tures on rented dwellings. At first glance, one would
expect poor single parents to spend more for rented dwell-
ings as a percentage of their total expenditures because 82
percent are renters, compared to only 48 percent of other
single parents. But poor single parents may be more likely
to live in subsidized or low rent housing than other single
parents, which would lower their out-of-pocket expense
for rented dwellings.

In all categories of transportation, poor single parents
spend less than other single parents. Transportation is a
necessity to most, but its frequency and form can vary
greatly, depending on an individual's need and ability to pay

On a per capita basis, poor single parents spend less
than other single parents on all categories of expenditures
listed in table 3. While poverty is common among single
parents, single parents also are becoming more prevalent
among those in poverty. More than one-third of the pov-
erty population consists of single mothers and their
children.!> Children are more and more likely to live in
poverty. Currently, one-fourth of all American children
live in poverty, and it is estimated that more than 30
percent of children born in 1980 can expect to be on
welfare before they reach age 18.'°

THE RESULTS OF THIS STUDY indicate that there are a
large number of significant differences between the expen-
diture patterns of single-parent and married-parent
consumer units as well as between those of poor single
parents and other single parents. The expenditures of sin-
gle parents provide a vantage point on their economic well
being, although some differences may be related to differ-
ences in socioeconomic characteristics. While the com-
parisons provided a preliminary look at single parents”
expenditures, additional research is needed to determine
the relationship between parents’ marital status and ex-
penditures. This could be done by controlling for the
other differences in household composition and other de-
mographic characteristics that may affect expenditures.[_]

——FOOTNOTES—-——

ACKNOWLEDGMENT: The author thanks Gregory M. Brown for
statistical assistance and input into the development of this report.

‘Marital Status and Living Arrangements: March 1986, Current Popu-
lation Reports, Series P-20, No 418 (Bureau of the Census, 1986).

“bid.
Marital Status and Living Arrangements: March 1986.

4Poverty in the United States: 1986, Current Population Reports, Series
P-60, No. 160, (Bureau of the Census, 1988).

‘For examples see: Mary Jo Bane and Robert Weiss, “Alone Together:
The World of Single Parent Families, American Demographics, May
1980, pp. 11-16; Suzanne M. Bianchi and Judith Seltzer, “Life Without
Father," American Demographics, December 1986, pp. 43-47; Irwin
Garfinkel and Sara McLanahan, Single Mothers and their Children: A
New American Dilemma (Washington. The Urban Institute, 1986); and

George Masnick and Mary Jo Bane, The Nation's Families: 1960-1990
(Cambridge, MA, Joint Center for Urban Studies of MIT and Harvard
University, 1980),

The Consumer Expenditure Survey is described in detail in BLS
Handbook of Methods, Bulletin 2285 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1988),
ch. 18.

"The distinction between complete and incomplete income reporters is
based in general on whether the respondent provided values for major
sources of income, such as wages and salaries, self-employment income,
and Social Security income. Even complete income reporters may not
have provided a full accounting of income from all sources. In the
current survey, across-the-board zero income reporting was designated
as invalid, and the consumer unit was categorized as an incomplete
reporter.

“The consumer unit is identified by any one of three living arrange-
ments: 1) all members of a household who are related by blood,
marriage, adoption, or other legal arrangements; 2) a person living alone
or sharing a household with others, but who is financially independent
or 3) two or more persons living together who pool their income to make
joint expenditure decisions. Financial independence is determined by
three major expense categories: housing, food, and other living expenses.
To be considered financially independent, at least two of the three major
expense categories have to be provided by the respondent. The terms
“household,” “family,” and “consumer unit” are used interchangeably
throughout the text

%Poverty in the United States: 1986 (Bureau of the Census, 1988.)

Cynthia M. Taeber and Victor Valdisera, Women in the American
Economy, Current Population Reports, Series P-23, No. 146 (Bureau of
the Census, 1986).

"bid.

