Data from the

NATIONAL VITAL STATISTICS SYSTEM

Wanted and Unwanted Childbearing

in the United States

1968, 1969, and 1972 National Natality Surveys

An analysis of legitimate live births and whether they were wanted

at the time they occurred, wanted later, or not wanted at a.11,as

reported by the mother. Discusses trends and variations in relation

to race, live-birth order, age of mother, expectation of future births,

age at marriage, duration of marriage, education, income, and

religious preference.

DHEW Publication No. (PHS)78-1918

Series 21

Number 32

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

Public Health Service

National Center for Health Statistics

Hyattsville, Md. September 1978
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Weller, Robert H

Wanted and unwanted childbearing in the United States.

(Vital and health statistics: Series 21, Data from the National Vital Statistics System ; no. 32) (DHEW publication ; (PHS) 78-1918)

1. Fertility, Human–United States. 2. Fertility, Human–United States–Statistics.

3. United States–Statistics, Vital. I. Heuser, Robert L., joint author. II. Title. HI. Series:

United States. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital and health statistics : Series 21,

Data from the National and Vital Statistics System, Data on natality, marriage, and divorce ;

no. 38. IV. Series: United States. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare. DHEW publication ; (PHS) 78-1918.

HA211.A3 no. 32 [HB915] 312’.1’73s [312’ 1’73]

ISBN 0-8406 -0140-9 78-15719
NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS

DOROTHY P. RICE, Director

ROBERT A. ISIL4.EL, Deputy Director

JACOB J. FELDMAN, Ph.D., Associate Director for Analysis

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

ELIJAH L. WHITE, Associate Director for Data Systems

JAMES T. BAIRD, JR., Ph.D., Associate 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 Natality Statistics Branch

MABEL G. SMITH, Chief Statistical Resources Branch

Vital and Health Statistics-Series 21-No. 32

DHEW Publication No. (PHS)78-1918

Library of Congress Catalog Card ~umber 78-15719
CONTENTS

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1

Summary of Principal Fin&n& .................................................................................................................. 2

Sources and Limitations of Data ................................................................................................ ............... 2

Results ................................................................................................................................ ......................

Bfi Order and Age of Metier .............................................................................................................

Bwth Expectations ................................................................................................................................

Age at Marriage.....................................................................................................................................

Duration of Mtiage ............................................................................................................................

Education of Parents ...........................................................................................................................

Husband’s kcome ................................................................................................................................

Religious Preference of Paen~ .............................................................................................................

3

5

8

8

8

10

11

12

Characteristics of Wanted and Unwanted Bfis ......................................................................................... 12

Color ad Live-Birth Order ................................................................................................................... 13

Educational Attainment of Metier ....................................................................................................... 13

Income ................................................................................................................................................ 13

Effect of Unwanted Chddbearing on Population Groti ........................................................................... 13

References ................................................................................................................................................ 15

List of Detailed Tables ............................................................................................................................... 16

Appendixes

I. Technical Notes on Metiods ........................................................................................................... 33

II. Source Fores .................................................................................................................................. 43

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Percent of legitimate live births wanted earlier, by live-birth order and by age of mothen United

States, 1972 Nationsl Natality Suwey ............................................................................................. 6

2. Percent of legitimate live births by wontedness status, by Iive-birth order: United States, 1972

National Nat.aMy Suwey ................................................................................................................. 6

3. Percent of legitimate live births by wontedness status, by age of mother: United States, 1972 Nationsl Natality Survey ..................................................................................................................... 7

4. Percent of legitimate live births by wontedness status, by educational attainment of father: United

States, 1972 National NataIity Smey ............................................................................................. 10

5. Percent of legitimate live births by wontedness status, by educational attainment of mother:

United States, 1972 National Natality Suwey ................................................................................. 11

6. Percent of legitimate live births unwanted, by educational attainment of father and of mother:

United States, 1968 and 1972 National Nattilty Survey ................................................................. 12

.

Ill
LIST OF TEXT TABLES

A. Estimated number, percent distribution, and rate of legitimate five births, by wontedness status

and race of mother: United States, 1968, 1969, and 1972 National Natality Surveys ...................

B. Estimated rates for married women, by wontedness status and age of mother: United States, 1968,

1969, and 1972 National Natality Surveys .....................................................................................

c. Estimated number of legitimate first births to women married once and percent distribution by

wontedness status, by duration of marriage and color of mother: United States, 1972 National

Natality Suwey ............................................................................................................... ................

