Data from theNATIONAL VITAL STATISTICS SYSTEM

Trends in Fertilityin the United States

An analytic study of recent and long-term fertility trends in termsof period and cohort measures wth emphasis on changes occurringduring the period 1970-73. Discusses variations in fertility of majorpopulation groups by color and place of residence.

DHEW Publication No. (HRA) 78-1906

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFAREPublic Health Service

Health Resources AdministrationNational Center for Health StatisticsHyattsville, Md. September 1977

Series 21Number 28

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Taffel, SelmaTrends in fertility in the United States.

(Vital and health statistics: Series 21, Data from the National Vital Statistics System;no. 28) (DHEW publication, no. (HRA) 78-1906)

Bibliography: p.Supt. of Dec. no.: HE20.6209:21/281. Fertility, Human-United States. I. Title. II. Series: United States. National Center for

Health Statistics. Vital and health statistics; Series 21, Data from the National VitalStatistics System. Data on natality, marriage, and divorce; no. 28. III. Series: United States.Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, DHEW publication; no. (HRA) 78-1906.HA211.A3 no. 28 [HB915] 312’.1’73s [301’.32’1’0973]ISBN 0-8406-0108-5 77-608161

For sale by the Superintendent of Emctments, U.S. Government Printing OfficeWashington, D.C. 20402

Stock No. 017-022 -00595-6

NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS

DOROTHY P. RICE, Director

ROBERT A. ISRAEL, Deputy Director

JACOB J. FELDMAN, Ph.D., Associate Director for Anu~ysis

GAIL F. FISHER, Associate Director for the Cooperative Health Statistics System

ELIJAH L. WHITE, Associate Director for Data Systems

JAMES T. BAIRD, JR., Ph.D., Assoczizte Director for International Statistics

ROBERT C. HUBER, Associate Director for Management

MONROE G. SIRKEN, Ph. D., Associate Director for Mathematical Statistics

PETER L. HURLEY, Associate Director for Operations

JAMES M. ROBEY, Ph.D., Associate Director for Program Development

PAUL E. LEAVERTON, Ph. D., Associate Director for Research

ALICE HAYWOOD, Information Officer

DIVISION OF VITAL STATISTICS

JOHN E. PATTERSON, Director

ALICE M. HETZEL, Deputy Director

ROBERT L. HEUSER, M.A., Chiej Natajity Statistics Branch

RITA U. HOFFMAN, ChieJ Programming Branch

MABEL G. SMITH, A c ting Chiej Statistical Resources Branch

Vital and Health Statistics Series 21-No. 28

DHEW Publication No. (HRA) 78-1906

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 77-608161

CONTENTS

ktroduction ............................................................................................................................................

Summary of Fhdings .................... ....... ......................................... ..........................................................

Recent Trends in Fertfiity .............................................................................. .........................................Fertility Rates ..... .................... ....... ....................................................... ............................................ .Birth Rates ........................................................................................... ........................................ ......Decliie in Births ............................ ......................................... ...........................................................Color Differentials ......................... ....................................................................................................Age of Mother ..... ............... .................. ............................................... ...............................................Interval Between Births ................................................................................................................ ......Birth Order Changes...................... .....................................................................................................Fertility by Geographic ke= ............................................................................................................

Changes in Completed Fertility and Total FerWlty ............................................ .................. ...................Cohort Fertility Concept .................................... ...............................................................................Long-Term Trends in Completed Fertility .........................................................................................Family Size at Younger Ages ........ ...................... ........................................................................ .......Timing of Births-Total Fertilky Rate ..... ........................................... ........... ....................................

Changing Patterns of FertiEty Control ................................ ....................................................................Reduction in Unwanted Births ...........................................................................................................Contraceptive Pifls ................................................... ..........................................................................Intrauterine Devices .................................................. .......................... ...............................................Contraceptive Steflization .................................................................. ...............................................Legal Abortions ............................................ .................. ..................................................... ..............

Future Trends .........................................................................................................................................Birth Expectations .............................................................................................................................Numbers of Bktis ..............................................................................................................................

References ................................ ...... ............................... ................... .......................................................

List of Detailed Tables ............................................................................... .............................................

Technical Appendix ...................................................... ..........................................................................

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

LIST OF FIGURES

Fertility rates by color: 1920.75 ................................................................................................ .....

Birth rates for white women, by age of mother: 1940.75 ................................................................

Birth rates for all other women, by age of mother: 1940-75 ...........................................................

Birth rates by State: 1973 ........... ...... ..............................................................................................

Cumulative birth rates for white women, by specified exact ages, cohorts of 1875-1956 ................

Cumulative birth rates for all other women, by specified exact ages, cohorts of 1875 -1956 ............

1

1

223344558

1010101111

171720202020

212121

23

25

39

3

6

7

9

12

13

7. Percent of white women with specified number of births, by exact age 30, January 1, 1918 -76,..,. 14

8. Percent of all other women with specified number of births, by exact age 30, January 1, 1918-76. 15

9. Actual and hypothetical secular trends in total fertility rates: 1920-74 ................................... ........ 16

10. Total fertility rates for white women, by live-birth order, 1917-75 ................................................. 18

11. Total fertility rates for all other women, by live-birth order: 1917-75 ............................................ 19

12. Observed and hypothetical numbers of births and total fertility rates: selected years, 1930-2000.. 22

TEXT TABLE

A. Birth rates mdcoefficients ofvariation ~ong States: United States, 1960 and 1965 -75 ............... 8

SYMBOLS

I Data not available ------------------------------------- --- ICategory not applicable --------------------------- . . .

Quatity zero ---------------------------------------- -

Quantity more than Obutless than O.05------ 0.0

Figure does not meet standards of

reliability or precision --------------------------- *

iv

TRENDS IN FERTILITY IN THE UNITED STATES

Selma Taffel, Division of Vital Statistics

INTRODUCTION

The fertility of American women hasdropped to unprecedentedly low levels in recentyears. Since 1957, there has been an almostcontinuous decline in the rate at which womenhave been bearing children. The rate of decreaseaccelerated sharply from 1970 to 1973, and thelevel of fertility is now the lowest ever observedin the United States.

The purpose of this report is to present andinterpret birth statistics for the United States

‘ with particular emphasis on changes that tookplace during the period 1970-73. Data for 1974and 1975 became available after most of theanalysis was completed and are included only ona limited basis. Data for this report are based oninformation entered on birth certificates col-lected from all States. Sampling rates andsources of data are described in the technicalappendix.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

All measures of fertility fell sharply duringthe period 1970-73. By 1973, the fertility rate(births per 1,000 women aged 15-44 years) haddeclined to 69.2, the Iowest ever recorded, andthe annual number of births to 3,136,965, thelowest number since 1945. However, the declinein the annual number of births may be at anend. There were 3,159,958 live births in 1974and 3,144,198 live births in 1975. Births in bothyears were thus slightly above the 1973 level.The fertility rate continued to decline, however,falling to 68.4 and 66.7 in 1974 and 1975,

respectively, as a result of a rise in the numberof women of childbearing age. The number ofwomen in the childbearing ages (15-44 years) isgrowing rapidly and will increase by about 17percent between 1975 and 1985 and will remainat about that level until the year 2000. Unlessfertility rates fall well below their present levels,this increase in the number of women will raisethe annual number of births.

Major factors influential in the recent de-cline in fertility are changes in the timingpatterms of childbearing (i.e., the ages at whichwomen give birth) and an emerging preferencefor smaller families. The decrease in numbers ofwanted births occurred at a time when theintroduction of more reliable and acceptablemeans of contraception made the limiting offamily size a more readily attainable goal. Thedecline in fertility thus was due also in part to areduction in the number of unwanted births.

Although all age groups (except girls aged10-14 and 15-17 years) experienced substantialreductions in fertility between 1970 and 1973,the greatest declines were for women aged 40years and over. While the median age of child-bearing for white women (all birth orderscombined) remained constant between 1970 and1973 and dropped slightly for women of allother races, the median age for having secondand higher order births increased for both racialgroups.

Declines in birth rates were evident for allbirth orders but were more pronounced forfourth and higher order births. Since there werefar fewer higher order births, however, a majorportion of the overall decline was due to thedrop in first, second, and third order births.

When the fertility of white women wascompared with that of women of all other zaces,the rates for the latter have been consistentlyhigher. Both groups reached peak levels offertility in 1957 and since then their rates ofchildbearing have been substantially lower. Since1970 the decline has been much steeper forwhite women, however, resulting in a wideningdifferential in rates.

There has been a gradual lengthening in theinterval between births for both white and blackwomen. Although the increase has been sub-stantially greater for black women, in 1973 themean interval between births was still slightlylonger for white women (43. 6 months for whitewomen, 42.4 months for black women).

The birth rates for all States and largemetropolitan areas declined during the 1970-73period. Reductions were generally greater inStates that had lower-than-average birth rates atthe beginning of this period.

The proportion of women under age 30bearing only one or two children has beenincreasing steadily, concomitant with a rise inthe proportion of women in this age group whoare remaining childless. White women under age30 are presently experiencing a higher level ofchildlessness than women of all other races, areversal of the pattern of the last few decades.—.

By the end of their childbearing period,women born in 1926 (the latest group forwhich such information is presently available)had given births to 3,007 children per 1,000women. The U.S. Bureau of the Census projectsthat women born in 1950 will bear between1,900 and 2,200 children per 1,000 womeri.

RECENT TRENDS IN FERTILITY

Fertility Rates

The downward trend in fertility since 1957follows the period of increasing fertility of the1940’s and 1950’s. After World War II, allindexes of fertility increased sharply. The highlevel of fertility reached in 1947 has beenattributed in part to the large number of birthsthat followed the 1946 surge of postwar‘marriages.l Many of these marriages and birthswould probably have occurred earlier if the war

had not intervened. In effect, large nuinbers ofmarriages and births were shifted from the late1930’s and early 1940’s to the postwar period.However, the increase in fertility was not atemporary phenomenon. Fertility rates rosefrom 101.9 births per 1,000 women aged 15-44years in 1946, the first postwar year, to a peakof 122.7 in 1957 and remained at relatively highlevels until the early 19 60’s. Some demographershave attributed this rise in fertility to favorableeconomic fact orsz >3 and the relative competitivedisadvantage faced by women with higher educa-tion seeking employment, which encouragedearly marriage and childbearing. 1 Moreover,those women who did enter the labcm forceduring this period experienced less childlessnessthan previously.A

Since 1957, fertility rates have declined eachyear except for slight rises in 1969 and 1970. By1973, the rate had ckopped to 6!2.2, 44 percentbelow the historic high of 122.7 in 195,7.Fertility rates have continued to decline since .1973, dropping to 68.4 in 1974 and to 66.7 in1975 (table 1 and figure 1). Many factors appearto have played a role in the reversal in fertilitypatterns that began in the late 1950’s.

Women who were experiencing such highfertility levels earlier in the 1950’s were reachingthe older ages of the childbearing period. Sincemost of them had all the children they wantedto have while they were younger, they werehaving relatively few children at the olderchildbearing ages. This is part of the reason forthe recent decline in annual fertility rates.

In addition, participation in the labor force—.

of young wives with dependent children becamemore prevalent for a variety of economic reasonsas indicated in a number of studies.s >G It hasalso been proposed that the rising rates of divorcebeginning in 1963 sent many women into thelabor market.G Concomitantly, there were in-creasing proportions of single women amongthose aged 15-24,7 increasing percentages ofchildless women even among those married,s andthere was a small rise in the bride’s age at firstmarriage. More recently, the increased use ofmore effective family planning methods with thesubsequent reduction in unwanted births hascontributed substantially to the downturn infertility.g A more detailed discussion of the

k

.- ,- ., / i,

‘\J--, ,/ \\\,

\, /120 \, /’

%,

3‘“ “+-’’’’-” “--l%+ +- ,“’’’’’-->’’”-80

~

— \

.50

$ $

01920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975

Figure 1. Fertility rates by color: 1920-75.

effect of the modernization of family planning population and the remainder of the populationmethods on fertility is included in the section were 17.6 and 25.1, respectively. As observed“Changing Patterns of Fertility Control.”

Birth Rates

Birth rates (births per 1,000 population) areaffected by the age-sex composition of theentire population and are, therefore, not assensitive a measure of the fertiIit y of thechildbearing population as are fertility rates. Abrief discussion of trends in the birth rate isincluded in this report, however, since birthrates are a usefd measure of the impact of fertil-ity on population growth.

Ther~ was a long-term decline in birth ratesfor the white population from the early 1900’suntil the mid-1930’s and for the rest of thepopulation from the 1920’s to the mid-1 930’s(table 1). The lowest levels for both colorgroups were reached in 1936, when the overallbirth rate was 18.4 and the rates for the white

for fertility rates, there was a strong upsurge inbirth rates soon after World War II, folIowed bya fairly steady climb in rates until 1957, whenthe peak rate of 25.3 was reached. Since thenthere have been year-to-year declines in birthrates, except for smalI rises in 1969 and 1970.By 1973, the birth rate had dropped to the thenhistoric low of 14.9 and has remained at aboutthis leveI through 1975.

Decline in Births

The yearly number of births has followedabout the same pattern of fluctuation as thatobserved for fertility rates (table 1). The 1940’sand earl y 195 O‘s were generally characterized bya small annual increase. Peak fertility wasreached in 1957, when there were 4,300,000births. During the period 1960 through 1968,the number of births declined by an average of2.2 percent each year. A temporary reversal of

this downward trend occurred in 1969 and 1970but was followed by an accelerated rate ofdecrease during the period 1970 through 1973,when births declined an average of 5.3 percentannually.

The precipitous decrease in births between1970 and 1973 occurred despite the growingnumber of women of childbearing age and isthus directly attributable to the major decline inthe rate at which women were bearing children.In 1970 there were about 15,309,000 womenaged 20-29, the ages that account for mostbirths. By 1973, the number of women in thisage group had increased by 11 percent toapproximately 16,939,000.

Although the fertility rate had dropped to68.4 in 1974 and to 66.7 in 1975 (1 and 4percent, respectively, below the 1973 rate of69.2), the number of births rose slightly to3,159,958 in 1974 and 3,144,198 in 1975. Thiswas due to the increase by 1975 in the numberof women aged 20-29 to 18,035,000 (6 percentabove the 1973 level), which more than offsetthis relatively small decline in the rate ofchildbearing.

Color Differentials

During the 193 O‘s and until 1947, trends infertility for white women and all other womenclosely paralleled one another (figure 1). In1947 the fertility rate for white women reacheda peak of 111.8, dropped abruptly during thefollowing year, and then continued to riseslowly from 1950 to 1957, when the highestrate in the postwar period (11 7.6) was reached.Fertility levels for all other women rose withoutinterruption throughout this period and reachedtheir peak (161.7) in 1957. Since 1957, fertilityrates for both color groups have declined stead-ily, interrupted only by a small rise in rates forwhite women during 1969 and 1970.

Historically, the fertility of white womenhas been consistently lower than the fertility ofwomen of all other races, but the disparity hasvaried considerably during the last few decades.Fertility levels were most similar during 1946agd 1947 (the start of the “baby boom”) whenthe fertility of women of all other races ex-ceeded the fertility of white women by only 13percent. For a number of years, however, the

gap in fertility was 40 percent or greater (forexample, the period 1963-68 ).