27 test for significant differences in sociodemographic characteris
tics and expenditures between single parents and married parents and
between poor single parents and other single parents, a data base was
created using 1984-86 Consumer Expenditures Survey data. The data
used in this sample were collected in 1984-86. The actual expenditure
period covered is October 1983 to October 1986. A consumer unit may
appear from one to four times in the data base, due to the repeated
interviewing of each unit. However, each occurrence of a consumer unit
has been treated as if it were a separate unit. Treating each interview as
an independent observation assumes that the covariance among inter-
views of the same units is small when averaged over the entire sample
The sample size is inversely related to the covariance of expenditures
among interviews. In addition, the weights used for any unit can change
from interview to interview because each quarter is a separate and com-
plete sample. These are the assumptions used in all Consumer
Expenditure Survey publications. For more information, see Consumer
Expenditure Survey: Interview Survey, 1984, Bulletin 2267 (Bureau of
Labor Statistics, 1986). The data base for this time period contained a
sample of 17,796: 3,367 single-parent observations, 14,429 married-par
ent observations, 1,607 poor single-parent observations, and 1,760 other
single-parent observations. Weighted ordinary least squares regressions
was used to test whether differences between the groups were statisti
cally significant at the a = .O1 level

‘Based on unpublished results, Thesia Garner, Division of Price and
Index Number Research, Consumer Expenditure Surveys, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, 1988

“The poverty threshold used is the one established by the Bureau of
the Census, see Poverty in the United States (Bureau of the Census,
1988). For a three-person household with two children under age 18, the
poverty threshold in 1986 is $8,829 and for a four-person household with
two children under 18, the poverty threshold is $11,113. The t-tests used
in this section are one-tailed with a = 01

‘Barbara R. Bergmann, The Economic Emergence of Women (New
York, Basic Books. Inc., 1986), p. 228.

lesWe Can't Avoid Family Policy Much Longer,” Challenge, Septem-
ber -October 1985, p. 10.

41



MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1989 e@

single parents are divorced and 18 percent are separated.
The percentage of the sample reporting expenditures for
legal fees is 7 percent for single parents versus only 3 per-
cent for married parents.

One would expect single parents to spend less on discre-
tionary items because their incomes are lower on average.
Single parents spend less on food away from home than do
married parents: 76 percent of single parents report such
expenditures compared with 92 percent for married par-
ents. Single parents also spend less than married parents on
entertainment, personal care, reading, personal insurance,
and pensions. The expenditures for education, tobacco and
smoking supplies, and cash contributions are not signifi-
cantly different between single parents and married parents.

Single parents in poverty

In the sample used for this study, approximately 50
percent of all single parents have incomes below the pov-
erty threshold.'* This result is consistent with that
reported in the Current Population Reports for the same
period. Forty-four percent of poor single parents did not
graduate from high school, compared with only 13 per-

Research Summaries

cent of other single parents. Conversely, only 4 percent of
poor single parents are college graduates, compared with
22 percent of other single parents. Thirty-one percent of
poor single parents live in the South and 14 percent live in
the West. The share of families in these regions is more
when examining other single parents; 36 percent live in
the South and 22 percent, in the West. For the Northeast
and Midwest, the numbers reverse. Twenty-two percent
of poor single parents live in the Northeast and 33 percent
live in the Midwest, compared to 18 percent of other
single parents living in the Northeast and 24 percent in
the Midwest. Ninety-four percent of poor single parents
are women, compared with 82 percent of other single
parents. Thirty-five percent of poor single parents are
black, compared with 20 percent of other single parents.
When comparing per household expenditures, poor sin-
gle-parent consumer units spend less than other single
parents for owned dwellings. (See table 3.) Poor single
parents also spend less on fuels, utilities, and public ser-
vices, and household operations, furnishings, and equip-
ment than other single parents. However, there is no
significant difference between the two groups for expendi-

