2 Ler BiB? 0762 162 £762 4752 a y zee COUUUITT ee even ursnon
el el er ero} at Ly on ov st et ot 0 a7 STITT pS erenag orromos1y
or ur cl sr al at a az 22 2-2 2 1 BT ~
2°9 279 Le 95 ze 6b +b Cr uy Ly sh ¥ oe “crosses gurey wosy deme poos
ect cet veer Veu1 9°81 | 0°61 1102 $02 Vite 912 5702 oO yor mary aaoy We peredsad p20a
06t 102 Vee Lee ies 2 S62 2 8°57 €:92 162 sve ~ Svs ype) ‘Pood
0001 0-001 0-Got 97001 | 9°00 0-001 2001 o-oo! | ornat 0*OOT 0°001 on 0"00T Yoréwnsmo> jualin ios & puadeg
iz fuornquistp 1waszed
iow | svorea | sauy | ssa | souy | overea | reuv | oso | sou | oseea | amr | ose j
apse puR GOO'SIS [466 ‘DIF 92 200 ‘01 $] 6 ‘5 A 406'LS | HEE'ZS 00'S | 686'FS or 000'CS | 000°C 3 zAPUD Tere, wary
sucosuy AoUoyy
Panujwoy—T9-0961 ‘sarz2g pau)
‘stawnsuod 28u1s pue sarjurey waryuou je ‘Saxe) sae pue 2059q awoovs Aq paysssep> saipiusey gy Jo saimpuadxa so uosuedwoy “L1-g
*a14e: Jo pus 1e aionr0e) aeg
T
euiosur yo lwaszad se ssamnipusdyg
$05 19t Sst ser our £6 2 69 op uv eu occa soampuadya 33:19
ost ust 901 68 69 59 19 bs se fc 18 “wonescodsuesy pue [2482 23410
Tes‘ o2z"2 : tat't | sooty | 9ce fae | age 10s fst fer oot 7 a1FQoo:Ny
168't oce't | azz't | eeot | 506 B66 629 095 get out ta |
ser set 78 % 9s F £2 2 8 8 re
su 8 94 09 te % | se et 6 at oF |
165 6b Wee 16z ez loz FI cer ts & $0z
Tee 665 ouF Se cle ost BLz 692 sul bat Ure
zc itr viz wT Lo 951 2h sit £9 uv cal
0551 tool | eee ozt 98s 82s sig abe 0st set 26
‘spermrecs BaryreT> 'Zunpotd
064 rad oLb oe ste Sz 207 5er re ee 29% j WTrluawssinbs pue sSurysyusnyoeno3
656 95 205 cr BIE 067 e227 az 221 ert 262 sorority suorresade proyssnolt
Ea zac BFE ore #27 £97 v7 02 261 st 9g? waa 37m pus
suoneaaitjaa ‘audit ‘Tons 3%
987 $77 ior 1B zs « 22 | 9 a L L ST aes 12010, a
S7'U ZL0°C 06L Z0L 909 bss seh | 69¢ £07 D6t Sit zt messmsemnatessess BOTTI AP DOU ARO
bbz 292 uz faz 097 192 gaz bor coe ust bez 227 Surjesp petuoy
ogs't | ecs't | gzi'r | azo'1 | ete 68 28h So 295 ons aS¢ aE
gee'> | zoa'e | oraz | age‘z | eso'z | ez6'r | e99'r | avstt | sozts | esi'r | ste Foe
1z a ut 251 v2 Lu 26 18 19 ss 1z iz
aH ver cal art 221 e2t ur $01 82 +8 +E 7 srr aeneermnmerenm 922840.)
108 BL zs 98h 088 ree se oz eat oat ¥S 68 + aexoy 10s) Seme pos
zae‘r | zactt | east | partt | g6e'r | osztr | sstt1 | aaocr | so see 20s ts soy Te paxedaad pood
oe’? | oes'2 | set'z | ore‘ { gec't | szo'r | eowt | grett | acotr | sto't | 309 008 covrmenmmee—om pene PODS
gpo'st | zaa‘zt | 2296 | 6z9'a | cbr gae’o | zei's | sir’s | 960’ | 6sa'¢ | sao'z | sbo'z ~~ wonduinsuos yuerzns ro; soznnpusdxg
so0'9 | blote | zoey | cust | parte | 26 $69 sas eee abe | 19 ue Bue ow" sxe) (EUOSZ9g
fee'tz | ogo‘ar | gte‘tt | cortor | ssc’e | o6cte | corto | ebs‘s | sho’e | tects | oce't | coer | veo's saxv1 rorye ottoout Asuopy
s6oczes) wee'zes| sta‘ers] ore THB] Gee 68 | bo598 ) ose'¥s | ait ‘ss | ise "bs | s1c’%s | 006'IS | HOB'IS | BFE 9s | “~~ Saxe) azoJ0q ausosuT KouoKy
e1oAy
RE er oF ae ee Le oe se ore oe | iad ae mores ante ktrusey otter aay
Ot : ee - get - ce? : avez | Ove? - o-oor | ores saker 190
- we . Lor : vot : 2°92 - Broz - B22 C0 i aa "sxe as0j9q
| ieenurey ye w9349g
a EST | warey | soxey | asrey —]Saxer | Sawer SaxeT | —Soxe Famer | _s9xei
iyy_|ssomn | suv [stony | sey | sso | sony [esoeg | soy | siosy | seuy | oroeg
2340 uF 000'S1$ [666 'FIS 29 090'O1 $] GE “GS 01 O06 LS , GOF'LE ©1.000°GE | 465‘FE OV O00'TS | 900'T$ F9PUA qei0. may
autoout kouoyy |

W-096I ‘S278Ig partUA,
‘srawasuor 218us pur sorpurey usszyuou jye ‘saxey Jaye pur asojaq susoour dq payrssefo sayrury ay Jo samupuadxa jo uosiedwoy “Lg



Scugpuue No. .....

i 7
g ¢
i 8 3
Ba 2 a a
5 < aS = Zz
Om
Z S <
Re al a
Pa R woe
Z< o
53 = So
3 O38 B Zo
= ze 2 c
« 3 Za = [es]
88 5 an : >
5 c 2 Sx & <
pg & BO ©
rs) 85 4 Ry a Mm
bes | BS be ~ = Db
3 gz i SE a] ie = 5
al gee v as
F £35 oe ra =)
4 £32 24 EE 2 Or
Leal B22 ale] ze = OR
Bgs £22] 4 |s gs 3 a
af <ala| 0 [= £ fa v4 z
50 8 lé{ - <a =) —_
3? =e S 48
|. aes oO i:
Za e <i od
dl ze SCO
5) 6 | 29 > Zz
i . maa eo
a oO eo gz 4
a
! 3 <
Bt FS Z
Zc 6
2 i+
al}
ER
i al é
|b \a
3 a] -
7 PA as
e
ii ala] 2 |
Fy 3 aia
Hard EPS
a
vtero-imr Cumommamnaneren
— Piped) =ES
apenas
T—SIMTA “‘Peay ATG) Jo omy (YONALONQO kg) ‘RT
a “T3840 POW 000'STS
**°608"F1S-090'0I¢
aon '866'68-009'LS
* 6B L8-000'98|
"866'99-000'S|
AB ¥} ee amv0N) <Ipay) parouRES,
*660"F8-000'h$
:{Aywo Jun Jo BOquIAD Jo ¥8v) “EL
sross ++ SUpIOMp JO ON|sA Joy Jo JOeY “TT
+ ---aymugy 9 (82) perma 40 (0) paaao omog “OT
peag Aprursy Jo aoprednsag “8
WN) Prey Sturdy Jo xog “g
sosetes espana AIiwu) jo a8e onwaneosddy “1 ©
©
++ Ag U] eyoOm ge OF EL pacojduie BLaquiom <yurwy jo oquNN “9 c
*

“Ag 0 s10W 20 vxReM gy PoLofdare woquIeW APNE; Jo ZoqUIMN

cr ne veeeeeessesees fyyuney ano up sxequiou! yo zquinN “%

ON AD oN ND

:uorwy Lav —rwsujoy “e
_ Josiatadas 07 Wodayt Nola 1 1-F _ siuwuuojuy | Je - ++ -eyeta ot uy 22enup ox,
oruL 98a —Is1A [nyssadINGUN puOD9g “%
Pt statads on Hrodorg __ wuganzoyuy | > ves puny @)
doosaedus or uodoy | _stveuuopy | stuasard ag 01 porsedxs siuedioag | C]+ --syavm stow 10 z 40) p9eOIg (9)
HA puoass 21!/p24>8 suvarsoyuy | :yuowaud 9q 0 pmoadxs urdna0g | [J-- secccses pondnaag (2)
SALON aU, YssvooMSUM ISAId L

ASNOJSAUNON YAHLO ONY SLINA ITIONUANT



of metropolitan areus. It {s estimated that field opera-
tions (salaries of supervisors and interviewers and
travel costs) covered almost one-third of the total
$2.8 million '* spent by the Bureauof Labor Statistics
on the Survey of Consumer Expenditures in the fiscal
years July 1959 through June 1964. Prorating the $2.8
million over the sample of urban and rura? noofarm
assignments for which the BLS was responsible gives
an average cost of approximately $225 for each assign-

ment and $275 for each usable schedule.
Daily-rate interviewer time on all phases of BLS

field operations averaged Just under 20 hours for each
assignment. The “daily-rate” hours for each assign-
ment averaged about the same as in the 1950 urban
survey, but the distribution among activities differed
as shown below:

Average hours

1960-61) 19502

Total, 19,9 20.0
Training 52 3.8
: 80

32 25

22 {6.0

1 The number of hotrs spent for training was taken from sup-
ervisors’ progress reports, and the diribution among other uctivirles
frora the form PB 71S's(p. 197), adjusted upward to equal cost ac-
counting records of total daily-rares' hours paid for, us shown in
appendix table B-3.

2 Lamale, op. eit. (monograph), p. 61.

The “daily rates” spent less time in interviewing
the familles and in travel during 1960-61 thanin 1950,
but more in training and {n office consultation, editing,
and other work in preparing the schedules for trans-
mittal to Washington. Average tnterview time for each
assignment was reduced from ubout 8"/, hours in the
1959 “lead city" survey {n Cincinnati and 8 hours in
1950 to less than 7 hours in 1960-61,

Average hours for each assignment is a convenient
and useful unit of measurement, particularly for ad~
ministrative and budgelary purposes. However, this
average length of interview covers time spent with all
families contacted, including those ineligible or not
willing or able to complete the schedules. Special
tabulations of families who completed echedules have
been made for three citles and are summarized in
table 3 to indicate the interview pattern and time
contributed to the survey by participating families.
The selection of the cities has no special significance
The tabulations were readily available '° for only a
few cities, and these three cover the range of smal)
and large places in different parts of the country. Ex-
cept in Boston, the great majority of families spent
from 3 to 7 hours with the interviewer who may have
called on the family as many as five times. A few
schedules were completed in a single visit lasting
less than 3 hours. In addition to the interviewer’s
skill, many factors affected the time required to obtain
a year’s recall of family accounts. A salaried worker

24

living by himself in a furnished room, without a car,’

could give a complete annual account quickly, and he
probably would not be eligible for the weakly food
schedule. In contrast, respondents for a large bome-
owning family having substantial income from various
Sources would spend more time, spread over several
visits, to complete the annual and weckly schedules.
The interviewer probably would talk with the family
head, his wife, and others to obtain information from
the best informed member.

