National Academies Press: OpenBook

WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change (2006)

Chapter: Appendix E Cost Calculations

« Previous: Appendix D Evaluating Potential Benefits and Risks of the Revised Food Packages
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×

E
COST CALCULATIONS

For the cost analyses presented in this report, the committee conducted detailed analyses of nationally representative pricing data for foods in the current and revised WIC food packages. The details, not presented in body of the report, are presented in this appendix.

A large part of the methodology for cost calculations involves the assumptions necessary for the analyses. Tables E-1 and E-2 show a side-by-side comparison of the assumptions used for the nutrient analyses and the cost analyses. Table E-3 is an easy reference guide of the costs used in the cost calculations. Details of the calculations used for program costs of the current and revised food packages are presented in Tables E-4 and E-5. These tables can be found at the end of this appendix.

List of tables:

Table E-1

 

Bases of Assumptions Used in Nutrient and Cost Analyses of Food Packages for Infants,

 

318

Table E-2

 

Bases of Assumptions Used in Nutrient and Cost Analyses of Food Packages for Children and Women,

 

324

Table E-3

 

Calculated Costs of Representative Amounts of Foods in Revised Packages (2002)

 

 

A

 

Infants,

 

342

B

 

Children and Women,

 

344

Table E-4

 

Estimated Program Costs for Food per Month Using Current Packages (2002),

 

350

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×

Table E-5

 

Estimated Program Costs for Food per Month Using Revised Packages (2002),

 

352

In addition to the assumptions listed in Tables E-1 and E-2, several assumptions were used to distribute mother/infant pairs by the feeding method used. These are described as follows.

Assumptions on Infant Feeding in the WIC Program

A recent survey by the CDC on breastfeeding practices showed that among women participating in the WIC program, at 3 months postpartum 64 percent of mothers report breastfeeding in any amount with 36 percent reporting breastfeeding exclusively (CDC, 2004b). Based on these estimates, 28 percent (64 percent minus 36 percent) were partially breastfeeding at 3 months postpartum. The same survey indicated that at 6 months postpartum, 28 percent of mothers were breastfeeding in any amount with 11 percent exclusively breastfeeding (CDC, 2004b). Based on these estimates, 17 percent (28 percent minus 11 percent) were partially breastfeeding at 6 months postpartum. From these estimates (partial breastfeeding rates of 28 percent at 3 months and 17 percent at 6 months), a partially breastfed rate of 20 percent for infants ages 4 through 5 months of age was extrapolated.

For older infants, survey estimates of reported breastfeeding rates at 6 months (29 percent) and 12 months (14 percent) were used to extrapolate a rate of 21 percent breast-fed infants for the 6 through 11 month period (CDC, 2004b). The 21 percent of mothers who breast-fed infants were either fully or partially breastfeeding; the committee distributed them as 5 percent fully breastfeeding and 16 percent partially breastfeeding based on 2002 data from the Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study (Briefel et al., 2004a).

For the program cost analyses, breastfeeding rates were assumed to remain the same for both the current and revised food packages. Therefore, the following assumptions were used for the calculations:

  • Infants Ages 0 Through 3 Months—36 percent fully breast-fed; 28 percent partially breast-fed (that is, 64 percent “ever breast-fed”); 36 percent fully formula-fed;

  • Infants Ages 4 and 5 Months—11 percent fully breast-fed; 20 percent partially breast-fed (that is, 31 percent “ever breast-fed”); 69 percent fully formula-fed; and

  • Infants Ages 6 Through 11 Months—5 percent fully breast-fed; 16 percent partially breast-fed (that is, 21 percent “ever breast-fed”); 79 percent fully formula-fed.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×

These percentages are estimates of what package use might be for the revised packages.

An additional term, exclusively breast-fed, is used among lactation professionals. That term, when used in the WIC program, does not necessarily mean that an infant is only receiving breast milk; it means, in this context, that an infant does not receive formula from the WIC program. Under the current system, exclusively breast-fed infants can receive cereal and juice, as early as four months of age. Therefore, they may not truly be exclusively breast-fed, as a lactation expert might define them.

Assumptions on Feeding Method for Women in the WIC Program

According to data from WIC Participant and Program Characteristics: PC2002, approximately 24 percent of all WIC participants are women (Kresge, 2003; Bartlett et al., 2003). Among these women, 45 percent are pregnant, 24 percent are breastfeeding, and 31 percent are non-breastfeeding postpartum women. The percentage of WIC women who were fully breastfeeding was not included in that report (Kresge, 2003; Bartlett et al., 2003).

Based on the distribution of infants by age (Kresge, 2003; Bartlett et al., 2003) and the assumptions on feeding method for infants, it was estimated that of the total infants participating in the WIC program that are breastfed (in the WIC program sense), 45 percent are partially breast-fed and 55 percent are fully breast-fed. Breastfeeding women were distributed by the same percentage.1 Thus, for women, estimates of 13 percent fully breastfeeding and 11 percent partially breastfeeding were used; that is, the calculations of program costs assumed a total of 24 percent of women participating in the WIC program were breastfeeding as cited by Kresge (2003) and Bartlett et al. (2003).

Possible Shifts in Participation Rates

In order to evaluate the sensitivity of the estimated program costs for food with the revised packages (Tables 5-3 and E-5) to changes in participation rates among the infant and women categories, the committee simulated

1  

In fact, the number of breast-fed infants reported participating in the WIC program is greater than the number of breastfeeding women reported: 678,560 versus 458,131 (Kresge, 2003). By applying the ratio of partially versus fully breast-fed infants to breastfeeding women, the committee assumed that the participation by women regarding partial versus exclusive breastfeeding is the same proportion as for infants.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×

costs with some shifting in categories. One such evaluation assumed the following:

  • For infants age 0 through 3.9 months, there would be a 20 percent shift in infants from fully formula-fed to fully breast-fed;

  • For infants age 1 through 3.9 months, there would be a 30 percent shift from partially breast-fed to fully breast-fed;

  • For infants age 4 through 5.9 months, there would be a 10 percent shift from fully formula-fed to partially breast-fed, and a 30 percent shift from partially breast-fed to fully breast-fed; and

  • For infants age 6 through 11.9 months, there would be an 8 percent shift from fully formula-fed to partially breast-fed, and a 30 percent shift from partially breast-fed to fully breast-fed.

The shifts in the infant categories were accompanied by the appropriate shift in the mother’s classification. The result of these shifts was to decrease the average food package cost per participant from $34.57 to $33.93 per month for the revised packages.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×

TABLE E-1 Bases of Assumptions Used in Nutrient and Cost Analyses of Food Packages for Infants

 

Assumption used in

Fooda

Nutrient Analysesb

Formula

Current and Revised Packages I and II

 

Milk-based formula (versus soy-based formula)

 

Weighted mean of: Enfamil with Iron (Mead Johnson), 67.8%; Similac with Iron (Ross/ Abbott), 27.2%; and Good Start (Carnation/Nestlé), 5.0%

Juice

Current Package II

 

Apple juice (vitamin C-rich)

Baby food, fruits

Revised Package II

Fruit(s) as the only major ingredient(s)d

 

Junior (stage 2), 4–8 oz/d

 

Equal weighting of: Applesauce; Peaches; and Pears

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×

Cost Analysesa,c

Type of Data Considered as Basis of Assumption

Source of Dataa

Container sizes: na, used cost per fl oz data

 

Oliveira et al., 2001

 