Table 3, Selected per household and per capita average expenditures for single-parent consumer units in poverty and other
single-parent consumer units, Interview Survey, 1984-86
_ Per household expenditures Per capita expenditures
tem Single All other Significant Single Al other Significant
parents gle difference parents, single difference
in poverty parents ata=01 in poverty parents at a=01.
‘Average annual expenditures. $9,423 $2131 . $3,197 $8,329
Food 2,362 3,256 763 4,242 :
Food at home .. 2121 2.266 679 857 :
Food away from home 241 990 84 385 :
Housing 3771 7.329 1,304 2,929
Sheiter : 2.135 4.218 750 1,708 :
‘Owned dwellings 441 2,036 152 12 :
Rented dwellings 1.662 1,835 586 764 :
Other lodging a 348 : 12 132 :
Utilities, fuels, and public services 1172 1,762 : 391 676 :
Household operations 183 657 . 70 272 .
Babysitting and day care... 196 520 53 217 :
Housefurnishings and equipment 282 691 93 273
Transportation 7.284 4,002 434 1,550 :
Vehicle purchases. 519 11674 166 641
Cars and trucks, new 176 872 54 955 :
Cars and trucks, used... 343 802 414 286
Gasoline and motor oil 381 893 133 348 :
Public transportation 7 92 246 31 99 :
Other vehicle expenses 292 1,190 . 104 462 .
Apparel... 621 1,362 : 205 528 :
Men age 16 and over 39 146 12 54 :
Boys ages 2 to 15 94 142 : 29 55 :
Women age 16 and over 129 472 46 186 :
Girls ages 2 to 15 118 185 : 36 68 :
Children under age 2 5t 28 . 18 12 .
Health care 221 839 73 921 :
Entertainment 339 1,026 117 407
Personal care 78 206 25 79 | :
Reading 38 133 13 53 | :
Education 113 357 . 4a 124 .
Tobacco and smoking supplies 183 199 65 7 :
Miscellaneous! 143 389 : 55 149 :
Contributions 40 649 : 18 239 :
Personal insurance and pensions 191 1,838 . 64 727 :
‘Miscellaneous includes satety deposit box rental, checking account fees and dues; occupational expenses; and finance charges other than for mortgage and
other bank services; legal fees; accounting fees; funerals; cemetery lots, union _ vehicles.

40



Research Summaries

Spending patterns and income
of single and married parents

MAUREEN BOYLE

The number of American families headed by single parents
has increased dramatically in the last three decades, grow-
ing from 9 percent of all households with children in 1960
to almost 24 percent in 1986.' This increase in single-par-
ent families reflects the rise in separations and divorces,
and an increase in families that are headed by unmarried
mothers. The result is that 15 million of 63 million chil-
dren, almost 1 of 4 live in single-parent households: 42
percent of these 15 million children have parents who are
divorced, 27 percent of the children have parents who
never married, 25 percent have parents who are separated,
and 7 percent have a widowed parent.’ The Census Bureau
has estimated that more than 50 percent of all children will
spend at least some time in single-parent households. Al-
most 89 percent of the children in single-parent households
live with their mothers, and about 11 percent with their
fathers.’ Single-parent households headed by women are of
special interest because they are more likely to be poor than
are other households with children. Nearly half of all
households in poverty are headed by women.‘

The growth in the number of single-parent households
and their economic situation is emerging as an important
issue of public policy. Although the policy implications of
single parenthood are not the topic of this summary, in-
formation about the economic situation of these families,
as provided in this report, can be useful in evaluating the
issue. A number of articles have examined the income and
characteristics of single parents: these articles have mainly
focused on households headed by women because they are
the majority.* However, research comparing the expendi-
ture patterns of single-parent households and married-
parent households is scarce. The purpose of this report is to
compare, in some detail, the expenditure patterns of these
households. As an added dimension, comparisons are also
made for single parents living in poverty and single parents
not in poverty.

Maureen Boyle is an economist in the Division of Consumer Expendi-
ture Surveys, Bureau of Labor Statistics

Background on data

The data used for this study are taken from the Interview
portion of the Consumer Expenditure Survey for the years
1984 through 1986.° Expenditures and characteristics are
compared for all single parents and married parents and
then for single parents in poverty and single parents not in
poverty. Only consumer units which are complete income
reporters are used in this sample; this step was followed so as
not to distort the relationship between income and expendi-
tures.’ The Interview Survey selects participants on a
rotating panel basis and targets approximately 5,000 con-
sumer units each quarter. Respondents are interviewed for
five consecutive quarters. One-fifth of the sample is new to
the survey every quarter. The unit of study, the consumer
unit, is similar to a family or household.* Single-parent fami-
lies include those consumer units with a male or female
reference person, no spouse present, and at least one child
under age 18 who is living in the unit. Married parents
include those consumer units in which both husband and
wife are present and at least one child is under the age of 18.
The reference person is the first member mentioned by the
respondent to the survey when asked to “Start with the
name of the person or one of the persons who owns or rents
the home.” Hence, either the husband or wife can be the
reference person. The demographics cited refer to the refer-
ence person.

