Information about sample sizes, response rates, household characteristics, and expenditure uncertainty metrics for the Living Costs and Food Survey.

We adjust SNAP maximum allotments, deductions, and income eligibility standards at the beginning of each Federal fiscal year. The changes are based on changes in the cost of living. COLAs take effect on October 1 each year. Maximum allotments are calculated from the cost of a market basket based on the Thrifty Food Plan for a family of four, priced in June that year. The maximum allotments for households larger and smaller than four persons are determined using formulas that account for economies of scale. Smaller households get slightly more per person than the four-person household. Larger households get slightly less. Income eligibility standards are set by law. Gross monthly income limits are set at 130 percent of the poverty level for the household size. Net monthly income limits are set at 100 percent of poverty.

In 2020, the food and beverage cost of living index in Saudi Arabia was *****, implying a two percent increase in the price level. There was an increase in the food and beverage cost of living index compared to the previous year. The general consumer price index for that year was ******.

This collection contains data obtained from families of wage earners or salaried workers in industrial locales scattered throughout the United States. The purpose of the survey was to estimate the cost of living of a "typical" American family. The completed questionnaires contain information about income sources and family expenditures including specific quantities and costs of food, housing, clothing, fuel, furniture, and miscellaneous household items for the calendar year. Demographic characteristics recorded for each household member include relationship to head, age, sex, occupation, weeks spent in the household and employed, wage rate, and total earnings.

There is more to housing affordability than the rent or mortgage you pay. Transportation costs are the second-biggest budget item for most families, but it can be difficult for people to fully factor transportation costs into decisions about where to live and work. The Location Affordability Index (LAI) is a user-friendly source of standardized data at the neighborhood (census tract) level on combined housing and transportation costs to help consumers, policymakers, and developers make more informed decisions about where to live, work, and invest. Compare eight household profiles (see table below) —which vary by household income, size, and number of commuters—and see the impact of the built environment on affordability in a given location while holding household demographics constant.*$11,880 for a single person household in 2016 according to US Dept. of Health and Human Services: https://aspe.hhs.gov/computations-2016-poverty-guidelinesThis layer is symbolized by the percentage of housing and transportation costs as a percentage of income for the Median-Income Family profile, but the costs as a percentage of income for all household profiles are listed in the pop-up:Also available is a gallery of 8 web maps (one for each household profile) all symbolized the same way for easy comparison: Median-Income Family, Very Low-Income Individual, Working Individual, Single Professional, Retired Couple, Single-Parent Family, Moderate-Income Family, and Dual-Professional Family.An accompanying story map provides side-by-side comparisons and additional context.--Variables used in HUD's calculations include 24 measures such as people per household, average number of rooms per housing unit, monthly housing costs (mortgage/rent as well as utility and maintenance expenses), average number of cars per household, median commute distance, vehicle miles traveled per year, percent of trips taken on transit, street connectivity and walkability (measured by block density), and many more.To learn more about the Location Affordability Index (v.3) visit: https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/location-affordability-index/. There you will find some background and an FAQ page, which includes the question:"Manhattan, San Francisco, and downtown Boston are some of the most expensive places to live in the country, yet the LAI shows them as affordable for the typical regional household. Why?" These areas have some of the lowest transportation costs in the country, which helps offset the high cost of housing. The area median income (AMI) in these regions is also high, so when costs are shown as a percent of income for the typical regional household these neighborhoods appear affordable; however, they are generally unaffordable to households earning less than the AMI.Date of Coverage: 2012-2016 Date Released: March 2019Date Downloaded from HUD Open Data: 4/18/19Further Documentation:LAI Version 3 Data and MethodologyLAI Version 3 Technical Documentation_**The documentation below is in reference to this items placement in the NM Supply Chain Data Hub. The documentation is of use to understanding the source of this item, and how to reproduce it for updates**

Title: Location Affordability Index - NMCDC Copy

Summary: This layer contains the Location Affordability Index from U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) - standardized household, housing, and transportation cost estimates by census tract for 8 household profiles.

Notes: This map is copied from source map: https://nmcdc.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=de341c1338c5447da400c4e8c51ae1f6, created by dianaclavery_uo, and identified in Living Atlas.

Prepared by: dianaclavery_uo, copied by EMcRae_NMCDC

Source: This map is copied from source map: https://nmcdc.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=de341c1338c5447da400c4e8c51ae1f6, created by dianaclavery_uo, and identified in Living Atlas. Check the source documentation or other details above for more information about data sources.