Representative of market share

Oliveira et al., 2001

 

Market share within WIC program, 2001

Oliveira et al., 2001

Cost per fl oz data

 

Oliveira et al., 2001

Equal weighting of:

Frozen concentrate, 6–12 fl oz container:

Shelf-stable, 32–48 fl oz container; and

Representative of likely participant choices and state agency restrictions

ACNielsen Homescan, 2001

Same as for nutrient analyses

Representative of likely participant choices

Assumption based on age of participants

Same as for nutrient analyses

Nutritional and developmental appropriateness

AAP, 2004

 

Representative of nutritional content

Assumption for analyses

Weighted mean (for total of 6 mo) of:

  • Strained (stage 1) for 1 mo, 2.5 oz container;

  • Junior (stage 2) for 2 mo, 4 oz container; and

  • Advanced (stage 3) for 3 mo, 6 oz container

Representative of developmental stages and nutritional needs

ACNielsen Homescan, 2001

Manufacturer labeling and websites, 2004

Fresh banana substituted at a rate of 1 medium banana per 4 oz container for the maximum allowed (for 16 oz of baby food fruits). Assumed equivalence of 4 bananas for 2 pounds of fresh bananas.

Representative of likely participant choices

Assumption for analyses

ERS, 2004b

FNS, 1984b

Weighting of other choices assumed not relevant to pricing

 

Reflects all available data

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×

 

Assumption used in

Fooda

Nutrient Analysesb

Baby food, vegetables

Revised Package II

Vegetable(s) as the only major ingredient(s)e

 

Junior (stage 2), 4–8 oz/d

 

Equal weighting of:

Carrots;

Green beans; and

Squash, assumed to be winter squash

Cereal, baby

Current and Revised Package II

 

Grain(s) as the only major ingredient(s)f

 

Rice cereal, dry

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×

Cost Analysesa,c

Type of Data Considered as Basis of Assumption

Source of Dataa

Same as for nutrient analyses

Nutritional and developmental appropriateness

AAP, 2004

 

Representative of nutritional content

Assumption for analyses

Weighted mean (for total of 6 mo) of:

  • Strained (stage 1) for 1 mo, 2.5 oz container;

  • Junior (stage 2) for 2 mo, 4 oz container; and

  • Advanced (stage 3) for 3 mo, 6 oz container

Representative of developmental stages and nutritional needs

ACNielsen Homescan, 2001

Manufacturer labeling and websites, 2004

 

Representative of likely participant choices

Assumption for analyses

Weighting of choices assumed not relevant to pricing

 

Reflects all available data

Container sizes: 8–16 oz

 

ACNielsen Homescan, 2001

Same as for nutrient analyses

Nutritional and developmental appropriateness

AAP, 2004

 

Representative of likely participant choices

Assumption for analyses

Dry baby cereal, all typesc,f

Representative of market share

ACNielsen Homescan, 2001

 

Weighting assumed not relevant to pricing

Reflects all available data

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×

 

Assumption used in

Fooda

Nutrient Analysesb

Baby food, meats

Revised Package II-BF

Meat as the only major ingredient(s)g

 

Strained (stage 1), 2.5 oz/d

 

Equal weighting of:

Beef;

Chicken; and

Lamb

aFor clarity, the food, container sizes, and source of pricing data are indicated in bold.

bThe nutrient analyses referred to in this table use Nutrition Data System for Research (NDS-R) software version 5.0/35 (2004) developed by the Nutrition Coordinating Center (NCC), University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN (Schakel et al., 1988, 1997; Schakel, 2001). A second set of nutrient analyses using the USDA Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, Release 17 (SR-17) (NDL, 2004) is presented in Tables B-3A through B-3D, Appendix BNutrient Profiles of Current and Revised Food Packages.

cOrganic baby foods were omitted from the cost analyses.

dStrained fruit prepared for infants without added sugars, starches, or salt. Mixtures of fruits are allowed for older infants. Texture may range from pureed through diced.

eStrained vegetable prepared for infants without added sugars, starches, or salt. Mixtures of vegetables are allowed for older infants. Texture may range from pureed through diced.

fGrain cereal products prepared for infants without added sugars, salt, or “formula ingredients” (e.g., nonfat dry milk). Mixtures of grains are allowed for older infants.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×

Cost Analysesa,c

Type of Data Considered as Basis of Assumption

Source of Dataa

Same as for nutrient analyses

Nutritional and developmental appropriateness

AAP, 2004

Representative of nutritional content

Reflects available data

Weighted mean (for total of 6 mo) of:

  • Strained (stage 1) for 2 mo, 2.5–3 oz container; and

  • Junior (stage 2) for 4 mo, 2.5–3 oz container

Representative of nutritional and developmental needs; reflects available data

ACNielsen Homescan, 2001

 

Representative of likely participant choices

Assumption for analyses

Weighting of choices assumed not relevant to pricing

 

Reflects all available data

gStrained meat prepared for infants without added starches, vegetables, or salt. Broth (unsalted; that is, without added sodium) may be an ingredient. Texture may range from pureed through diced.

NOTES : na = not applicable. The medical formulas required by infants with special dietary needs were omitted from this table. For additional detail on food specifications, see Table B-1, Appendix BNutrient Profiles of Current and Revised Food Packages.

DATA SOURCES: Price data and other information were obtained from Economic Research Service, USDA (ERS, 2004b, 1999 price data; Oliveira et al., 2001, 2000 infant formula price data), and ACNielsen Homescan (ACNielsen, 2001, 2001 price data obtained through ERS, USDA). Additional information was obtained from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP, 2004), USDA (FNS, 1984b), and manufacturer labeling and websites (Abbott Laboratories Online, 2004; Mead Johnson, 2004; Nestlé, 2005).

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×

TABLE E-2 Bases of Assumptions Used in Nutrient and Cost Analyses of Food Packages for Children and Women

 

Assumption used in

Fooda

Nutrient Analysesb,c

Fruits and Vegetables

Juice

Current and Revised Packages

Equal weighting of: Apple juice; and Orange juice

Apple juice

Current and Revised Packages

Reconstituted from frozen

 

Vitamin C-rich

Orange juice

Current and Revised Packages

Reconstituted from frozen

 

Not fortified

Fruits

Fruits, fresh

Revised Packages

 

Equal weighting of: Apples; Oranges; and Bananas

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×

Cost Analysesa

Type of Data Considered as Basis of Assumption

Source of Dataa

Same as for nutrient analyses

Representative of likely participant choices

Assumption for analyses

 

Representative of nutritional content

Assumption for analyses

Equal weighting of:

Frozen concentrate, 612 fl oz container; and

Canned, 3248 fl oz container

Representative of likely participant choices within state agency restrictions

ACNielsen Homescan, 2001

Same as for nutrient analyses

 

Assumption for analyses

 

Representative of nutritional content

Assumption for analyses

Weighted mean of:

Frozen concentrate, 612 fl oz container,

75%; and

Canned, 3646 fl oz

container, 25%

Market share within likely state agency restrictions

ACNielsen Homescan, 2001

Not fortified or assumed not fortified from available data

Representative of likely state agency restrictions

Assumption for analyses

Container sizes: na, used cost per pound data

 

ERS, 2004b

Assumptions for some types of analyses were based on data from a standard reference: FNS, 1984a, 1984b

Same as for nutrient analyses

Representative of consumer purchases and consumption data

Assumptions for analyses were based on data from various sources: Krebs-Smith et al., 1997; Putnam and Allshouse,