Each consumer unit, in the sample of single-parent un-
its, is defined as above or below the poverty threshold.
The poverty threshold is based on family composition as
defined by the Bureau of the Census in the Current Popu-
lation Reports.° For convenience, the following terms will
generally be used throughout the text: “single-parents”
for single parent units, ‘‘married parents” for married
parent units, “poor single parents” for single-parent units
living below the poverty threshold and “other single par-
ents” for single-parent units living above the poverty
threshold. Approximately 23 percent of all consumer un-
its with children are single-parent units. Results indicate
that married parents have more than twice as much 1n-
come as have single parents and own more than twice as
many vehicles (See table 1.). Married parents are more
likely to be homeowners. The reference person of a single-
parent unit is more likely to be black, and to have fewer
years of formal schooling than the reference person for a
married parent consumer unit. Single parents have a
larger share of their children in the oldest age group and a

37



MONTHLY LABOR REVIEW March 1989 @

smaller share in the youngest age group when compared
with married parents.

The consumption patterns of single parents may reflect
the sources of income as well as their income levels be-
cause regularity of income is likely to be important when
planning expenditures. The following tabulation presents
the percentages of consumer units reporting income from
these sources in the 1986 Consumer Expenditure Survey.
Single parents and married parents differ significantly ac-
cording to their sources of income:

Sources of income: Single Married
percent reporting — parents parents
Money income before taxes .... 100, 100
Wages and salaries ........0..0.0... 1 94
Self employment income .......... 5 15
Social Security, Railroad
Retirement, and other pensions . 8 4
Dividends and other
property income ..........c0c00. 7 36
Income from other sources ce 66 24
Public assistance . 29 2
Alimony and child support 28 4
Food stamps 36 4

Only 71 percent of single parents report income from
wages and salaries, compared with 94 percent of married
parents. In contrast, 66 percent of single parents report
income from other sources, such as public assistance, food
stamps, alimony, and child support, compared to 24 percent
of married parents. Income from these sources may not be
received with regularity, especially income for child support
and alimony payments, which for single parents make up
more than a third of income from other sources. In 1983,
the aggregate amount of child support payments due was
$10.1 billion, but actual payments received amounted to
only about $7.1 billion.'° Of women entitled to receive child
support payments, 31 percent of black women and 23 per-
cent of white women received no payments.'' In addition, 8
percent of single parents report income from Social Secu-
rity, compared with 4 percent of married parents. With
Social Security including survivor benefits, this higher per-
centage for single parents is not surprising because 9
percent of all single parents are widowed

Expenditures

Table 2 includes the average annual per household and
per capita expenditures of single parent and married par-
ent consumer units. Significant differences between the
two groups in the per household and per capita expendi-
tures are noted in columns three and six.'? Expenditure
categories like shelter and fuels, utilities, and public ser-
vices are best viewed in terms of per household expendi-
tures, because these goods are assumed to be consumed
jointly by household members. Other goods and services,
such as public transportation, are purchased and consumed
on an individual basis, and thus are more clearly viewed

38

Research Summaries

using per capita expenditures. Single parents spend less
than married parents for all categories of transportation
when per household expenditures are compared statisti-
cally. However, when per capita differences are examined,
single parents do not spend differently than married par-
ents on public transportation. When airline fares are
subtracted from total public transportation, single parents
spend more than married parents for the “other” category
of public transportation on a per capita basis.

Making comparisons on a per capita basis may control
for differences in family size, but it does not account for
differences in family composition. While babysitting and
day care expenditures will depend on the number of chil-
dren a family has, one might be tempted to make the
comparison on a per capita basis. However, because single
parents and married parents have, on average, approxi-
mately the same number of children (table 1), and married
parents have twice as many adults in their unit as single
parents by definition, the results will be distorted. When
per household expenditures for babysitting and day care
are examined, there is no significant difference between the
two groups. On a per capita basis, single parents appear to
spend more on babysitting and day care. While one could
argue that there are some married-parent households in
which the wife stays at home during the day so that day
care expenditures would be minimal or nonexistent, there
also are single parents who must stay at home because the
cost of entering the labor force may be higher than the
earnings that they would receive. However, in families in
which both parents work outside the home, two incomes
contribute to day care, whereas the single parent theoreti-
cally only has one. Thus, the per household comparison
shows a clearer picture of expenditures on day care and
babysitting; there is no statistically significant difference in
expenditures for the two groups in spite of the substantial
difference in income.