Some information on the relationship of length of
interview and response rate was obtained from un
experiment In data collection methods conducted in
Cincinnati in July 1960, just after completion of the
“lead city” survey. An abbreviated schedule, composed
of selected sections and items in schedule 2648-B‘*
was used to interview a subsample of families at ad-
dresses selected from the same sampling frame and
by the same methods as theleadcity sample. The con-
densed schedule required about 4hours tocomplete, on
the average, or roughly half as long as the full sched-
ule B and schedule C used in the lead city survey. The
proportion of usable schedules was about the same for
both surveys—75.6 percent for the lead cily survey
and 76.5 percent for the experimental abbreviated
schedule.

Table 3. Length of interview and number of visits with urban fumilies

completing CES schedules, 3 cities, 1960 and 1961
Boston, | Florenes, | Wichita,
hem Mass. Ala, | Kans,
1960! | 196 1961
Average daily-rate hours per
assigament ~ — 17.6 ATs 13.9
Number of assignment addresses 187 65 250
Completed schedules: |
Number as reported by field
supervisors 132 56 196
Percent distribution according
to length of interview and
number of visits’: 100 100 100
Less thau 3 hours, Lor
2 visits ---~ f7 214 25
From 3 to? hours, 1 throngh
S visits ---- — 43 70 366
From 7 to 10 hours, 2through
7 visits 2s ‘9 22
10 hours or more, 3 through
7 wistes ~~ =~ t 20 7} 7

' Covers omly that hull of sample surveyed for 1960,
2 Includes 1 family visited 3 times.

Includes 1 family visited 6 tmes,

Juctudes 1 family visited 1 ime.

14 This covers coms in the ficld and tm Washington for salaries,
travel, automatte datz processing, and nonluhor and administrative
costs, It cludes prepuring the raw schedule data ready to be wed
in the CPI revision, but does pot include other cost specifically
assignable to the CPi revision, It does not cover salaries aud
other costs in preparing CES tabulations and publicetions after
June 30, 1964,

AS’ The information was compiled from field supervisors! sum-
imaries of dats on PB 715's, The number of completed schedules
was as reported by the field supervison, prior to final review in
Warkangion, and may differ from the number shown ta other cables.

18 See Proyect t, p. 5.

Chapter 5. Analysis

Samples Assigned for Interviews

All consumer units residing at the assignment ad-
dress were included in the survey. Schedules giving
detatled expenditures, {ncome, and changes in assets
and Liabilities were taken for all eligible CU's, deter-
mived on the basis of criteria outlined in chapter 3.

A total sample of 17,283 living quarter addresses,
with an alternate for each, was selected asthe sample
of assignments in urban and rural places. These ad-
dreSses produced an effective sample of 16,987 full-
year consumer units oligible for scheduling. Usable
schedule B’s were obtained from 13,728 ClU’s, or
about 80 percent of the eligible units. The total usable
schedules included 1,956 schedules for one-person
families and 11,772 for families of two persons or
more. Comparable summary information for the urban,
rural nonfarm, and rural farm segments of the 1960-
61 sample is shown in table 4.

A more detailed analysis of the returns for the
urban sample' is presented in appendix table B-4,
In the urban segment, 2,772 alternates were substituted,
or 23 percent of the 12,205 master addresses. Among.
tbe SMSA’s having populations of 250,000 or more,
this proportion varied from a tenth in Atlanta, Ga.,
to approximately 4 third in New York, N.Y., and
Hartford, Conn., (appendix table B-2), In a survey
aimed at obtaining data for individual cities, the
matched alternate procedure is a more economical

of Sample Returns

method of achieving a reasonably balanced intercity
distribution than use of a larger sample for each city.

More than three-fifths of the 2,772 alternate ad-
dresses in the nationwide urban sample were substi-
tuted, because (a) the Interviewer could not contact
a respondent at the master address (38 percent), or
(b) the unit was vacant (23 percent). The remaining
39 percent were substituted for families who refused
to give the minimum required to complete the House-
hold Reoord (2648A). Of the 13,661 urban CU’s
actually contacted in both the master and alternate
samples, 2,306 refused to report their family accounts,
but 707 of these in the master sample cooperated
to the extent of completing the Household Record.
An additional 1,031 CU’s who started to give information
for the family accounts schedule (2648B) were either
unwilling or unable to complete {t. No alternates were
substituted for these 1,738 CU’s.

The net effective urban sample of eligible full-year
Cu’s, after substitution of alternates, totaled 11,970
units. About 79 percent of these furnished usable
schedules. The response rate was about the same
among families in small cities as in the largest
metropolitan areas, as the following olaesification
by population stratum shows:

3 Semmlar detail is available for uke rural nonfarm sample
inside SMSA's, but the USDA analysis of the rural nonfarm sample
outside SMSA's was on 4 somewhat diflerent basis. (See appendix
rable B-S.}

Table 4. Summary of returns for the Consumer Expenditure Survey, 1960-61

‘ T Unable R ve
Effective sample sehetulee— espouse ra
ati Assignment fulleyene
Urbanization ‘Idvewee | 1950 | 1960-61, | consumer | Cole d+ | Coh d=
and year “ definition | definition? | nies col. b col.
4) (b) fc) (a) fe) 4S)
Urben, 1960-613 - 12, 205 12,524 12,970 9,476 75.7 79.2
Rural noufarm, 1961 2,497 2,679 2, 636 2,285 85.3 86.7
Rural farm, 196. ~- 2,581 $2, 3K1 42) 381 1,967 82.6 82.6
Total, urban and
tural -=--~-----=-—-— 17,283 | 17,584 | 16, 987 13,728 78.1 80.8
Urban, 19509 15, 180 15, 676 - 12,489 79.7 -

1 The potential number of full-year consumer

units from whom a schedule could be expected after

alternate assignment addresses were substituted, It includes additional consumer units found at assigament
addresses, but excludes ineligible aud part~year consumer uuts, It does cot include the original sasignment

address where ® mubsultute address was used.
2 Colume [c) differs from (bj, because (¢) ex
sample for which no further substitutton was possible

cludes vacant units and "no contacts" in the alternate
‘and @ small number of vacant units acd "bo contacts"

am the master sample for which it was mot appropriate to substitute alternates. (For detail, see appendix

table B-4.)

3° Includes Anchorage, Alaska, which was surveyed for 1959,
4 Estimaced by BLS on basis of response rate (82,6 percent} computed by USDA,
5 Helea H. Lamale, Study of Consumer Expenditures, Income and Savings—Methodology of the Survey

of Consumer Expenditures in 1950, p. 41-

25


Preface

This bulletin documents the planning, operation, and evaluation of the Survey of
Consumer Expenditures, 1960-61, and lays the foundation for planning surveys in
the 1970's. It draws on experience gained over more than 8 decades by the Bureau
of Labor Statistics in interviewing American families about their earnings and
spending.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics andthe U.S. Department of Agriculture published
about 200 statistical reports and supplements and numerous analytical reports based
on the 1960-61 nationwide survey of urban andrural families. In addition, the Bureau
entered a new phase of data dissemination by duplicating and selling magnetic tapes
of disaggregated data to universities and others having access to electronic data-
processing equipment. This greatly expanded the survey’s usefulness for micro-
economic research. Some description of concepts and methods accompanied each
publication. Fees for magnetic tapes included a handbook describing tape content
and format, as well as consultation with Bureau staff.

This bulletin repeats some of those statements on methods, but includes addi-
tional descriptive and tabular materials. More significantly, it contains information
on sampling and other errors, and presents extensive comparisons of the survey
findings with data from other sources, principally the Bureau of the Census and Office
of Business Economics of the Department of Commerce. Also, it includes facsimiles
of all questionnaires and forms used in interviewing families. The principal purpose
of this bulletin is to provide a handbook that will stimulate ideas and programs for
continuing improvement of expenditure surveys.

Many people in the Office of Prices and Living Conditions have contributed to
this report, both in its broad outline and in its detail. Kathryn R. Murphy is the
principal author. Helen H. Lamale and Joseph A. Clorety, Jr., advised and counseled
Mrs. Murphy throughout its preparation and wrote the sections on family income dis-
tributions and on aggregate income and expenditures in chapters 9 and 10. Marvin
Wilkerson and Elizabeth Ruiz developed the sections on sampling, sampling errors,
and the weighting system. Alice Bigelow Curry and Nellie M. Covington prepared the
tables in the text and appendlx B.

This bulletin is a testimonial to the generosity and interest of thousands of
American families who cooperated in supplying information requested in the Survey
of Consumer Expenditures, 1960-61. Their names appear nowhere on the survey
records. They spent hours helping interviewers construct a detailed account of a
year’s income and how they usedit. Neither the Bureau nor the Department of Agri-
cullure will use or release data in a way that would permit identification of an
individual family.


deposits and currenoy and savings accounts in-
creased by about $27 billion compared to the Sur-
vey of Changes in Family Finances estimate of
$13 billion. In buth cases the absolute discrepancy
is of the order of $14 to $15 billion, but the rela-
tive discrepancy is much greater for the Survey
of Consumer Expenditures.

On the debt side the increase of $17 billion shown
by the Survey of Consumer Expenditures {s in
close agreement with the increase shown by flow
of funds data. The debt increase of $14 billion
shown by the Survey of Changes in Family Fi-
nanees 1s $11 billion less than the flow of funds
figure. In particular the Survey of Changes in
Family Finance data for debt on automobiles and
olher consumer durable goods are {n substantial
disagreement with flow of funds figures.

On the basis of this comparison it is difficult
to argue that the data on asset changes from one
survey are preferable to those from the other.
On the other hand, the comparison {ndicates that
debt on consumer durable goods was underreported
in the Survey of Changes {n Family Finances.”

Projector’s finding that the most substantial dif-
ference between the BLS survey aggregates and flow
of funds estimates {s tn the demand deposits and cur-
rency and savings accounts is consistent with all pre-
vious appraisals of the Bureau’s CES change {n saving
data. In view of the vast differences in the concepts,
coverage, and methods underlying the two sets of
estimates, there {s {question as to the meaning

and relevance of such comparisons with respect to
the design and methods of future household surveys.

Other Comparisons

In addition to the comprehensive comparisuns of
CES and widely used statistical compilations of the
Department of Commerce, a few comparisons for
selected categories are presented.

Annual and weekly food expenditures

As noted in chapter 4, detail.of weekly expendi-
tures for food prepared at home was collected pri-
marily for derivation of CPI food weights. However,
limited comparisons of the average weekly totals
and the published annual average food expenditures
can be made.

The annual estimate developed from the weekly
expenditures was about 9 percent higher than the
reported annual expenditures for food prepared at
home. (See table 18.) Some of this difference is
inberent in the derivation of the two sets of data.