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×

 

Assumption used in

Fooda

Nutrient Analysesb,c

Fruits, canned

Revised Packages

 

Juice pack or unsweetened

 

Not drained (i.e., packing liquid utilized)

 

Equal weighting of: Applesauce; Peaches; and Pineapple

Vegetables

 

Vegetables, fresh

Current and Revised Packages

 

Current Package VII

Carrots

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×

Cost Analysesa

Type of Data Considered as Basis of Assumption

Source of Dataa

 

 

1999; Smiciklas-Wright et al., 2002; Cotton et al., 2004; Reed et al., 2004

Container sizes: na, used cost per pound data

Nominal container size of 15 oz used in some types of analyses

ERS, 2004b

Assumptions for some types of analyses were based on data from a standard reference: FNS, 1984a, 1984b

Same as for nutrient analyses

Representative of likely participant choices (i.e., participants are likely to choose juice pack rather than water pack)

Assumption for analyses

na

Representative of likely participant practices

Assumption for analyses

Same as for nutrient analyses

Representative of consumer purchases and consumption data

Assumptions for analyses were based on data from several sources: Krebs-Smith et al., 1997; Putnam and Allshouse, 1999; Smiciklas-Wright et al., 2002; Cotton et al., 2004; Reed et al., 2004

Container sizes: na, used cost per pound data

 

ERS, 2004b

Assumptions for some types of analyses were based on data from a standard reference: FNS, 1984a, 1984b

Same as for nutrient analyses

Representative of likely participant choices (i.e., participants are likely to choose fresh carrots rather than canned)

Assumption for analyses

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×

 

Assumption used in

Fooda

Nutrient Analysesb,c

 

Revised Packages

Equal weighting of: Carrots; Tomatoes; and Green beans

Vegetables, canned

Revised Packages

 

Regulard

 

Drained

 

Equal weighting of: Carrots; Tomatoes; and Green beans

Milk and Alternatives

Milk

Current and Revised Packages

 

Weighted mean of: Maximum allowance as milk, 50% (see †); and Milk with maximum of cheese, yogurt, and tofu allowed as substitutes for milk, 50% (see †)

Current Packages

Equal weighting of: Whole, 3.5–4% milk fat; Reduced-fat, 2% milk fat; Low-fat, 1% milk fat; and Nonfat, Skim

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×

Cost Analysesa

Type of Data Considered as Basis of Assumption

Source of Dataa

Same as for nutrient analyses

Representative of consumer purchases and consumption data

Assumptions for analyses were based on data from several sources: Krebs-Smith et al., 1997; Putnam and Allshouse, 1999; Smiciklas-Wright et al., 2002; Cotton et al., 2004; Reed et al., 2004

Container sizes: na, used cost per pound data

Nominal container size of 14.5 oz used in some types of analyses

ERS, 2004b

Assumptions for some types of analyses were based on data from a standard reference: FNS, 1984a, 1984b

Same as for nutrient analyses

Representative of likely state agency restrictions

Assumption for analyses

na

Representative of likely participant practices

Assumption for analyses

Same as for nutrient analyses

Representative of consumer purchases and consumption data

Assumptions for analyses were based on data from several sources: Krebs-Smith et al., 1997; Putnam and Allshouse, 1999; Smiciklas-Wright et al., 2002; Cotton et al., 2004; Reed et al., 2004

Container size weighting: Gallon, 75%; and Half gallon, 25%

 

ACNielsen Homescan, 2001

Same as for nutrient analyses

Representative of likely participant choices

Assumption for analyses

Same as for nutrient analyses

Representative of likely participant choices

Assumption for analyses

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×

 

Assumption used in

Fooda

Nutrient Analysesb,c

 

Revised Packages

Whole milk (3.5–4% milk fat) only for 1-y-old children

2 y and above, equal weighting of: Reduced-fat, 2% milk fat; Low-fat, 1% milk fat; and Nonfat, Skim

Plainf

 

Revised Packages for Women

†Weighted mean of: Milk, 90%; and Soy beverage, 10%

Cheese

Current and Revised Packages

Equal weighting of: American cheese, process;e Cheddar cheese, natural; Monterey Jack cheese, natural; and Mozzarella cheese, part skim milk

Yogurt

Revised Packages

Women, equal weighting of: Low-fat, 1% milk fat; and Nonfat

Children, low-fat (1% milk fat) only

 

Equal weighting of: Plain;f and Vanilla

Soy beverage (“soy milk”)

Revised Packages for Women

Ready-to-drink, regular,g calcium-rich (“fortified”)

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×

Cost Analysesa

Type of Data Considered as Basis of Assumption

Source of Dataa

Same as for nutrient analyses

AAP recommendation

AAP, 2004

Same as for nutrient analyses

AHA recommendations

Representative of likely participant choices

AHA, 2004

Assumption for analyses

Same as for nutrient analyses

Representative of likely national and state agency restrictions

Assumption for analyses

Same as for nutrient analyses

Representative of likely participant choices

Wenrich and Cason, 2004

Container size: 16 oz

 

ACNielsen Homescan, 2001

Market purchase weighting of:

American Cheddar cheese, natural; and

Mozzarella cheese

Representative of likely participant choices within available data specifications for market share

ACNielsen Homescan, 2001

Container sizes: 1632 oz

 

ACNielsen Homescan, 2001

Same as for nutrient analyses

Representative of likely participant choices

Assumption for analyses

Children, equal weighting of:

Low-fat, 1% milk fat; and

Nonfat

Minimal effect of weighting on pricing—calculated same as for women

ACNielsen Homescan, 2001

Same as for nutrient analyses

Representative of likely participant choices within allowed substitutions

Assumption for analyses

Container sizes: 3264 fl oz

 

ACNielsen Homescan, 2001

Equal weighting of: Refrigerated, assumed to be calcium-rich (“fortified”); and

Representative of likely participant choices

Assumption for analyses ACNielsen Homescan, 2001

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×

 

Assumption used in

Fooda

Nutrient Analysesb,c

 

Plainf

Tofu

Revised Packages for Women

 

Calcium salts used in processing

Grains

 

Cereal

Current and Revised Packages

Weighted mean of:

Ready-to-eat cereal, 90%; and

Hot cereal, 10%

Cereal, ready-to-eat

Current and Revised Packages

 

Current Packages

Equal weighting of:

Cheerios (General Mills);

Corn flakes;

Kix (General Mills);

Mini-Wheats, Frosted Bite Size (Kellogg’s); and

Total Whole Grain (General Mills)

 

Revised Packages

Equal weighting of:

Cheerios (General Mills);

Mini-Wheats, Frosted Bite Size (Kellogg’s); and

Total Whole Grain (General Mills)

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×

Cost Analysesa

Type of Data Considered as Basis of Assumption

Source of Dataa

Shelf-stable, assumed to be calcium-rich

For soy beverage purchases, data were not available on addition of calcium in shelf-stable products.

ACNielsen Homescan, 2001

 

Representative of likely national and state agency restrictions

Assumption for analyses

Container sizes: 1216 oz

 

ACNielsen Homescan, 2001

 

Negligible contribution to calcium intake unless calcium salts are used in processing

Manufacturer labeling, 2004

Tofu was assumed to be processed with calcium salts.

For tofu purchases, data were not available regarding whether calcium salts were used in processing.

