NCHS Data Brief ■ No. 264 ■ November 2016 

Teen Birth Rates for Urban and Rural Areas in the
 

United States, 2007–2015
 

Brady E. Hamilton, Ph.D., Lauren M. Rossen, Ph.D., and Amy M. Branum, Ph.D. 

Key findings 

Data from the National 

Vital Statistics System 

● Birth rates for teenagers 

aged 15–19 declined in urban 

and rural counties from 2007 

through 2015, with the largest 

declines in large urban counties 

and the smallest declines in 

rural counties. 

● From 2007 through 2015, 

the teen birth rate was lowest 

in large urban counties and 

highest in rural counties. 

● Declines in teen birth rates 

in all urban counties between 

2007 and 2015 were largest 

in Arizona, Massachusetts, 

Connecticut, Minnesota, 

and Colorado, with 17 states 

experiencing a decline of 50% 

or more. 

● Declines in teen birth rates 

in all rural counties between 

2007 and 2015 were largest 

(50% or more) in Colorado and 

Connecticut. 

● In 2015, teen birth rates were 

highest in rural counties and 

lowest in large urban counties 

for non-Hispanic white, 

non-Hispanic black, and 

Hispanic females. 

Teen birth rates have demonstrated an unprecedented decline in the 

United States since 2007 (1). Declines occurred in all states and among all 

major racial and Hispanic-origin groups, yet disparities by both geography and 

demographic characteristics persist (2,3). Although teen birth rates and related 

declines have been described by state, patterns by urban–rural location have 

not yet been examined. This report describes trends in teen birth rates in urban 

(metropolitan) and rural (nonmetropolitan) areas in the United States overall 

and by state from 2007 through 2015 and by race and Hispanic origin for 2015. 

Keywords: teen childbearing • geography • race and Hispanic origin • 

National Vital Statistics System 

Birth rates for teenagers declined across urban and rural 

counties from 2007 through 2015, with the largest declines in 

large urban counties. 

Figure 1. Teen birth rates, by urbanization level of county: United States, 2007–2015 

NOTES: Urban or rural designation is based on mother’s county of residence. Counties were classified into urbanization levels 

based on the 2006 and 2013 NCHS Urban–Rural Classification Scheme for Counties. For each area, the decline in the rate from 

2007 through 2015 is statistically significant (p < 0.05). For each year, differences in the rate across areas are statistically 

significant (p < 0.05). Access data table for Figure 1 at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db264_table.pdf#1. 

SOURCE: NCHS, National Vital Statistics System, Natality. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
 

National Center for Health Statistics
 
NCHS Data Brief ■ No. 264 ■ November 2016

●	 From 2007 through 2015, teen birth rates fell 50% in large urban counties, from 38.1 births 

per 1,000 females aged 15–19 to 18.9 (Figure 1). Teen birth rates were lowest in large urban 

counties, with the rates in these counties lower than the overall rate for the United States. 

●	 Teen birth rates for medium and small urban counties fell 44% from 2007 through 2015, to 

24.3 births per 1,000 from 43.1. From 2007 through 2015, the rates in these counties were 

nearly the same as the U.S. teen birth rate. 

●	 From 2007 through 2015, the rate in rural counties fell 37%, to 30.9 births per 1,000 from 

49.1. Teen birth rates were highest in rural counties, with the rates in these counties greater 

than the national rate. 

■  2  ■
NCHS Data Brief ■ No. 264 ■ November 2016

Declines in teen birth rates in all urban counties between 2007 and 2015 

were largest in Arizona, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Minnesota, and 

Colorado. 

●	 Teen birth rates in all urban counties decreased for all states and the District of Columbia 

between 2007 and 2015 (Figure 2). Decreases ranged from 24% for teenagers in North 

Dakota to 57% for teenagers in Arizona. 

●	 Decreases of 50% or more in teen birth rates among all urban counties occurred in 17 states 

(Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, 

Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Utah, 

Vermont, and Virginia). 

●	 Urban counties in two states, North Dakota and West Virginia, experienced decreases in teen 

birth rates of less than 30%. 

Figure 2. Percent change in the teen birth rate for all urban counties: United States, each state, 2007 and 2015 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOTES: Urban or rural designation is based on mother’s county of residence. Counties were classified into urbanization levels based on the 2006 and 2013 NCHS 

Urban–Rural Classification Scheme for Counties. For all states, differences in the rate between 2007 and 2015 are statistically significant (p < 0.05). Declines 

ranged from 24.3% for North Dakota to 56.6% for Arizona. Access data table for Figure 2 at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db264_table.pdf#2. 

SOURCE: NCHS, National Vital Statistics System, Natality. 

■  3  ■
NCHS Data Brief ■ No. 264 ■ November 2016

Declines in teen birth rates in rural counties between 2007 and 2015 were 

largest in Colorado and Connecticut. 

●	 Teen birth rates in rural counties decreased for 46 states between 2007 and 2015 (Figure 3). 