20 Dorothy S. Projector, Survey of Changes in Family Fi-
wapces, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Systems, Wath-

ington, D, C., November 1968, pp. 6-13, The author points out
that some of the discrepancies between survey estimates and the
flow of funds aggregates used for comparisoa result from differences
ip concepts nnd coverage. In mast of the flow of funds statistics,
estimutes for the household sector are derived as residuals rather
than made directly; that is, the amounts attributed to houscholds
are what is left after subtracting estimates for all other sectars from
totals for the entire cconomy. Moreover, iu the flow of funds ac-
coumts, the household sector ‘covers the activities of personel trusts
and of nonprofit orgsnizations, which are excluded from the murvey
agercgates shown in table 12,

‘Table 18. Comparison of anneal expenditures for food prepared at home, as reported and as estimated from
weekly expenditures by families in the 1960-461 CES nonfarm sample

bus, ‘Average expeaditures for food | Ratio, anpuat
Percent distribution pared at home estimate for
. housekeeping
Housekeeping familles familles to
Howse- All annual expendi-
Family size All keeping | families tures of ail
families | families | (annual) | (Weekly) [Col. (4) x 52
@ ®) io) iO) (Oy 0
100.0 100.0 $1, 006 $21.17 $i, 101 1.09
17.4 14.3 378 9,00 468 4.24
28.6 28.9 835 16,47 856 1,03
17.9 18.7 1, 887 22,82 1,171 4,08
16,2 16.9 1, 290 26.46 1,376 1,07
5 persons of more 20.0 21.2 4,495 30. 49 1581 1.08

1 Inchudes families of 1.0 to 1,9 full-year equivaieat persons, but 91 percent had only 1.0 pessouthrough=

out the survey year,

SOURCE: Expenditures Patterns of the.American Family, prepared by the National Indurtrial Conference

Board, based on a survey conducted by the U.S. Deparment of Labor, New York (1965), pp. {7 and 25.

66

¥

——

The annual data are averages based on all families
and single consumers in the nonfarm sample. The
schedule of weekly expenditures for food prepared
at home were collected only for housekeeping fami-
lies, that 1s, consumer units having at least one
member eating 10 meals at home during the week.

About 96 percent of the nonfarm CU's in the CES
sample were housekeeping families. (See appendix
table B-13.) Adjusting the annual average for all
families to represent expenditures for housekeeping
families ($1,006 = 96.3) raises it to $1,045, or with-
in 5 percent of the $1,101 estimated from the weekly
reported from housekeeping families. Table 18 shows
that “all familles” (column a) include a larger per-
centage of one-person families than housekeeping
families (column b), and the disparity between the
two averages is greatest (24 percent) for these small
families, many of whom eat most of their meals in
restaurants, eto.

Another consideration {s the time lag of the weekly
data and the generally rising food prices during the
CES. The weekly reports covered food purchases in
the week preceding the interviews which took place
several months after the end of the calendar year
covered by the annual data. (See appendix table B-2.)

Housing and household durables

In addition to the homeownership comparisons in
appendix table B-9, a further comparison of the pro-
portions of family with home mortgages {s possible.

In its survey of consumer wealth and saving as of
the end of 1962, the Federal Reserve Board found
that 57 percent of all consumer units reported equity
in owned homes and 33 percent of the total reported
mortgage debt.*! In the 1960-61 CES sample, 57 per~
cent of all CU’s were homeowners and 34 percent
reported paying interest on home mortgages.

In the same report, the Federal Keserve Board
reported that 73 percent of all consumer units owned
at least one automobile and 27 percent reported
automobile debt.** Seventy-six percent of the CES
families reported that thay owned cars and 24 per-
cent that they had purchased or were making pay-
ments on cars during the survey year.

Ownership of television sets, radios, and a limited
number of household appliances reported in the CES
sample compared very favorably with data obtained
by the Bureau of the Census from larger samples
of households. (See appendix table B-20.) The cor-
relation between the two sets of data was especially
close for food freezers, clothes dryers, air condi-
tioners, and television sets. **

21 Dorothy S, Projector and Gertrude S, Weiss, Survey of Fi-
nancial Characteristics of Consumers, Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, Washington, D.C., 1966, p. 10.

22 Teid., p. {1

23 Thomas R. Tibbetts, "Expanding Ownership of Howehold
Equipment, " Monthly Labor Ro , October 1964, pp. 1131-1132,
Also published as BLS Report 238-7 (1964).



This was also true of clothing for boys and girls in the
16- and 17-year age group and for children under
2 years, in which the samples of family members were
small compared with those in other age categories. The
jargest relative error, 16.8 percent, was for net
changes In assets and Mabilities. This value can be ex-
pected to vary widely in both plus and minus directions.

In spite of the rough method of estimating error,
the results appear to be reasonable. The total na-
tional sample for the urban CES was 9,476 schedules.
Stratification by region, and particularly by city size,
has improved considerably the efficiency of the CES
sample. This factor would partially offset the losses
due to cluster sampling elsewherc In the design.

Regional error estimates are less re iable than those
for the United States and should be us.:d with caution.
They tend to be considerably higher in both absolute and
relative terms, with the Southern and western regions
above the Northeast and North Central in almost all
categories of current expenditures. Sampling variabil-
ily in money income after taxes was similar to that of
total expenditures for all regions except the Northeast,
where between-cily income differences were pro-
nounced in spite of groupings by cily-size and geo-
graphic proximity. These groupings, however, pro-
duced less variability in total expenditures for current
consumption—$81 compared with $150 for income—
since higher income families saved more, and lower in-
come families often used past savings or increased
their liabilities to meet living expenses.

Plus and minus values inthecily averages influences
the standard error for netchanges in assets and liabil-
ities. In regions where the between-city differcnces
spread across plus and minus values, the lowest nu-
merical average will produce the highest variability.
This is shown by the sampling error of $67 in the
Northeast, where the average net ohange was $89. In
the North Central region, the sampling error was $48,
and the average net change $326.

Characteristics of Nonrespondents

Nonresponse is an unavoidable feature of any sample
survey relying on voluntary cooperation. After various
tests to determine whether any significant bias resulted
from nonresponse in the 1950 expenditure survey, it was
decided not to attempt to introduce adjustments for non-
response in the basic 1950 tabulations.’ At the first
meeting of the advisory committee on the 1960-61 ex-
penditure survey, the treatment of nonrespondents was
discussed. Among other considerations, it was pointed
out that any adjustments for nonresponse introduced tn
the basic distributions would affect the comparability of
the extensive cross-tabulations planned for the 1960-61

42

T

expenditure survey. Although adjustments were ruled
out as impractical,‘ plans were made to nse a House-
hold Record (exhibit D) to obtain limited informationon
the family characteristics of nonrespondents for com-
parison with families furnishing usable schedules.

Earlier, it was noted that 79 percent of the urban
consumer units eligible for the CES in 1960-62 fur-
nished usuble reporls. (See page 25.) The remaining
21 percent was composed primarily of consumer units
who refused to supply any information for the detailed:
schedule 2648B, and those who started but did not
complete schedwe B. The net nonresponse, after sub-
stitution of alternates described on page 16, is sum-
marized below:

Some informa-
tien obtained

Master Atrernate on family
sample sample Total chavacterustict

Refusals -- 707 $221,229 1, 105
Tucomplete schedules 833, Wk 1,031 1,031
Rejected schedules 187 47 234 z34
No contact! =~ 80 248 328 184

Tol ---a----- 1,807 1,018 2, 822 2,824
Vacant umity-s------- 225 22K - i
Net total = 1,812 1,238 4,050 -

1 See footnote S, appendix table B-4. If the family at an
alternute address could not be reached, the woterviewer attempted
to complete the nonrespoose section of the Household Record (except
for questions on race and Income) by talking with a neighbor, laod-
lord, of apartment manager.

Characteristics of the nonrespondents and the fam-
ilies who gave usable schedules are compared in ap-
pendix table B-12. Entries on the Household Record,
2648A, were not uniformly complete, accounting for
the variation in the number of nonrespoadents on which
the distributions by characteristics are hased. Infor-
mation on family income was obtained least frequently,
both because of the family’s reluctance to discuss in-
come and because interviewers were instructed never
to ask olhers about the family’s income. The partial
income information (from slightly more than balf the
nonrespondents) suggests that nonresponse was great-
est among families having the lowest and the highest

Kalin arti

3 See Lamale, op. cite (monograph), pp. 94-95.
4 [a surveys of family expenditures in the United Kingdom
and Canada, no anempt hat been made to adjust for differeaces ~TM]
an the family characterises of nonrespondents, partly because ther |
abaracteristics cannot be ascertsined fully. See Famfly Expendi-
ture Survey Report for 1964, Mininry of Labow, London (1955),
p. 31; and Urban, Family Expedite 1959, Dominion Bureau of
Staustics, Ottawa (1963), p. 8
The section describusy adjustments for nonresponse in the Cur
rent Population Survey, states: "We do not kaow of aay unbiased
of even consistent urethod of making adjustments for nonresponse,
The magnitude of the biases resulting from the adjustment proce-
dures used im CPS are out known. . .," The Current Population
Sprve Report on Methodology, Techuical Paper No. 7, U.S
Department of Commorcey Bureawel the Census, Washington, D.C.,

(1963) p. 53.

{ncomes. Such differences would be offsetting, had the
combined usable and nonresponse income distribution
peen used to adjust average fumily expenditures. How-
ever, schedule A contained only a global question on
family income. The generally lower amounts reported
on global income questions, compared with the itemized
income questions in schedule b, are discussed in
chapter 9.

Response Errors

Among fariltes participating fully and givingusable
schedules, inaccurate reporting is a source of error
despite continued research in schedule design and in-
tensive training of interviewers. Such inaccuracies re-
sult from memory errors, misunderstanding of a ques
tion or reluctance to answer it, and incorrect entries
by the interviewer. Study of various aspects of response
error has alonghistory.> In recent years, numerous
large-scale validation studies (i.e., checks of survey
data against records of financial institutions, hospitals,
etc.) have been carriedout.® Unlike samplingerror,
however, little theory on which to buse estimates of
response error has been formulated.

Utility record check

Because of the Bureau’s policy of not putting the
family’s name oa any CES records, opportunities for
validating a family’s report have been limited. How-
ever, in connection with research on CPI weights
for fuels, BLS enlisted the cooperation of the Cin-
cinnati Gas and Electric Company to obtain gus and
electric bills for customers identified by address in
the 1959 CES in Cinoinnati. The comparison of CES
entries and utility records was restricted to 133
residential customers paying for gas and/or electric-
ity, who had lived at the same address throughout
1959, and were identifiable in utility records. 7 Only
45 of the 133 reported separate expenditures for gas
and 46 (including 1 using bottled gas) separate ex-
penditures for electricity. The remainder reported
expenses for gas and electricity combined. For the
133 families, expenditures for gas and electricity
reported to the CES averaged 4 percent above the
utility billings, with detail by type of fuel as follows:

Percent of
Average averuze
anual 2mount
expenditure Lilled by
reported utility Coefficient
Unity toCES company of correlation!
Cas only (45 {amilies)------ $iso 98,7 +5030
Electricity only
(46 fomatiesy ~ 84 105.0 7888
Combined ges and
electricity (133 families) -- 206 504.0 4868

{All comelations are significant at the S percent level.

43

This generally favorable comparison of overall sur-
vey averuge expenditures is in line with regults of
similar validation of utility bills for 1947-48." As
would be expected, averages computed from reports
for subgroups of familles (e.g., classified by family
size) differed from the utility records by wider margin
than the averages shown.

Use of records

To reduce memory errors that are inherent in
any survey depending on recall, interviewers were
trained to encourage respondents to consult records
in answering questions on schedule 2648B. Space
was provided in the lower half of form PB 715
(exhibit H) for the interviewer to record after each
visit whether the family referred to records (such
as receipts, canceled checks, income tax returns,
savings passbooks, etc.) for selected categories of
family accounts. ?