From 1966 to 1970, there was a steadynarrowing in the fertility differential, followedby a widening in the differential between 1970 ‘and 1973. In 1970 the fertility rate fair womenof all other races was 34 percent higher than forwhite women, but by 1973 the difference hadincreased to 44 percent and remained at slightlymore than 40 percent in 1974 and 1975. Duringthe period 1970-73 the fertility for both whitewomen and women of all other races decreasedmarkedly, but the decline was much steeper forwhite women (22.4 percent compared with 16.5percent). Data from the 1965 and 1970 NationalFertility Studies suggest that the persistentdifferential in fertility between white and blackawomen is not due to the desire for largerfamilies on the part of black women, but ratherto the greater frequency of unwanted births andlonger exposure to the risk of pregnancy due tothe pattern of earlier childbearing.1 O

Age of Mother

From 1957 until 1973, the downward move-ment in fertility was shared by all age and colorgroups of women, except for the small numberof white women giving birth at ages youngerthan 15 years. As measured by age-specific birthrates (the number of births per 1,000 women ineach age group), the decline in fertility was

greatest for women aged 35 years and over(table 2 and figures 2 and 3). By 1!973, thefertility of these older women in both colorgroups had declined more than 60 percent belowthe 1957 levels. For women aged 20-34 yearsthe decreases were nearly as striking,, rangingbetween 42 and 55 percent below the 1957levels. This pattern is in sharp contrast to thatobserved in the 1940’s and 1950’s when olderwomen had relatively stable fertility and that ofwomen in the younger age groups movedsteadily upward.

About half of the overall decline in fertilityfrom the peak year of 1957 until 1973 tookplace beginning in 1970. During the period

aA very large proportion of the births to women ofall other races are black births. In 1973 black birthsconstituted 87 percent of these births.

4

1970-73, age-specific births rate declined anaverage of 7 to 13 percent each year, exceptamong women under age 20 whose fertilityremained relatively high. The recent decrease infertility for women aged 15-19 years averagedonly 4 percent per year and mainly reflected thedecline among older teenagers. While birth ratesfor white teenagers 18-19 years of age declined22 percent between 1970 and 1973, rates foryounger white teenagers (15-1 7 years of age)increased by 1 percent. For teenagers of allother races, the rates dropped by 16 percent forthose aged 18-19 years, but by only 4 percentfor those aged 15-17 years. The fertility of veryyoung girls, ages 10-14, actually increased be-tween 1970 and 1973.

In 1973 age-specific birth rates for thepopulation of women of all other races were stillsubstantiality greater than for white women fora31but one age group, women aged 25-29 yearswhere fertility was practically identical. Relativedifferences in fertility for other age groupsranged from 16 percent (30-34 years) to 733percent (under 15 years).

Between 1970 and 1973, the median age forthe beginning of childbearing decreased slightlyfor all other women and slowly increased forwhite women. This produced a gradual wideningbetween color groups in the median age at thestart of childbearing (table 3). By 1973 whitewomen were starting their families an average of2.3 years later than all other women. Althoughthe median age of childbearing (all birth orderscombined) has remained relatively constant forwhite women since 1960, and has droppednearly a full year for all other women, themedian age for having second and higher orderbirths has been increasing steadily for both colorgroups. This apparent anomaly is due to the factthat proportionately more births in recent yearsare of lower orders. The median age for allorders combined reflects this shift in distribu-tion of births to lower orders, where births aregenerally to younger women.

Interval Between Births

Not only are women having fewer children,(see section, “Changes in Completed Fertilityand Total Fertility”) but the length of timebetween births has been increasing. Beginning

with 1969, information on the date of last livebirth is available from the birth certificates ofmany States, permitting the computation ofinterval since last live birth. Since that year therehas been a gradual lengthening in the intervalbetween births for both white and black women(table 4). However, the increase in birth intervalfor black women, which averaged 4.6 monthsbetween 1969 and 1973, was substantiallygreater than the comparable increase of 1.9months for white women. This may be areflection of the increasing ease of obtainingcontraceptive assistance on the part of blackwomen with Iow and marginal incomes throughthe rapidly expanding network of public andprivate family planning agencies.11

Birth Order Changes

Decreases in birth rates for all birth ordershave contributed to the falling fertility rate, butthe rate of decline has been relatively greater forthe higher birth orders (table 5). Between 1970and 1973, white first, second, and third orderbirth rates declined an average of 18 percent,whiIe the drop in fourth and higher order birthrates averaged 40 percent. Decreases during thisperiod for Iower order births to women of alIother races were far less substantial, averaging 10percent, but were nearly as great as those for thehigher orders, which declined an average of 38percent. As a resuh of the relatively greaterdecline in higher order births, first through thirdorder births have become more predominant inrecent years, increasing from 83 to 87 percent ofall births to white women and from 75 to 82percent of alI births to women of all other racesduring the period 1970-73 (table 6). Since thereare far fewer higher order births, the overaIIdrop in fertility between 1970 and 1973 is to aIarge extent a reflection of changes in first,second, and third order births. During thisperiod 69 percent of the decIine in fertiIity ofwhite women and 44 percent of the decline infertility of women of all other races wasattributable to the drop in these lower orderbirths.

Between 1973 and 1975, the rate of declineslowed appreciably for all birth orders (table 5).There was only a small decrease in first and thhd

5

400

300

2C+I

100

90

80

70

60

50z.z

~ ~.

E--a:

:: 30

20

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

20.24years

1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975YEAR

NOTI Bwnn,m 1<)5,> I,,.(J 1,.., ,,, b,wl ,,,, rcn,,ts-rd 1,,, h,, (l,, ,mnd I,.,, i., 1940.59,,, breed on 1,”. b,,tb, .Id,uslcd Ic,r tt”dcrrc!mlr.tmt> ScIt>Il<,NarIII It)Izc Ac,

Figure 2. Birth rates for white women by age of mother: 1940-75.

400

20.24 years

ml

200

I100

90

80

70

m

50

40

30

40-S4yews

I I

20

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

11940 1945 1950 1955 196o 1965 1970 1975

YEAR

NOTL &tinning 1959, wend bncs m bawd .“ rcsmcrcd hw bxrths: trend lms Cm 19a0.59 m hscd cm [m bmhs adwstcd for undmwsmtm SwA.wItlmh’ v.!?

Figure 3. Birth rates for all other women by age of mother: 1940-75.

7

order birth rates during this period (1.4 and3.lpercent, respectively), while second order birthrates stayed at approximately the same level.Fourth and higher order rates dropped far morerapidly than lower order rates, but the yearlydeclines averaged about half that of the 1970-73period.

Conclusions drawn from birth rates bylive-birth order must be used with cautionbecause the base populations, or denominators,used in computing these rates include all womenaged 15-44 years. They are not specific as to ageand, therefore, include women among whom theprobability of having a child of a specified orderis very low. To obtain a clearer picture of birthorder changes, first, second, and third order birthrates are presented by age of mother (table 7). Itcan be seen that decreases in first births between1970 and 1973 were greatest among women aged20-24. There was little change in rates for firstbirths among women aged 25-34 years. Simi-larly, for second order births, women aged 25-34years did not experience the pronounced drop infertility seen among other age groups.

The decline m third order births was of agreater magnitude than for first and secondbirths for all age groups. For white women, thedrop in rates for third order births was greatestfor women aged 20-29 years; for women of allother races, the birth rates for women under 25years of age showed the greatest declines.

Fertility by Geographic Areas

State and geographic division. –The extentof variation in birth rates among the States canbe measured by the coefficient of vanation–the ratio of the standard deviation of an array ofrates to the arithmetic mean of that array,expressed as a percent. Between 1960 and 1968,there was a year-to-year decline in the birth ratesof most States. With this drop there was also aslight convergence of rates as measured by thecoefficient of variation. Although birth ratescontinued to decline during almost all the yearsbetween 1969 and 1975, the pattern of con-vergence reversed, as shown in table A. Therelative dispersion in rates increased each yearbeginning in 1969, and by 1975, the divergencein rates was 95 percent greater than in 1968.

Table A. Birth rates and coefficients of variation among States:

United States. 1960 and 1965-75

Year

Coeffi-U.s. cient ofbirth variationrate among

States

1975 .. .. . ... .. .. .... .. . ... .. . .... . .. .... .. . ... .. .. .... .. .. .... .. .1974 .. .. .. ... . .. ... ... .. ... . .. .... .. . ... ... . .... .. .. .. .. . .. ... .. .1973 ... . . .... . ... .... . . ..... . . ... .... . .... . . .... .. .. ... ... . .... . .1972 .. .. .. .... ... .... .. .. ... . .. ..... . . .... .. .. ... . .. .... .. . ..... .1971 ... ... . .. ... .. .... . . .... .. .. ... .. . .... .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .. ... . .1970 ... .. .. .... . . .... .. .. ... .. ... ... .. . .... . .. ... .. ... .... . . .... .1969 .... .. .. ... . .. .... .. . .... ... . ... ... . .... .. ...... .. .... .. . ....1968 .... .. ... ... . . .... .. .. ... ... .. ... . .. .... .. .. .... . .. ... .. .. ...1967 .. ... .. . .... . .. .... .. . .... .. . ..... . .. ... . ... .... .. .. ... .. ... .

1965 ... ... .. . ... .. .. ... ... .. .. .. . ..... .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .. .... .. .. .1960 .. .... . .. ... .. ...... . . .. .. .. .. .... . .. ... .. .. .... .. .. ... . .... .1

14.8 16.614,9 15.474.9 14.615.6 13.317.2 11.818.4 10.517.8 9.317.5 8.517.8 8.618.4 8.419.4 9.123.7 10.2

An examination of the percent decrease inrates between 1970 and 1973 for geographicdivisions (table 8) reveals that the rate of declinewas more rapid for the New England and MiddleAtlantic States than for the remainder of thecountry. The smallest changes occurred in theEast South Central, West South Central, andMountain States.

There appears to be a negative correlationbetween the extent of decline in the period1970-73 and the magnitude of a State’s birthrate in 1970. (The coefficient of correlation is-.44. The probability of a value thk lowoccurring by chance is less than 1 in 100.) Thatis, States that had relatively low birth rates in1970 exhibited somewhat larger than averagedeclines in fertility compared with States withhigher initial birth rates. This observation isconsistent with the pattern of increasing diver-gence among the birth rates of States noted intable A. Relatively larger decreases for Stateswith already low birth rates would result in awidening gap in rates between these States andStates with initially higher rates.

Variations in rates among States for the year1973 are shown in figure 4. Geographic differ-ences in birth rates do not necessarily corre-spond to differences in the level of fertility ofwomen at childbearing ages. Birth rates are

dependent on the age-sex composition. of thepopulation to which they refer and can, there-

Birth rate per Relativebirth rate1,000 population (US. rate = lCCJI

-.-.-.-.-7Lessthan 13.4 :.:.:.:... - Lessthan 90

13.4.16.4 90-110

Greater than 16.4 Greater than 110

Figure 4. Birth rates by State: 1973

fore, be relatively unreliable yardsticks of com- 9. Birth and fertility rates for each division inparative fertility .-Fertility rates provide a moreaccurate measurement of comparative levels offertility among States and other geographicareas, but the lack of population data forwomen aged 15-44 in the postcensal yearsprecluded the computation of this measure foryears subsequent to 1970.

An indication of the extent of distortion inthe use of birth rates when comparing fertilityof different geographic axeas can be seen in theindexes for geographic divisions shown in table

1970 me compared with the national rates.Fertility, when measured by the birth rate,

was slightly lower in relation to the national ratethan when measured by the fertility rate for theNew England, Middle Atlantic, West NorthCentral, and East South Central Divisions, andwas higher or the same in the remaining divi-sions. However, only in the West North CentralDivision did the refinement in measurementachieved by use of the fertility rate produce asubstantial difference.

9

The net effect of using the birth rate as acomparative measure is to increase slightly thevariation among the States’ rates. In 1970 thecoefficient of variation of the States’ birth rateswas 10.5 and 8.8 for the fertility rates.

Metropolitan residence. –By 1970, the in-verse association between reproductive levelsand urbanization, which was observed by de-mographers for earlier decades,T had largelydisappeared. Only in two geographic divisions,those comprising the New England and MiddleAtlantic States, was this pattern still evident(table 10). Indeed, for the country as a whole,the birth rate was slightly higher in metropoli-tan (18.5) than in nonmetropolitan areas(18.1).b Between 1970 and 1973, however,birth rates declined more rapidly in metropoli-tan than in nonmetropolitan areas. During thisperiod the metropolitan area birth rate dropped21 percent to 14.7. In nonmetropolitan areasthe corresponding drop was 14 percent, resultingin a birth rate of 15.5 (5 percent greater than themetropolitan area birth rate).

Population information necessary to com-pute birth rates by race in metropolitan andnonmetropolitan areas is available only for1970. In that year very substantial differences inbirth rates by race were evident in all geographicdivisions within both metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas (table 10). On the average,birth rates for women of all other races were 45percent higher than those for white women ineach of these areas. Slightly more than two-thirds (68.3 percent) of all white births andnearly three-quarters (74.2 percent) of the birthsto women of all other races were to residents ofmetropolitan counties in 1970. By 1973, thecorresponding proportions of white births andthose of all other races in metropolitan areas haddropped slightly to 65.8 and 73.4 percent.

Birth rates for 1971-73 for very large stand-ard metropolitan statistical areas (SMSA’s)–those with populations of 1 million or more—are shown in table 11. Decreases in birth ratesfor large SMSA’S were most pronounced in theNortheast Region and least in the West Region.The percent declines in birth rates for large

bMetropolitan areas consist of ail counties withinstandard metropolitan statistical areas except in NewEngland, where metropolitan areas are comprised ofcounties within metropolitan State economic areas.

SMSA’S in the North Central and South Regionwere similar to the overall national drop.

CHANGES INCOMPLETED FERTILITY AND

TOTAL FERTILITY

In order to understand recent trends infertility, it is necessary to consider two otherimportant factors—completed family size andtiming of births.

Cohort Fertility Concept

Up to this point, fertility has been examinedprimarily in terms of calendar year changes.Another approach is to follow the childbearingof groups of women through their reproductiveyears. Such groups are called “cohorts” and areidentified by the year of their birth. Thus thesewomen always carry the same designation re-gardless of their ages. This enables comparkonsover time for the same cohort and also compari-sons among different cohorts at the same age.For example, statements can be made about thefertility of the 1930 cohort when its memberswere 30 years of age in 1960 and when theywere 40 years of age in 1970. Or, alternately, acomparison can be made between the numberof children borne by women in the 1930 cohortby age 30 (in 1960) and the number of childrenborne by the 1940 cohort by age 30 (in 1970).’

Long-Term Trends in Completed Fertility

The average number of children ever borneby a cohort up to a specified age is termed the“cumulative fertility rate.” Of special interest isthe average number borne by age 50 (the end ofthe childbearing period), known as the “com-pleted fertility rate. ” Table 12 shows com-pleted fertility for cohorts of women bornduring each year from 1875 to 1926. (Com-pleted fertility rates for white women andwomen of all other races for the cohorts of 1875to 1926 are depicted as the top lines of figures 5

cA more complete discussion of the cohort fertilityconcept and detailed data on the fertility of the cohortsof 1868 to 1959 can be found in Fertility Tables forBirth Cohorts by Color: United States, 1917-73. DHEWPub. No. (HRA) 76-1152. Health Resources Administra-tion, Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, Apr.1976.

10

and 6.) There was a long-term decline incompleted fertility rates from the 1875 cohort(3,669 births per 1,000 women) to the 1908cohort (2,27 O births per 1,000 women). Theextremely low levels of fertility seen for theselater cohorts are probably due to the fact thatthey reached the ages of peak childbearingduring the depression of the 1930’s. Completedfertility increased for succeeding cohorts, reach-ing a high of 3,007 for the cohort of 1926, thelatest cohort for which completed fertility ispresently known. Although later cohorts havenot yet reached age 50, the cohorts of 1927 to1936 must surpass the 1926 cohort since thesecohorts have already borne more children byyounger ages than the 1926 cohort hadaltogether.

U.S. Bureau of the Census projections indi-cate that women born in 1935 will probablycomplete their famtles with approximately3,200 births per 1,000 women. Projections ofcompleted family size for younger cohorts arefar lower, and it seems probable that the cohortsof 1940 and later years will show markedreductions in completed fertility. The Bureau ofthe Census assumes in their projections thatcompleted fertility for the cohort of 1945 willrange between 2,251 and 2,325, and for the1950 cohort between 1,874 and 2,166.1 z

While trends in completed fertility for whitewomen and women of all other races are quitesimilar, completed fertility for white women hasbeen consistently lower. Projections by the

Bureau of the Census are based on the assump-tion that this differential will persist welI intothe future.