Decreases ranged from 18% for teenagers in Alaska to 73% for teenagers in Connecticut. 

Rural county rates in two states were unreliable, and two states and the District of Columbia 

have no rural counties according to the classification method used.

●	 Decreases of 50% or more in the rural teen birth rate occurred in Colorado and Connecticut. 

●	 Decreases of 40%–49% occurred in Georgia, Mississippi, New Hampshire, North Carolina, 

South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. 

●	 Maryland, Montana, North Dakota, and Pennsylvania had the smallest decreases (less than 

30%). 

Figure 3. Percent change in the teen birth rate for rural counties: United States, each state, 2007 and 2015 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOTES: Urban or rural designation is based on mother’s county of residence. Counties were classified into urbanization levels based on the 2006 and 2013 NCHS 

Urban–Rural Classification Scheme for Counties. For all states, differences in the rate between 2007 and 2015 are statistically significant (p < 0.05), except where 

data are not available for Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia. Declines ranged from 17.8% for Alaska to 72.7% for 

Connecticut. Access data table for Figure 3 at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db264_table.pdf#3. 

SOURCE: NCHS, National Vital Statistics System, Natality. 

■  4  ■
NCHS Data Brief ■ No. 264 ■ November 2016

In 2015, teen birth rates were highest in rural counties and lowest in large 

urban counties for non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, and Hispanic 

females aged 15–19. 

●	 In 2015, the teen birth rate among non-Hispanic white females was lowest in large urban 

counties (10.5 births per 1,000) (Figure 4). The rate was 68% higher in medium and small 

urban counties (17.6 births per 1,000), and more than 2.5 times higher in rural counties 

(26.8 per 1,000) than in large urban counties. 

● In 2015, teen birth rates among non-Hispanic black females ranged from a low of 29.1 

births per 1,000 females in large urban counties to a high of 39.6 in rural counties. 

● In 2015, the teen birth rate among Hispanic females was lowest in large urban counties 

(31.4 births per 1,000). The rates among Hispanic females were 27% higher in medium and 

small urban counties (40.0 births per 1,000) and 50% higher in rural counties (47.0 births 

per 1,000). 

Figure 4. Teen birth rates, by selected race and Hispanic origin of mother and urbanization level of county: United States, 

2015 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOTES: Urban or rural designation is based on mother’s county of residence. Counties were classified into urbanization levels based on the 2013 NCHS
 

Urban–Rural Classification Scheme for Counties. For each race and Hispanic origin group, differences in the rates across areas are statistically significant 


(p < 0.05). Access data table for Figure 4 at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db264_table.pdf#4. 


SOURCE: NCHS, National Vital Statistics System, Natality.
 

■  5  ■
NCHS Data Brief ■ No. 264 ■ November 2016

Summary 

Patterns of unprecedented declines in teen birth rates have occurred in the United States in recent 

years in both urban and rural areas. From 2007 through 2015, teen birth rates declined 50% 

in large urban counties, 44% in medium and small urban counties, and 37% in rural counties. 

These declines generally occurred among all states, although to varying degrees. Colorado and 

Connecticut experienced the greatest declines in teen birth rates among rural counties, whereas 

overall urban declines were greatest in Arizona, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Minnesota, and 

Colorado. 

Although teen birth rates have declined among non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, and 

Hispanic females, some disparities still exist among these groups at the national level and within 

urban and rural counties (4). Teen birth rates differ according to urbanization status, with the 

highest rates occurring in rural counties and the lowest rates occurring in large urban counties; 

this pattern is consistent among non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, and Hispanic females. 

Definitions 

Teen birth rate: The number of births to females aged 15–19 per 1,000 females aged 15–19. 

Urban and rural county: Urban or rural designation is based on the county of maternal residence 

(5). Counties were classified according to their metropolitan status using the National Center 

for Health Statistics (NCHS) Urban–Rural Classification Scheme (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/

data_access/urban_rural.htm), by merging the county of maternal residence geographic federal 

information processing standard (FIPS) codes with county-level FIPS codes from either 

the 2006 (for births in 2007–2012) or 2013 (for births in 2013–2015) NCHS Urban–Rural 

Classification Scheme data set. Counties identified as metropolitan were considered to be urban, 

and all other counties (nonmetropolitan) were considered to be rural. Metropolitan counties 

include large central cities, the fringes of large cities (suburbs), medium cities, and small cities. 

Nonmetropolitan counties include micropolitan statistical areas, noncore areas, and include open 

countryside, rural towns (populations of less than 2,500), and areas with populations of 2,500– 

49,999 that are not part of larger labor market areas (metropolitan areas). Due to the range in size 

of urban counties, counties designated as urban were subdivided into two levels, large (which 

includes large central and the fringes of large cities) and medium and small urban (which includes 

medium and small cities), for comparative purposes in this report. Research has confirmed that 

these categories are meaningful for analyzing birth data (6). There are no counties designated as 

rural in New Jersey, Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia according to the NCHS urban– 

rural classification.