The PB 715’s were not edited nor were they pre-
pared for machine tabulation as originally planned,
but records from 18 survey areas throughout the
United States were hand tabulated and summarized
in table 8. Crude and incomplete as these measures
are, they show that the majority of families con-
swted records fur those areas of family accounts
jo which it was customary either to bill the family,
or to require the family to keep records for income
tax or similar purposes.

To {lustrate, table 8 shows that approximately
one-half to two-thirds of the femilies reporting pay-
ments for mortgages, taxes, or insurance referred
to some kind of record, and similar proportions con-
sulted a W~-2 form or other records in reporting
income. On the other hand, fewer than one-fifth of
the families referred to records of expenditures for

5 See Lamale, op cit, (monograph), pp. 95-98, See also
John Noter and Joseph Waksberg, Response Errors im the Collection of
Expenditures Data by Household interviews: An Experimental Study,
eo: partment of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Technical
Paper No. !,, Goverument Punting Office, Washington, 1.C, (1965),

6 See papers and discussion on "Recent Research on Respouse
Errors, " 1965 Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section, American
Statistical Asoctation, Philadelphia, Pa., Sept. 6-11, 1965, Amer-
ieau Statistical Association, Washington, D,C,, pp, 181-197,

Also, Lawrence D, Haber, "Evaluating Respouse Error iu the
Reporting of the Income of the Aged: Benefit Iscome,” 1966 Pro-
ceedings of the Social Statistics Sectiou, American Stausticel_Asso~
ciution, Washington, D.C., pp. 412-419.

A wtal of 23S families and siugle consumers in Cincionati
furnished usuble records of their 1959 expenditures and income.
Lamale, op. Cit. (monograph), pp. 141 ff,

9 The Bureau introduced this type of report in the 1960-61
survey at the suggestion of the CES advisory council, It was mod-
eled on forms used in studies of consumer savings carried out by the
loter-University Cummitee for Research on Consumer Behavior,



CONSUMER
EXPENDITURES
AND INCOME:

Survey
Guidelines
BULLETIN 1684

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
J. D. Hodgson, Secretary

BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
Geoffrey H. Moore, Commissioner

1971

vy
@


ywrod,

oaot

soxnipuadxa 231p6
pue 194es) 29M
sro azQoune ny
<-—uonersodsuvs 1
goneonpy
a-na-a-= Bure ay
aan mepessoa¥
wevenanneomeen, 2283 1eItpoHy
: ~ 3329 [eUostog
meee oaotares ‘srersmets Suryzor> ‘Puryiord,
roiemeemennmn uausdinbs fue sTurgstUsnjaS NOH,
<= guattezado ployasrokt
oixyer -uysey ‘ang
sa" says TOMI
+ Bulty@mp pouma
oo Surtremp pauay

sausacd

ge

“yer ‘Surenoy,
~ safexs00q 2110N021Y
set tmennnencnnes o02eq0L
suioy woxy Kee DOs

“T2101 “p00
suopduunsaos wsa2n> roy caamvedeg
oNINQIZIE 1 20292

DONDE MNO OR OVERTURN RENTS

cot
9 2
te st
aut 61

roses sao
mam re 0yS
Tomes Pood
“s+ asuadXa INou)]M paaresas sud JO ANIA

3300 | 666 FTE
pue a

o90'st$ | 000 "91g

900't$ | ero
xapuyy | TPO soanyipuedxe pue

samoouy ‘sopstrajseseys Ay LET

900‘s$ | 0o'ds
saxe] za1ye aurcoun Kauoyy

PaUNYOD—19-0961 ‘$92BIg Pau; ‘sIzWMSUOI afurs puE
saynwey jem pue ueqan ype ‘sse[2 swoon dq ‘sButaes pur ‘sudsu: ‘ssunnipuadxs Apurey jo Gewuns 6g

T T
tHe 06 61 9 - yuadx> 29q10,
181 8s 29 &s ev [paen 28019
C6 'T $92 499 sor 192 + aTiqowzomny
T5'T eze zt bis bb? aouvizedsues 1
eat é& 92 07 | or
06 | & u 1€ 42
if \ c6r 19t ira tL
Tee £67 197 sz
Sst ocr FI En a 3 a4e> [euosrad
205 ozt 927 22 jersayeur Runpors ‘Suzots
+e? cre BLY ttt 2 pue sSuiyerusnjssnoy
Lz eez soz aeT ~ suoiPaado ployasnoyt
ge ez 10z FLT “eng
Sz at tr a mos Fanjaus aa
£oF bar en zr sea Ta 19M_ DIUKE
te nee cits asz nam ButaMp DaTIEY
: 89 6s 505 boy meneame Sor IS
' ges't | az‘ | batt | Lee oom peion “AurETOH
aL 19 6b 62 mars seBesaAse >~yoOyory
Vidor | 86 61 09 aonsssstamenenermeemne U3 GUE,
bee ere 502 tay sir sarees autoy wos; keme poog
2861 seo'r | ore cae 879 + swoy ie pasedesd poog
yout W67" | ert | BSE est ~ m=" y01 "POOL
oUt zis | aze's | ge9% | oeotz
Tor $32 502 $st Tel
£06 206 17 ber 68
1g0"t | 8zF iy a5C LIC orl
ogre 1147 arttt | 996 She £85
pob'st | 627° cock | t7'9 7200's | 495‘ siuswassngse> 101
ate sree 6227 bez- éut- cet wos messeeenses gouar0)pip ButsURqeg TMODI¥
guo'e | wor1 | sae‘ 205 “st eon tecen erent sanerqen ur aseaz3uy
zoo's | oe | cer FSL | £09 Toa siesse ur ose9s 29
be tor ca i 26 ite mee gadiggar (a40t8 TOYO
gzo'1z | e2etmt | Fss‘8 | gts | L05'z —ate~ gover agire 91c02ut fagoyy
ber 67s) zz ‘sis Bzo‘TIS €za've | eres aatnnene nee eee sidio9as 1204,
Furaes pue-~‘sarniypuadse ‘sinosut aferaay
ra st a ct zi or 52 ef soa9 pur 939d cg oxoesad YITA
FS 9 29 19 19 <5 sb ia = sxeak gy XapUn S4PTTY> UIEAL
2 1 1 z z £ t Sr Os Sa eee s~ra8ue4? ON
41 of ze 9€ ov tb é oF
et 85 19 29 a6 $s & oF - gseoszut suraes Bunz0day
1 5 + 9 e a 31 at ne mseanennness 9G UON
%6 96 56 2 66 ze u 6s ‘saoumo einy
18 st u 19 a6 Ww > w 'szausoo Worl
Huazsa,
st at ot ay ect o 1 49pun waspTrys jo sequeny,
er a u u or 8 seman = peay jo uoTeanpy
Lb tt fb i¥ & Fs seweoeceonmnom—ne peay JO a8Y
aes aa ur $s 3° e siaures aap-qiny fo Jaquuny,
6601S | F2St | ORE oot re 1gt-$ TQEI[ PUL SVesEe UT aSueYD ION
eas'erg| 91L'6$ | s6b'2$ sko'as | 726 ES B19 "ZS Srerrs
i xa we of 2 a2 Ayewed
| roReiaay
0? a's wer Lu eel actt taal z'01 Le sortie) Jo wesa9q
aint | zat tzh'e ztote | aecte | €zs'9 | zie'9 | cz9’s | zs0*2 | cor *se | ~~ispurenom et es rentun ur sonrarey Jo =equinw parrunsg

sonetraywseys ATER

Foxo TEER HTE | F65 GE | COE LE | EGCSS | GbR HE | SGT [HOE TE | G65 TS
pue 1 o 1 a on on

oO
o2a'sr¢ [occ ort | co5‘28 + 000'98 | const j voo'rs . 00'c# . coo'ze | coors
soxey seize swoovs foxy

00018
xopup, | ToL saanatpuadxa pue
tauieour ‘sopstiaiesey> Amey

19-0961 ‘Sates prtuA ‘srauNsUOD >8uIs pur
souiuey [ans poe vegan jje‘Sse]2 awoous Aq ‘sButaes pue ‘swosu1 ‘saunnpuadxa djwey jo Asewung -6-g



Table 13. CES 1961 estimates of average and aggregate family moncy income before taxes distributed by source of income and compnred
with estimates derived from OBE National Accounts, tolal urban and rural United States

Consumer Expenditures Survey estimaces

Family money income estimates

Unudjusred - 1961 |
Source of income

from Office of Busines

Adjusted ~ 1961 * Economies data - 1961?

Average [Aggregare | Percent | Average [Aggregare | Percent | Average [Aggregate | Percent

ucome | income | of toral | income | icome | of totat | income | income | of total
per famfly)| (millions) { income {per {aently)| (millions) | income (pcr family)| (millions) |_mcome
Monry income before taxes
tural ~ $6,286 |5352,045 100.0 | $7,0a7 | $394,649] 00,0 | 86,697 |s383, 645 100.0
Wage und salury earnings. | 4,743 | 265,633 75.5 5,145 | 2k, 11K 73.0 4,727 | 270,792 70.6
Self-employment and
business income - - 082 | 38, 195 10.8 963 $3,952 13.7 764 | 43,78) Med
Income from rent (in=
cluding roomers end
* boarders) - - 84 4,704 13 95 5,304 1.3 112 6, 408 1.7
Military pay, allotments,
pensions, etc 80 4,470 13 81 4,554 4.2 49 6,792 1.8
Interest ~ XI 4,536 1.3 98 5,470 14 258 | 14,755 3.8
Dividends 98 5, $88 16 149 8,347 Qt 237 | 13,994 35
Income from all other
sources ==, oo ity 29,019 8.2 516 28, 904 73 480 27,523 7.2
Enimated number of fannbes
and single consumers
(thousands) --~ 56,003 - - 56, 003 - - $7,290 - -

1 Ayorages as reported in the survey before deduction of aceupational expense from wage and salary earnings aod excluding gif of
cash from persons outside tne consumer uni. Aggregutes ure reported averages multiplied hy the estimated number of consumer wnics in

the 1961 survey universe,
Sce footnote 1, table 12,

3 Farnily personal income cstimate of the OBF, adjused to the CES family moncy income definition, Derived from unpublished

data furnished by the OBE,

4 CES estimates include food and rent received as pay; OBE Includes farm and nonfarm nonmoney wages.
5 Inchides income from public unemployment und social security benefits and pensions; private pensions and retirement benefits;
private unurauce annumer and trust funds, public social assistance and private relief; coacributium for support from persons outside the

family, including alimony (CES only): and all income not elsewhere

NOTR: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not

The OBE distributi@#itof consumer units by In-
come after Federal tax liability, as shown in table
14, was substituted for the CES distribution. The
OBE distribution is integrated both statistically and
definitionally with the personal income series in
National Accounts, as explained io the footnote to
table 14. Although this total includes imputed in-
come, no substitute for after-tax income was avail-
able. (See pages 53-54.) CES average values for all
families were classified only by income after taxes. 7
The OBE and 1961 CES, and 1960-61 CES percent
distributions of income before taxes are compared
in table 10.

Effect of adjustments to CES

Table 12 summarizes aggregates of the CES data
for major components of family accounts, before

58

classified,

equal total.

and after adjustment. The adjustment of the compon-
ents of expenditures does not alter the percentage
distribution significantly, but the increases in
dollar terms, shown in the last column, are sub-
stantial.