ACNielsen Homescan, 2001

Same as for nutrient analyses

Representative of market share

ACNielsen Homescan, 2001

Container sizes: 1236 oz

 

ACNielsen Homescan, 2001

Equal weighting of:

Cheerios (General Mills);

Corn Flakes (Kellogg’s);

Kix (General Mills);

Mini-Wheats, Frosted Bite Size (Kellogg’s); and

Total Whole Grain (General Mills)

Representative of likely participant choices within likely state agency restrictions

Assumption for analyses

Same as for nutrient analyses

Whole grain only

Manufacturer labeling, 2004

 

Representative of likely participant choices within likely state agency restrictions

Assumption for analyses

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×

 

Assumption used in

Fooda

Nutrient Analysesb,c

Cereal, hot

Current and Revised Packages

 

Regular salt option for preparation

 

Current Packages

Equal weighting of:

Cream of wheat, regular-cooking; and

Oatmeal, instant-cooking, iron-fortified

 

Revised Packages

Oatmeal, instant-cooking, iron-fortified

Whole grains

Revised Packages

Equal weighting of:

Whole wheat bread; and

Brown rice

Whole wheat bread

Revised Packages

Brown rice

Revised Packages

 

Cooked in salted water

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×

Cost Analysesa

Type of Data Considered as Basis of Assumption

Source of Dataa

Container sizes: 1028 oz

 

ACNielsen Homescan, 2001

na

Representative of likely participant practices

Assumption for analyses

Equal weighting of:

Cream of Wheat (Nabisco) (14–28 oz container)

Representative of likely participant choices

Assumption for analyses

Oatmeal, instant-cooking, assumed to be iron-fortified (10–18 oz outer container)

For instant-cooking oatmeal purchases, data were not available on iron-fortification.

Assumption for analyses

Oatmeal, instant-cooking, assumed to be iron-fortified (10–18 oz outer container)

Whole grain only

For instant-cooking oatmeal purchases, data were not available on iron-fortification.

Manufacturer labeling, 2004

ACNielsen Homescan, 2001

Same as for nutrient analyses

 

Assumption for analyses

Container size: 16 oz

 

ACNielsen Homescan, 2001

Container sizes: 9.516 oz

 

ACNielsen Homescan, 2001

Market purchase weighting of:

Regular-cooking;

Parboiled; and

Instant-cooking

Market share

Assumption for analyses

Omit basmati rice

Representative of likely state agency restrictions

Assumption for analyses

na

Representative of likely participant practices

Assumption for analyses

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×

 

Assumption used in

Fooda

Nutrient Analysesb,c

Meat and Alternatives

Eggs

Current and Revised Packages

 

Whole, fresh eggs

Fish, canned

Revised Package VII

Weighted mean of:

Canned tuna, 80%

Canned salmon, 20%

Tuna

Current and Revised Package VII

 

Equal weighting of:

Water pack, regularh

Oil pack, regularh

 

Drained

Salmon

Revised Package VII

 

Salmon, regulard

 

Drained

Beans, dry (legumes)

Current Packages

Dried beans only (i.e., no canned beans)

 

Revised Packages

Equal weighting of:

Dried beans, 1 lb; and

Canned beans, 4 15–16-oz cans

Beans, dried

Current and Revised Packages

 

Equal weighting of:

Black beans;

Garbanzo beans (chickpeas);

Kidney beans;

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×

Cost Analysesa

Type of Data Considered as Basis of Assumption

Source of Dataa

Container size: 1 doz

 

BLS, 2004a

Same as for nutrient analyses

Representative of market share

ACNielsen Homescan, 2001

Same as for nutrient analyses

Representative of market share

ACNielsen Homescan, 2001

Container sizes: 6 oz or less

 

ACNielsen Homescan, 2001

 

Representative of likely participant choices

Assumption for analyses

Market purchase weighting of:

Water pack, regular;h and

Oil pack, regularh

Market share

ACNielsen Homescan, 2001

na

Representative of likely participant practices

Assumption for analyses

Container sizes: 1416 oz

 

ACNielsen Homescan, 2001

Pink salmon

Representative of market share

Assumption for analyses

na

Representative of likely participant practices

Assumption for analyses

Same as for nutrient analyses

Current restrictions

Assumption for analyses

Same as for nutrient analyses

Representative of likely participant choices

Assumption for analyses

Container size: 16 oz

 

ACNielsen Homescan, 2001

 

Representative of likely participant choices

Assumption for analyses

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×

 

Assumption used in

Fooda

Nutrient Analysesb,c

 

Northern beans;

Pinto beans; and

Lentils

Beans, canned

Revised Packages

 

Equal weighting of:

Black beans;

Garbanzo beans (chickpeas);

Kidney beans; and

Northern beans

 

Regulard

 

Plaini

Peanut butter

Current and Revised Packages

 

Regulard

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×

Cost Analysesa

Type of Data Considered as Basis of Assumption

Source of Dataa

Market purchase weighting of:

Black beans;

Garbanzo beans (chickpeas);

Kidney beans;

Northern beans; and

Pinto beans

Market share within available data specifications

ACNielsen Homescan, 2001

Container sizes: 1516 oz

 

ACNielsen Homescan, 2001

 

Representative of likely participant choices

Assumption for analyses

Market purchase weighting of:

Black beans;

Garbanzo beans (chickpeas);

Kidney beans; and

Northern beans

Market share

ACNielsen Homescan, 2001

 

Representative of likely state agency restrictions in most cases

Assumption for analyses

Pack assumed to be regulard

Data were not available on type of pack.

Representative of likely state agency restrictions in most cases

ACNielsen Homescan, 2001

Assumption for analyses

Pack assumed to be plaini

Data were not available on flavorings.

ACNielsen Homescan, 2001

Container size: 18 oz

 

ACNielsen Homescan, 2001

Type not specified

Representative of likely participant choices

Assumption for analyses

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×

 

Assumption used in

Fooda

Nutrient Analysesb,c

Peanut butter or Beans (legumes)

Current Packages

Equal weighting of:

Peanut butter (18 oz); and

Dried beans (16 oz)

Revised Packages

Weighted mean of:

Peanut butter, 50% (18 oz);

Dried beans, 25% (16 oz); and

Canned beans, 25% (4 cans)

aFor clarity, the food, container sizes, and source of pricing data are indicated in bold.

bThe nutrient analyses referred to in this table use Nutrition Data System for Research software version 5.0/35 (2004) developed by the Nutrition Coordinating Center (NCC), University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN (Schakel et al., 1988, 1997; Schakel, 2001). A second set of nutrient analyses using the USDA Nutrient Data Laboratory Standard Reference 17 (SR-17) (NDL, 2004) is presented in Tables B-3A through B-3D, Appendix BNutrient Profiles of Current and Revised Food Packages.

cAll foods for nutrient analyses were chosen with no added salt and no added fat cooking preparation options unless otherwise noted in the table.

d“Regular” in this instance means “regular pack” or “regular pack with salt added in processing.” In some cases this assumption was made as representative of likely participant choices (e.g., salted peanut butter is a likely participant choice rather than unsalted peanut butter). In other cases this assumption was made as representative of likely state agency restrictions (e.g., salted canned vegetables are likely state agency restrictions if unsalted canned vegetables are more costly).

eAmerican cheese can be processed with or without a sodium salt (e.g., disodium phosphate) (Nutrition Data, 2004). The American cheese used in these analyses appears to be processed with disodium phosphate resulting in a sodium content twice that of the other cheeses used in the nutrient analyses. Even greater differences in sodium content have been reported (Nutrition Data, 2004).