Race and Hispanic origin: Race and Hispanic origin are reported separately on birth certificates. 

Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race. Persons of non-Hispanic ancestry are further 

classified by race because there are substantial differences in fertility and maternal characteristics 

between Hispanic and non-Hispanic persons. Multiple-race data reported since 2003 were bridged 

to single-race categories for comparability among states and for trend analyses (1). 

■  6  ■
NCHS Data Brief ■ No. 264 ■ November 2016

Data sources and methods 

This report contains data from the birth data set, which is part of the National Vital Statistics 

System, and from the NCHS Urban–Rural Classification Scheme. The birth data set is the primary 

data set for analyzing birth trends and patterns in the United States. Birth data sets are available 

from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data_access/vitalstatsonline.htm. 

The NCHS Urban–Rural Classification Scheme data provide geographic FIPS codes and NCHS 

urban–rural classification scheme information for all counties in the United States and are 

available from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data_access/urban_rural.htm. 

Population data for computing birth rates were provided by the U.S. Census Bureau and are based 

on the April 1, 2000, and April 1, 2010, censuses (7). 

Rates based on fewer than 20 births in the numerator are considered not statistically reliable [and 

an asterisk (*) is shown in place of the rate]. There were two areas with unreliable rates: rural 

counties in Delaware in 2015 and rural counties in Massachusetts in 2007. 

References to increases or decreases in rates indicate that differences are statistically significant 

at the 0.05 level. Trends in the rates at the national level were evaluated using the Joinpoint 

Regression Program (8). 

About the authors 

Brady E. Hamilton, Lauren M. Rossen, and Amy M. Branum are with the National Center for 

Health Statistics, Division of Vital Statistics, Reproductive Statistics Branch. 

References 

1. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJK, Driscoll AK. Births: Final data for 2015. National 

vital statistics reports. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2016 [Forthcoming]. 

2. Ventura SJ, Hamilton BE, Mathews TJ. National and state patterns of teen births in the United 

States, 1940–2013. National vital statistics reports; vol 63 no 4. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for 

Health Statistics. 2014. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_04.pdf. 

3. Romero L, Pazol K, Warner L, Cox S, Kroelinger C, Besera G, et al. Reduced disparities in 

birth rates among teens aged 15–19 years—United States, 2006–2007 and 2013–2014. MMWR 

Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 65(16):409–14. 2016. 

4. Hamilton BE, Mathews TJ. Continued declines in teen births in the United States, 2015. 

NCHS data brief, no 259. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2016. Available 

from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db259.pdf. 

5. Hall MJ, Owings M. Rural and urban hospitals’ role in providing inpatient care, 2010. NCHS 

data brief, no 147. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2014. Available from: 

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db147.pdf. 

6. Ingram DD, Franco SJ. NCHS urban–rural classification scheme for counties. National 

Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 2(154). 2012. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/

nchs/data/series/sr_02/sr02_154.pdf. 

■  7  ■
       

   

       

   

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

National Center for Health Statistics 

3311 Toledo Road, Room 5419

Hyattsville, MD 20782–2064

FIRST CLASS MAIL
 

POSTAGE & FEES PAID 

CDC/NCHS
 

PERMIT NO. G-284

OFFICIAL BUSINESS 

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300

For more NCHS Data Briefs, visit:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs.htm. 

NCHS Data Brief ■ No. 264 ■ November 2016

7. National Center for Health Statistics. U.S. Census populations with 

bridged-race categories. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/

bridged_race.htm. 

8. National Cancer Institute. Joinpoint Regression Program (Version 4.0.1) 

[computer software]. 2013. 

Suggested citation 

Hamilton BE, Rossen LM, Branum AM. 

Teen birth rates for urban and rural areas in 

the United States, 2007–2015. NCHS data 

brief, no 264. Hyattsville, MD: National 

Center for Health Statistics. 2016. 

Copyright information 

All material appearing in this report is in 

the public domain and may be reproduced 

or copied without permission; citation as to 

source, however, is appreciated. 

National Center for Health 

Statistics 

Charles J. Rothwell, M.S., M.B.A., Director 

Jennifer H. Madans, Ph.D., Associate 

Director for Science 

Division of Vital Statistics 

Delton Atkinson, M.P.H, M.P.H, P.M.P, 

Director 

Hanyu Ni, Ph.D., M.P.H., Associate Director 

for Science 

For e-mail updates on NCHS publication 

releases, subscribe online at: 

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/govdelivery.htm. 

For questions or general information 

about NCHS: 

Tel: 1–800–CDC–INFO (1–800–232–4636)

TTY: 1–888–232–6348

Internet: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs

Online request form: http://www.cdc.gov/info

ISSN 1941–4927 Print ed. 

ISSN 1941–4935 Online ed. 

DHHS Publication No. 2017–1209 

CS270731