Feature Service: https://nmcdc.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=447a461f048845979f30a2478b9e65bb

UID: 73

Data Requested: Family income spent on basic need

Method of Acquisition: Search for Location Affordability Index in the Living Atlas. Make a copy of most recent map available. To update this map, copy the most recent map available. In a new tab, open the AGOL Assistant Portal tool and use the functions in the portal to copy the new maps JSON, and paste it over the old map (this map with item id

Date Acquired: Map copied on May 10, 2022

Priority rank as Identified in 2022 (scale of 1 being the highest priority, to 11 being the lowest priority): 6

Tags: PENDING

Dataset showing monthly living costs in seven categories: food, housing, health care, transportation, child care, other necessities and net taxes.

The US Family Budget Dataset provides insights into the cost of living in different US counties based on the Family Budget Calculator by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI).

This dataset offers community-specific estimates for ten family types, including one or two adults with zero to four children, in all 1877 counties and metro areas across the United States.

Interesting Task Ideas:

1. See how family budgets compare to the federal poverty line and the Supplemental Poverty Measure in different counties.
2. Look into the money challenges faced by different types of families using the budgets provided.
3. Find out which counties have the most affordable places to live, food, transportation, healthcare, childcare, and other things people need.
4. Explore how the average income of families relates to the overall cost of living in different counties.
5. Investigate how family size affects the estimated budget and find counties where bigger families have higher costs.
6. Create visuals showing how the cost of living varies across different states and big cities.
7. Check whether specific counties are affordable for families of different sizes and types.
8. Use the dataset to compare living standards and economic security in different US counties.

If you find this dataset valuable, don't forget to hit the upvote button! 😊💝

Checkout my other datasets

Employment-to-Population Ratio for USA

Productivity and Hourly Compensation

130K Kindle Books

900K TMDb Movies

USA Unemployment Rates by Demographics & Race

Photo by Alev Takil on Unsplash

In a survey carried out in August 2023, about ** percent of respondents in the United Kingdom stated that they were eating less healthily to save money. More concretely, about ** percent stated they were eating more ready meals and processed foods.

The average for 2021 based on 165 countries was 105.854 index points. The highest value was in South Korea: 208.84 index points and the lowest value was in India: 58.17 index points. The indicator is available from 2017 to 2021. Below is a chart for all countries where data are available.

Background:
A household food consumption and expenditure survey has been conducted each year in Great Britain (excluding Northern Ireland) since 1940. At that time the National Food Survey (NFS) covered a sample drawn solely from urban working-class households, but this was extended to a fully demographically representative sample in 1950. From 1957 onwards the Family Expenditure Survey (FES) provided information on all household expenditure patterns including food expenditure, with the NFS providing more detailed information on food consumption and expenditure. The NFS was extended to cover Northern Ireland from 1996 onwards. In April 2001 these surveys were combined to form the Expenditure and Food Survey (EFS), which completely replaced both series. From January 2008, the EFS became known as the Living Costs and Food (LCF) module of the Integrated Household Survey (IHS). As a consequence of this change, the questionnaire was altered to accommodate the insertion of a core set of questions, common to all of the separate modules which together comprised the IHS. Some of these core questions are simply questions which were previously asked in the same or a similar format on all of the IHS component surveys. For further information on the LCF questionnaire, see Volume A of the LCF 2008 User Guide, held with SN 6385. Further information about the LCF, including links to published reports based on the survey, may be found by searching for 'Living Costs and Food Survey' on the ONS website. Further information on the NFS and Living Costs and Food Module of the IHS can be found by searching for 'Family Food' on the GOV.UK website.

History:
The LCF (then EFS) was the result of more than two years' development work to bring together the FES and NFS; both survey series were well-established and important sources of information for government and the wider community, and had charted changes and patterns in spending and food consumption since the 1950s. Whilst the NFS and FES series are now finished, users should note that previous data from both series are still available from the UK Data Archive, under GNs 33071 (NFS) and 33057 (FES).