D. Effects of unwanted childbearing on population growth: United States, 1968, 1969, and 1972 .......

SYMBOLS

I

Data not available ---------------------------------------- --- I

I Category not applicable ----------------------------- . . . I

Quantity zero ------------------------------------------ -

Quantity more than O but less than 0.05 ----- 0.0

Figure does not meet standards of

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

*

4

5

9

14

I J

iv
WANTED AND UNWANTED CHILDBEARING

IN THE UNITED STATES: 1968, 1969,

AND 1972 NATIONAL NATALITY SURVEYS

Robert H. Weller, Ph. D., Center for the Study of Population, Florida State University, and

Robert L. Heuser, M. A., Division of Vital Statistics, National Center for Health Statistics

INTRODUCTION

This report presents data on the extent to

which American women have children earlier

than they would have liked or have children who

were not wanted at all. This subject is of interest

both for its demographic implications and for

the social and economic implications to the

mother, father, and child.

Variations in the incidence of unwanted

births may help to explain temporal variations in

the birth rate. If a substantial proportion of

births that occur are unwanted, then declines in

this proportion could contribute to substantial

downward movements in the birth rate. Some

segments of the population me more likely than

others to have unwanted births, which may

partially explain differences in completed family

size among various population subgroups.

The ability to control the timing of births is

also important, especially with respect to first

births, because the first birth represents the

transition to parenthood and its associated roles.

By having the first birth before it is wanted, a

woman has less child-free time to continue her

education and to acquire occupational interests

and skills. This may result in an increase in

desired family size and hence in actual

completed family size. In many cases the first

birth leads couples into marriage itself.

Presumably, if the timing of all first births were

pkmned, the incidence of illegitimate births and

hasty marriages would be reduced. The importance of this factor may be seen in the fact

that 12.5 percent of the legitimate first births

occurring in 1972 were conceived premaritally

(i.e., born less than 8 months after the first

marriage). Among women aged 15-19 years this

incidence was 36.6 percent. Thus for many

women the planned timing of the first birth

would have resulted in a later age at marriage

and motherhood. The proportions of these

women who might have developed a less

famiIy-oriented role and perhaps have chosen to

remain single and/or childless permanently are

unknown. Even after the first birth, the inability

to control the timing of births may reduce the

woman’s ability to plan her life. I

The statistics presented in this report are

based on the National Natality Surveys of 1968,

1969, and 1972, which are followback surveys

of samples of the legitimate live births occurring

during those years.

This report utilizes information supplied by

the mother on whether she wanted to become

pregnant with her last child (the sample child) at

the time she did (“wanted then”), at a later time

(“wanted later”), or not at all (“unwanted”).

This classification is referred to as the

“wontedness status” of the birth. Data are

presented to show (1) the extent to which births

occurred in each of these three categories, (2)

the relationship between the failure to control

the number or timing of births and social and

1
demographic characteristics of the parents, and

(3) changes that have occurred between 1968

and 1972.

SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

The data show that many legitimate births in

the United States were wanted later or were not

wanted at all. A substantial reduction in

unwanted childbearing took place between 1968

and 1972, however, with the proportion of

legitimate births classified as unwanted declining

from 12.7 percent to 8.2 percent. Slightly more

than one-fourth of all legitimate births at each

date were classified as wanted later. The

decrease in unwanted childbearing between

1968 and 1972 contributed to the shift toward

lower birth order that occurred.

The variables most strongly related to having

an unwanted birth are racea and family size

variables such as live-birth orderb and the

mother’s childbearing expectations. In 1968,

11.6 percent of the white legitimate births were

classified as not wanted, compared with 20.5

percent of all other’ legitimate births. However,

between 1968 and 1972 the women of “all

other” races experienced an extremely sharp

decline in unwanted childbearing, reducing the

race differential considerably. In 1972, 8.1

percent of the white legitimate births were

unwanted, compared with 9.5 percent of all

other births. Shifts toward a lower birth order

distribution are more important among white

than among all other births in accounting for

these changes.

The likelihood that the birth was classified

as unwanted increased as the birth order and age

of mother increased, was larger when the mother

expected no more children than when she

expected to have more children, and decreased

as the mother’s educational attainment increased. About half of the first births that

apparently had resulted from a premarital

aThe race or color of the mother is used in the

text when referring to the child.

bLive-birth order refers to the number of children

the mother has borne alive, including the sample child.