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×

Cost Analysesa

Type of Data Considered as Basis of Assumption

Source of Dataa

Same as for nutrient analyses

Representative of likely participant choices

Assumption for analyses

Same as for nutrient analyses

Representative of likely participant choices

Assumption for analyses

f“Plain” in this instance means not flavored because flavored products customarily have added sugars.

g“Regular” in this instance means not a reduced calorie product.

h“Regular” in this instance means regular pack with salt added in processing but no fat or oil added in processing.

i“Plain” in this instance means not flavored because flavored products customarily have added sugars and salt.

NOTES FOR TABLE E-2: na = not applicable. The medical foods required by children and women with special dietary needs were omitted from this table. For additional detail on food specifications, see Table B-2, Appendix BNutrient Profiles of Current and Revised Food Packages.

DATA SOURCES: Price data and other information were obtained from Economic Research Service, USDA (ERS, 2004b, 1999 price data); ACNielsen Homescan (ACNielsen, 2001, price data for 2001 obtained through ERS, USDA); and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor (BLS, 2004a, equal weight for monthly 2002 price data). Additional information was obtained from American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP, 2004), American Heart Associations (AHA, 2004), Food and Nutrition Service (FNS, 1984a, 1984b), manufacturer labeling, and published resources (Krebs-Smith et al., 1997; Putnam and Allshouse, 1999; Smiciklas-Wright et al., 2002; Cotton et al., 2004; Reed et al., 2004; Wenrich and Cason, 2004).

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×

TABLE E-3A Calculated Costs of Representative Amounts of Foods in Revised Packages for Infants (2002)a

Food Item

Unit

Approximate Cost per Unit ($)

Food Package I-FF-A

Infant formula, liquid concentrate Post-rebate

fl oz concentrate

0.23

Food Package I-FF-B

Infant formula, liquid concentrate Post-rebate

fl oz concentrate

0.23

Food Package I-BF/FF-A

Infant formula, powder

fl oz reconstituted

~0.10

Food Package I-BF/FF-B

Infant formula, powder Post-rebate

fl oz reconstituted

0.23

Food Package II-FF

Infant formula, liquid concentrate Post-rebate

fl oz concentrate

0.23

Infant cereal

oz

0.20

Baby food fruits and vegetables b,c

oz

0.12

Fresh bananas b,c

lb

0.51

Total

Food Package II-BF/FF

Infant formula, liquid concentrate Post-rebate

fl oz concentrate

0.23

Infant cereal

oz

0.20

Baby food fruits and vegetables b,c

oz

0.12

Fresh bananas b,c

lb

0.51

Total

Food Package II-BF

Infant cereal

oz

0.20

Baby food fruits and vegetables b,c

oz

0.12

Fresh bananas b,c

lb

0.51

Baby food meats

oz

0.29

Total

aAll costs use market purchase-weighted prices estimated using 1999–2002 price data as described in Chapter 5Evaluation of Cost. See data sources. This table is a simplification using prices that have been rounded off; small discrepancies between this table and other sections of the report are due to errors introduced by rounding for the purposes of constructing this table. Tables E-3A and E-3B are intended as easy reference guides of the costs used in cost calculations. These costs are illustrated well using the revised food packages; therefore the current food packages were not included in these tables.

bAssumptions for the cost analyses included weighting alternate choices shown in this table as various quantities used in calculating costs. As an example using Food Package II-FF, the cost of the maximum allowance (128 oz) of baby food fruits and vegetables was calculated

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×

Representative Amount in Food Package

Quantity Used in Calculationb

Assumption, Proportion Used

Example

Cost ($)

403 fl oz concentrate

1

31 13-oz cans

92.69

29.75

442 fl oz concentrate

1

34 13-oz cans

101.66

32.63

384 fl oz reconstituted (51–60 oz powder)

1

4 12.9-oz cans

37.25

11.96

221 fl oz concentrate

1

17 13-oz cans

50.83

16.32

312 fl oz concentrate

1

24 13-oz cans

71.76

23.04

24 oz

1

3 8-oz boxes

4.80

112 oz d

1

28 4-oz jars

13.44

2 lb d

1

2 lb fresh bananas

1.02

42.30

156 fl oz concentrate

1

12 13-oz cans

35.88

11.52

24 oz

1

3 8-oz boxes

4.80

112 oz d

1

28 4-oz jars

13.44

2 lb d

1

2 lb fresh bananas

1.02

30.78

24 oz

1

3 8-oz boxes

4.80

240 oz d

1

60 4-oz jars

28.80

2 lb d

1

2 lb fresh bananas

1.02

77.5 oz

1

31 2.5-oz jars

22.48

57.10

using a choice of 112 oz of baby food fruits and vegetable plus 2 lb of fresh bananas. For additional detail, see Table E-1.

cAllowed substitutions used in the calculations are indented below the food item; the total allowance for the food item is reflected in the sum of these entries.

dIn Food Package II, 2 lb of fresh bananas may be substituted for 16 oz of baby food fruit.

NOTES FOR TABLE E-3A: ~ indicates approximate amount.

DATA SOURCES: Price data are from Economic Research Service, USDA (ERS, 2004b, 1999 price data; Oliveira et al., 2001, 2000 infant formula price data) and ACNielsen Homescan (ACNielsen, 2001, price data for 2001 obtained through ERS, USDA).

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×

TABLE E-3B Calculated Costs of Representative Amounts of Foods in Revised Packages for Children and Women (2002)a

Food

Unit

Approximate Cost per Unit ($)

Food Package IV-A

Juice

fl oz

~0.03

Milk, wholeb,c

qt

0.73

Yogurtb,c

qt

2.28

Cheeseb,c,d

lb

3.30

Cereal

oz

~0.20

Eggs

doz

1.03

Fresh fruitsb,c

lb

~0.69

Canned fruitsb,c

oz

~0.05

Fresh vegetablesb,c

lb

~0.94

Canned vegetablesb,c

oz

~0.03

Bread, whole wheatb,c

lb

1.80

Brown riceb,c

lb

1.77

Beans, driedb,c

lb

0.77

Beans, cannedb,c

oz

~0.04

Peanut butterb,c

oz

0.10

Total

Food Package IV-B

Juice

fl oz

~0.03

Milk, fat-reducedb,c

qt

0.69

Yogurtb,c

qt

2.28

Cheeseb,c,d

lb

3.30

Cereal

oz

~0.20

Eggs

doz

1.03

Fresh fruitsb,c

lb

~0.69

Canned fruitsb,c

oz

~0.05

Fresh vegetablesb,c

lb

~0.94

Canned vegetablesb,c

oz

~0.03

Bread, whole wheatb,c

lb

1.80

Brown riceb,c

lb

1.77

Beans, driedb,c

lb

0.77

Beans, cannedb,c

oz

~0.04

Peanut butterb,c

oz

0.10

Total

Food Package V

Juice

fl oz

~0.03

Milk, fat-reducedb,c

qt

0.69

Soy beverage (“soy milk”)b,c

qt

1.64

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×

Representative Amount in Food Package

Quantity Used in Calculation

Assumption, Proportion Usedb

Example

Cost ($)