Family Size at Younger Ages

In recent years young women are havingfewer births and more young women are remain-ing childless. This is clearly illustrated by acomparison of the percent of women who havehad no births, one birth, two births, and so forth,by age 30 as of January 1, 1966 (cohort of1936) and as of January 1, 1976 (cohort of1946) (figures 7 and 8). At the beginning of1966, 13 percent of all white women who hadreached the age of 30 had no children; b y 1976,this had increased to 21 percent. About 24percent of all white women had borne four

children or more by age 30 at the beginning of1966, but this proportion had fallen to about 9percent at the start of 1976. Concomitantly, theproportion of white women with only one ortwo children has been increasing steadily.

During the last few decades, childlessnesshas been consistently higher among women ofall other races than among white women. How-ever, with the recent rapid increase in thepercent of white women with no children andgradual decline in the percent of childlessnessamong women of all other races, by 1976 whitewomen under age 30 were experiencing a higherlevel of chMlessness than women of other races(21 percent and 14 percent, respectively). Al-though the drop in proportion of young womenhaving large families has not been as precipitousfor women of aIl other races as for whitewomen, the decline has nevertheless been quitepronounced. From 1966 to the end of 1975, theproportion of women of all other races havingfour or more children by age 30 decreased from40 percent to 20 percent. As observed for whitewomen, the proportion of young women of allother races having only one or two children hasgradually risen during this period.

Timing of Births-Total Fertility Rate

Another way of assessing changes in fertilityis by use of the total fertility rate. This is thesum of age-specific birth rates for all ages in thereproductive period in any given calendar year.The total fertility rate states the number ofbirths 1,000 women would have ij they experi-enced throughout their reproductive ages the setof age-specific birth rates observed in a givencalendar year. It is a useful measure because itcan be compared with the completed childbear-ing expected by actual groups of women. Suchcomparisons may give some idea of the extent towhich fertility in a given year is likely to bedistorted by factors involving the timing ofbirths, which have only a temporary effect. Forexample, the peak total fertility rate of 3,582observed for white women in 1957 could beconsidered inflated in the sense that such a highrate was not in keeping with the birth expecta-tions of white women then in the childbearingpopulation. According to a 1955 survey, noactual group of white wcmen at that time

11

5,000

4,500

4,00Q

3,500 \

3,000

1,500

1.000

500

01875

—

1880 1885 1890 1895 1900 1905 1910 1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955

YEAR

NOTE b!,, b,,td .“ blnhsad,us[ed (., .nde,,,gsl,a,,on and on poph,ion e,t,mates ad,usted r., undc,,numem,mn

io

Figure 5. Cumulative birth rates for white women, by specified exact ages, cohorts of 1875-1956.

12

5,030

4,500

4,000

3,503

3,CC0

$

z

~ 2,502

uLu0.

:a

2,CC4

1,500

1,000

500

I--H+

1;75 1880 1885 1890 1 $ 1800 1905 1910 1915 1920 1925 1930 1

YEAR

NOTE: Ritesbasedm!blrti .dynted for .ndwrc$t:mtion and m popd.li.n whales .dyxtd for underenumerdmx

—

— +-l-jlm

1940 1945 1950 1955 )

Figure 6, Cumulative birth rates for all other women, by specified exact ages, cohorts of 1875-1956.

4

3

2

1

0,9

08

0.7

0.6

01

N“ b,rihs

/’

-.

-.

/

. . . . . . . .,3, ” 15,!(J 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980

YEAR ATTAINED AGE 30

NOTE Bwd ,,,, b,,,h, ad,uml !., “nde,regmtm.an M on popmdatmn CS,,IIM,,, ,d,us,.d f., undc,mumemt, on, Sm,,logmtl,m,c ,.,1,

Figure 7. Percent of white women with specified number of births by exact age 30, January 1,1918-76.

14

40No births

,-------,.

-.

/“1 ..

~3

2

1

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

n.“’‘ 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970

YEAR ATTAINED AGE 30

—)

SOTI LIJwI ,., h,,,l,, ml,u,,,d !,,, “,,4,,,,$,s1,.1!,7,1.l,,d,,8,PWUIJ1 ,%u8 ,.1 ! ,,3,10 d , w td (,?, U,,LWWU!lWJ t <W Smllwrl 1!1 III) . -d.’

Figure 8. Percent of all other women with specified number of births by exact age 30, January 1,1918-76.

15

expected to have as many as 3,600 children per1,000 women by the end of the reproductiveperiod.18 Most of the women surveyed havenow completed or are nearing completion ofchildbearing. So far, no cohort of womenincluded in that survey has borne more than3,100 children per 1,000 women.

Changes in the ages at which women havetheir children as well as changes in completedfamily size affect annual fertility. A majorportion of the upward and downward shifts infertility described earlier and also evidencedin total fertility-rate fluctuations (table 13) canbe ascribed to changing timing patterns, that is,changes in the ages at which women have theirchildren. The solid line in figure 9 shows themajor trends in the total fertility rates that haveactually been observed in the United States since1920. This line is influenced both by changes incompleted fertility and by changes in the timingof births. The broken line is designed to repre-sent the hypothetical trend that would havebeen followed if the pattern in age at childbear-ing had been constant throughout this period.In other words, the only factor causing thebroken line to rise and fall is changes in theaverage number of children that women have bythe end of the childbearing period. It is apparentthat annual fluctuations in actual fertility areconsiderably greater than the correspondingchanges due to variations in family size only.

The foIlowing table gives an indication ofthe portion of the major up and down move-

ments in fertility of white women and women ofall other races which can be ascribed to shifts intiming patterns.

Period of Period

color1935-39 1955-59

to 1955-59 to 1970-74(rising rates) ~alling rates)

Percent

Total ... 59 56

White ... .......... .... .. 61 56All other ........... .. 55 54

These numbers must be regarded as approxima-tions, for it was necessary to estimate thecompleted fertility of many of the women stillin the reproductive ages.

These figures suggest that timing changeshave played a somewhat smaller role in thedecline in fertility of white women in recentyears than in the rise during the postwar years,but have influenced to about the same extentboth the up and down movements of fertility forwomen of all other races. During both periods,shifts in age at childbearing have had less impacton year-to-year changes in the fertility ofwomen of all other races than of white women.

Figures 10 and 11 show total fertility ratesby live-birth order for white women and forwomen of all other races from 1917 to 1975.For each order these rates are the sums of the

3,000z

2 .--.~.-

~ .—. —-------- ---

~,-. 2,00052

e:

— Actual1,000

“—”- HWothet,cal ratesThaiwould havebeen observed(f lhe Wrongfor all 9c.hmts wasfhe sm.

o I I I ~ $

1920-24 192529 1930.34 7935.39 1940.44 194549 1950.54 1956.59 1960.64 1966.69 1970.74

YEARS

Figure 9. Actual and hypothetical secular trends in total fertility rates: 1920-74.

16

birth rates by single year of age iii a given year.Sums of the total fertility rates of all orders arethe rates shown in table 13.

One of the most striking features of figure10 is the fact that the rates for first births forwhite women for the period 1947-57 werealmost always above 1,000, indicating more than1,000 first births per 1,000 women. Thisanomaly reflects the overlapping of two agepatterns of childbearing. First-birth rates werevery high for older women as well as for youngerwomen during this period. Such high rates forfirst births obviously could not be experiencedby an actual cohort of women, and they had tofall after the temporary effects of the overlap-ping shifts in timing had passed. Since 1957,there has been a major decline in first-birthrates, with only a temporary interruption in thistrend between 1965 and 1970.

The pattern in the total fertility rate forfirst births for women of all other races (figure11) is noticeably different than that describedfor white women. Despite the generally highlevel of these rates in the period beginning 1947,the total fertility rate never rose above 1,000.The drop following the 1957 peak was far moregentle than for white births, and rates increasedduring the 19 60’s, reaching a higher level in1970 than in 1957. Although the total fertilityrates for first births declined between 1970 and1973, the rate for white women dropped nearlytwice as rapidly as for women of all other races–18.0 percent compared with 9.5 percent. Thisdifferential is due almost wholly to the far morerapid decline in first-order rates for young whitewomen aged 15-24 compared with the declinefor women of all other races at these ages.

CHANGING PATTERNSOF FERTILITY CONTROL

According to the results of theFertilitv Studies of 1965 and 1970 and

NationaIthe 1973

Nation~ Survey of Family Growth (NSFG)d

dThe NSFG was designed to provide informationabout fertility, family planning, and other aspects ofmaternal and child health related to childbearing. Thestatistics cited in this report refer to 7,566 currentlymarried women interviewed between July 1973 andFebruary 1974.

there was a dramatic change in the most com-monIy used methods of contraception amongmarried couples during the period 1965-73.Couples using one of the three more effectivemethods–sterilization, the pill, and the IUD(intrauterine device) -increased from 37 percentof all couples practicing contraception in 1965to 69 percent in 1973. Concomitantly, there wasa gradual decline in the proportion of marriedcouples not using any contraceptive method,from 36 percent in 1965 to 30 percent in1973.14,15

Results of the NSFG show that use of thesethree effective methods varied inversely withfamily income. Couples with incomes below thepoverty level were most likely to use effectivemethods (77 percent of all those practicingcontraception) while those with incomes at leasttwice the poverty level were least likely to usethese methods (67 percent).1s The widespreaduse of effective methods of contraceptionamong lower income couples has been attributedto the widening network of pubIic and familyplanning organizations which have providedadvice to women who have little access toprivate physicians.$’

Although black couples were less likely thanwhite couples to use any form of contraceptionaccording to the NSFG, among those coupleswho did practice contraception, there was agreater proportion of black than of whitecouples using these three effective methods. Thisrelationship was observed at aI1income levels. Is

Reduction in Unwantad Births

The shift to more effective methods ofcontraception may provide part of the explana-tion for the concurrent decline in unwantedfertilh y and the drop in the national birth rate.In the interval between 1961-65 and 1966-70,the rate of unwanted fertility, as measured bythe number of unwanted births per 1,000woman-years of exposure, was estimated to havebeen reduced by an average of 36 percent (55compared with 35 unwanted births per 1,000woman-years of exposure). The decline wasmuch higher for bIack women (56 percent) thanfor white women (35 percent)–a decrease from149 to 65 and 48 to 31 births per 1,000woman-years of exposure, respectively. It wasestimated that about half of the drop in fertility

17

5,000

4.000

3,0W

2,000

I .OCK90C

80C

70C

6(C

500

400

30C

20(

IN

9C

8C

7C

6C

5C

4C

3a

20

10

—

—

—

1920 1930 1940 1

YEAR

NOTk Rates bmcd .n btr!ln .dpstcd l.r undcrvcostrm.. and o. p.pulallon cwnales ad).scd (or .nderm.mmation for all years.SQrdlogmthmfc SCI!c.

Figure 10. Total fartility rates for white women, by Iiva-birth order: 1917-75.

18

4,000

3,000

2,000

903 —

80U

700

ml

4W

300

I

1-%A=-kbb 5,h II,rtl,s203 Y—~-\L

I

\\ I\

——

!’”/4I

3“ -

80

70 -)\

60

\

——

50 —

40

30 —

20 -

10192o 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980

YEAR

NOTk R.Iw bawd w, hmln JJIU.!NI !or umlcrqIsr.tm mJ o,, populmon wmmtes adpsed Iv, undmm. mmtt.. l.r all xms. S.mIlqxmmnm sm!e

Figure 11. Total fertility rates for all other women, by live-birth order: 1917-75.

between 1965 and 1970 was due to the effect of Contracmtive Sterilizationthis greater control of unwanted births. 10 JI A

The change in methods of fertility controlhas had a marked influence on recent fertility,and is, therefore, examined in somewhat greaterdetail in the following sections.

Contraceptive Pills

The use of contraceptive pills has increasedrapidly since their introduction to the public in1960. Estimates based on national studies offertility indicate that 24 percent of marriedwomen practicing contraception were using thepill by 1965, and that this proportion had grownto 36 percent by 1973 (about 6.7 millionwomen). This method has found especial accept-ance by black married women of all ages. Itsusage among this group increased from 22percent to 44 percent of those practicing contra-ception between 1965 and 1973.15

Since the long-term downturn in fertilitybegan in 1958, 2 years before the introductionof oral contraceptives, their use could not haveinitiated the decline in births. However, in-creased usage of the pill during the 1960’sprobably did have a reinforcing effect on therate of decline of births in that period. The pillis a highly effective method of contraceptionand is generally regarded as more convenientthan other methods in common use at that time.Therefore, substitution of the pill for othermethods of family limitation would tend toreduce the incidence of unintended conceptions.

1ntrauterine Devices

Although it was estimated that only 1percent of all wives practicing contraceptionwere using an intrauterine device (IUD) in1965,9 by 1973 the comparable figure was 10percent (about 1.8 million married women).1 EThe 1973 NS FG found that proportionatelymore black than white married women wereusing this form of contraception (13 percent and9 percent, respectively, of all married womenusing contraception ).1 s Intrauterine devices areconsidered more effective in preventing preg-nancy than any other nonsurgical method ex-cept oral contraceptives.1 G

.

In recent years voluntary sterilization (gen-erally in the form of tubal ligation fcm womenand vasectomy for men) has become one of thepreferred methods of contraception amongcouples desiring no additional children. Thisform of contraception differs from the pill andIUD in that it is primarily a means of endingreproduction, rather than of controlling thespacing of children.

It has been estimated from data derivedfrom the 1970 National Fertility Study that2.75 million married couples, or 11 percent ofall married couples in the reproductive ages, hadbeen sterilized for contraceptive purposes by1970. Indeed, it was found that this was themost widely used form of contraception amongolder couples (those where the wives were 30years or older). Sterilization was used far morefrequently by black women than by whitewomen at all ages, but by relatively few blackmen. However, for couples where either the wifeor husband was sterilized, it was found thatsterilization was a more common methc}d amongolder black couples (34 percent) than amongolder white couples (25 percent).9

Information from the 1973 National Surveyof Family Growth indicates that by 1973 about4.4 million couples, or 16 percent of all marriedcouples, had been sterilized for the purposes ofcontraception. Consistent with the observationsof the 1970 National Fertility Study, it wasfound that minority women of all ages weremore likely than white women to have hadsterilizing operations, but that the proportion ofblack males having such operations was farsmaller than that of white males.1 5 Unpublisheddata from the 1973 survey indicate that anadditional 20 percent of all married couplesanticipate having a contraceptive sterilizationoperation at some time.1 7

Legal Abortions

The use of induced abortion as a legalmedical procedure to terminate pregnancies wasrelatively rare until the late 19 60’s. During theperiod 1967-70, 12 States enacted laws thatextended the basis for medical abortions beyondprevious stringent legal grounds, which usuallylimited such procedures to life-threatening situa-

20

tions. In 1970 four additional States passed lawsthat provided for abortion virtually on demand,and in 1973 the Supreme Court handed downtwo landmark decisions that, in effect, nullifiedthe restrictive abortion laws of most States. As aresult, the number of legal abortions in theUnited States increased from about 5,000 in19631 g to 742,000 reported in 1973 and anestimated 998,000 in 1975.19

There has been considerable speculationconcerning the impact on the birth rate of theseincreasing numbers of legal abortions. One ofthe major difficulties in such an assessment isthe fact that illegal abortion has always beenwidespread and that many legal abortions cur-rently being performed are replacements forillegal terminations. A study of abortions in theUnited States concluded that although the greatmajority of legal abortions were replacementsfor illegal abortions, the rise in legal abortionsprevented about 200,000 births in 1974.20 Astudy of changes in legitimate and illegitimatefertility in the United States concluded thatlegal abortions performed during 1971 averted asubstantial number of out-of-wedlock births inthat year, but had only a negligible effect on thereduction in legitimate births.z I

FUTURE TRENDS

It is apparent from the previous discussionthat patterns of reproduction and methods offertility control are now substantially differentthan they were even 10 years ago. Althoughdemographers differ on what these changesforetell, it is clear that women are increasinglybeing directed towards goals other than mother-hood and are gaining ever greater control overtheir fertility.