Although conceptually distinct, the three adjust-
ments were performed in a single operation. How-
ever, during consideration of the problem, calcula-
tions were made separately to appraise the effect
of each adjustment. These calculations are shown

in table 15.
Clearly, the substitution of the OBE income dis-

tribution was the dominant factor in the adjustments
shown in table 15. For inoome and expenditures,
taking account of the increase in consumer units
was considerably more important than restricting
the urban data to 1961. The reverse was true for

7 Average expecditures for al! nonfarm families, clastificd
by Income before taxes, hased on the 1960-61 CFS, were published
by the National Industrial Conference Bourd in Expenditure Parrerss
of the American Family, New York. (1965), See also table B-37,

Tr

sith ap

duis oh Ke

Sipe

apinh alae eioss id einidar niacin

Tule 14. Comparison of CES and OBE distributions of families by
income after taxes, 1961

Percent of fainilies and
unattached individuals
Gfiice of | Cousumer Expend-

Income after Loxes

Business iures Survey
Economics
1361! 1961 | 1960-61

100,0 | 100,90 } {0,0

Under $2,000 - 13.7 44.2 13.9
$2, 000-82, 299 10.0 11,0 rere
$3, 000-33, 999 1S 41.5 16
$4, 000-$4, 999 121 12.6 13,3
$5, 000-85, 999 wa? 12.7 12.7
St, 000-87, 499 14.0 15,2 15.1
$7, S00-$9, 999 1s 13.7 13,4
${0, 000-$14, 999 2.6 72 6.8
$15, 000 and over 46 2.0 20

1 Family persoual income ufter Federal indiyidual income tax

liability, OBE derived aggregate family personal income from per~
sonal income by making two sets of subtractions, the first fer the
personal Income of iustitutions and the second for the personal in-
come of the institutional population,

The former consists of property Income of nonprofit istitu-
tuom—religious organizations, nonprofit schools and hospitals, chari-
table and welfare orgamiations, and other nonprofit organizations
serving individusls—of transfer paymeuts (gruot and gilts) te such
institutions fron: government and business (net of transfers by non-
profit mmsitutions to individuals), avd of the undistributed income
of private trust, pension aud welfure funds.

The income of the institutional population consists of the m-
come of military personnel ou post (net of family allowances und
allotments) and of the income of the civilian institutional population,

SOURCE: Income Distnbution in the United States, By Size,
1044-1950 (U.S, Department of Commerce, Office of Busines Eo~
onomics, 1953), pp. 17-18, Distmbutrom for 1961 from Jeannette M.
Ficrwilliams, "Syze Distribution oF Income in 1963,"" Survey of Cio
rept Business, Arrit 1964, p, 10,

Table 15. Effect of adjustments on aggregates of majur components of
1961 CES family accounts

Effect of adjusting lor—
Oilice of
Total | ‘Business | locrease
Category sdjust- | Eoonomics | in con- | xclusion
mest | income sumer | of 1960
distri~ wnics | ruen
butfep
Jn millions
lacome after taxes --- [538,616 | $32,897 | $3,899 | $2,020
Expenditures - -- 19,693 3,51 Al2
Savings - 8,795 wo | 1, 656
Porcent distribution
lancome after tuxes ~ 100,0 84,8 10,0 5.2
Expenditures 100.0 60.4 1s.4 -U8
Savings ~ 100.0 82,8 1,5 15,7

net changes in savings: The very substantial dif-
ference between the averages for 1960 ($152) and

59

1961 ($219), an increase of 44 percent, probably
overstates the actual gain. Per capita personal savings,
as derived by OBE, rose 23 percent from 1960 w 1961.

Although OBE data reflect savings of the total popu-
lation (including on-post military and the institutional~
ized) and are derived as a residual subject to various
reservations,® the discrepancy suggests that the CES
data overstate the actual increase.

Although each year’s urban sample was designed
to yield reliable national estimates, use of only half
the total sample obviously increases the sampling
error. For savings as for all other components,
however, nonsampling errors (in reporting by re-~
spondent, recording by the interviewer, processing,
etc.) may be of greater impurtance than the sam-
ping error.

A number of relatively minor adjustments of either
the OBE or CES data might have enhanced compara-
bility of the two sets of date. Some involved esti-~
mating OBE data not avatlable publicly and possibly
introducing unnecessary error. For various minor
survey components, the possible improvement did
not warrant the onerous hand calculation of adjusted
Survey aggregates. In terms of the large aggregates
involved, the additional possible adjustments appar-
ently would not have reduced or increased discrep-
ancies between the two sets of data significantly.

Funily money income before taxes

Table 13 provides a comparison of the OBE esti-
mate of family money income by source wilh the
CES average and aggregate income before taxes by
source, as reported in the survey and after the ad-
justments described for table 12. For this compari-
son, the OBE provided unpublished data for two
adjustments of their estimates of personal income
before taxes to agree with the CES definition of
family money income. The first involved primarily
the elimination of income received by nonprofit or-
ganizations and such military pay as would not
accrue to civilian families covered by the CES.
This adjustment reduced the OBE personal income
estimate for 1961 from $417,377 million to $396,992
million for family personal income. The second ad-
justment eliminated all nonmoney (imputed) income
except farm and nonfarm nonmoney wages to conform
with the CES definition of family money income before
taxes which includes the value of food and rent
received as pay. The 1961 OBE estimate of family
money income obtained by this adjustment was $383,645
niillion, including $1,970 million for nonmoney wages.

8 For z more thorough discussion of the two estimutes of
Changes in savings, see pp, 65-66,


Guides fo: comparing sucveya of consumer expenditures for 1960-61 and for 195U—Continued

—

Survey of co:

Guides tor vomparing surveys of consumer expenditures tor 1960-61 and for 1950—Contiaued

Survey of consumer oxpenditures, 1960-61
(ces)

mer expenditures, 1980
(CFs)

Survey of consumer expenditures, 1960-61

Survey of consumer expenditures, 1950

. Metropolitan areas in areas (n urban samplee

In 1960 and 1961:

Balumore, Md.

Boston, Mass.

Chucago-Northwestern ladiana Standard Consolidated Are.
Cleveland, Ohio. ated Area,
Los Angeles—Long Beach, Calitornia,

New Yark"Northeastern New Jersvy Standard Gonsolidated

Philadelphia, Pa.-N..1,
Pittsburgh, Pa.

St. Louis, Mo.-Ilt,

San Prancisce—Oalland, Calif.

In 1960:
Adlanta, Ga.
Indlanapolis, Ind.
Portland, Maine.
Seattle, Wash.

In (961
Bakersfield, Calif.
Hartford, Conn.
Wichita, Kans.

l

Same 4s in 1960-61.

Classification of cities In urban sainple

A. Primary sampling unit (PSU). The SMSA in the metro-

A

Primary sampling unit (#SU). The ceusus urbanized area
for all places af 50,000 or more and the individual urban
place (over 2,500 population) tor smaller places.

Geographic region, Three regions as defined by ALS:
Nortn, South, aud West

4. City type. Three types as defined by BLS:

Large city. Generally central city and other cities
with population vf 50,000 and over.

Suburb. Cities aud vther urban places with population
below 50,000, predominantly residential, within easy
coramuting distance of large city.

Small elty. Cities and places urbanized areas, with
population of 2,300-50,000, not close to a large retail
marketing center.

politan segment of the U.S. and the individual urban
place over 2,500 population in nomnetropolitan areas.
Inclades entire urban part uf SMSA.

NOTE: The urbau part is usually slightly more extensive
than the urbanized area, encompassing some small nun-
contiguous urhan places uot included in the urbanized
area.

B. 1, Geographic region, Four major regions as detinea by
the Burenu of the Census: Northeast, North Central,
South, and West.

2. Gity size. Four population size strata:

A. SMSA's of over 1, 100, 000 population,
B, SMSA‘« of 250, WO=1, 400, 000,

C. SMSA' s of 50

B. Urban places”

4, Places inside SMSA'9. Coded by population from Listing
of BLS block numbers in CIUS (rom which CES sample
wae selected

Central city oF cities.
Other cities of 50, 000 and over.
Cltles under 50,000 and unincorporated places ia
urbanized area.
Sinall nrhan places of ¢,500-50, 000 uutaide urbanized
area.
76

(CES) (CES)
DMierences beiween TOMO) and 1950 in Tally characteristics used aS

classifyine variables in 1940-61 yeneral purpoac tabulations

(For complete 1960-61 codes, see table 8 13)

A. Income after taxe
1. Highest classe
$10, 000-8 14.999

$15,000 and over.f TAY he combined
B. Occupation of head:
1, Members of Armea Forces (not living on military post
or reservation) coded separately,
2. Oceupation not reported
3. Retired (including partially retired).
4. Others not working.

¢. Tenure:
1, Owner all year,

2, Kenter all year
3. Other, ives, owner part of year, renter part of year,

2 and 3 may be combinud into "Renter all or part of year."

D. Fanuly type:
1, Husband and wife, own children, no other persons in
family.
Oldest child 6-17 years.

2, All other husband and wife (amilies (includes husband
and wife families with or without owa children but with
other persons in fainily).

3. One parent (the head), own children only.

4. AlLother farnalien (includes 1-pereon families).

2 would be split between 2 and 4 in 1950, depending on
whether any persons under 10 were in family.

2, 3, and 4 In both years may be combined to inclide ell
families except those composed af husband aud wife and
husband aad wife and own children only.

Family size

Income after taxest
L. Highest class.
$10,000 and over.

Occupation of head: ;

1. Members of Armed Forces (net living on military post or
reservation) icluded with skilled wage cacners.

2.

SCombined Into Not gainfully employed.

4

Tenure:

1. Owner all year—shuwn separately for 4 classes accord-
img t year home bought, but may be combined.

2. Owner ead of year, renter earlier.

3. Rentey at end of year (includes reuters alt year and
renters at end of year who were owners earlier).

Zand $ may be combined into "Renter allor part of year."

Family type:
1. Husband und wife, no other adulia in family
Oldest child, 6-25 May be combineu; aasume
Oldest child, 16 or 17 difference between "no other
adults" and "no other per-
gona tn family” not signifi
cant.

2. AM other (includes families with children with other
adults present and may include other types of farailies
not classified elsewhere).

2. One parent (the head), oldest child under 18.

4. Other adults only (18 and over), no children of any age
{includes 1-person families).

Codes were the same an both surveys for the following famaly charactertstics:

‘Age of family head
Education of family head

Race

Number of full-me earners

Eligibility for Consumer Price Index (CPI)

CPI families (2 or more persous, but also including I-peraon
families}. Croteria:

1. At least | (amily member (FM) earning wages and
salaries 1a following occupational groups: Clerreat
or sales; craftsmen, operatives, or kindred workers,|
service workers (except household) or laborers;
enlated personnel in Armed Forces.

2. Total incoine from above occupations eqial to at least
one-half total amily income belore taxes.

At least | PM employed at least 47 weeks in survey
year, ceyardiess of occupation.