Purpose of the LCF
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has overall project management and financial responsibility for the LCF, while the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) sponsors the food data element. As with the FES and NFS, the LCF continues to be primarily used to provide information for the Retail Prices Index, National Accounts estimates of household expenditure, analysis of the effect of taxes and benefits, and trends in nutrition. The results are multi-purpose, however, providing an invaluable supply of economic and social data. The merger of the two surveys also brings benefits for users, as a single survey on food expenditure removes the difficulties of reconciling data from two sources. Design and methodology The design of the LCF is based on the old FES, although the use of new processing software by the data creators has resulted in a dataset which differs from the previous structure. The most significant change in terms of reporting expenditure, however, is the introduction of the European Standard Classification of Individual Consumption by Purpose (COICOP), in place of the codes previously used. An additional level of hierarchy has been developed to improve the mapping to the previous codes. The LCF was conducted on a financial year basis from 2001, then moved to a calendar year basis from January 2006 (to complement the IHS) until 2015-16, when the financial year survey was reinstated at the request of users. Therefore, whilst SN 5688 covers April 2005 - March 2006, SN 5986 covers January-December 2006. Subsequent years cover January-December until 2014. SN 8210 returns to the financial year survey and currently covers April 2015 - March 2016.

Northern Ireland sample
Users should note that, due to funding constraints, from January 2010 the Northern Ireland (NI) sample used for the LCF was reduced to a sample proportionate to the NI population relative to the UK.

Family Food database:
'Family Food' is an annual publication which provides detailed statistical information on purchased quantities, expenditure and nutrient intakes derived from both household and eating out food and drink. Data is collected for a sample of households in the United Kingdom using self-reported diaries of all purchases, including food eaten out, over a two week period. Where possible quantities are recorded in the diaries but otherwise estimated. Energy and nutrient intakes are calculated using standard nutrient composition data for each of some 500 types of food. Current estimates are based on data collected in the Family Food Module of the LCFS. Further information about the LCF food databases can be found on the GOV.UK Family Food Statistics web pages.

Secure Access version
A Secure Access version of the LCF from 2006 onwards is available from the UK Data Archive under SN 7047, subject to stringent access conditions. The Secure Access version includes variables that are not included in the standard End User Licence (EUL) version, including geographical variables with detail below Government Office Region, to postcode level; urban/rural area indicators; other sensitive variables; raw diary information files (derived variables are available in the EUL) and the family expenditure codes files. Users are strongly advised to check whether the EUL version is sufficient for their needs before considering an application for the Secure Access version.

Occupation data for 2021 and 2022 data files
The ONS have identified an issue with the collection of some occupational data in 2021 and 2022 data files in a number of their surveys. While they estimate any impacts will be small overall, this will affect the accuracy of the breakdowns of some detailed (four-digit Standard Occupational Classification (SOC)) occupations, and data derived from them. None of ONS' headline statistics, other than those directly sourced from occupational data, are affected and you can continue to rely on their accuracy. For further information on this issue, please see: https://www.ons.gov.uk/news/statementsandletters/occupationaldatainonssurveys.

Latest edition information

For the fourth edition (July 2025), an updated version of the DEFRA Family Food database has been added to the study. Tables covering a065p (Age of HRP by range - anonymised), a069p (Type of household - Anonymised) and a094 (NS-SEC 12 Class of HRP) have been added, and the variable EqIncDOp (Equivalised income (OECD Scale) - anonymised) has been added to the EFShousehold table. A guide to the additional variables has been added to the documentation.

This dataset provides an analysis of average monthly prices for four essential food items, namely Eggs, Milk, Bread, and Potatoes, in five different countries: Australia, Japan, Canada, South Africa, and Sweden. The dataset spans a five-year period, from 2018 to 2022, offering a comprehensive overview of how food prices have evolved over time in these nations.

The dataset includes information on the average monthly prices of each food item in the respective countries. This information can be valuable for studying and comparing the cost of living, assessing economic trends, and understanding variations in food price dynamics across different regions.

Use Cases:

Comparative Analysis: Researchers and analysts can compare food prices across the five countries over the five-year period to identify patterns, trends, and variations. This analysis can help understand differences in purchasing power and economic factors impacting food costs.

Cost of Living Studies: The dataset can be used to examine the cost of living in different countries, specifically focusing on the expenses related to basic food items. This information can be beneficial for individuals considering relocation or policymakers aiming to evaluate living standards.

Economic Studies: Economists and policymakers can utilize this dataset to analyze the impact of economic factors, such as inflation or currency fluctuations, on food prices in different countries. It can provide insights into the stability and volatility of food markets in each region.