Birth Expectations

According to the results of a 1975 U.S.Bureau of the Census survey on birth expecta-tions, American couples in recent years haveanticipated having progressively fewer children.Wives in their mid- to late-twenties queried in1975 anticipated having a total of 2.3 children,in contrast to an expected family size of 2.6children for wives of similar ages who wereinterviewed in 1971. The survey also revealed

that the percent of women expecting to havefamilies of four children or more has droppedsubstantially in the last few years. In 1971nearly one in four wives aged 18-39 yearsexpected to have four children or more; bymid-19 75 this proportion had decreased toabout one in six wives. The survey also foundthat the expected family size of young blackwives (aged 18-24 years) still remained larger(2.5 children) than that of young white wives(2.1 children).z z

Numbers of Births

Let us consider what future numbers ofbirths and levels of fertility are implied by threedifferent assumptions. The size of the childbear-ing population is an important factor in anydiscussion of trends in the numbers of births.Between 1975 and 1985, the number of womenin the childbearing ages will increase by about17 percent and will remain at about that leveluntil the year 2000, according to projectionsprepared by the Bureau of the Census that arebased on the assumption that fertility willeventually drop to a level slightly below thatobserved in 1975.1 z That is, total fertility rateswill stabilize at about 1,700 by the year 2000compared to the 1975 total fertility rate of1,770. Thus, unless fertility rates fall well belowthe 1975 level, the increase in the number ofwomen will soon tend to raise the annualnumber of births.

Figure 12 (assumption I) shows that in orderfor the annual number of births to remainconstant at a level of about 3 million a year(slightly less than the 3.1 million births in 1975),the total fertility rate would have to drop to1,520 in 1985, but would gradually increase toabout 1,850 by the year 2000. Althoughchanges of this magnitude may seem unlikely,we may well be entering an era of very sharpfluctuations in fertility. As stated by LarryBumpass,z 3 “With near complete control, wemay experience very deep troughs indeed fol-lowing ‘bad years,’ and rather high peaks follow-ing ‘good’ ones as delayed marriages and birthsare made up.”

Figure 12 (assumptions 11 and III) indicatesthat if the total fertility rate were to remainconstant at 1,800 (about the present level), the

21

‘~Aswmpl,on l–future 8. . ..s1 number of bmh$

cmw.nt at 3,030,000

~“ooo

‘~ Ass. mtwons II and Ill-future total fertilityrate constant at 1,800 or 2,100 ~ 5’000

4

-t

Number of bmhs .--<.

— [Ieff scale) ‘,/. -—=.<

4,000,/ ----.#-

~J ~+~

~

,,.-.-”----

2

2/ --

0,’

3---

i 3J

-. z--+ 3,000 --

5 a

g :

Total fertthry rate7 g~ (r,qht scale)

= :-. —______ _______ L

* ‘~\ , ——___—____._. _ .12,0CSI :1

. \“ ~. . . . ..- . ..-. .z . . . ----

.

z f-1z ~~

1 1,000

01930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

YEAR

tlgurelz. Observed and hypothetical numbers of births and total fertility rates: selected years, 1930-2M0

annual number of births would rise to about 3.6 likely pattern would be for the total fertilitymillion in 1985 but would drop to slightly rate to level off at about 2,100, the number ofbelow present levels by the year 2000. However, births would rise to 4.1 million in 1985 andif we assume that the present low fertility rate is decrease to just under 4.0 million in the yeara temporary phenomenon and that the more 2000.

22

REFERENCES

lCampbell, A. A.: Population: The search forsolu-tions in the behavioral sciences. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol.116(l):li31-152, May 1, 1973.

2Easterlin, R. A.: The American Baby Boom inHistorical Perspective. Occasional Paper 79. New YorkCity. National Bureau of Economic Research, 1962, p.29.

9Ryder, N. B.: Recent trends and group differencesin fertility, in C. F. Westoff et al., eds., Towards the Endof Growth in Population in America. Englewood Cliffs,N.J., Prentice Hall, 1973, pp. 57-68.

4Ridley, J. C.: The changing position of Americanwomen: Education, labor force participation, and fertil-ity. The Family in Transition. Fogarty InternationalCenter Proceedings No. 3. Round table conferencesponsored by the John E. Forgarty International Centerfor Advanced Study in the Health Sciences, Nov. 3-6,1969. Bethesda, Md. National Institutes of Health.

5Ea~ter@ R. A.: On the relation of economicfactors to recent and projected fertility changes. Demog-raphy 3(1):131-153, 1966.

6u.s. Commission on population Growth and theAmerican Future: The future status of women inAmerica, by Suzanne Keller, in C. F. Westoff and R.Parke, Jr., eds., Demographic and Social Aspects ofPopulation Growth. Vol. 1 of Commission researchreports. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office,1972.

7UmS. Commission on Population Growth and theAmerican Future: Growth of the population of theUnited States in the twentieth century, by I. B. Taeuber,in C. F. Westoff and R. Parke, Jr., eds., Demo~aphicand Social Aspects of Population Growth. Vol. 1 ofCommission research reports. Washington. U.S. Govern-ment Printing Office, 1972.

Sums. B~eau of the Census: Fertilityexpectations ofAmerican women: June 1973. Current Population Re-ports. Series P-20, No. 265. Washington. U.S. Gover-nmentPrinting Office, June 1974.

9Westof f, C. F.: The modernization of U.S. contra-ceptive practice. Fare. Plann. Perspect. 4(3):9-12, July,1972.

10u.s. Commission on population Growth and the

American Future: Wanted and unwanted fertility in theUnited States: 1965 and 1970, by N. B. Ryder and C. F.Westoff, in C. F. Westoff and R. Parke, Jr., eds.,

Demographic and Social Aspects of Population Growth.Vol. 1 of Commission research reports. Washington. U.S.Government Printing Office, 1972.

1lJaffe, F. S., Dryfoos, J. G., and Corey, M.:Organized family plznning programs in the UnitedStates: 1968-72. Fare. Plann. Perspect. 5(2):73-79,Spring 1973.

~12 U.S. B~eau of the Census: projections of thepopulation of the United States: 1975 to 2050. CurrentPopulation Reports. Series P-25, No. 601. Washington.U.S. Government Printing Office, Oct. 1975.

13 Freedman, R., Whelpton, P. K., and Campbell, A.A.: Family Planning, Sterility, and Population Growth.New York. McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1959. Table 10-4. p.340

14Westof f, C. F.: Chmges in contraceptive practicesamong married couples, in C. F. Westoff et al., cd.%Towards the End of Growth in Population in America.Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice Hall, 1973. pp. 19-31.

15Nation~ Center for He~th Statistics: Contraceptiveutilization among currently married women 15-44 yearsof age: United States, 1973. Monthly Vital StatisticsReport. Vol. 25, No. 7 Supplement. DHEW Pub. No.(HIL4) 76-1120. Health Resources Administration.Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, Oct.1976.

1bJ)eP~ment of hfedc~ and Public Affairs, TheGeorge Washington University hledical Center: Intrauter-ine devices. Population Reports, Series B(2) :B-2 1-48.Washington, D.C. Jan. 1975.

17 pratt, w. F.: prellmm~ Findings from the NationalSurvey of Family Growth: 1973. Paper presented at theannual meeting of the Population Association ofAmerica, Seattle, Washington, Apr. 1975.

18Tietze, C., and Dawson, D. A.: Induced abortion: Afactbook. Reports on Population/Family Planning, No.14. The Population Council, Inc. New York, N.Y. Dec.1973.

19Weinstock, E., et al.: .4bortion need and services inthe United States, 1974-75. Fare. Plann. Perspect.8(2):58-59, Mar./Apr. 1976.

20 Tietze, C.: The ef feet of legalization of abortion on

population growth and public health. Fare. Plann.Perspect. 7(3):123-127, May/June 1975.

21 Sklar, J., and Berkov, B.: Abortion, illegitimacy,

23

and the American birth rate. Science 185 (41 55): 909- P-20 No. 301. Washington. U.S. Government Printing915, Sept. 13, 1974. Office, Nov. 1976.

22 U,S. Bureau of the Census: Fertility of American 23 Bumpass, L. L.: Is low fertility here to stay? Fare.women: June 1975. Current Population Reports. Series Plann. Perspect. 5(2):67-69, Spring 1973.

,!,

24

LIST OF DETAILED TABLES

1. Number of live births, birth rates, and fertility rates, by color: United States, 1909.75 ... . .... . .. .... . .. .. . .. ... .. . ... .. .. ... . .. ... . .. .... . . .... .. .

2. Birth rates and percent change, by age of mother and color: United States, 1957, 1970, and 1973-75 ... .. . ... .. .. ... .. .... . .. ... . .. ... ... .

3. Median ages of women starting families and bearing second, third, and fourth and higher order children, by color: UnitedStates, 1960 and 1970-73 .. .. ... .. . .. ... . .... . . .... . .. ... . .. ... . .. ... .. .. ... . . .... . ... ... .. ... . .. ... . .. ... ... ... . .. .. . .. ... .. . ..... . . .... . .... . .. ..................................

4. Mean interval since last live birth for selected birth orders, by race: reporting States, 1969.73 . .. . ... .. . .... . .. .. .. ..... .. . ... .. . .... . . .... ... ..

5. Birth rates and percent change, by live-birth order and color: United States, 1970.75 . .. .. .. .. .. ... .. . ... .. . ... .. . ... .. . ... ... . ... .. .. ... . . ..... . . ..

6. Percent distribution of live births by live-birth order and color: United States, 1960, and 1970-75 . ... .. . .... . . .... . . ... .. .. ... . .. .... .. . ... .

7. Birth rates and percent change, by age of mother and color for first, second, and third order births: United States, 1970 and1973 .. .. .. .... . . ..... ... .. ... . ... ... . ... . . .... . .. ... . ... .. .. .. ... . .. ... . .. ... .. . ... .. .. ... . . .... .. . .... .. .. ... . .... . . ... . . ....................................................................

8. Birth rates and percent change: United States, each division, and State, 1970-73 . . ... .. . .... . .. .... .. . ... . .. ... . .. .... .. .... . . .... .. . ... .. . ... ... . ... .

9. Indexes of birth and fertility rates, by geographic division: United Statesr 1970 . .. ... .. . ... . .. ... .. .. .... . .. .. . ... ... . .. .. .. ... .. . .. .... .. . ... .. .. ... .

10. Birth rates for metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, by color: United States and each division, 1970 .... . .. ... .. . ... . ... .. ... . ... .. .

11. Birth rates and percent change for standard metropolitan statistical areas with populations of 1,000,000 or more in 1971:

United States and each region, 1971-73 .... . . .... .. . ... . .. ... .. . .... .. . ... .. . ..... . . ... . .. ... . .. ... .. . .... . .. ... . .. ... . .. .... .. .. .. . .. ... .. . ... .. .. ... . .. .. .. .. .... .........

12. Completed fertility rates for the cohorts of 1875 to 1926, by color: United States, 1925.76 .... ... ... . .. ... .. .. ... . ... .. .. . ... .. .. ... . .. .... . ..

13. Total fertility rates, by color: United States, 1917-75 . .... . ... .. .. .. .... .. ... . . .... .. . ... .. . ... .. .. ... . .. .... . . .... . .. ... .. .. ... . .. ... . ... .. .. . .... . .. ... .. . .... .. . .

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

25

Table 1 Number of [we b!rths, bmh rates, and fertilmy rates, by color: United States, 1909-75

Year

Regmered brrths

1975 ..... .. . ..,,,..,,., ,..,.. ,,, .,.,,,,.,,,,..,,,, ,, ,. .,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,.,.,. ,, ,.,

Lwe births

Total II Whtie I Al!other

3,144,1983,159,9583,136,9653,25S,4113,555,9703,731,3863,600,2063,501,5843,520,9593,606,2743,760,3584,027,4904,096,0204,167,3624,268,3264,257,8504,244,796

4,286,0004,246,0004,300,0004,210,0004>097,0004,071,0003,959,0003,909,0003,820,0003,632,0003,649,0003,637,0L133,817,0003,411,0002,858,0002,939,oOO3,104,0002,989,0002,703,0002,559,0002,466,0002,496,0002,413,0002,355,0002,377,0002,396,0032,307,0002,440,0002,506,00+22,616,0002,582,0002,674,0002,802,0002,839,0002,909,0002,979,0002,910,0002,882,0003,055,0002,950,0002,740,0002,84s,0002,944,0002,984,0002,965,0002,966,0002,S69,0002,s40,0002,809,0002,777,0002.718,000

Number

2,551,9962,575,7922,551,0302,655,5582,919,7463,091,2642,993,6142,912,2242,922,5022,993,2303,123,8603,369,1603,326,3443,394,0683,600,8643,600,7443,597,430

3,619,0003,595,0003,646,0003,570,0003,485,0003,472,0003,387,0003,356,0003,275,0CH33,108,OC823,136,0003,141,0003,347,0002,990,0002,471,0002,545,0002,704,0002,605,0002,330,0002,199,0002,117,0002,148,0002,071,0002,027,0002,042,0002,058,0001,982,0002,099,0002,170,0002,274,0002,244,0002,325,0002,425,0002,441,0002,506,0002,577,0002,531,0002,507,0002,657,0002,566,0002,387,0002,588,0002,587,0002,599,0002,594,0002,588,0002,497,0002,467,0002,435,0002,401,00Q2.344,000

592,202584,166585,935602,853636,224S40,122606,592589,340598,457613,044636,498658,330638,928641,580667,462657,106647,366

666,000651,000654,000640,000613,000599,000572,000553,000545,000524,000513,000495,000469,000420,000388,000394,000400,000384,000374,000360,000349,000348,000342,000328,ooo334,000338,000325,000341,000335,000344,000339,000349,003377,000398,000403,000401,000360,000375,000396,000383,000353,000360,000357,000

. . .

. . .

. . .

. .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

Slrth rate]

EEIzRate per 1,000

14.814.914.915.617.218.417.817,517.818,419.421s721.722.423.323.724.0

24.224.525.325.225.025.325.125.124.924.124.524.926.624.120.421.222.722,220.319,418,819.218,718.418,719.018.419.520.221.321.222.223.524.225.126.126.026.228.127.726.128.228.529.129.529.929.529.829.930.130.0

populati

13.814.013.914.616.217.416.916.616.817.418.320,020,721.422.222.722.9

23.123.324.024.023.824.224.024.123.923.023.624.026.123,619.720,522.121.519,518,618,018,417,917,617.918.117.618719,520,620.521.522.723.124.125.125.225.427.326.925.327.627.928.528.929.328.828.029.129.228.2

21.221.421.922.924.725.124.424.225.026.127.629.129.730.531.632,132.9

33,934.035,035.134.534.733.933.433.733.333.032.431.228.426.527.428.327.727.326.726.126.326.025.125.826.325.526.926.627.527,328,531,133,434.234.633.233.235,835,032,433.032,9

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

Fertility rate

EEIzRate per 1,000 women

1544 years

66.768.469.273.481.887.986.585.787,691.396.605.008.512.217.216,018.8

19.920.022.721,018.3

17.915.013.811.406.207.107.313.301.985.988.894.391.583.478.977.679.177.175.8

77.278.576.381,784.689.289.383.899.802,606.610.910.511.219,617.911,219.821.023.425.026.624.725.826.326.826.8—

63.c64.765.369.277.584.182.481,5a3.186.491,499.9

103.7107.5I T2.21?3.2113.9

I 14.5114.8117.6I 15.9112.7113.5I 10.9I 10.0107.7102.3103.6I04.3111.8I00.4$33.486,392.389.580.777.774.876.574.473.374.575.873.779,082.487,187.391.797.199.2

I03.3107.8108.0I08.8117.2116.4

. . .

. . .

. . .