128 fl oz

1

3 32-fl oz cans

3.71

14 qt

1

7 half-gallons

10.22

1 qt

0.5

1 1-qt container

1.14

1 lb

0.5

1 1-lb package

1.65

36 oz

1

3 12-oz boxes

7.20

1 doz

1

1 doz

1.03

4.88 lb

0.5

1.70

110 oz

0.5

2.78

4.88 lb

0.5

2.30

110 oz

0.5

1.87

1 lb

1

1 1-lb loaf

1.80

1 lb

1

1 1-lb bag

1.77

1 lb

0.25

1 1-lb bag

0.19

64 oz

0.25

4 16-oz cans

0.72

18 oz

0.5

1 18-oz jar

0.90

38.98

128 fl oz

1

3 32-fl oz cans

3.67

14 qt

1

7 half-gallons

9.66

1 qt

0.5

1 1-qt container

1.14

1 lb

0.5

1 1-lb package

1.65

36 oz

1

3 12-oz boxes

7.31

1 doz

1

1 doz

1.03

4.88 lb

0.5

1.70

110 oz

0.5

2.78

4.88 lb

0.5

2.30

110 oz

0.5

1.87

1 lb

1

1 1-lb loaf

1.80

1 lb

1

1 1-lb bag

1.77

1 lb

0.25

1 1-lb bag

0.19

64 oz

0.25

4 16-oz cans

0.72

18 oz

0.5

1 18-oz jar

0.90

38.49

144 fl oz

1

3 46-fl oz cans

4.13

19 qt

0.9

6 gallons

11.80

19 qt

0.1

9 64-oz containers + 1 32-oz container

3.12

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×

Food

Unit

Approximate Cost per Unit ($)

Yogurtb,c

qt

2.28

Tofub,c

lb

1.76

Cheeseb,c,d

lb

3.30

Cereal

oz

~0.20

Eggs

doz

1.03

Fresh fruitsb,c

lb

~0.69

Canned fruitsb,c

oz

~0.05

Fresh vegetablesb,c

lb

~0.94

Canned vegetablesb,c

oz

~0.03

Bread, whole wheatb,c

lb

1.80

Brown riceb,c

lb

1.77

Beans, driedb,c

lb

0.77

Beans, cannedb,c

oz

~0.04

Peanut butter

oz

0.10

Total

Food Package VI

Juice

fl oz

~0.03

Milk, fat-reducedb,c

qt

0.69

Soy beverage (“soy milk”)b,c

qt

1.64

Yogurtb,c

qt

2.28

Tofub,c

lb

1.76

Cheeseb,c,d

lb

3.30

Cereal

oz

~0.20

Eggs

doz

1.03

Fresh fruitsb,c

lb

~0.69

Canned fruitsb,c

oz

~0.05

Fresh vegetablesb,c

lb

~0.94

Canned vegetablesb,c

oz

~0.03

Beans, driedb,c

lb

0.77

Beans, cannedb,c

oz

~0.04

Peanut butterb,c

oz

0.10

Total

Food Package VII

Juice

fl oz

~0.03

Milk, fat-reducedb,c

qt

0.69

Soy beverage (“soy milk”)b,c

qt

1.64

Yogurtb,c

qt

2.28

Tofub,c

lb

1.76

Cheeseb,c,d

lb

3.30

Cheese

lb

3.30

Cereal

oz

~0.20

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×

Representative Amount in Food Package

Quantity Used in Calculation

Assumption, Proportion Usedb

Example

Cost ($)

1 qt

1

1 1-qt container

2.28

1 lb

0.5

1 1-lb container

0.88

1 lb

0.5

1 1-lb package

1.65

36 oz

1

3 12-oz boxes

7.30

1 doz

1

1 doz

1.03

6.1 lb

0.5

2.12

140 oz

0.5

3.48

6.1 lb

0.5

2.88

140 oz

0.5

2.38

1 lb

0.5

1 1-lb loaf

0.90

1 lb

0.5

1 1-lb bag

0.89

1 lb

0.5

1 1-lb bag

0.39

64 oz

0.5

4 16-oz cans

1.42

18 oz

1

1 18-oz jar

1.80

48.45

96 fl oz

1

246-fl oz cans

2.76

14 qt

0.9

3 gallons + 1 half-gallon

8.69

14 qt

0.1

7 64-oz containers

2.30

1 qt

0.25

1 1-qt container

0.57

1 lb

0.25

1 1-lb container

0.44

1 lb

0.5

1 1-lb package

1.65

36 oz

1

3 12-oz boxes

7.30

1 doz

1

1 doz

1.03

6.1 lb

0.5

2.12

140 oz

0.5

3.48

6.1 lb

0.5

2.88

140 oz

0.5

2.38

1 lb

0.25

1 1-lb bag

0.19

64 oz

0.25

4 16-oz cans

0.72

18 oz

0.5

1 18-oz jar

0.90

37.41

144 fl oz

1

3 46-fl oz cans

4.13

21 qt

0.9

6 gallons

13.04

21 qt

0.1

12 64-oz containers

3.45

1 qt

1

1 1-qt container

2.28

1 lb

0.5

1 1-lb container

0.88

1 lb

0.5

1 lb

1.65

1 lb

1

1 lb

3.30

36 oz

1

3 12-oz boxes

7.30

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×

Food

Unit

Approximate Cost per Unit ($)

Eggs

doz

1.03

Fresh fruitsb,c

lb

~0.69

Canned fruitsb,c

oz

~0.05

Fresh vegetablesb,c

lb

~0.94

Canned vegetablesb,c

oz

~0.03

Bread, whole wheatb,c

lb

1.80

Brown riceb,c

lb

1.77

Canned fishb,c

Tunab,c

oz

~0.09

Salmonb,c

oz

~0.11

Beans, driedb,c

lb

0.77

Beans, cannedb,c

oz

~0.04

Peanut butter

oz

0.10

Total

aAll costs use market purchase-weighted prices estimated using 1999–2002 price data as described in Chapter 5Evaluation of Cost. See data sources. This table is a simplification using prices that have been rounded off; small discrepancies between this table and other sections of the report are due to errors introduced by rounding for the purposes of constructing this table. Tables E-3A and E-3B are intended as easy reference guides of the costs used in cost calculations. These costs are illustrated well using the revised food packages; therefore the current food packages were not included in these tables.

bAssumptions for the cost analyses included weighting alternate choices shown in this table as proportions used for calculating costs. For example, the cost of the fruit was calculated using 0.5 as the proportion for both canned and fresh fruits; that means the cost was calculated using a choice of 50% canned and 50% fresh fruits. For additional detail, see Table E-2.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×

Representative Amount in Food Package

Quantity Used in Calculation

Assumption, Proportion Usedb

Example

Cost ($)

2 doz

1

2 doz

2.06

6.1 lb

0.5

2.12

140 oz

0.5

3.48

6.1 lb

0.5

2.88

140 oz

0.5

2.38

1 lb

0.5

1 1-lb loaf

0.90

1 lb

0.5

1 1-lb bag

0.89

30 oz

0.8

5 6-oz cans

2.08

29.4 oz

0.2

2 14.7-oz cans

0.62

1 lb

0.5

1 1-lb bag

0.39

64 oz

0.5

4 16-oz cans

1.42

18 oz

1

1 18-oz jar

1.80

57.05

cAllowed substitutions used in the calculations are indented below the food item in the package; the total allowance for this food item is reflected in the sum of these entries.

dCheese may be substituted for milk at the rate of 1 lb of cheese for 3 qt of milk.

NOTE FOR TABLE E-3B: ~ indicates approximate amount.

DATA SOURCES: Price data are from Economic Research Service, USDA (ERS, 2004b, 1999 price data); ACNielsen Homescan (ACNielsen, 2001, price data for 2001obtained through ERS, USDA); and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor (BLS, 2004a, 2002 price data).