Table 1. Characteristics of single parents and married
parents, 1984-86
vsti Single Married
Characteristics porate poonts

Number of consumer units (milions) 74 a7
Income before taxes $14671 $93,153
Income after taxes $13,633 $30,305
Size of consumer unit : 29 44
Age of reference person 36 37
Average number in consumer unit

Earners 1 2

Children under 18 17 19

Vehicles 14 26
Percent reporting

Homeownership 36 75

Black reference person : 27 7
Education of reference person (percent)

Elementary (1-8) 7 5

High school (9-12) - 55 45

College 37 49
Percentage with children of ages:

Less than 6 35 49

6-11 : 43 4a

12-17 : 55 46



Table 2. Selected per household and per capita average expenditures of single-parent and married parent consumer units,
Interview Survey, 1984-86
Per household expenditures,
tiem Single Married Signiticant Single Married Slonficant
parents parents fem parents parents at a=.01
Average annual expenditures... $15,067 $28,708 : $5,979 $7,952 :
Food - 2,948 4,521 : 1,023 1,134
Food at home 2,200 3,205 : 775 821
Food away from home ... 647 1,226 . 247 312 .
Housing 5,699 8,794 : 2,185 2,267 -
Shelter. : 3,264 41937 : 1,269 1277
‘Owned dwellings .. 4,306 3,491 : 510 896
Rented dwellings 1,756 963 : 683 258
Other lodging... 203 483 : 7 423 :
Utiites, fuels, and public services 1,492 2,047 : 545 519
Household operations ‘440 597 : 479 158
Babysitting and day care 344 304 = 142 108 :
Housefurnishings and equipment 503 1,219 . 191 313
Transportation 2,758 6,194 1,038 4,597 :
Vehicle purchases. 1145 2.094 : 423 756 :
Cars and trucks, new 353 1,662 : 217 443 :
Cars and trucks, used 591 1,232 : 206 ata :
Gasoline and motor oil 659 1412 : 249 358 .
Public transportation 175 253 : 68 6 =
Other vehicle expenses 778 | 1,636 : 298 418 .
Apparel 1,028 1,569 : 380 398 =
‘Men age 16 and over 97 286 : 35 73 :
Boys ages 2 to 15, 120 140 : 43 33 :
Women age 16 and over... 315 425 : 122 109 :
Girls ages 2 to 15 153 187 : 53 45 :
Children under age 2 39 96 : 15 26 :
Health care. 556 4,126 : 210 286 :
Entertainment 72 1,565 : 274 400 :
Personal care 147 241 : 54 61 :
Reading 90 162 : 34 42 .
Education. 245 384 . 87 94 -
Tobacco and smoking supplies 192 278 . 72 sal
Miscellaneous! anne 277 260 = 106 70 :
Contributions... ane 970 767 136 196 =
Personal insurance and pensions. 1,083 3,138 423 e12 .
‘Miscellaneous includes safety deposit box rental, checking account fees, and dues: occupational expenses; and finance charges other than for mortgage and
other bank services; legal fees; accounting fees; funerals; cemetery lots; union vehicles.

Per household expenditures. Many of the differences in
expenditures between single parents and married parents
can be explained by their characteristics. As mentioned ear-
lier, married parents on average have more than twice as
many vehicles as single parents and a higher rate of home-
ownership. These differences are clearly reflected in the
expenditures of single parents and married parents. Single
parents spend less than married parents for all categories of
transportation: vehicle purchases, gasoline and motor oil,
public transportation, and other vehicle expenses. In accord-
ance with their lower rate of homeownership, single parents
spend less than married parents on owned dwellings and
more on rented dwellings. Single parents also spend less
than married parents on expenditures for fuels, utilities, and
public services. This is most likely due to the fact that these
expenditures are often included in rental payments.

Per capita expenditures. Single parents spend more per
capita than married parents on apparel for boys, girls, and
women and less on apparel for men and children under
age 2. It stands to reason that they would spend less on
men’s apparel, and more on women’s apparel because 87

percent of all single-parent consumer units in this sample
are headed by women. Expenditures for infants’ apparel
are less for single parents because they have a lower pro-
portion of children in the younger age group. This
difference may also be explained by the fact that gifts,
which are more likely to be purchased by married couples
are included in these expenditures.'*

Although single parents spend less than married par-
ents on total health care, they spend more on the services
of practitioners other than physicians. Single parents
spend less on all types of health insurance except Medi-
care, physicians’ services, eye care, prescription drugs, lab
tests, and x rays, excluding dental and eye care. The lim-
ited incomes of single parents may make them eligible for
Medicaid or other public health services and, therefore,
they have more restricted choice in their use of health care
which can affect their spending.

Single parents spend more on miscellaneous expendi-
tures, which include legal fees, than married parents.
Possibly, single parents spend more on legal fees because
they have fees for divorce and separation and for collection
of alimony and child support. In this sample, 48 percent of

39