121.8123.2124.6122.4123.323.6

123.823.6—

89.391.094.3

100.3109.5113.0114.8114.9119.8125.9133.9141.7144.9748.8153.5153.6156.0

160.7.159.1161.7159.7154,3152,2146.4142.7141.7137.3135.1131.61~5.9

113.9106.0108.5111.0107.6105.4102.4100.1100.599.495.998.4

100.497.3

103.0102.1105.9106.1111.0121.7130.3134.0135.6130.5130.8140.8137.5

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

11, or 1917.19 and 1941.46, figures are based on populatw! mclud]ng Armed Forces tihrmd,2[:ig”res by race exclude data for residents of New l.rsey

3LIX 1915-32, figures imludc ad,mtmentb fur States not i“ the rcgistrmc,n area; for yews prior to 1915, figures are estimates bawd on tbc mmhw of registered births iu the 10original registratm” States for the same period, l<~tunate$ for 1909-34 were prepared hy P. K. Whelp tom See Natioml Office of Vitol Stittistics: Births md birth rates in the entireUnited States, 1909 to 1948, Vztal Smrmrics-Specwl Reporrs, Vol. 33, No. 8, Public Health Service. Washingtort. 1).C. 1950.

26

Table 2. Birth rates and percent change, b’f a9e of mother and color: United States. 1957.1970, and 1973-75

II Age of motherAll

Ccdor and year

Birth rate per 1,000 womenTotal

66.768.469.2B7.9

122.7

1.31.21.31.21.0

56.3 36.658.1 37.759.7 36.968.3 38.B96.1 48.2

85.7 I I 14,7 110.389.? 3.0 113.39 .F .?0.7 113.6

116.1 167.8 145.1173.5 I 260.1 199.0

Percent change

-6.6 -5.0 -2.9

-20.0 -28.1 -21.7-47.1 -53.6 -42.9

53.1

54.456.173.3

118.7

19.420.222.031.759.8

4.64.85.48.1

16.3

0.30.30.30.51.1

-5.7 -5.9-12.6 0.3-37.9 . -19.3 I

-3.6-21.3

1-

6.3-43.6 30.0

-5.3 -11.8-23.5 -30.6-52.7 -63.2

-14.8-33.3 I -40.0-66.9 -72.7

8irth rate per 1,000 women

46.8 28.348.3 29.049.3 29.557.4 29.2

85.1 38.5

63.064.765.364.1

117.6

0.60.60.6

0.50.5

74.4 109.7 110.077.7 114.2 113.579.6 115.4 113.7

101.5 163.4 145.9

160.6 253.6 195.6

4.1 0.24.4 0.24.9 0.3

7.5 0.4

15.4 0.8

52.153.554.9

71.9115.8

18.118.920.7

30.057.4

Percent change

-6.5 -4.9 -3.3-21.6 -29.4 -22.1-50.4 -54.5 -41.9

-3.5 II - -5.1 -4.1-22.4 I 20.0 .14.1 1.0-44.5 20.0 I -42.1 -23.4

-5.1-23.6-52.6

59.760.763.982.5

142.3

-6.6-22.5-55.1

12.631.063.9

-16.3-34.7-68.2

7.67.68.7

12.623.3

-33.3-25.0-62.5

0.50.50.60.92.0

Birth rate per 1,000 women

B9.391.094.3

113.0161.7

4.7 108.6 82.0 150.1 143.5 112.14.7 113.3 86.2 156.4 147.4 112.35.0 119.1 91.6 163.7 153.2 113.34.8 133.4 95.2 195.4 196.8 140.15.6 171.4 114.0 264.6 304.5 226.3

27.628.931.042.278.1

Percent change

-5.3 -6.0 -8.8 -10.5 -8.3 -6.3 -1.1-16.5 4.2 -10.7 -3.B -16.2 -22.2 -19.1-41.7 -10.7 -30.5 -19.6 -38.1 -49,7 -49.9 w

lRates computed by relating total births, regardless Of age of mother, to female population aged 15-44 years.2Ratea adjusted for underregistration of births.

27

Table 3. Median ages of women starting families and bearing second, third, and fourth and hiaher order childran. bv color: UnitedStates, i960 and 1970~73

Color and live-birth order

Total

Average of all orders . .. .... .. .. .. .. . . .... . .. ... .. . .... ... . .. .. .. ... .. . .... .. .. ... . . .... .. . .... .. . ... . .. ... .. .. ... .. . .

First child .. ... . . .... .. ... .. . ... ... .. . ..... ... ... ... . .... . . .... . . .... . ... ... . .. .... .. .... .. . .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .... . ... .. . .. ........Second child . . . .... .. .. .... . .. ... .. . ..... . .. .... .. . ... . .. .... . . .... . .. .... . .. ... .. .. ... .. .. .. .. ... ... .. . ... .. .. ... .. .. ... . . .... . .. .. ... ..Third child .... . .. .. .. .. .... .. ..... . .. .... . ... .. .. . . .... . . .... . . .. .. .. .. ... . .. ... ... .... .. . .... . ... ... .. .. .. .. .. .... . . ... .. . ... . .. .. ......Fourth child and over ... .. ... . . ..... . .. ... ... . .... . . .... . . .... . ... .. .. ... .. .. . . ... .. .. ... . ... ... .. .. .. .. .. ... .. . .. . ... .... . .. .... .. .

White

Average of all orders . .. ... .. .. ... ... . ... .. . .... . .. ... . ... ... .. .. ... . .. .... . .. ... . .. . ..... . .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .... . .. ... ..

First child ... ... . ... .. ... .. .. .. . ..... . .. ... .. .. ... ... .... .. . .... . .. ... .. .. .... . .. ..... .. .... ... ... .. .. .... . . .... .. .... .. .. .. .. .. . ... .. .....Second child .. .. . ... .. .. .... .. . ... .. .. ... .. .. .... .. .. ... . .. ... . ... .. ... . ... .. .. .... . . .... .. .. .. .... . .... . . .. ... .. .. .. ... .. .. . .... .. ......Third child .... . ... ... .. . ... .. .. .... . ... .. .. ... ... .. .. .... .. ... . .. ... ... . ... .. .. .... . . .. ... . .. .... .. .. ... . .. .... .. .. .. .. . ... .. . ... .. . ... ..Fourth child and over ... . . .... .. . ... . .. .. ... .. . .... .. . .... . .. ... .. . ..... . . .... .. .. ... . .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .. . .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. ....

All other

Average of all orders . .. .. .. ... . .... . . ..... . .. ... . .. ... .. . ..... . .. .... . .. ... .. .. ... .... .... .. .. .. .. . . .. .. . .... . . .... .. .. ...

First child .. ... .. ... . .. ... .. .... . . ... .. ... .. ... . ..... . .... .. ... .. . .. .... . .. ... .. . ..... . .. ... ... . .... .. . ... .. .. ... ... .... .. .... .. .. .. .. . ....Second child .... . .. ... . ... ... . ... ... . .. . .. ... .. .... . .. .... .. .. .... . .... .. .... .. .... ... .. .. . .. .. .... . . .... . .... .. .. . ... .. .... .. . .... ......Third child ... .. . .. . ... .. . .... .. .. .. .. ... .. ... . ..... . .. ... . ... .. . .. .... .. . ... .. . ..... . .. ... ... . .... .. .. .. . . ... ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ...Fourth child and over .... . . ... .. . .. ... .. .. .... . . .... .. . ... .. .. .... .. .... .. .. .. .. ... ... .. . ..... .. .. .. .. .. .... . . .... . . .... . . .. .. . ... ..

.,

1973 I 1972 1971I

Madian aga in years

25.4

22.125.327.731.9

25.6

22.525.728.132.2

24.1

20.223.625.730.8

25.4

22.125.127.631.8

25.6

22.425.427.932.1

24.2

20.223.525.630.6

25.4

22.124.827.531.5

25.6

22.425.127.831.7

24.4

20.323.325.530.5

25.4

22.124.727.531.4

25.6

22.325.027.731.7

24.3——

2CI.423.225.230.3

25.4

21.824.026.6

30.2

25.5

22.024.227.030,6

24.9

19.922.524.129.2

28

Table 4. Mean interval since last live birth for selected birth orders, by race: reporting States, 1969-73

[Refers only to second and higher order births occurring within the areas reporting mean interval since last live birth to residents ofthese areas. There were 36 reporting States in 1969, 38 in 1970 and 1971, 39 in 1972, and 40 States and the District of Columbiain 1973]

(

Race and year

All races

1973 ... .... .. . .... . . .... . ... .. ... .. ... . . .... . ... .. ... ... . .. ... .. . ... . .. .... . . ... .. .. ... .. . ... . .. ... . ... .. .. . ..... . .. .. . . .. .......................1972 .. ..... . . .. .. .. . .... .. . .... .. . ... .. . .... .. . .... . .. .. ... . ... . .. .. .. .. ... . .. ... .. . ... .. .. . .. .. ... .... .. .. . ..... . . .... . ... ......................1971 .... ... .. . ... . .. ... .. .. .... .. .... .. . .... ... . ... ... ... .. . ... . .. ... . . .... . . .... .. .... .. . .. .. . ..... .. . ... . . .... .. .... . . ... .. .. ..... .............1970 ... .... . . .... . .. .... . ... . .. .. . .. ... . .... . .. .... ... .. . .. .. . .. . .. .. .. .. .. . .... .. . .... . .. ... . .. .. .. .. .... .. ..... . . ... . .... ......................1969 .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .... ... ... ... . ... .. . .... . .. ... . ... .. . ... .. ... ... . .. .... . . .... . .. ... . . .... . .. ... . .. ... .. .. ... .. .... . . .. .......................

White

1973 .. ... ... . .. .. . ..... . .. ... ... ..... . . .... . . ..... .. ... . .. ... . ... .. .. . ... . .. .. ... . .... .. .... .. .... . .. ... .. . ... .. . . ... . . ... . ......................1972 .. .. ... . ..... . . .... . .. ... ... . .... . . .... .. . .... .. .... . .. .. . ... . .. . . ... . .. .... .. .... .. . ... .. .... ... . .. ... . ... .. . .... . ... . .. .. ..... .............1971 .. .. .... ..... .. .... . ... .. .. .. ... .. . ... ... . ... . .. .... . . ... . .. . .. . .. .. ... . ... .. . .... .. .... . .. .... . .. ... .. . .... . . .... . .. .. . .... ............ .....1970 .. .. .. .. ... .. . ..... . . .... . ... .. .. . ..... . . .... . ... .. . .. ... . .. ... . .. .. .. .. ... . .. .... . . .... . . .... . ... ... . . .... .. . ... .. ... . ......................

Black

1973 ... ... .. .. ..8*..v`2. ... .. ... .. . .. ... ... . ... ... . ... . .. ... . .. ... . .. ... .. . ... .. . .... .. . .... .. .. ... . .... . ... .. .. .. .. .. . .. . .. ... . .. ...............1972 ... . ... .. ... .. .. .. . ... .. .. ... . ... ... . ... .. . .. .... .. . .... .. ... . . .... . ... ... . .. ... .. . .. ... . ... .. . .... .. .... . .. ... .. .. . ... ......................1971 .... ... .. .... . .... .. . .... .. .... .. . ... .. .. ... .. . ... . .. ... .. .. .. .. ... ... . ... . ... .. .. . .... . . ... .. .. .... . .. ... . ... .. .. .. ... . ... ..... .............7970 ... . .... .. . .. ... .. .. ... ... .. .. .. .. ... .. . .... .. . ... . .. ... . . ... . .. ... .. .. ... . .. .... . . .... .. .... . ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . ......................1%9 ... .. .. ... . .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .... . ... .. .. .. .. . ... .. ... . .... . .... . .. .. .. ... ... . . .... . .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. . ... .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. . ......................

All

andhigherorderbirths

Mean interval between:

Firstand

secondbirths

Sacond Third

and andthird fourthbirths births

Mean intewal in months

43.342.641.841.841.1

43.643.042.242.341.7

42.441.039.838.937.8

39.238.137.036.736.3

39.238.137.136.936.5

39.838.436.835.835.3

46.545.944.945.044.4

47.346.745.745.945.3

43.041.640.339.838.9

49.648.547.747.746.8

50.749.648.748.947.9

44.943.642.741.740.2

29

Table 5. Birth rates and percent change, by live-birth order and color: United States, 1970-75

Color and year

Total

White

All other

1971 ................................................. ................................1970 .................................................................................

Rate per 1,000 women aged 15-44 years

66.7 28.468.4 28.969.2 28.873.4 29.981.8 32.187.9 34.2

-3.6 -1.4-21.3 -15.8

21.2 9.5 3.9 1.821.5 9.6 4.2 1.921.1 9.8 4.6 2.221.5 10.7 5.3 2.723.1 12.5 6.4 3.324.2 13.6 7.2 3.8

Percent change

0.5 -3.1 I -15.2 -18.2-12.8 -27.9 -36.1 -42.1

Rate per 1,000 women aged 1544 years

63.0 26.9 20.564.7 27.4 21.065.3 27.2 20.569.2 28.2 21.077.5 30.6 22.684.1 32.9 23.7

-3.5. –1.1-22.4 -17.3 -13.5

8.9 3.69.0 3.89.3 4.2

10.2 4.912.0 6.013.3 6.8

Percent change

-4.3

I

–14.3-30.1 –38.2

1.51.72.02.33.03.4

1.41.51,82.22.83.2

-22.2-43.8

1.11.21.51.82!.3j!.7

-25.0 -26.7-41.2 -44.4

0.70.80.91.21.51.8

-22.2-50.0

0.50.60.70.81.01.2

-28.6-41.7

Rate per 1,000 women aged 1544 years

89.3 37.3 25.1 12.8 6.2 3.2 :?.8 1.891.0 38.2 25.1 12.7 6.4 3.3 3.2 2.194.3 39.2 24.7 13.1 6.9 3.9 3.8 2.7

100.3 40.9 25.2 13.8 7.8 4.6 4.6 3.4109.5 41.8 26.9 15.6 9.1 5.6 6.0 4.6113.0 42.4 26.9 15.9 9.7 6.1 6.7 5,3

Percent change

–5.3 -4.8 1.6 -2.3 -10.1 -17.9 –26.3 -33.3–16.5 –7.5 -8.2 -17.6 -28.9 –36.1 –43.3 -49.1

Table 6. Percent distribution of live births by live-birth order and color: United States, 1960 and 1970-75

Race and year

Total

1975 .............. ............... ............................................ ............1974 .................................................................................... .1973 .......... ................... ................................................. ..... ..1972 ........................................ ........................................... ..1971 .................... .................................................................1970 .....................................................................................l%o ...................... .............................. .................................

White

1975 .....................................................................................1974 ............. ........................................................................1973 ........................................................ ....... ......................1972 .......................... ......................... ...... .......... ..................1971 .................................... ............................... ..................1970 ............................... ............................... ........... .. ..........1960 ................ .....................................................................

All other

1975 ..... ................................................................................1974 ........................................................................ .............1973 ............................. ...................................................... ..1972 ........................ ................. ...... ......................................1971 ..... .............................. .............................. ....................1970 .....................................................................................19w ................................... ........... .......................................

