From the Co-Editors The four articles in the second issue of Volume 19 focus on various dimensions of income and spending characteristics of the family. The articles range from the reasons for not participating in food stamp programs to a description of the income and expenditures of American adolescents, the role of ethnicity relative to household budget allocation patterns, and disproportionate housing cost burden across household types. Important findings regarding reasons for non-participation in the food stamp program are presented by Richard D. Coe and Daniel H. Hill. In their research, these authors use the 1986 Panel Study of Income Dynamics to identify specific reasons for non-participation. In the sample for this study, less than one-half of the households eligible to participate in the food stamp program actually participate in the program. The results of the multinomial logit model suggest that participation in the food stamp program is related negatively to the age and education level of the head of household and is related positively to the benefit level. Participation is relatively lower for single men and households residing in the West and higher for people with disabilities and households receiving some other form of public transfer income. Specifically, problems regarding information about food stamps and personal attitudes toward food stamp use have the greatest impact on the decision to participate in the food stamp program. Carol B. Meeks uses the 1992 National Survey of Families and Households to examine the sources and amounts of adolescents' income and family expectations regarding expenditure of market earnings. About half of the adolescents in the study receive an allowance, about half are employed outside the home, and just under half are paid extra for doing jobs at home. Boys are more likely than girls to be paid for chores at home, and girls are more likely than boys to be employed outside the home. White adolescents are more likely than adolescents of other racial groups to be employed outside the home, and older adolescents are more likely than younger adolescents to be employed outside the home. About 20% of the sample are expected to contribute to family expenses, and about 25% are expected to save for Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Vol. 19(2), Summer 1998 © 1998 Human Sciences Press, Inc.
103
104
Journal of Family and Economic Issues
the future. Overall, the results of this study show that adolescents control their income with relatively few requirements to save or contribute to family expenses. Jessie Z. Fan and Virginia Solus Zuiker identify a conceptual framework for studying the relationship between ethnicity and household budget allocation patterns. They use their conceptual framework to examine budget allocation patterns of Hispanic and non-Hispanic White households. Using the Interview Component of the 1980-1992 Consumer Expenditure Survey and two price indices (the 1980-1992 Consumer Price Index and the 1990 ACCRA Cost of Living Index), they use the Linear Approximation of the Almost Ideal Demand System to identify differences in budget allocation patterns between Hispanic and non-Hispanic White households. Results show that, holding other variables constant, compared to non-Hispanic White households, Hispanic households allocate significantly more of their budget to food at home, shelter, and apparel and significantly less to food away from home, entertainment, education, health care, and tobacco. Findings of this research demonstrate the need for public education to teach the general public to understand and respect the Hispanic culture and to appreciate the differences between the Hispanic culture and other subcultures within the United States society. This research also highlights the importance of designing public policy to enhance the likelihood of Hispanic consumers' learning the English language. Further, the authors show that understanding the unique economic behavior of Hispanic consumers is critical for improving service to Hispanic consumers. Finally, Peter S. K. Chi and Joseph LaQuatra use the national sample of the American Housing Survey and an ordered logistic regression model to investigate the variation in relative housing cost burden across 12 distinct household groups, which are defined by six socio-demographic variables: age of the head of household, gender of the head of household, marital status, family size, race, and ethnicity. Results show that the burden of housing costs in the United States has affected the 12 types of households disproportionately. The hypothesis that multi-risk households may be more likely to experience excessive housing cost burden is not supported, and the authors' concept of "cumulative risk" fails to differentiate housing cost burden across a single dimensional scale. However, the cumulative risk approach successfully identifies the 12 distinct household types which can be targeted for housing programs. The findings of this research also support previous findings: (a) that renters suffer a greater hous-
Barbara R. Rowe and Gong-Soog Hong
105
ing cost burden than homeowners, and (b) that low-income households spend a larger portion of their income for housing than highincome households. These findings justify using tenure and income as key variables to determine eligibility of government-assisted housing programs. Energy and utility costs are the second largest housing expense after rent or mortgage payments for most Americans, but they are the dominant component of housing costs for the elderly and for female-headed households. These authors conclude that, in addition to traditional housing assistance programs of rent subsidies and lowinterest mortgages, promoting energy efficiency could be a powerful policy tool for increasing housing affordability. Results of this research provide a basis for identifying households to target for such an energy efficiency program. Barbara R. Rowe and Gong-Soog Hong Purdue University