CPI tamilies (2 or more persons only) Criteria:

1. Farnily head whose longest employment in 1950 was in
same occupational groups as in 1960-61.

2. No restriction on sonrces of income, hut families whose
rotal 1950 cume aiter taxes exceeded $10,000 were
exchided.

3. No Limitation, except faaulues whose heads were unem-
ployed cnlire survey year were excluded.

77



Table 9. Comparison of family characteristics duta from 1960-61 CES and other sources, total urbun and rural United States—Continued

Families and supgle consumers Families of 2 persons or ivore
CES . Bo Decenmat Consus | cusene | Consumer Curent
code} Chitructerrstic npenditures Famutics "| Population Expenditures) 9, 1960 | Population
Survey Fotul and Survey? | survey | PeeEHAN) Survey
1969-61 primary 1961 1960-61 census 1966
individuals
Percent
Family cype: T
Tota 100.0 | 9100.0 | 1100.0 | #4 100.0 100.0 | 7100.0
[Husband and (5,9 68.0 74.7 70.3 89.3 7.8
JAN wher - 24.3 32.0 25.3 10.6 122
Locanou:
Total 100,0 - on.o | - tov.0 | 23100.0 .
Inside SMSA's - 63.7 - 64.5 - 63.9 -
1 Central city or cats 32,7 - 34.9 - 30.6 32.7 -
2 Other caries with popel
50,000 or over 3.4 - Q - aa h -
3 Places with population under 50, 000 20.5 21s
im urbaniued area ~~. 17.3 : f - 18.6 i -
4 Places with population of 2, 500 vo 50, WU
outside urbanized area 4.0 - 25 - 4.2 2.5 -
o Aural nonfarm S.6 - 3.8 - 6.1 6.2 -
7 Reral farm - 6 - 8 - af 2° -
Outside SMSA's 36.3 - 35.5 - 36.4 Jone -
s Urban places with population of
2, 500 to $0,000, 15.1 - 14.4 - 14.4 14,0 -
8 Rural uomurm 15.5 - 15,2 - 158 5.6 -
9 Rusal farm -, S,7 - 5.9 - 3 oS -

' income of Families and Persous im the Unired States: 1960, Curent Poputution Reports, Consumer Income, Series P-60, N.
January 17, 198E (U.S, Bureau of the Cersus), Income it tar calendar year T9G0- bir Characterimics of Tasulisy and andiviclouls gress
of March i961, Subscyuently, the number of CPS families was revised upward from 45,435,000 to 45,456,000 und of unrelated individuals
trom: 10, 900,000 10 11,081,000 (Series P-W, No. 47, Sent. 24, “965, p. 3).

2 Based on umber or tu ies and of all unrelated individuals except inmates of institutions Ceusus o) Population: 1960, United States
Summary, General Socia) and Economic Characteristics PC(1), 1C, (U.S. Bureau of the Cuncis) table 93, p, 1225+

F Based ou wuinber oF households (i.¢. primary faimilies and primary individuals), Census ot Pupulation: 1960, Families, PCi2),
4A (U.S, Bureau of the Census) p. x

4 Based on mumber of familie:
5 Disuibulion of families by
(U.S. Butea of the Census), p. 1-98
The number of full-year equivatent persons corresponding to the 1-Sight CFS family swe code is: Code 1 = 1,0 person; 22 1,4
10 2.9 pertons; 3 + 3.0 to 3.8 persons, 4 = 4.0 to 4.9 porans, § = 5.0 to 5,9 persont, fi = 6.0 persons of more. oe
T Source, footmote 3, p. 11.
® Source, footmote t, p. 27.
3 Based on number of occupied housiay units (houschoids), Census of Housing:
. Bureau of the Census), p. XXVH.
10 source, foutaute 1, pr 25.
"1 Sourer, footnote 8, p, 1-403.
22 Based on number of femilies, Source, fooinote 3, p. 37.
13 Rased on umber of heads vf houscholds, Source, foutnote 3, p. 195.
members of the Armed Forces with craftemen, foremen, and kindred workem,
'4 Based on number of families, Source, footnote 8, p. 1-470,
12 Bused on wumber of fannhes and unrelated individuals, Source, foomore &, p. 1-594,
Based on number vf heuds of households, Source, fonmnote 8 p. t=444,
'T Haed on number of families. Source, foornore 8, p. 1-463.
1# Based oo number of families, Source, foolnute &, pp. 1-610 and 1-611.
14 Souree, footnote t, p. 30
20 Based un number of families and unrelated individuals.
21 Source, footmete 1, p., 26.
Jf Bate on numbr of heads of households, Cenms of Population: 2960, Sive of Pace, PC(3) 1D (U.S. Buren of the Ceasus), pp. 1-3.
Based on umber of families. Source, foouore 22, pp. 10-12.

Source, footnote 3, p. 21.
from Cunsue_of Population:

1960, United States Summary, Detuil

i Characteristics, PC(1), 1D

1960, United States Summary, Final Report, 1IC(1),

1 (U.

In the distribution by occupation, the census classified

Sowce, foolnore 8, pp, 1-459 aud 1-465.

NOTE: Because of rounding, sums of Individual items may rot equal totals, Dashes indicate comparable data not available.

¥

The average number of equivalent full-year family
members wus rounded to one decimal place and con-
verted to the one-digit code for family-size class
shown In table 9.

As already mentioned, the correspondence in data
from the three sources {s closer when the compari-
son is confined to families of two persons or more,
and the differenoes in distribution of these families
hy size are in the direction expected from definillonal
difference. The CES splitting of related family mem-
bers on the basis of their economic independence re-
sulted in a greater number of families and relatively
more smal! families and fewer large ones than the
decennial census or CPS.

Age of family head

In the CES, uge and several other characteristics
were recorded for each family member, but families
were classified by the characteristics of the family
head. In husband-wife families, the husband was con-
sidered the head. In other types of families, the per-
son recognized as the head by other family members
was so designated.

Age was recorded on the CES schedule (section A,
{tem 5) as number of years at the end of the survey
year. If the respondent did not know or refused this
information, the interviewer estimated age of family
members. The comparatively minor differcaces be-
tween the CES and census distributions in table 9 are
consistent with differences in family definitions. For
example, elderly persons living with their married
children would be counted as a separate consumer
unit in CES if they did nat pool their income and ex-
penditures with those of the younger unit.

Years of educulion of family head

‘The number of grades completed during or be-
fore the survey year in schools offering an elemen-
tary or high school diploma or a college, university,
or professional school degree was entered for eaoh
family member on the CES schedule (section A,
{tem 7). Persons giving no information on the extent
of their education were classified as having “8 years
or less.” Education beyond 4 years of college was
recorded as 17 years, regardless of the number of
years of post-graduate work. Attendance at specialized
business, trade, vocatidnal, and similar schools was
Noted on the schedule but not counted in the “years
completed.” The census defines years of school com-
Pleted similarly.

ag

Occupation of family head

The occupation of each family member was entered
on the schedule when income from euch job was
recorded in sections SI or S-I. The occupation of
the family head was based on his major occupation, i-e.,
the occupation at which he was employed for the
greatest number of weeks in the survey year, or,
if equally long on two johs or more, the occupation
which paid the highest earnings. If the head was
retired (as indicated by retirement income in sec-
tion T or notes in section A, item 17) and also had
some occupation, the occupation was coded only if
the earnings were greater than the retirement in-
come. Family heads who had no income from em-
ployment in sections SI or SII and no evidence of
retirement were coded as “Others not working.”

Occupations were class{fied in a three-digit code
according lo the 1960 Census of Population, Alpha-
betical Index of Occupations and Industries, except
that the self-employed (including businessmen, farm
operators, professionals, and artisans) were sepa-
rated from salaried managers, officials, and pro~
fessional workers. Members of the armed forces,
living off base, were classified separately. In de-
riving the one-digit code for occupation of the family
head, clerical and sales workers were combined.
Wage earners were regrouped and identified by
degree of skill: Craftsmen, foreren, and kindred
workers were identified as skilled; operalives, as
semiskilled; and private household workers, sery-
{ce workers, und laborers, as woskilled.

Comparisons of CES, census, and CPS distribu-
tions by occupation of the head (table 9) are affected
by differences in the time references and labor
force status used in the classifications. The de-
cennial census distribution for famnlies and single
consumers refers fo the job held during the week
for which employment status was reported; the cen-
sus distribution of families of two persons or more,
however, refers to the occupational distribution of
the “experienced civilian labor force,” comprising
the employed and the experienced unemployed. The
distribution for heads of families from the Current
Population Survey (CPS) referred to the oivilian
job held during the survey week. The CES classi-
fication, as noted above, was based on employment
experience throughout lhe survey year.

Race of family head

The interviewer recorded the race of the family
head on the basis of observation, not by direct
questioning (section A, item 18). The one-digit code


—

Part-year consumer units, i.e., units containing
no member wbo met the eligibility requirements
for the entire calendar year, were included in the
1960-61 survey, Examples of part-year consumer
units are a newly married couple, if both were
members of other CU’s during the rest of the sur-
vey year;'* or a family returning to the United Slates
after living abroad part of the year. Information for
part-year consumer units was obtained for special
analytical research,’ but was not included in the
survey reports.

Substitution Procedures

As explained earlier, a “matched alternate” was
drawn for every address in the primary or master
sample. Field supervisors assigned alternate ad-
dresses to the interviewers on the busts of information
the interviewer had recorded on the back of the
Household Record Form, BLS 2648A (page 116) used
for the address in the master sample. The alternate
ussignment was used only: (1) If the interviewer could
not locate the address of the master assignment even
after additional identifying information had been ob-
tained from Washington; (2) if, after one visit, the
living quarters at the master assignment were vacant;
(3) if, after at least two visits, 1 or 2 days apart
and at different hours of the day, the respondent at

16

the master assignment was not at home; (4) the re-
Spondent at the master assignment refused or was
unable to give enough information to complete the
nonresponse section (i-e., items 4 through 13) of
the BLS 2648-A.

The alternate was not used if: (1) The interview
had progressed beyond the Household Record and
the respondent had answered some questions in the
basic schedule (BLS 2648B); (2) the respondent hud
answered {tems 4 through 13 of the Household Record;
(3) the respondent at the muster assignment was
ineligible; or (4) two CU’s or more were found at
the master assignment address, and a schedule was
obtained froro one of them.

The primary purpose of this “matched alternate”
procedure, which had been used in the 1950 survey,
was to cut down tho high rate of attrition that is
typical of the complex consumer expenditure surveys
while maintaining the proper representation of fam{lles
having specified characteristics. This does not reduce
any bias which may be associated directly with
nonresponse. !*

13° It should be noted that each person would have been im
cluded as a part-year member of these: families for the part of che
year priot to their marriage.

18 Seep. S4. The distribution of part-year consumer units
by survey area it shown in appendix table B-2,

1S For example, families in which both hushand and wife
work may be harder to contact, even after repeated visits, than
those in which ouly one inember is employed. If there is a tend
eucy tor families of the later type to be substituted for multi-
earner families, the respouse tate may be improved without a
comespondiag reduction of the nonresponse bins arfsing fom dls
similar corsumptios patteras of the two groupe.

Chapter 4.

Reporting Forms

The reporting forms fur the Survey of Consumer
Expenditures, 1960-61, were developed from the long
experience of both the Bureau and the U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA) in collecting informetion on
family accounts. Revision of the three schedules
used in the 1959 pilot survey began immediately upon
completion of data co}lection in Cincinnati. Modified
formats used tn the 1960-61 nationwide survey were
adopted after consultation with the CES advisory
committee, the Office of Statistical Standards of
the Bureau of the Budget, USDA, other government
agencies, and some private organizations planning
to use the CES results {n their research programs.
Facsimtles of the principal reporting forms used
in the nonfarm survey ' appear in exhibits D, E,and F.