II Live-birth order

Percent distribution

100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0

100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0

100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0

42.542.241.440.739.238.826.4

42.642.341.540.739.439.127.2

41.741.9$1.3$0.638.137.521.9

31.731.530.529.328.327.524.7

32.632.431.530.329.128.225.8

28.127.626.225.124.623.819.1

14.214.014.214.615.315.519.3

14.214.014.314.715.615.820.0

14.414.014.013.814.214.115.6

5.96.16.67.27.98.2

12.4

5.75.96.47.17.88.1

12.4

7.07.17.47.88.38.6

12.1

2.62.83.23.64.14.37.1

2.42.63.03.43.94.16.7

3.63.74.24.65.15.59.2

TSixth Eighthand and

seventh over

2.02.22.63.03.43.76.5

1.81.92.32.63.03.25.5

3.13.54.14.75.55.9

1.01.11.41.61.92.03.7

0.80.91.01.21.31.52.5

2.02.32.93.54.34.7

10.2

31

Table 7. Birth rates and ~ercent change, bv age of mother and color for first, second, and third order births: United States, 1970 and1973

Total

r

1973 1970

tate per 1,000women

White All other

I1973 1970

late per 1,000woman

1]1973 197CI

Rate per 1,000women

Live-birth order and age of motherPercent‘ercent ‘ercent

:hangechange change

Total

28.8 34.2 27.2 32.9 39.2 42.4All ages, 15-44 yearsl . ... . .... .. ....... .. . ... . .. ... .. -15.8 -17.3 -7.5-

86.856.224.5

7.32.00.4

24.7

-6.8-19.7

2.14.3

-9.1

-8.2

15-19 years .. . . ... .. .. .. .. . .. . ... .. . .... . . ..... . .. ... . ... .. ... . .... . . .... . .20.24years ... . ... .. . .... .. . ..... . . ... ... . .... .. . .. ... ... .. . .. .... .. .. ... . .25-29 years .. .. .... . . .... . .. .... .. .. .... . . .... . . .... .. . .... .. . .... .. .... .. .30-34 years . ... ... .. . .... . .. .... . .. .... .. . .... .. ..... . .. ... .. .. .... .. .... ..35-39 years ... ... . .. .... . . .. ... . ... .. ... .. .... .. . .... . . ... ... . ... .. . .... . ..40-44 years .. ... ... . .... . . ..... ... ... ... . ... .. . .... . ... ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .

47.656.530.1

7.31.70.3

21.1

53.778.231.2

7.32.10.4

24.2

-11.4-27.7

-3.5

-19.0-25.0

-12.8

40.856.530.9

7.31.70.3

20.5

47.179.432.3

7.42.10.4

23.7

-13.4-28.8

-4.3-1.4

-19.0-25.0

-13.5

93.1i’o.cl24.CI

7.02.20.4.

26.9

Second births

All ages, 15-44 years . ... . ... .. .. ... .. . ... .. ... .. .. .. .

10.344.342.814.0

3.00.5

9.8

12.258.046.313.5

3.40.6

13.6

-15.6-23.6

–7.63.7

-11.8–16.7

-27.9

-23.8–34.3-33.0-20.9-25.5-33.3

7.543.044.414.2

3.00.5

9.3

9.057.548.513.7

3.40.6

13.3

-16.7-25.2

-8.53.6

-11.8-16.7

-30.1

25.852.432.012.9

3.40.6

13.1

31.061.1331.912.(I

3.60.7

15.9

-16.8-14.9

0.37.5

-5.6-14.3

–17.6

15-19 years .... . .. ... ... . ... ... .... .. . ... .. ... ... .. . .... . .. ... . .... . .. .. ...20-24 years .. .. . . .. .. .. . ... ... . ..... . . ... .. .. ... .. .. .... . . .... . .. ... . .. .. ..25-29 years ... . .. .... .. .. . .. ... .... . .. ... .. . .... . .. .... .. . .... . . .... .. . ....30-34 years .. .. ..... . .. ... ... .. .. .. .. .... . ... ... .. . ... ... .... . .. .... . .. ... .35-39 years ... .. .... . .. ... .. .. .... . .. .... . .. .... .. . ..... .. .... . . .... . .. ... .4044 years .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .... . . .... .. .. .. ... . .... . . .... . .. .... .

Third births

All ages, 1544 years . .... . . .. .. .. .. .. .... . .. .. . .... ..

1.219.436.217.9

5.20.9

-25.0-37.6-35.1-22.3-28.8-33.3

5.627.623.611.7

4.10.7

“7.636.427.7’13.1

4.6o-g

-26.3-24.2-14.8-10,7-10.9,-22.2

15-19 years . .. .. ... . .... .. .. ... . .. ... ... . .... . .. .... . . .... .. .. .. .. . ..... . . .20-24 years .. .... . .. .... . .. ... .. . .. ... ... ... .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. ... .. .. ... . .. .25-29 years .. ... .. .. .... . . .... .. . ... .. ... ... .. . .... . .. ... . .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .30-34 years .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .... . . .... . ... ... ... .. ... . . .... . .. ... ... . ... ... . .35-39 years .... . ... .. .. .. .... .. . .. .. . ... ... .. . .... . .. .... . . ..... . .. ... . ... .40.44 years .. .. . .. .... . .. ... .. . ..... . . ..... .. . .... . .. .... . . .... .. .. .. .. .. ..

1.614.223.513.6

3.80.6

2.121.635.117.2

5.10.9

0.812.123.513.9

3.70.6

lRates computed by relating total births, regardless of age of mother, to female population aged 15-44 Years.

32

Table 8. Birth rates and percent change: United States, each divisiol

Division and State

United Statas .. .. . ..... .. ...... . . ... . ... .. .. .. .. .. . . .... . .. ... . .. ... ... .. .. . .. ... .. ... .. .... . .. .. . . .. . ... .. . ... .. .. ..

GEOGRAPHIC DIVISION

New England . ..... . .. .... . ... .. .. . .... .. ..... . .. ... . .. ... ... .... . .. .... . . .... .. .. .. .. . .... ... .. ... . .... . . .. .. .. .. .. . . ... ... . .. . .. ....Middle Atlantic . .. . .... ... . ... .. .. .... . . ..... . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .... . .. ... . ... ... . .. ... .. . .... . . ...... .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . .. ....East North Central ... . .. . .... . .. .... . .. ... ... .. .. . .. ... .. . ... .. ..... . .. .... .. . ... . ... .. .. . .... . . .... . .. .... . .. .. . .. .. .. . ... .. . ....

West North Central .. .. . .... .. .. ... .. . .... . .. ... . ... .. .. .. ... . ... ... . .. ... .. . ... . .. .... ... ... .. . ... .. . ... .. . . .. .. . ... . . .. .. .. .. ...South Atlantic .. .. ...... .. . ... .. .. .... . . ..... .. .. .. . .. .. ... . ... . .. ..... . .... .. .. ... . .. ... .. . .... . .. .... . . .. .. .. . .. . . ... . .. ... ... . ...East South Central ... .. ... . ... .. ... .. .. .. .. .. ... . .. .... . .. ... . .. ... .. . .... . .. .... .. ... .. .. .... . . ... .. .. .... .. .. ... ... . . .... .. . ....West South Central ... . .. .. .... . ... .. .. .... . ... . . ... ... . .. ... ... .... . . ... ... . .... .. . ... . .. ... ... . .... .. .. ... . . .. . . ... . .. . .. . .. ....Mountain .... .. .... .. .. ... .. ... .. .. .. ... .. . .... . . .. .. .. . .... .. . ... . .. .... . . .. . ... .. .. .. . ... .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .... .. .. . . .. .. .. . ... .. ......Pacific .. .. ... .. . . .... .. . .... . ... .. .... . .... . .. .... . .. ... . .. .. ... .. . .. .. ... . .. .... . ... ... . .. .. . ... .... . . .... . ... ... . ... . .. . .. . ... .. .......

New England

Maine . .. .. ... ... . .. ... . ..... . .. .... .. . .... .. . .... . .. ... . ... .. ... . .. .. . .... . . ..... . .. .... .. .... .. .... . .. ... .. .... .. .. .. . . .. .. .............New Hampshire .. . .... . ... ... . . .... ... . .... .. . .... . . ... .. .. ... ... . .. .. . . ... .. . .... .. . ... . ... .... . . .... .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. ... . . .... .Vermont .... . .. .... . . ...... .. ... .... . ... .. ..... .. .... .. . ... .. .. .... .. .. ... . ... .. . ... .. . .. .. .. . ... .. . . .. .. . . .... .. .... .. ... . . ... . .......Massachusetts .... .. .. ... .. .. ... ... . ... .. .. ... . . .... .. .. .. ... . .... . .... .. . .... . . .. .. .. .. .. .. . ... .. .. .... . . .. .. . . .... . .... . .. . ... .. .. ..Rhode lsiand . ... ... ..... .. ... . .. . ... ... ..... .. .... .. . .. .. ... .. .. . .. .... . ... .. . .... . . .... . ... .. ... . .... .. . ... .. . ... .. .. .. . .... . .. .. . .Connecticut . ... ... . .... .. ..... ... ... ... . .... . .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... . .. .... . . .... . .. .... .. . ... . .. ..... . .... . ... .. . ... . ... .. ..

Middle Atlantic

New York ... .. . ... .. ... . .. .... .. .. ... ... . ... .. .. .... . . .... .. .. . ... .. ... . .... .. .. .. . .. ... .. .. .. .... .... .. ..... . . ... .. . .. . .. ... .. . .....New Jersey .. .... . .. ... .. . . .... . ... .. . ... ..... ... .. .. . ... .. . .. . . .. ... . .. .. ... . ..... . .. ... . .. ... .. . .... .. .. .. .. . ... . . .. .. .. .. . . .. .. . .. .Pennsylvania .. .. ... .. .. .. .... . . ... .. ... ... ... . .... . . .... . ... .. . ... ... . .. .. ... . .... . . .... .. .. . ... .. ... ... . .... . .. .. . . ... . .. .. .. ... .. ..

East North Central

Ohio ... .. .... .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .... .. .. .. ... .. .... . .. .... . . ... . .. ... . .. .... .. . ... .. . ... .. .. .. .. .. ... . ... ... .. .. ... . . .... . ... ..............-lndiana .. ... . ... .. . .. . ... .. . ..... . ... .. .. .. ... ... . .... . .. ... ... .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... . . ..... .. .. .. .. . ... .. .. .. .. . ... .. .............lliinois .. .... . .. ... .. ...! . .. .. .... . .. ... .. . .... ... . .. .. . .... . . .... .. . ... . .. .. . . ... ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. ... .. . .. .. ... .. .. ...........Michigan . .. . .... . .. ... ... .. ... . .. .... ... ... ... . ... ... . ... . . .... .. .. .. .. .. .. ... . .. .. . . .. ... . .... . . .... .. .. .. .... .. ... . .. .. .. .. . .. .......Mwonsin . . .... . .. ... ... .. ... .. . .... . ... ... . .. . .. .. .. ... .. . ... .. ...... . ... .. .. .... .. ..... . .. ... . .. ... . .. ... ... . ... . . .... . . ... .. ........

West North Central

Minnesota .. .. . ... .. . .... .. . .... . ... .. ... . .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .... .. .. ... . .. ... . .. .. .. .. .... .. ..... . . ... . . ... .. . ... .. . .....

Missouri .... . .. .. ... .. .... . .. ... . .... .. .. .. .... .. . .... . .. .. .. .. ... . .. .. ... . .... .. . ... .. . .. .. .. . ... .. . ..... . .. ... .. .. .. . . ... ... ... ... ....North Dakota ... .. .. .... . .. .. .. . .. .. ... .. .... .. . .... . .. .. . ... .. .. .. .... .. .... .. .. .. .. .. ... .. . ... . .. .... .. .. .... .. .. . . ... . .. .... ... .. ..South Dakota . .... . . .... . ... ... .. .. .... . . ... .. ... .. .. .. .... . . .. .. .. .... . . ... .. ... ... . .. .. .. . .... .. .. ... .. .. .... .. .. . . .. .. . ... .. .. ... .Nebraska .... .. . .... . . ..... . .. .. . ... .. ... .. . .... .. . .... .. .... .. . ... . . ... ... .. ... . ... .. . .. ... . .. .... .. . ... .. .. .... .. .. . . .... . . .... .......Kansas .. ... ... .. . ... .. .. .... . ... .. ... . ..... . . .... . .. ... . .. ... .. .. . .. . .. .... . .. ... . .. .. .. .. ... . .... .. .. . ... .. . .... . .. .. . . ... . .............

South Atlantic

DalawareMa~landIlII~IEllIIIIElIIIIjllInIJljJlJjlIIIlllIjll:jIllllll:l:ljIjlllllllllIlIl~lIII~ll~JlIJIIJl:lIII~IIlI:EIlIIRllI~llllII~IlDistrict of Columbia .. .... . ... .... .. . .... . .. ... ... .. . .. .. .... . . .... . .. ... .. .. ... . .. .. ... . ... .. . ..... . ... .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. . ... .Virginia ... . .. .. .. .... . .. ... . .. ..... . .. ... .. . .... . . .... .. .. ... . .. .. ... . ... ... .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .... . . .. .. . . .... .. .. .. ............Wast Virginia .. ... .. . .... . . .. .. .. ... ... .. .. ... . .. ... . .. ..... . .. .. . .. ... ... .... . .. ... ... .... .. .... .. .. .. .. .. ... . ... .. . .. .. .. .... . ... ...North Carolina .. . .. .... .. .. ... . ... .. ... .. ... . .. ... . .... .. . .. ... .. . ..... .. ... . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .... .. .. .. .. . .. . . ... .. .. ... .. . .. .South Carolina ... . ... ... . .. .... .. . .... . ... .. . .. .... . .. ... ... .... . . ..... . .. .. . .. . ... .. .. .. .. . ... .. . .... . ... ... .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ...Georgia . ... . ... . . .... .. ... . .. .. .... . .. .... .. .... . .. .... ... ... .. . ... .. .. .... .. .. .. .. .. . ... .. .. .. . ..... .. .... .. .... .. .. . ... .. .. .. .........Florida .. .. .. ... . . .... . .. .... . ... ... .. . ..... .. .. .. ... . ... . .. .. ... . .... . . .... . . .... .. .. ... . . ... ... . ... .. .. .... . . ... . .. .. . . .... . ...........

md State, 1970-73

1973 1972 1971 1970

14.9

12.813.0

15.114.215.416.717.318.114.5

15.214.614.612.412.612.2

13.113.012.9

15.015.815.115.613.7

13.813.414.515.215.614.814.1

14.313.214.515.0

15.416.318.017.814.0

Birth rate per 1,000

population

15.6

13.713.815.914.916.317.418.018.515.0

15.815.716.013.313.712.9

13.813.713.7

15.816.515.916.314.3

14.514.215.315.916.015.414.6

15.414.416.015.816.317.018.618.515.0

17.2

15.515.417.6

16.318.019.019.520.016.4

17.617.817.415.115.514.8

15.515.415.2

17.718.317.518.016.1

16.215.816.616.517.216.816.0

17.716.318.817.517.618.520.220.116.6

18.4

16.916.918.717.418.719.420.020.718.2

17.917.918.816.616.516.7

17.416.816.3

18.719.118.519.417.6

18.017.117.317.617.617.317.0

19.217.620.118.617.819.320.121.116.9

PercentchangeI 970-73

-19.0

–24.3-23.1-19.3

-18.4-17.6-13.9-13.5-12.6-20.3

-15.1-18.4-22.3-25.3-23.6-26.9

-24.7-22.6-20.9

-19.8-17.3-18.4-19.6-22.2

-23.3–21.6-16.2–13.6-11.4-14.5-17.1

–25.5-25.0-27.9-19.4

-13.5–1 5.5–1 0.4-15.6-17.2

33

Table 8. Birth rates and percent change: United States, each division, and State, 1970-73–Con.

Division and State

East South Central

West South CentralJ

Arkansas .. .... .. . .... . .. .... .. . .... . . ..... . ... .. .... . ... .. .... .. ... .. .. ... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. . ... .. . ..... . . .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ........Louisiana . ...... . .... . .. .... .. . .... . .. .... . ... ... . ... ... .. .. ... . .. ... ... . ... .. .. .... ... .... . .. .... .. .... .. . ... .. . ... .. . ... .. . . .........Oklahoma .... . . ..... . ... .. .. ... .. ... ..... . .. ... ... . .... .. .... . .. .. .. . .. .... . .. .... .. .. .... . . .... .. .. .... .. .. .. .. .. ... . .. .. .. . .........Texas ... .. .. .... .. .... . .. .... .. .. .... . . ..... . .. ... .. ... ... . . .... .. .. ... . .. ... ... .. ... . .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .... .. . ..... .. .. . . .. ... ............