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×

TABLE E-4 Estimated Program Costs for Food per Month Using Current Packages (2002)a

Group

Age/Participant Categoryb

Description

Package

Infants

0–3.9 mo

Fully formula-fed

I

Partially breast-fedd

I

Fully breast-fedd

Subtotalse

 

 

4–5.9 mo

Fully formula-fed

II

Partially breast-fed f

II

Fully breast-fed f

II

Subtotalse

 

 

6–11.9 mo

Fully formula-fed

II

Partially breast-fed g

II

Fully breast-fed g

II

Subtotalse

 

 

Totals for infante

 

 

Children

1–4.9 yh

Totals for childrene

 

IV

Women

Pregnante

 

V

Partially breastfeedingi

 

V

Non-breastfeeding postpartum e

 

VI

Fully breastfeedingi

 

VII

Totals for womene

 

 

Totals for program

Average food package cost per participant (per month)

aAll costs use market purchase-weighted prices estimated using 1999–2002 price data as described in Chapter 5Evaluation of Cost. Data on number of participants were obtained from 2002 (Bartlett et al., 2003).

bSee footnote b for Table E-5.

cThe committee used data provided by FNS (public communication during open session, February, 2004, J. Hirschman, Office of Analysis, Nutrition and Evaluation, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA) to estimate that the average post-rebate cost of formula was 32.1%of the pre-rebate cost in 2002.

dPercentage of infants fully breast-fed at 3 mo of age was reported (CDC, 2004b, 2004c). Percentage of partially breast-fed infants was calculated from these data and data on the percentage of infants who had ever been breast-fed at 3 mo of age (CDC, 2004b, 2004c).

eNumber of participants was calculated using data Exhibit 3.1 from USDA’s WIC Participant and Program Characteristics, 2002 (Bartlett et al., 2003), recognizing that some discrepancies exist in these data. An infant is defined as a participant who, at certification, is under 1 year of age and who would be classified as a child at the age of 366 d. However, in 2002, about 2.84% of WIC participants categorized as 1-y-old children are, in fact, 11-mo-old infants who have been recertified as 1-y-old children; additionally, about 0.38% of WIC participants who are classified as infants are participants who are older than 366 d.

fPercentage of infants fully or partially breast-fed at 4–5.9 mo of age was extrapolated

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×

Percentage within Age/ Participant Category

Number of Participantsb

Cost (pre-rebate, if applicable)

Post-Rebate Costc

Program Cost (post-rebate, if applicable)

36

668,309

$ 92.69

$ 29.75

$ 19,882,193

28

519,796

$ 92.69

$ 29.75

$ 15,463,931

36

668,309

0

 

 

100

1,856,414

 

 

$ 35,346,124

69

38,428

$ 100.37

$ 37.43

$ 1,438,360

20

11,138

$ 100.37

$ 37.43

$ 416,895

11

6,126

$ 7.68

 

$ 47,048

100

55,692

 

 

$ 1,902,303

79

118,955

$ 100.37

$ 37.43

$ 4,452,486

16

24,092

$ 100.37

$ 37.43

$ 901,764

5

7,529

$ 7.68

 

$ 57,823

100

150,576

 

 

$ 5,412,073

 

2,062,682

 

 

$ 42,660,500

100

4,020,032

$ 39.29

 

$ 157,947,057

100

4,020,032

 

 

$ 157,947,057

45

878,619

$ 41.23

 

$ 36,225,461

11

205,559

$ 41.23

 

$ 8,475,198

31

597,451

$ 34.39

 

$ 20,546,340

13

252,572

$ 50.61

 

$ 12,782,669

100

1,934,201

 

 

$ 78,029,668

 

8,016,915

 

 

$ 278,637,225

 

 

 

 

$ 34.76

from data for infants at 3 and 6 mo of age (CDC, 2004b, 2004c; Abbott Labs, 2002, 2003 [2001 data]).

gPercentages of infants fully or partially breast-fed at 6–11.9 mo of age were calculated as the average of data reported for infants at 6 mo (CDC, 2004b, 2004c) and 12 mo of age (CDC, 2004b, 2004c; Briefel et al., 2004a).

hIncludes 0.8% of children, age 1–4.9 y, who were reported as “age not reported.”

iPercentage distribution of women as fully breastfeeding (55% of the total) or partially breastfeeding (45%of the total) was calculated according to the distribution of infants identified as fully or partially breast-fed (see notes f and g).

NOTES FOR TABLE E-4: This table is similar to Table 5-2; more detail is presented here in Appendix E.

DATA SOURCES: Price data are from Economic Research Service, USDA (ERS, 2004b, 1999 price data; Oliveira et al., 2001, 2000 infant formula price data); ACNielsen Homescan (ACNielsen, 2001, price data for 2001obtained through ERS, USDA); and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor (BLS, 2004a, 2002 price data). Data on rates of participation are from resources published by USDA (Bartlett et al., 2003, 2002 data; Kresge, 2003, 2002 data). Data on percentages of infants breast-fed were obtained from the 2003 National Immunization Survey (CDC, 2004b, 2004c) and published resources (Abbott Labs, 2002, 2003; Briefel et al, 2004a).

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×

TABLE E-5 Estimated Program Costs for Food per Month Using Revised Packages (2002)a

Group

Age or Participant Categoryb

Description

Package

Infants

0–3.9 mo

Fully formula-fed

I

Partially breast-fedd,e

—(0–0.9 mo)

Partially breast-fedd,e

I (1–3.9 mo)

Fully breast-fedd

Subtotalsg

 

 

4–5.9 mo

Fully formula-fed

II

Partially breast-fedh

II

Fully breast-fedh

II

Subtotalsg

 

 

6–11.9 mo

Fully formula-fed

II

Partially breast-fedi

II

Fully breast-fedi

II

Subtotalsg

 

 

Totals for infantsg

 

 

Children

1–1.9 y j

 

IV-A

2–4.9 y j

 

IV-B

Totals for childreng

 

 

Women

Pregnantg

 

V

Partially breastfeedingk

 

V

Non-breastfeeding postpartumg

 

VI

Fully breastfeedingk

 

VII

Totals for womeng

 

 

Totals for program

Average food package cost per participant (per month)

aAll costs use market purchase-weighted prices estimated using 1999–2002 price data as described in Chapter 5Evaluation of Cost. Data on number of participants were obtained from 2002 (Bartlett et al., 2003).

bThe analyses presented in Tables E-4 and E-5 used published data for FY2002 from FNS (Bartlett et al., 2003, Exhibits 3.1 and 5.7) for the number of participants in total and in each participant category, including age groups within the infant category. The data presented by Bartlett et al. were derived from data collected on participants at the time of certification in the WIC program. If the analyses are done using the assumption that infant ages were distributed equally across twelve months, instead of by age at certification, the average package cost per participant would be $37.10 for the current packages and $38.02 for the revised packages. This represents an increase of $0.92 for the revised packages compared to the current packages. Thus, by these estimates the revised packages would be 2.5 percent higher in cost than the current packages. These estimates represent the upper bound of effects on costs because attrition in participation rates occurs as infants mature; for example, FY2002 enrollment was 2.1 million for infants and 1.4 million for one-year-olds (Bartlett et al., 2003). In using the data presented by Bartlett et al., the participant numbers throughout FY2002 were