Household Record Sheet -- BLS 26484

Interviewers used this two-page form to open all
interviews. Information recorded on it served to:
(1) Determine the family’s eligibility for the survey,
(2) “reconstruct” the consumer unit as it was com-
posed in the survey year, and (3) classify “non-
response” families by selected characteristics.

Annual Income, Savings, and Expenditures
Record BLS 26488

This schedule was used for each eligible consumer
unit willing to participate in the survey. It formed
the basic framework of the survey and underwent the
most extensive post-1959 revision. Revisions were
almed at shortening the interview time, removing
ambiguities in questions and responses, improving
Sequence and errangements of sections, and reducing
the 2648R's bulk. .

Several types of questions were removed entirely
or consolidated. Questions about the type and location
of stores at which families purchased various goods
and services were removed. It was decided that such
information, needed to select a sample of outlets for
collecting price information for the CPI, should be
collected in a separate survey’ in order to shorten
the CES interview. So-called “Standard Questions”
on the value of goods or services given to or re-
ceived from persons outside the CU and changes in
amounts owed on installment or other credit purchases
were consolidated and appeared in only four places
on the schedule (6.g., on page 17) instead of after
each expenditure section. Unbound duplicates of some

Data Collection

sections of the schedule (e.g., clothing and automobiles)
were provided for interviewing large familles or
families owning more than two cars, etc., rather
than providing space in each schedule for maximum
anticipated needs.

In the revision, schedule content was expanded in
only two places. Questions on seasonal variations
in food expenditures were added to the schedule in
section J, question 8, page 18, to assist the respondent
in arriving at a better estimate of annual food ex-
penditures. A question on family income 2 years
preceding the survey year was added in section W,
p- 58. On balance, the revisions cut schedule 2648B
from 76 to 59 pages. AU pages rarely applied to a
single family.

Questions on annual expenditures, income, and
savings in 26488 were grouped in 23 major sections.
Information on family compasition throughout the year,
living arrangements, and all transactions relating to
owned or rented housing—including receipts from
roomers and boarders—were recorded in the first
six sections. Twelve sections on expenditures, in-
terspersed with four sets of “Standard Questions,”
followed. Detailed checklists? were used to obtain
expenditures for specific iteme inthe major categories
of fuel, light, and water; miscellaneous household
expenses; housefurnishings and equipment; food; cloth-
ing; medical care; persona! care; recreation, reading,
and education; transportation; and miscellaneous
family expenditures. The remaining five sections were
devoted to income from earnings and other sources;
taxes, insurance, gifts and contributions, and savings.

Throughout the design and arrangement of the
schedule, one goal prevailed. The phrasing and se-~
quencing of the questions were to enable the inter-
viewer to produce complete and aoourate reports of
the family’s accounts, in the shortest possible time
and with the minimum inconvenience to the family.
Hence, after obtaining a description of the family and
its ving arrangements: -subjects easily recalled and

1 For che 1961 rural farm survey, the USDA used the House-
hold Record Sheet (2648A) and a modbfied version of the Annual
Record (26488). The modifications consisted of additions to the
housing sections to cover farm real estate; vw the income sections
to obtain information on production expenses and assets of farm
operators; and ta the food sectiou to record detail om quantities of
home produced food for familics estimating thar the value of such
food execeded $100, Codes for tubulating the additional information
were assigned so that in the final tabulations the rival farm, urban,

avd rural nonfarm averages were compatible. The weekly food
schedule (2648C) was act used in fnterviewing farm (arilies,

* See The Consumer Price Index: History aud Techuiques,
BLS Bulletin 1517 (1966), p. 60. ’

3 Schedule 2648 comsined abour 1,800 "line items," ies,
items foc which separate family expenditures could be obtained,
Op, cit., Bulletin 1517, p. 46.

7


ee

B10. Number of consumer units giving usable CES schedules, by income class, family size, B10. Number of consumer units giving usable CES schedules, by income class, family size,
and region, toral urban and rural United States, 1960-61' and region, cotal urban and rural United States, 1960-6t' —Continued
Money income siter taxes Famity af ni T Money income after axes
Pamily size and - - amily stze an 500U 5, 000" T2500 To, 000 TTT _
geographic region Toul | Under <P STS3O po SIO ago geographic region wn ¥m0 w78 “$70, 000 T5300
$1,000 | §2,999 $2,999 | $3,999 $4,999 _ _ £5,999 87.499 89.999 $14,999 over
All consumer units All consumer unica.
United States - 13.728 435 1.406 1,509 1,580 7 Vaated Staten Tine 2,061 1,857 an 295
North Central 4.092 153 363 426 Apa $60 North Central — 550 oer 592 27% ar
40180 ee és a8 a Pan South ~ 445 ar 197 196 49
2,228 40 168 167 2uz 214 Weel a7 a19 368 239 7
J person: : 1 person:
United States 1,956 320 Liss 357 2 2 United States —--——— 4 83 39 17 3
j 580 33 170 no 8 8 North Central ul 18 6 5 2
| 537 137 152 97 5a 46 South —-——- 24 12 7 4 -
| 369 30 a7 5b 64 52 West —-—— ar 7 18 4 2
oma 8 aecrerr soa 4 9 i 4
initrd States 4,084 139 928 630 596 Umired Staten 5 > 39 183 a
| 945 i 9 13) oe aa Northeast 150 140 407 B 26
1.206 37 125 180 176 7 North Central — 158 1s 130 51 13
1.294 BS 267 44 173, 1A) Seath --——— Na 122 a7 38 15
rans rs ST 78 70 78 West —— 82 Vz 85 5) 20
| 3 peranna: 3 person
if United States 2.486 24 443 z01 292 303 United Starrs — 425 ar 39 28 59
| Northeast le : 12 24 59 9 Northeast 104 18 7 63. 22
| 732 7 33 52 79 122 ine 123 120 57 22
733 17 $0 5 126 106 a1 8 a4 50 6
353 - 8 10 28 56 43 78 3B 48 9
4 persona: 4 persons.
United States ——— 2,241 iz 66 in 201 240 United States 338 486 4a7 2e8 67
Northeast 558 : 3 18 Sy ba Northeast 79 135 120 75 3
676 6 16 7 64 87 North Central ~~. 104 Vez 140 64 16
637 Tf “4 ar a fh South —— % 110 106 al 15
| 370 - 2 9 12 36 West~ 59 99 al 48 23
| 5 persons: 5 persone:
| United States - 1,449 Lz 4B 3 106 1b4 United States 216 301 298 162 se
Northeast — 347 : i 9 te nq Northeast 52 39 86 49 13
| 4a) 3 n 18 30 36 North Central ———— n cry 3 ab 22
401 6 a 49 48 é2 " South 56 63 5 34 5
260 + - 10 12 35 Weer 39 55 ta 42 12
| 6 perenne or more. 6 parsons or moze:
United States — 1512 23 63 329 157 ist United States 208 270 280 Vs 38
Northeast - 270 1 1 9 17 30 Northeast —-—-—---————. 42 6 oe 35 1z
North Central — 4aqT 7 6 23 43 6y Nosth Central 69 4 103 58 8
South-——aenn. ~ 52a 14 51 a mt 55 South ——— 64 oF 66 ra) 8
West . - 247 1 3 4 16 27 West ———— 33 48 49 46 10
2 persons or mor 2 persuns or more:
United States 11,772, zis 843 1,152 L312 1,587 United States -  --——___—_-. 1,623 1,978 are 954 290
| Nartheast — 2,738 14 96 187 268 “389 | Northeast ——-~ 427 523 492 256 86
Noeth Centrat ————-. 3,532 60 198 316 392 Si. North Central ————- 519 Gos 586 res a
} 3,643 13) 483 538 514 165 South: ~ —— 42) ! 460 390 192 a9
1859 10 oa wt 138 222 Wee San | 256 392 . 350 235 4
See footnote at end of table. 1 Entries for the West aud U.S. include total iur Anchorage, Alaska, which wa» surveyed for 1959
=<}



B.n. Estimates of absolute and relative sampling errors for

the 1960-62 CES urban sample—Continued

selected items reported by consumer units in

United North .
Group or item! ‘States Northeast Central Souul
Gris, 16 and 17—
Clothing, total: $9.00
$10. 00 $12.00 $11.00 .
at eee “ae eo Lee 23
Reluuve error (perce 16 1.2 13.2 22,7
Dresses:
1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00
Sampling veror 10 Le Lia “an
Relative error (percent we 15.3 12.6 20.5
ron arage 61 87 2 49
mpling © 106 115
Sampling €rrOr wna oe : 8
Relative error (pereent) == a8 rat ae 2.
Girls 210 I=
iar es 54.00 57.00 | 53.00 49.00
Serplung error a 1,00 1,00 2.00 * ve
Relative error (pereeat) — 2.58 2b 4.4 b
Dresses:
age 7,00 6.00 6, 0U 7.00
oon ing error = 123 18 148 a
Relative error (percent) ——————————— 3.3 4.0 34
see eerage 9.00 9.00 9-90
lea 3 :
Sarnpling efor —-—— em 38
Relative error (percent) —————-———— 26 3.5
Children under 2—~
Clothing, total:
erage 6.00 7.00 4.00
Sunpling error oo 22 “4 a
Kolative error (percent) —-———-—. 3.7 a9 .
Crohn umwee: Seve! 58.00 62.00 $4.00 60.00
Setmpling error == — 109 190 200 3.00
Relauve error (percent) — La Le | 3.4 -
Tener fen 792. 00 749.00 ave, 0 743.00
Sampling tires Wa 11.90 10.90 23.00 2400
Relative error (percent) —-~——-—. wa wa 29 .
a neces 309. 00 263,00 327, 00 292.00
ampling ror 9.00 12,00 20, 00 -
Relauve seror (pore vo ‘a 2 an
Gasoline: teo0 v¢a.00
‘Average — 165. 00 332. 00 175. .
Sampling error 2.00 2.00 4.00 6,08
Relative error (percent) 1.5 Ls 2.2 -
age ene 48. 00 62.00 33,00 e5.00
Sampling efFoF aoa 1.00 2.00 2.00 eu
Relative error (percent 8 38 4.8 -
wrerape oa 355. 00 267.00 341, 00 319.00
Sainpling error ——— soo 10,00 700 5.00
Relative error (percent) Lt 27 raat 16
cpaid care and hospitalization: ,
Prerethge cen 91.00 88, 00 82.00
Sampling error —— 2.00 4.00
celstive' 4.7

Kelulive error (percent)

Ser (ontnntes at end of table.