Mountain

Pacific

California .. ... . .. .... . .. .... .. .. ... . .. .... .. . ..... .. . ... .. .. ... . .. ... .. ... .. .. .. .... .. .... .. .. .... ... . ... .. .. .... .. . .. .. . ... .. . ... ... ..Alaska .. .. .. .... .. .... .. .. ... . .. . .. ... . ..... . .... . .. .. ... ... ..... . .. ... .. .. ... .. .. ... . .. .... .. .. ... .. . .... .. .. .... .. .. .. . .. ..............Hawaii .. .. .. .... . . .... . ... .. .... . ... .. .. .... .... .. .. .. . .. ... ..... ... ... . .... .. .. .. ... ... .... .. .. ... . .. ..... . .. .... .. .. .. . .. ..............

EEEIEBirth rate per 1,000

population

16.015.616.819.5

16.517.615.317.8

15.818.917.215.818.818.424.215.7

13.913.914.520.018.5

16.816.217.520.4

16.818.316.118.5

16.018.817.316.319.319.123.916.9

14.114.315.021.318.9

18.617.919.121.6

18.319.817.420.1

17.419.618.117.721.220.625.218.9

16.015.616.323.320.0

18.718.419.422.1

18.520.417.520.6

18.220.319.618.821.821.325.519.6

17.816.818.225.121.4

PercentchangeI970-73

-14.4-15.2–13.4-?1.8

-10.8-13.7-12.6–13.6

-13.2-6.9

-12.2-16.0-13.8-13.6

-5.1-19.9

-21.9-17.3-20.3-20.3-13.6

Table 9.1ndexes of bitihand feniliW rates, by geographic division: United States, 1970

United New MiddleEast West

SouthEast West

Measure of fertility North North South SouthMoun-

States England Atlantic AtlanticPacific

Central Central Central Centraltain

Birth rate .. .. ... .. ... . ... .. ... .. .. .. ... 100 92 92 102 95 102 105 109 113 99Fertility rate . .. ... . ..... . ... .. ... .. .. 100 94 93 102 99 100 106 108 111 97

NOTE: Each index iscomputed bydividing therate foradivision bythecomesponding rate forthe United States.

34

Table 10. Birth rates formetropolitan andnonmetropolitan areas, by color: United States andeach division, 1970

[Metropolitan areas consist of all counties within standard metropolitan statistical areas except in New Enjareaa are compriaedof counties within metropolitan State economic areas. See also Technical,

Area

United States . . .. ... .... .. .. .. ... .. . .... . .. ... . .. ... . .. ... ... .. ... . ... . .. ... . .. .... . . ... .. . ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... . . ... . .. .. . .. ... . .. ... .. . ...................... ...

Metropolitan areas. . . .. ... . .... . ... .. . . ... . .. ... . .. ... .. . .. .. .. ... .. . .... . .. ... . . .... .. .... .. .. .. .. . ... .. . .. . . ... .. . ... .. .. .. .. .... . ... ... . .. .. ...........Nonmetropilitan areas .. .. .... . . .... . . ... ... .. .. .. ... ... .. .. . .. ... .. . ... .. .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. . ... .. . ..... . .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. . .... . .. .. .. . ... .. . .............-

Geographic division

New England . .... .. .... .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. ... .. ..... .. ... . .. ... . .. .. . ... ... . . .... .. . ... . .. ... . .. ... .. . ..... . .... . .. .. . . .. .... ... . .. .. ...............................Metropolitan areas . .. .. ... .. ... .. .. . . ..... . .... . . .... .. .... ... .. . .. ... ... .. .. . . .... .. .... .. . ... .. . .... . .. .. . . ... . . ... .. . .... . . ... .. . ... .. .. ... . ...........Nonmetropolitan areas . .. .. .. .. .. . . ... .. . .... . . ... . . ... .. ... .. . .. .. . ... .. . . .. .... . . .... .. .... .. . ... . .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . ... .. . ... .. . .. ... . ... . . ...........

Middle Atlantic . .. .. .. . ..... . . .. .. ... ... . ... .. .. .. ... . .. .. .. .... . . .. .. . ... .. .. .. .. .. . ... .. .. .... .. .. .. .. ... .. . ... . . ... .. . ... .. .... .. .... . . ...... .................:Metropolitan areas .. . . .... . .. .. .. .. . .. ... . ... .. .... .. . ... . . .... .. .... . ... .. . .. ... .. . .... . .. ... .. . .... .. ... .. ... ... .. . .. .... . . ... . . .... .. . .................Nonmetropolitan areas .. . .. ... . .. ... ... . . .. . .. .. ... .. ... . .... .. .... .. . .. . .. ... .. .. .. .. . . .... . .. .... . . ... .. .. .. . ... .. .... . .. ... .. . .. . .. .... . .. ...........

East North Centra! .. ... .. .... .. . ..... ... ... ... ... . . .. .. .. . ... . . .... . . .... . . .. .. . . .... . . .. .. . ... .. .. .. .. .. .. ... . . .. .. . ... . .. ... . .. ... . .. .. ......................Metropolitan areas .. . ... .. . .... . . ... .. .. ... .. .. .. . ... .. .. . .... . . ... . . .... .. . ... . .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .... . .. . .. .. .. .. .... . . .... . . ... . . ... .. . ....................Nonme’mopolitan areas . . . .... . . ... .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. ... . .. ... .. . ... .. . ... . ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... . .... . .. ... .... . . ... . .. ... . .. ... . . .... . . ... ...........

West North Central ... . ... .. ... . .... .. .... . . .... . . .... . .. ... . .. .. .. . .... . .. ... .. .. .. . .. ... .. .. .. . .. ... .. .. .. .. . ... .. .... .. ... .. . .... . . ... . ......................Metropolitan areas . .... . .. ... .. . .... . .. ... . .. ... . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. . .... .. ... . .. .. .. ... ... .. .. ... .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... . . ... . .. .... .................

Nonmetropolitan areas .. ... .. . ... .. ..... . . .... . .. .. . . ... .. .. ... . ... ... . . .. .. .. .... . . .... .. .. . .. .. .. .. . .. . .. ... .. . ... . .. .. ... .. .. . . .. .. .. ... .. . .... ......

South Atlantic .. .. .. ... . .. .. . . .... . ... .. .. .. . ... .. . .... .. .... .. ... . .. ... . ... .. . ... .. . . .... . ... .. .. .. .... .. .... .. .. .. ... . ... ... .. .. ... .. ... ......... ...............Metropolitan areas .... . .. .. .... . ... .. . .... . . ... . . .... .. . ... ... .. . ... .. .. . ... .. .. ... . . .... .. .... . ... .. .. ... . . ... .. . ... .. . ... .. . ... .. . ... .. .. . ... ...........

Nonmetropolitan areas .... . .. .. .. . .... .. .... .. . ... . . ... . .. ... . .. ... . .. . .. . .. ... .. . .... .. .. .. . ... .. .. .. .. . ... .. . ... .. .... . ... ... . . ... .. .. .. .. ............

East South Central . .. ... .. . .... ... ... . .. ... .. . ... .. . ... .. .. ... . . ... .. .. .... . ..... . .... .. . .. ... . .. .... .... .. .. .. .. .. . . .... .. ... . .. .. .. .. .. . ... . .......... .......Metropolitan areas .. .. ... .. . .... . .. .... .. . .. ... ... .. . .... . . .... . . ... .. . .... .. .... .. . ... . .. ... .. .. ... .. . .. . . ... .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... . .. ... .. ............Nonmetropol itan areas . . .. ... . ... .. .. .. ... . .. ... . . .... . . .... .. .... .. .. .. .. ..... .. ... .. .. .. .. .. ... . . ... .. .... . . .. .. . . ... . . .... . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... . .. ......

West South Central . ... .. .. .... .. ... .. . .... . ... .. . . .. .. . ... .. .. . ... . .. ... .. .. .. .. . ... . .. ... .. .... .. .. ... .. . ... . .. .. . . ... .. . .. .. .. ... . .. ... . .. ............. ......Metropolitan areas . .. ... .. . ... .. . .... . . .... . .. .. .. .. .. . ... . .. . . ... .. . ..... . .... . ... .. . ... .. .. .. .. .. . .. ... . .. . .. .... .. .. ... . .. .. .. .. .. ..... ................Nonmetropolitan areas ... ... . .. ... .. . ... . .. .... ... . .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. ... . . ... .. . .... .. .. .. .. .. .. ... . .. .. . .. ... ... . .. ... .. . ... . . ... . .. .... . . .. ............

Mountain . . .. ... . . ... . ... .. ... . ... ... .... .. . ... . . .... . .. ... . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. ... .. .. ... . . .... .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. . ... .. . ......................................Metropolitan areas .. ... ... .. .. . .. ... . . .... . .. ... . . ... .. . ... .. . ... .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .... . .. .. .. .. .... . . ... . .. .. . . ... . .. ... .. . ... .. . ... .. . ... .. . .............. .

Nonmetropolitan areas . .... .. ... .. . .... . . .... . . .... .. ... . .. . ... .. .. .. .. ... .. . .... .. . ... .. .. .. .. . . ... . . ... . . .... . . ... .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... ...........

Pacific .. ... . . .... . ..... . . ... .. .. ... .. . ... ... .... .. .... ... ... ... ... . . ... .. . .. . ... .... . .. ... . . .. .. ... ... . . .... . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... . .. .. ..... ..............................Metropolitan areas .. .. . ... ... .. . .... . . .... .. ... . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . .. .. ... .. . .. .. .. ... . .. .... .. ... .. ... .. . . .. .. .... .. .... . ... .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. ................Nonmatropolitan areas .. .. ... . .. .. . ..... . .... . . ... . .. .. .. .. ... ... .... .. ... . .. .... .. .... .. .... .. .... . . ... . .. .. .. ... . ... . .. . . .... .. .. .. .. ... . . ............

isd where metropolitanpendix]

II I

Birth rate par

1,000 popu Iation

18.4

18.518.1

16.916.617.9

16.916.917.2

18.719.017.9

17.418.916.0

18.718.718.8

19.419.419.4

20.021.118.0

20.720.820.6

18.218.218.2

17.4

17.417.3

16.516.117.8

15.915.616.9

17.817.917.8

16.918.215.8

17.217.217.3

17.817.917.8

19.020.216.9

20.120.519.6

17.517.517.6

25.1

25.225.0

26.726.528.2

25.225.225.0

26.726.824.4

26.426.227.1

24.224.3’24.1

25.524.726.1

24.925.723.5

30.727.333.9

23.523.325.5

35

Table 11. Birth rates and percent change for standard metropolitan statistical areas with populations of 1,000,000 or more in 1971:United States and each region, 1971-73

[By place of residence, SMSA’S are as currently defined by the Office of Management and Budget. See also Technical Appendix]

Area

Northeast Ragion .. ... ... .. ... ... .... .. .. ... . .. ... . .. ... ... .. .. .. . ... . . .. .... .. .. .. .. .. ..... . .. .... .. .. .. . ... .. . ... .. .. .... .. . ... .. .. .

North Central Region .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. . ... .. . .... . . ..... . .. ... .. .. .... .. .... .. .. .... .. .. ... . .. ... . .. .. . .. .... . .. ... . ... ... . .. .....

10 SMSA's .. .... .. .... . .. ..... . . .... .. . ... .. .. ... .. . .... .. . .... . .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .... . .. .... .. ... .. . .. .. .. .. .... . . .... . ... .. . ..... ....................Anaheim-Santa Aria-Garden Grove, Calif. . .... .. .. ... . ... .... .. .... .. .. .. .. .. ... ... . .... . ... .. . . .. .. . ... .. ... ... .. . ... .. . .....Denver-Boulder, Colo. . . . ..... . . .... ... . .. .. .. .... . . ... . ... ... ... . .... . .. ... .. . .... . .. ... .. . .. .. .. .. ... .. ... . .. .... . .. .... . . .... . .. .... .Los Angeles-Long Beach, Calif . .. .. ... .. .. ... .. . ... .. .. ... . ... ... ... . ... .. . .... .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. .... .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .. ... .Phoenix, Ariz. .. .... .. .. .... . . ... .. .. ... ... .. .... . ... ... ..... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .... .. ..... . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. ... . .. ... .. .. ... ... .... ........Portland, Oreg.-Wash . .. . ..... . . .... .. ... .. .. . ..... . ... .. .. .... . .. ... .... .. ... . .... . ... .. .. .. ... ... . ... .. .... . .. ... .. .... .. . ..... . . .... ..Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, Calif . . .. ... .. . .... .. . .. . ... ... ... .... . . .... .. .. .. ... . .... .. .. .. .. .... .. .... . ... .. .. .. ... ...San Diego, Calif. . .. .. .. .... .... . .. ... .. .. .... .. . .. ... . ... .. ..... . .. .... . ... .. .. .. ... .. . .. .. . . .. .. ... . .... .. .. .. . ..... .. ... .. . .. . ... ..... ...San Francisco-Oakland, Calif. . . .. ... .. ... .. .. .. ... .. .... . .. ..... .. .... .. . ... .. . .... .. . .... ... . .... .. .. .. ... ... . .... . .. ... ... . ... .. . .San Jose, Calif. .. . . .... .. .. .. .... . ... .. .. ... . .. ... . .. . ... .. .. ... . .. .... . ... .. . .. ... .. .. .... .. . ... .. .. . .. ... .... .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .... .. .. .. .....Seattle-Everett, Wash . .. .. ... . ... ... . ..... . .... . ... .. .. .. .. ... . .... .. . ... .. . .. ... .. . ... .. .. .... .. . ... .. . ... .. ... ... .... ... .. .. .. . ..... . . .

EEEBirth rate per 1,000

population

14.9

14.2

13.0

12.611.812.3

11.413.112.613.411.3

14.9

15.015.415.113.615.915.4

15.915.213.814.214.9

16.3

15.417.312.917.2

18.412.917.8

12.514.1

15.4

14.314.714.915.017.313.415.114.812.114.012.4

15.6

14.8

13.7

13.312.813.512.013.713.413.912.3

15.6

15.816.215.814.416.316.017.015.914.315.016.0

17.0

16.217.913.817.518.913.718.2

13.415.4

15.9

14.815.416.015.118.014.115.615.213.014.812.6

17.2

16.5

15.4

15.014.615.013.415.415.115.714.0

17.2

17.718.017.916.519.017.918.717.716.217.017.2

18.7

18.119.915.619.620.715.119.6

14.617.8

17.2

16.216.517.216.419.415.517.116.214.616.114.9

‘ercent:hange971-73

-13.4

-13.9

-15.6

-16.0-19.2-18.0-14.9-14.9-16.6-14.6-19.3

-13.4

-15.3–14.4-15.6-17.6-16.3-14.0

-15.0-14.1-14.8-16.5-13.4

-12.8

-14.9-13.1-17.3-12.2-11.1-14.6

-9.2-14.4–20.8

-10.5

-11.7-10.9-13.4

-8.5-10.8-13.5-11.7

-8.6-17.1-13.0-16.8

lMassachusetts State Economic Area C.

Table 12, Completed fertility rates for the cohorts of 1875 to 1926, by color: United States, 1925-76

[ Rate per 1,000 women. See TechnicaI Appendix]

(

Cohort

1926 .......... ..................................................................................................................................1925 ............ ............................................ .................................................. .......... .................. ......1924 .................................................................... ........ ...................... ...... ........................ ............1923 .................................................................... .............................. ...... ...... ...... ........................1922 ................ .................................. ....... ...... .................................... ........... ..... .........................1921 ...... .............................. .......................... .............................. ............ ........... .........................1920 .............................. ..... ............... ............ ................................................ ..... .........................1919 ....!.... ......................................... ...... ................ ...... .................... ...................... ....................1918 .............................................................. .......... .......................... ...... .......... ..........................1917 ................................... ................................................................................ .........................1916 .......... ........................................................ .................. .............. .... ............ ..........................1915 .................................................. ............ .... ...... ...... .................. .. ................ ..........................1914 ......... ................................................... .................... ........................ .... ................................1913 .......... ......................... ....... .............................. ..... ................... ...... .............. ........................1912 ................................................................................ ... ..................... .... ................................1911 ............... .......................................................... ............................... .......... .........................-1910 ......................................................................... .......... ................................... ......................1909 ............................................................ ........................ .................. ......................................1908 .......... .... ................................................................................. ............... ..............................1907 .......... ............................................. ..... ...... .................. .......................... ..............................1906 ........ ....... ..... ................................................... .....................................................................1905 ........ ............ .......................................................... .................................... .... ......................