CAS used throughout this report “all other” refers

to the combined grouping of all races other than white.

conception were reported by the mother as

being wanted later; only 1 percent were reported

as being unwanted. The percent of births

unwanted was unrelated to husband’s income in

1968, but increased slightly among cases where

the husband’s income was above the $2,000-

$3,999 category in 1972.

The elimination of unwanted childbearing

among married women would have had a

substantial effect on population growth rates

during these years. Eliminating unwanted

childbearing would also appear to have a

substantial effect upon average completed

family size, but such a conclusion must be

drawn with extreme caution because of the

unknown extent to which the childbearing

experience of the women giving birth in these

years was representative of their entire birth

cohorts.

SOURCES AND LIMITATIONS OF DATA

The data used in this report are from the

1968, 1969, and 1972 National Natality Surveys

conducted by the National Center for IHealth

Statistics. A probability sample of births in each

year was selected and the mothers of legitimate

live births were subsequently sent a mail

questionnaire. In 1968 and 1969 the sampling

fraction was 1 in 1,000 for white births and 1 in

500 for all other births. In 1972, the sampling

fraction was 1 in 500 for all births. Data from

the questionnaires were used to supplement data

from the birth certificates. Since the statistics

derived from this survey are estimates based on a

sample, they may differ from the figures that

would have been obtained had all legitimate

births been surveyed using the same questionnaire and procedures. The probability

design of the sample makes the calculation of

sampling errors possible. Findings discussed in

the text are considered statistically significant at

the .05 level for a two-tailed test. In some

instances, relationships are referred to that are

not statistically significant. When this is done,

note is made that they are not significant.

A detailed description of the survey

procedures, response rates and imputation

procedures, and sampling errors as well as

facsimiles of the U.S. Standard Certificate of
Live Birth and the questionnaires are included in

the appendixes.

In 1968 and 1969 the dependent variable for

this report–whether or not the mother wanted

the pregnancy at that time–was measured by

tabulating responses to this question: “Just

before you became pregnant with your new

baby, did you want to become pregnant?”

Mothers were instructed to check one of the

following:

“Yes.”

“No, wanted a baby, but did not want to

become pregnant yet.”

“No, did not want a baby.”

In 1972 the wording of the question was

changed slightly to: “Thinking back, just before

you became pregnant with your new baby, did

you want to become pregnant at that time?”

Mothers were given their choice of the following

responses:

“I wanted this pregnancy at an earlier time,

as well as at that time. ”

“I wanted to become pregnant at that time. ”

“I did not want to become pregnant at that

time, but I wanted another child sometime

in the future. ”

“I did not want to become pregnant at that

time, or at any time in the future.”

To allow comparisons, the first two responses to

the 1972 question have been considered

equivalent to the “yes” that appears in the 1968

and 1969 schedules and are referred to as being

“wanted then.” Births that were wanted, but at

a later time, are often referred to as “timing

failures. ” The term “unwanted” always refers to

a number failure, a birth that was classified as

not wanted at all. While the questions were

phrased in terms of the wontedness of the

pregnancy, the data in this report refer only to

pregnancies resulting in live births and the term

“birth” is used throughout the analysis.

It should be emphasized that information on

illegitimate births is not included in this report.

This is especially important for the age group

under 20 years where, in 1972, 34 percent of all

births were illegitimate and for births of all

other races, 69 percent were illegitimate. The

distributions of the illegitimate births by

wontedness status as weII as by other characteristics may be considerably different than

for the legitimate births.

RESULTS

Table A shows the distribution of legitimate

births classified by their wontedness status and

the mother’s race. In 1968, 59.4 percent of the

births were wanted then, another 27.9 percent

were wanted later (timing faiIures), and the

remaining 12.7 percent were unwanted (number

failures). Between 1968 and 1972 the percent of

births that were unwanted declined; in 1972,8.2

percent of the legitimate births were unwanted.

In reIative terms, this was a decrease of about a

third. There was an increase in the percent of

births reported as being wanted then, from 59.4

to 64.5 percent. There was no change in the

percent of births that were timing failures.

The number of legitimate births declined by

337,000, or 11 percent, between 1968 and

1972. Half of this decline was accounted for by

the decline in unwanted births and another third

by births that were wanted later. Births that

were wanted then represented only a sixth of

the total decline in the number of legitimate

births.