Forecasting and Planning: Businesses in the food industry can leverage the dataset to forecast future food price trends and plan their operations accordingly. The historical data can serve as a foundation for predictive models and assist in optimizing pricing strategies and supply chain management.

Note: The dataset is based on average monthly prices and does not capture individual variations or specific regions within each country. Further analysis and interpretation should consider additional factors like seasonal influences, local market dynamics, and consumer preferences.

Monthly average retail prices for food, household supplies, personal care items, cigarettes and gasoline. Prices are presented for the current month and previous four months. Prices are in Canadian current dollars.

The Cost of living rating evaluates how much ordinary living expenses cost in different countries, including food, housing, necessary goods, services, medical insurance and other aspects.

Retail Food reported AUD11.02M in Cost of Sales for its fiscal semester ending in June of 2025. Data for Retail Food | RFG - Cost Of Sales including historical, tables and charts were last updated by Trading Economics this last December in 2025.

In April 2025, the food price index in New Zealand had risen by around *** percent in comparison to the same period of the previous year. The rising cost of food products contributed to the overall increasing cost of living in the country.

Morocco Living Cost Index: Food data was reported at 197.900 1989=100 in Oct 2009. This records a decrease from the previous number of 202.700 1989=100 for Sep 2009. Morocco Living Cost Index: Food data is updated monthly, averaging 157.550 1989=100 from Jan 1990 (Median) to Oct 2009, with 238 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 202.700 1989=100 in Sep 2009 and a record low of 104.900 1989=100 in Jul 1990. Morocco Living Cost Index: Food data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by High Commission for Planning. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Morocco – Table MA.I006: Living Cost Index: 1989=100: by Industry.

Cost of living data based on food, housing, utilities, transportation, healthcare, and consumer discretionary spending in the United States.

Morocco Living Cost Index: Food: Other Food Products data was reported at 193.400 1989=100 in Oct 2009. This records a decrease from the previous number of 194.100 1989=100 for Sep 2009. Morocco Living Cost Index: Food: Other Food Products data is updated monthly, averaging 185.800 1989=100 from Dec 2002 (Median) to Oct 2009, with 83 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 197.200 1989=100 in May 2009 and a record low of 178.300 1989=100 in Jun 2004. Morocco Living Cost Index: Food: Other Food Products data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by High Commission for Planning. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Morocco – Table MA.I006: Living Cost Index: 1989=100: by Industry.

Good health is viewed as essential to enable citizens to live fulfilling lives, shape communities, and drive economic growth. However, health is socially patterned. Low socioeconomic status is associated with an increased risk of non-communicable diseases, where poor dietary patterns and diet-related obesity are likely contributors. Food purchasing can be influenced by many factors, including cost and income. Most food purchased to be consumed at home is acquired from supermarkets, and any increase in food prices disproportionately impacts low-income households, contributing to food insecurity. This study explored the factors that helped and hindered people living with obesity and food insecurity in purchasing healthy, environmentally sustainable food from supermarkets. Semi-structured interviews (n = 25) and focus groups (n = 7) were conducted between June and December 2023 with adults living in Scotland and England who self-identified as living with obesity and food insecurity. Using thematic analysis, six main themes were identified: (1) Supermarket deals: perceptions surrounding the good, the bad, and the ugly side of supermarket offers and promotions; (2) Skepticism about supermarkets and the wider food system: questioning supermarket pricing motives but recognizing the role of the wider food system in food pricing; (3) Other peoples’ role in enhancing or undermining healthy diet intentions: the impact of others in shaping food purchases; (4) Financial restrictions facing non-UK nationals: additional challenges faced by those with no recourse to public funds; (5) The overwhelming in-store supermarket experience: sensory overload and attempts to prevent unintended, impulse purchases; (6) Unconscious, environmentally sustainable shopping practices: cost saving practices that lead to environmentally sustainable purchasing patterns and behaviors as a unintentionally created outcome of budget maximizing strategies. However, such strategies, that is, limiting food waste and purchasing less meat, although beneficial for environmental sustainability, do not necessarily indicate that a healthier diet is being purchased or consumed. While views on some factors believed to help or hinder healthy, environmentally sustainable food purchases varied, there was general agreement amongst participants on the need for upstream changes, including having access to adequate benefits and wages.