West

12.5

60.00
5.00
8.0

2.00

We

12,00
+86
uel

57,00
4.09
20

924.00
$5. 00
ST

348, 00
27.00
LT

201.00
9.00
4.4

21,00
2.00
10.8

411 90

1B

. J

IB. Estimates of absolute and relative sampling errors

sthe 1960-61 CFS urban sample—Continued

for selected items reported by consumer units in

rou em? United North
Group or 1 States Northeast Gentrat South
Physicians, ete. , nut in hospital:
Average — —— a $58.00 $64.00 $57. 00 $50.00
Sample error 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Relattve error (percent) — La 3 37 3.8
Personal care, total:
Average —- =e 155. 00 157, 00 150, 00 157.00
Sampling errox 2.00 3.00 2.00 4.00
Relative error (percent) Le 2.2 1.6 22
Mair cuts, men und boys:
Average —— 34,00 34.00 33.00 32.00
Sampling error —. 0) 100 1.00
Relative error (percent) ne 2.0 3d
Personal care supplies:
Average —- 83. v0 83.00 80. 00 24, 00
Sampling ¢rror 00 2.00 1.00 2.00
Relative error (prreent) oo 5 2 13 23
Recreation, total:
Average ee. 217. 00 220.00 187, 00
Sampling error a 100 5.00 6.00
Relative error (percent) —-———— he a4 wa
Movies:
Average —~. 18. 00 21.00 16. 00 14.00
Sampling error = 237 7R 235 185
Relative error (percent) rat 3.6 us 59
Reading, total:
Average a. 49.00 57.00 50, ou 40,00
Sampling erior 1,00 1,00 2.00 2.00
Relative crror (percent) — 17 25 3.2 4.8
Fducation. total:
Average eee 60.00 70.00 56.00
Sainpling error ——— 3.00 7.00 5.00
Relative error (sereent 4.7 9.8 9.8
Personal insurancw:
Average ——-— a 323.00 341.00 330. 00 292,00
Sampling errar oa 4.00 8.00 7.00 #00
Relative error (percent) — nes 23 bo be
e and cont ributiuns:
Average — 302. 00 341.00 277.00 272.00
Sampling etfor —w———.- 700 12,00 9.00 13.00
Relative error (percent) ————— 2.2 44 Be 4.8
Money income hefore taxes
Average 6. 678.09 7. 212,00 6. 108. 00 5,752.00
Sarnpling error o—-— 72.00 183,00 76.00 132.00
Relative error (percent). at pes 2.3
Wage and salary earnunge:
Average — _—_—— 5, 192. 00 5,591.00 5, 376. 00 4,396. 00
Sampling error ———. 53.00 111,00 95.00 92.00
Relative errex (percent) — 10 2.0 LR 2
Money income after taxes:
Average ~ a 5,890. 00 6,291.00 5,933.00 5, 153.00
Samphng error oa. 59.00 150 00 64.00 109. 00
Relative error (percent 0 24 rat pat
et change in assets and liabilities
Average 176.00 89.00 326.00 128, 00
Sampling error 30.00 67,00 48.00 59.00
Relative error (percent) . 36.0 75.4 Mt 46.1
Dividends:
Average 100. 00 253.00 65. vu 97.00
Sumpling ec ror 9.00 24, 00 13.00 14,00
Relative error (percent) 8.9 5.7 20.8 14.0

$64.00
3.00
4.7

157,00
2.00

33.00

54,00
4.00
8.1

329,00
15. 00
45

320.00
23.00
73

7, 112.00
152.00
21

5,409.00
129.00
a4

6, 251,00
125.00
20

155,00
52.00
4

71.00
11,00
15.0

of Anchorage, Alaska, and Honolulu, Hawa\
* Less than $0, 50.

Average expenditures, income, etc. may differ slightly froc thse published in CES reports because of wie omission
from the computations of sampling error.


Field Survey Supervisors. Prior to initiating field
work in 1961 and 1962, G-week intensive training pro-
grums for the survey supervisors were held in Wash-
ington. They were instructed in survey management
(e.g., the establishment and administration of offices
fn survey areas and the hiring, training, and super-
vision of interviewers) and in CES background and
methods (purposes, concepts, definitions, content of
questionnaires, interviewing techniques, etc.).

The training classes were conducted by six mem-
bers of the Section of Technical Training. All were
thoroughly famillar with the entire set of CES sched-
ules and training materials. However, because of the
length and complexity of the schedules, each member
specialized In selected subject matter segments of
the schedules, such as all sections dealing with hous-
ing (sections B through 1). They were responsible also
for training the supervisors in these related sections.
To keep training olasses a manageable size and to use
the training staff efficiently, the supervisors were
divided into two classes that started a week apart.

The supervisors first were trained as if they were
to be interviewers. The training staff followed the
daily program outlined in the Training Guide for pre-
senting the CES schedules, Collection Manual, and
workbooks. They tested the supervisors on various
sections of the schedules and on overall CES concepts.
The supervisors then were taught to conduct simi-
lar training classes for daily-rate interviewers whom
they would hire in each survey area. They practiced
using the Training Guide and other teaching aids by
conducting training sessions on selected sections of the
schedules for their fellow supervisors. This was con-
cluded by a training critique. The last week in Wash-
ington was devoted to use of the Field Editing Manual
and the Field Supervisors’ Manual. The latter manual
was concerned with survey management, including re-
cruitment of interviewers, selection of field editors
from among the interviewers, determining interviewer
workload, maintaining the flow of schedules through
field editing and transmittal to Washington, and com-
piling the records to inform the regional and Washington
headquarters on the status of the survey in each area.

A critique on the 1961 surveys was heldin Washington
for the field survey supervisors, followed by a retrain-
ing session prior to their reassignment for the 1962
surveys.

Local Interviewers. The Washington training staff
Stressed that a successful CES depended upon uni-
formity in training local interviewers, and they em-
phasized the responsibllity of each fleld supervisor
in achieving this goal. In survey areas requiring two
Supervisors or more who operated separate offices
for all other purposes, training was conducted as a
team project to promote uniformity. The Washington

22

training staff assigned related sections of the CES
schedules to each supervisor in the toam for inter-
viewer training. These team assignments were based
on the evaluation of each supervisor's interests and his
mastery of the related sections and demonstrated
abllity to teach them.

Supervisors trained approximately 1,200 inter-
viewers for the 1960-61 CES. (See appendix table B-3.)
The size of the training class ranged from five “daily
rates” in the “D” cities to 24 in the larger SMSA’s,
except the New York-Northeastern New Jersey area.

On the average, the local inlerviewers attended
seven consecutive 8-hour training sessions. In these
sessions, the fleld supervisors followed the pattern
of their Washington training and covered basically
the same material. They used the same Training Guide
and related materials to leach interviewing tachniques,
basic survey concepts and purposes, and to clarify
and interpret the content of the CES schedules. After
the interviewing was started, the field supervisor
selected one or more of the {nterviewers to assist
in editing the schedules before transmittal to Wash-
ington and gave thein additional training tn using the
Field Editing Manual.

Field training in each city was observed and eval-
uated by either u member of the Washington training
staff or the regional senior survey supervisor.

Communicatiuns

Channels of official communication were very im-
portant factors throughout the data collection phase
of the nationwide CES. Two types of communication
were necessary: (1) Publicity to inform local residents
about the survey and thus aid the interviewers, and
(2) the intercommunication of the local survey office,
regional, and Washington offices on survey progress
and problems.

Publicity was prepared for the news media. Com-
missioner of Labor Statistics Ewan Clague taped a
short description of the survey for use on radio and
television in each of the survey cities. The regional
offices arranged to have these broadcast just prior
to the dates when interviewers would begin calling
on families. The BLS regional directors also held
press conferences with the local newspapers, radio,
and television stations and supplied them official
press releases describing the survey.

A letter from the Commissioner was mailed to
each assignment address just before the interviewer
called. (See exhibit C, page 114.) The letter informed
the occupants that they had been selected for inclusion
in the study, gave the purpose and a short descrip-
tion of the CES, and requested their cooperation. The
Interviewer also carried a copy of the letter in case

the family had not received theirs or had not read it.
No scientific study was made of the effectiveness of
the publicity. However, most interviewers reported
the letter was very belpful in identifying them and

gaining some response.
The major provisions for the communications be-

tween the survey city offices and the regional and
Washington offices were the Weekly Progress Report

(Form 142), the Question and Answer Form (PB 218), *

and the Narrative Reports. The progress report was
prepared and mailed each Friday. Lt provided a status
report on assignments, personnel, and survey costs.
Each weekly report was cumulative, so the fina) re-
port provided a complete accounting of assignments
and survey costs. The question and answer form pro-
vided a quick means for the survey supervisor to
gel specialized assistance from Washington on prob-
lems or specific schedules. In reverse, the Washington
office could get clarification of schedule entries which
were inconsistent, incomplete, or not clear. The PB
218’s were kept in the folder with the family’s sched-
ule and became part of the permanent CES [ilos.

Before closing an office, eaoh supervisor was re-
quired to prepare a Narrative Report covering the
following aspects of the survey in thatarea: Effective-
ness of publicity, supervisor’s contact with looal of-
fioials, daily rate employees, and teohnical and admin-
istrative problems.

Under “cfifectiveness of publicity,” the supervisor
evaluated the publicity described above on the basis
of his personal observations, on those of his inter-
viewers, and on comments of respondents with whow

he talked.
“Supervisor's contact with local officials” covered

couperation received from the local police department,
other city officials, business and civic organizations,
and the local employment office. Before interviewing
started, supervisors were required to notify the police
department that the BLS was conducting a family survey
and to supply the names of interviewers. Frequently,
both the city engineering office and loca) planning of-
fices were visited to obtain information onassignment
addresses which interviewers could not locate. Inmany
areas, the CES field supervisor was the only repre-
sentative of the Department of Labor inthecity. There-
fore, the supervisor received many calls from organi-
zations and individuals interested in oblaining informa-
tion on @ variety of Labor Department programs and in
knowing when CES results would be available.

In the section “daily rate employees,” the super-
visor reported pertinent information about the inter-
viewer which was not covered on the interviewer’s
personnel sheet. In the largest SMSA’s to be sur-
veyed in 2 years, these comments on 1961 staif were
particularly valuable for supervisors recruiting in-
terviewers for the 1962 round.

23

“Technical and administrative problems” covered
difficulties in obtaining office equipment or coopera-
tion of the building management; administrative prob-
lems wilh the interviewers, such as reasons for re-
leasing some interviewers early in the survey; flowof
work and editing problems; eto.

Quality control

Evaluation of tho quality of interviewer training,
supervisory training, data recording, and field editing
was continuous throughout the survey. This was carried
out in a variety of ways. Regional supervisors or
members of the Washington headquarters training
staff observed some parts of the interviewer training
done by the survey superviyors on their first round
of the 1961 survey. They evaluated the training and
provided assistance to the field supervisors where
required.

The quality of survey supervision, interviewing, and
field editing was evaluated continuously by review of
the weekly status reports (Form 142) submitted to the
regional and Washington offices, by systematic review
and evaluation of the schedules in Washington, and
by periodic visits to field offices by senior staff
throughout the survey. Field supervisors were re-
quired to transmit to Washington completed schedules
in groups of 10, Staff in the section of Consumer Ex-
penditure Surveys promptly examined schedules sent
in by each supervisor !* and worked closely with the
Branch of Enumerative Surveys so that problem areas
could be clarified and corrected while the supervisors
and interviewers were still in the survey area.

After completing review of schedules collected in
1961, the reviewing staff of the Section of Consumer
Expenditure Surveys summarized their records on
types of recurring problems (e.g., automobile purchase
and financing). This staff also evaluated the supervisors
on their understanding of the schedule, their use of
PB 218’s, the number of schedules that were rejected
after review ln Washington, ete. These quality evalua-
tions and the evaluation of the survey management
by the Branch of Enumerative Surveys were used in
the refresher training course for those supervisors
who continued in the 1962 survey. The same quality
control program was used in 1962.

Timing aod Man-Hours in
the Field Operations

As noted in chapter 2, the Bureau was responsible
for collecting 1960-61 data alt assignment addresses
in urban places and in the rural nonfarm segments

13 See discussion of review procedures, pp, 29-33.