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×

Percentage Within Age or Participant Category

Number of Participantsb

Cost (pre-rebate, if applicable)

Cost Post-Rebatec

Program Cost (post rebate, if applicable)

36

668,309

$ 92.69

$ 29.75

$ 19,882,193

7

129,949

$ 4.65f

$ 1.49

$ 193,624

21

389,847

$ 37.25

$ 11.96

$ 4,662,570

36

668,309

0

 

 

100

1,856,414

 

 

$ 24,738,387

69

38,428

$ 101.66

$ 32.63

$ 1,253,906

20

11,138

$ 50.83

$ 16.32

$ 181,772

11

6,126

0

 

 

100

55,692

 

 

$ 1,435,678

79

118,955

$ 91.02

$ 42.30

$ 5,031,797

16

24,092

$ 55.14

$ 30.78

$ 741,552

5

7,529

$ 57.10

 

$ 429,906

100

150,576

 

 

$ 6,203,255

 

2,062,682

 

 

$ 32,377,320

36

1,447,212

$ 38.98

 

$ 56,412,324

64

2,572,820

$ 38.49

 

$ 99,027,842

100

4,020,032

 

 

$ 155,440,166

45

878,619

$ 48.45

 

$ 42,569,090

11

205,559

$ 48.45

 

$ 9,959,334

31

597,451

$ 37.41

 

$ 22,350,642

13

252,572

$ 57.05

 

$ 14,409,233

100

1,934,201

 

 

$ 89,288,299

 

8,016,915

 

 

$ 277,105,785

 

 

 

 

$ 34.57

overestimated. If the analyses were done using FY2002 data presented as totals per participant category calculated from monthly averages (FNS, 2004f) instead of the annual totals from data collected at certification (Bartlett et al., 2003), the average package cost per participant would be $34.75 for the current packages and $34.57 for the revised packages. This represents a decrease of $0.18 for the revised packages compared to the current packages. Please note that the material in footnote b of Table E-5 was added after the report was released.

cThe committee used data provided by FNS (public communication during open session, February, 2004, J. Hirschman, Office of Analysis, Nutrition and Evaluation, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA) to estimate that the average post-rebate cost of formula was 32.1% of the pre-rebate cost in 2002.

dPercentage of infants fully breast-fed at 3 mo of age was reported (CDC, 2004b, 2004c). Percentage of partially breast-fed infants was calculated from these data and data on the percentage of infants who had ever been breast-fed at 3 mo of age (CDC, 2004b, 2004c).

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×

eFor the category of partially breast-fed infants 0–3.9 mo, the committee estimated that the number of infants aged 0–0.9 mo was 25% of the category total and the number of infants aged 1–3.9 mo was 75% of the total. In the absence of data on the proportion of infants to anticipate in each of the first 4 mo after birth, the committee assumed the distribution would be approximately equal in each month, using the census data for children under the age of 5 y as a model (20.0% ± 0.3%, mean ± SD) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004).

fOne alternative is to provide one small can (up to 15 oz) of powdered formula to breastfed infants during the first mo postpartum if requested by the mother. The committee used the assumption that the number of breastfeeding mothers requesting formula in the first mo would approximate 50% of the current number of partially breastfeeding mother/infants pairs. The additional monthly cost per participant who choose this option would be $9.30 in pre-rebate costs and $2.98 in post-rebate costs. Using the estimate of 50% of the current partially breastfeeding participants (0.5 × 129,949 = 64,747) for the first mo postpartum, the additional monthly program cost would be $193,626 or an additional 2.4¢ in the average cost per participant.

gNumber of participants was calculated using data Exhibit 3.1 from USDA’s WIC Participant and Program Characteristics, 2002 (Bartlett et al., 2003), recognizing that some discrepancies exist in these data. An infant is defined as a participant who, at certification, is under 1 y of age and who would be classified as a child at the age of 366 d. However, in 2002, about 2.84% of WIC participants categorized as 1-y-old children are, in fact, 11-mo-old infants who have been recertified as 1-y-old children; additionally, about 0.38% of WIC participants who are classified as infants are participants who are older than 366 days.

hPercentage of infants fully or partially breast-fed at 4–5.9 mo of age was extrapolated from data for infants at 3 and 6 mo of age (CDC, 2004b; Abbott Labs, 2002, 2003 [2001 data]).

iPercentages of infants fully or partially breast-fed at 6–11.9 mo of age were calculated as the average of data reported for infants at 6 mo (CDC, 2004b, 2004c) and 12 mo of age (CDC, 2004b, 2004c; Briefel et al., 2004a).

jThe committee calculated the number of participants in each category using data from the USDA sponsored WIC Participant and Program Characteristics 2002 (Bartlett et al., 2003); data from Exhibit 3.1 (Bartlett et al., 2003) were used to estimate the number of participants ages 1–1.9 y and 2–4.9 y.

kPercentage distribution of women as fully breastfeeding (55% of the total) or partially breastfeeding (45% of the total) was calculated according to the distribution of infants identified as fully or partially breast-fed (see notes h and i).

NOTES FOR TABLE E-5: This table is similar to Table 5-3; more detail is presented here in Appendix E.

DATA SOURCES: Price data are from Economic Research Service, USDA (ERS, 2004b, 1999 price data; Oliveira et al., 2001, 2000 infant formula price data); ACNielsen Homescan (ACNielsen, 2001, price data for 2001obtained through ERS, USDA); and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor (BLS, 2004a, 2002 price data). Data on rates of participation are from resources published by USDA (Bartlett et al., 2003, 2002 data; Kresge, 2003, 2002 data). Data on percentages of infants breast-fed were obtained from the 2003 National Immunization Survey (CDC, 2004b, 2004c) and published resources (Abbott Labs, 2002, 2003; Briefel et al, 2004a).

Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×
Page 314
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×
Page 315
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×
Page 316
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×
Page 317
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×
Page 318
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×
Page 319
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×
Page 320
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×
Page 321
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×
Page 322
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×
Page 323
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×
Page 324
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×
Page 325
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×
Page 326
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×
Page 327
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×
Page 328
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×
Page 329
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×
Page 330
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×
Page 331
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×
Page 332
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×
Page 333
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×
Page 334
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×
Page 335
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×
Page 336
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×
Page 337
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×
Page 338
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×
Page 339
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×
Page 340
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×
Page 341
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×
Page 342
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×
Page 343
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×
Page 344
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×
Page 345
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×
Page 346
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×
Page 347
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×
Page 348
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×
Page 349
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×
Page 350
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×
Page 351
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×
Page 352
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×
Page 353
Suggested Citation:"Appendix E Cost Calculations." Institute of Medicine. 2006. WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11280.
×
Page 354
Next: Appendix F Supplementary Information »
WIC Food Packages: Time for a Change Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $64.00 Buy Ebook | $49.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (the WIC program) has promoted the health of low-income families for more than 30 years by providing nutrition education, supplemental food, and other valuable services. The program reaches millions of families every year, is one of the largest nutrition programs in the United States, and is an important investment in the nation’s health. The U.S. Department of Agriculture charged the Institute of Medicine with creating a committee to evaluate the WIC food packages (the list of specific foods WIC participants obtain each month). The goal of the study was to improve the quality of the diet of WIC participants while also promoting a healthy body weight that will reduce the risk of chronic diseases. The committee concluded that it is time for a change in the WIC food packages and the book provides details on the proposed new food packages, summarizes how the proposed packages differ from current packages, and discusses the rationale for the proposed packages.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!