1903 ........ .............. .................................................. ...... ...... .............................. ..........................1902 .................... ......... .......................... ...... ........... .......................................... ..........................1901 ........ .................. ............................................................... ....... ...... ............ .............. ............1900 ...................... ............................................................. ...... ..................................................-1899 ........ ...... .................................................................... ....... ..... ...... .. ............ ..... .....................1898 .............................................. .............................. ................................ .... ............................1897 .. ...... ............................................................................... ....... ........ .... ..................................1896 .............. ..................................................................................................... .........................1895 .................................................................................. .................... ......................................1894 ........................ ...... ................................ ...... .. .............................. ............ ............................1893 ........ .... .................................................................................. ...... .... .. .......... .. ...... .... ............1892 .............. .................................................. .................. .......................... .......... ......................1891 ............................................................... ..... ........................................................................1890 ......................................................... ........... ......................... ................................... ............1889 ........ .... .. .................. ........ ...................... ...... .............. ........................ ........ .... ......................1888 ............. ........................ .............. ....................................................... ..................................1887 ....................... ........ .............. ...............................................................................................1886 .... .......................... ................................ ...................................................... ........................1885 .... .................................................... ...... .............................................................................-1884 ........ ...................... ........................... ...............................................................................~...1883 ...... ...... ........ ................................................ ........ .............................. .......... ........................1882 .................................................................................................................... ........................1881 ......................................................................................................... ..................................-lmo ............................................................. ..... .................. ........................................................1879 ............................. ............. ........ ...... ...... ...... ........................................................................1878 .... ................................................................ .............................. ...... ...... ..............................1877 .... .............. ....................... ............................... ...... ............ ........ ...... ........... .........................1876 .............................. ...................................................... ...... .............. ....................................1875 ........................................................................ ................................ .......... ..........................

As ofJanuary 1

1976197519741973197219711970196919681967196619651964196319621961196019591958195719561955195419531952195119501949194819471946194519441943194219411940193919381937193619351934193319321931193019291928192719261925

Total

3,0072,9662,9132,8472,7942,7652,7022,6382,5502,5122,4672,4342,3882,3432,3122,2962,2742,2732,2702,2952,3182,3592,4052,4422,4772,5252,5832,6352,6722,7182,7732,8302,8812,9362,9833,0323,0723,1083,1413,1673,1973,2353,2803,3223,3653,4073,4503,4903,6323,5703,6193,669

Wh ita

2,9182,8882,8472,7892,7392,7072,6462,5872,5042,4702,4282,3942,3482,3032,2702,2532,2332,2342,2362,2602,2812,3202,3672,4022,4322,4732,5282,5872,6322,6782,7332,7892,8362,8882,9442,9963,0343,0683,0963,1213,1463,1803,2183,2513,2893,3303,3703,4063,4443,4783,5253,572

Allother

3,6313,5223,3943,2703,2043,1893,1173,0262,8962,8222,7612,7132,6722,6292,6002,5932,5552,5262,4912,5172,5572,5962,6422,6792,7592,8572,9442,9542,9402,9693,0333,1063,1763,2483,2483,2863,3283,3863,4553,5123,5763,6633,7773,8913,9694,0254,0834,1614,2534,3414,4374,541

37

Table 13. Total fertility rates, by color: United States, 1917-75

[ Rate per 1,000 women. See Technical Appendix]

Total

1,7701,8241,8631,9942,2452,4322,4232,4312,5262,6702,8823,1713,2983,4233,5643,6063,6383,6293,6823,6053,4983,4613,3493,2873,1993,0283,0363,0263,1812,858

White

1,6851,7401,7681,8942,1442,3382,3372,3412,4252,5632,7643,0613,1943,3203,4643,5103,5373,5323,5823,5043,4053,3723,2693,2133,1202,9452,9642,9683,1672,843

Allother

2,2542,3092,4062,5832,8602,9982,9612,9963,1783,3913,6573,9004,0004,1084,2344,2384,3214,2854,3474,2864,1264,0533,8803,7603,7183,5793,5093,4023,2472,937

Year

1945 ... .... . ..... . ... .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ... .. .. ... . .. .. .. ..1944 .. ... . ... .. .. ... .. . ... .. .. .. .... .. .. ... . .. .. ... . .. .1943 ... ... . .. ... . . .... ... . ... .. . .... ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..1942 .. ... .. . ... .. . .... . ... .... . . .. .. .. .. ... ... . .... .. . .1941 ... ... . . ... .. .. ... ... . ... .. . .... ... .. .. .. .. .... .. . .1940 .. ... . .. .... .. . ... .. .. ... .. . .... .. .. ... ... .. .. .. .. .1939 .. ... .. . ... .. . ... ... . .... .. .. ... .. . ... ... .. .... .. . .1938 .. .. .. .. .... .. . ... .. .. ... ... . ... .. ... .. .. . .. .. ... ..1937 . .. .. .. . ... .. .. ... .. .. .... . .. ... .. ... .. .. . .. .. ... . .1936 .. ... ... .. .. .... .. .. .. .... . ... .. .. .. .. . ... .. ... .. . .1935 . .. ... . .... .. ... .. ... . .... .. .. .... . .. .... . . ..... . . .1934 .. ... . . ..... .. ... .... . ... . .. .... .. .. .... .. . ... . ... .1933 . . ... .. . ... .. .. ... .. . .... .. .. ... .. . .... .. . .... .. .. .1932 .. ... . .. ... .. .. ... ... . ... ... .... .. .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .1931 . . .... . . ... .. .. ... ... . .... .. . ... .. ... .... . . ..... .. .1930 .. ... .. . .... . . .... .... ... ... . ... .. . ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .1929 . .... . .. ... ... . .. .. .. .... .. .. ... .. ... .. . ... ... ... ..1928 .. .... . . ... .. .. ... . .. .... .. .. ... . ... ... .. .. ... .. .. .1927 . .. .. .. .... .. .. ... ... . ... .. .. ... .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .1926 .. ... . . ... .. .. ... . .... .. .. .. ... ... .... .. .. ... ... ...1925 .. ... .. ... ... . ... . ... ... . .. ... .. ... ... . .... .. .. . ...1924 .. ... . .. .. .. .. .... . ... .. . ... .... .. .... .. .. .... .. .. .1923 .... .. . ... ... .... . ... ... . ... ... . ... ... . .. . ... .. .. ..1922 .... . . .... .. . ... .. ... ... .. . ... .... .... .. .. .. .. .. ...1921 ... .. . ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . ... .. .. ... ... . ... ... . .. . ...1920 .... .. ... . .. .... . .. ... .. .. ... .. . .. .. .. . ..... . .. ... .1919 ... .. . ... . ... .. .. .. ... ... . .... .. . ..... . .. .... . .. .. .1918 .... . ..... .. ... .. .. .... .... ... . . ..... .. .. .. .. .. .. ..1917 ... . .. ... . . .. .. . ... .. . .. ... ... .. .. .... . .. .... .. .. ..

Total

2,4222,4952,6402,5552,3322,2292,1722,2222,1732,1462,1892,2322,1722,3192,4022,5332,5322,6602,8242,9013,0123,1213,1013,1093,3263,2633,0683,3123,333

White

2,3752,4522,6112,5262,2812,’1772,’1202,1752,’1212,’1012,’1412,”1812,’1262,271

2,3692,5062,5062,6322,7832,8392,9493,0693,0633,0723,2823,:~19

3,0253,;z~8

3,312

Al Iother

2,7332,7872,8372,7442,6902:6182,5642,5842,5632,4832,5482,6052,5232,6682,6412,7342,7?6

2,8293,1013,3243,4173,4543,3323,3543,6153,5563,3443,4753,451

NOTE: The total fertilitv rate is the sum of aee-soecific birth rates for sim?le vears of age for women 14-49 veers of ace. The birthrates for single years of age u_sed to compute total ~ert~ity rates are based on bti;hs >djusted fbr underregistration ~or all yeak (including1960-75) and on population estimates adjusted for underenumeration. Hence, they are not precisely comparable to birth rates andfertility rates shown in table 1.

38

APPENDIX

CONTENTS

Technical Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40Sources of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40Sampling Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40Residence Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40Population Bases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40Adjustment for Undemegistmtion of Bkths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Classification by ftace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Median Ageof Mother . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Total Fertility Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Sources of Data

Birth statistics

TECHNICAL

in this re~ort are based on.information obtained from the certificates oflive births filed throughout the United States.Additional data are published annually by theNational Center for Health Statistics in VitalStatistics of the United States, Volume 1. Acomplete discussion of the sources, classifica-tion, and processing of natality data may befound in the Technical Appendix of thesevolumes. For additional information on thefertility of cohorts of women, refer to theNational Center for Health Statistics, publica-tion Fertility Tables for Birth Cohorts by Color:United States, 1917-73.

Sampling Rates .

Data for years prior to 1951 and for 1955are based on the total file of birth records. Datafor 1951-54, 1956-66, and 1968-71 are derivedfrom 50-percent samples of birth records; datafor 1967 are based partly on 20-percent andpartly on 50-percent samples. A discussion ofsampling procedures and sampling errors for1967 may be found in the Technical Appendixof Vital Statistics of the United States, 1967,Volume 1. Birth statistics for the years 1972 to1975 are based on information from two sources.For 6 States in 1972, 9 States in 1973, 16 Statesin 1974, and 23 States in 1975, statistics arebased on information from the total file ofrecords provided to the National Center forHealth Statistics through the Cooperative HealthStatistics System. In 1972, birth certificatesfrom Florida, Maine, Missouri, New Hampshire,Rhode Island, and Vermont were included on a100-percent basis. In succeeding years, addi-tional States were added to this listing asfollows: 19 73–Colorado, Michigan, New York

APPENDIX

(exclusive of New York City); 19~74–Illinois,Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Oregon,S o u th Carolina; 19 75–Maryland, V@nia,North Carolina, Tennessee, Louisiana, Okla-homa, and Wisconsin. Statistics for the remain-ing States are based on information obtainedfrom a 50-percent sample of birth records.

Residence Classification

All tables included in this report are by place~f residence. Births to U.S. residents occurringoutside this country are not included. Beginningin 1970, births to nonresidents of the UnitedStates occurring in the United States are ex-cluded from tabulations by place of residence.Prior to that year, births occurring in the UnitedStates to nonresident mothers were consideredas births to residents of the place of occurrence.All ‘tables showing time series incluc[e data forAlaska beginning in 1959 and for Hawaii begin-ning in 1960.

Population Bases

Birth rates shown in this report are based onpopulations residing in the respective areas.Populations for the United States exclude theArmed Forces overseas and persons living abroadbut include the Armed Forces stationed in eacharea. Rates for 1940, 1950, 1960, and 1970 arebased on populations enumerated as of April 1;rates for all other years are based on populationsestimated as of July 1.

Adjustment for Underregistration of Births

Adjustment for underregistered births wasdiscontinued for all period measures in 1960,when it was estimated that 99.1 percent of allbirths were registered. However, cohort ratesshown in this report make allowances for both

40

the underregistration of births and the under-enumeration of the base population.

Classification by Race

The category “white” comprises births re-ported as white, Mexican, Puerto Rican, and

Cuban. The category “all other” comprisesbirths reported as black, American Indian,Chinese, Japanese, Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian,and births of other races.

Median Age of Mother

Medkn age is the value which divides an agedistribution into two equal parts. Median ages

were computed using birth rates for 5-year agegroups rather than from birth frequencies. Thismethod eliminates the effects of changes in theage composition of the childbearing populationover time.

Total Fertility Rate

The total fertility rate is the sum of the birthrates for each single year of age for mothers aged14-49 years. It is an age-adjusted rate because itis based on the assumption that there are thesame number of women in each age group.

* U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:

000

1977– 260-937:34

41

VITAL AND HEALTH STATISTICS PUBLICATIONS SERIES

Formerly Public Health Service publication No. 1000

Seri”es1. Programs and Collection fiocedures. –Reports which describe the general programs of the NationalCenter for Health Statistics and its offices and divisions, data collection methods used, definitions, andother material necessary for understanding the data.

Sin-es 2. Data Evaluation and Methods Research. –Studies of new statistical methodology including experimentaltests of new survey methods, studies of vital statistics collection methods, new smalytical techniques,objective evaluations of reliability of collected data, contributions to statistical theory.

Series 3. Analytical Studies. –Reports presenting analytical or interpretive studies based on vital and healthstatistics, carrying the analysis further than the expository types of reports in the other series.

Series 4. Documents and Co remittee Reports. –Final reports of major committees concerned with vit.rd andhealth statistics, and documents such as recommended model vital registration laws and revised birthand death certificates.

Series 10. Data from the Health Interview Survey .–Statistics on illness; accidental injuries; disability; use ofhospital, medical, dental, and other services; and other health-related topics, based on data collected ina continuing national household interview survey.

Series 11. Data from the Health Examination Survey. –Data from direct examination, testing, and measurementof national samples of the civilian, non institutionalized population provide the basis for two types ofreports: (1) estimates of the medically defined prevalence of ipecific diseases in the United States andthe distributions of the population with respect to physiczd, physiological, and psychological charac-teristics; and (2) analy~i~ of relationships among the various measurements without reference to anexplicit fkiite universe of persons.

Series 12. Data j?om the Znstitutionalized Population Survey s.-Discontinued effective 1975. Future reports from

these surveys will be in Series 13.

Series 13. Data on Health Resources Utilization. –Statistics on the utilization of health manpower and facilitiesproviding long-term care, ambulatory csxe, hospital care, and family planning services.

Series 14. Data on Health Resources: Manpo we and Facilities. –Statistics on the numbers, geographic distrib-ution, and characteristics of health re~ources including physicians, dentists, nurses, other health occu-pations, hospitals, nursing homes, and outpatient facilities.

Series 20. Data on Mortality .-Various statistics on mortality other than az included in regular annuzd or monthlyreports. Special analyses by cause of cleat h, age, and other demographic variables; geographic and timeseries analyses; and statistics on characteristics of deaths not available from the vital records, based onsample surveys of those records.

Series 21. Data on Natality, Marriage, and Divorce. –Various statistics on natality, marriage, and divorce otherthan as included in regular annual or monthly reports. Special analyses by demographic variables;geographic and time zeries analyses ; studies of fertility; and statistics on characteristics of btihs not

available from the vital records, based on sample surveys of tho~e records.

Series 22. Data from the National Mortality and Natality Surveys. –Discontinued effective 1975. Future reportsfrom these sample surveys based on vital. records will be included in Series 20 and 21, respectively.

Series 23. Dati j%om the National Survey of Family G?owth. –Statistics on fertility, family formation and disso-lution, family plsnning, and related maternal and infant health topics derived from a biennial survey ofa nationwide probability sample of ever-married women 1544 years of age.

For a list of titles of report~ published in these series, write to: Scientific and Technical Information BranchNational Center for Health StatisticsPublic Health Service, HRAHyattsvil]e, Md. 20782

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 14FALTF<, f IJUCATION, ANO Wf LFAREP“bl,c Health SeCv,CeHealth Resources Adm, ncstrat (on POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

Nat, onal Center for Health Stat(st, cs3700 East-West High’waY

u.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEWHEW 390

Hyattsv,l!e, Maryland 20782

OFFICIAL BUSINESS THIRD CLASSPENALTY FOR PRIVATE uSE S300

BLK. RATE

wV,to!Cmii !I<,dtl! Sf.itstm

O*-US.MAIL