Black mothers were more likely than white

mothers were to have had either a number

failure or a timing failure in 1968, and were thus

less likely to have had a birth that was wanted

then. The differential between black and white

mothers in the percent of births unwanted

declined markedly during this period, primarily

due to the large decrease in unwanted births

among black mothers, and by 1972 there was no

significant difference between the percents for

white and black mothers. This is because the

proportion of black births that were unwanted

declined from 21.6 percent in 1968 to 9.9

percent in 1972, while the proportion of white

births that were unwanted declined from 11.6 to

8.1 percent. These declines amounted to about a

half for black births and about a third for white

births.

3
Table A. Estimated number, percent distribution, and rate of legitimate live births, by wontedness status and rata of mother: United

States, 1968, 1969, and 1972 National Natalitv Survevs

Race of mother and wontedness status

Number in thousands Percent distribution Rate]

1972 1969

2,839 3,242

1,832 2,035

773 833

234 373

2,504 2,844

1,642 1,851

661 704

202 289

335 398

190 184

113 130

32 84

285 352

160 154

97 119

28 79

1968

3,176

1,886

885

405

2,774

1972

100.0

64.5

27.2

8.2

100.0

1969

100.0

62.8

25.7

11.5

100.0

1968

100.0

1972

100.6

64.9

27.4

8.3

100.1

1969

119.3

1968

ALL RACES

Total ............................................................

Wanted then ............................... .................................

Wanted later ................................................................

Unwanted ................... .......... .......................................

WHITE

117.7

69.9

32.8

15.0

115.7

59.4

27.9

12.7

100.0

74.9

30.7

13.7

Total ........................................................ .... 117.7

Wanted then ................................................................

Wanted later ................................................................

Unwanted ....................................................................

ALL OTHER

Total .......... ........................ ..........................

Wanted then ................................................................

Wanted later ................................................................

Unwanted ................................... .................................

Black

1,700

751

323

402

65.6

26.4

8.1

100.0

65.1

24.8

10.2

100.0

61.3

27.1

11.6

100.0

65.6

26.4

8.1

104.0

76.6

29.1

11.9

132.4

70.9

31.3

13.5

133.7

185

134

82

355

56.9

33.7

9.5

100.0

46.3

32.6

21.2

100.0

46.2

33.4

20.5

100.0

59.1

35.0

9.9

103.5

61.3

43.1

28.0

3

131.0

61.7

44.6

27.4

. . .

156

122

77

43.8

33.8

22.5

56.2

33.9

9.9

44.0

34.4

21.6

58.2

35.1

10.2

57.3

44.2

29.4

.-.

---

. . .

lRate per 1,000 married women aged 15-44 Years.

NOTE: Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding.

Most of the data in this report are presented

in terms of the percent of births in a given group

that were wanted or unwanted. The level of

legitimate fertility may also be described in

terms of the probabilities of bearing a wanted or

unwanted child. The probabilities may be

measured by relating the number of legitimate

births of a particular wontedness status to the

number of married women in the childbearing

ages (assumed to be 15-44 years). The result is

an age-specific legitimate birth rate for each

category of wontedness status. These rates are

shown in tables A and B. The denominator

includes all married women and does not

differentiate between women who may or may

not want another child. Such a distinction

would have given a more precise probability.

The rates show that the probability of

bearing a child declined between 1968 and 1972

for ea;h wontedness category for total and for

white Iegitimat e births. For all other births, the

declines were significant only for births that were

wanted later and were unwanted. The inc:rease

between 1968 and 1972 in the percent of births

of all races wanted then reflects the fact that the

relative decline in the rates was greater for

unwanted births than for births wanted then.

While there was a decline in the rate for

births wanted later and for unwanted births, it

was relatively greater for unwanted births. This

may be an indication that the consequences of a

timing failure are not seen to be as great as for a

number failure. Couples may become lmore

effective family planners when the y have had all

the children they want and are no Ic)nger

concerned with failures that merely involve the

4
Table B. Estimated rates for married women, by wontedness status and age of mother: United States, 1968, 1969, and 1972 National

Natality Surveys

[Rates are legitimate births per 1,000 married women of specified age]

Wontedness status

Total

1972 ....................................................................................................................

1969 ........................................................................................... .........................

1968 ........................................................... .........................................................

Wanted then

1972 ................................ ....................................................................................

1969 .................... ............................................................................................ ....

1968 .................... ...................... ............................................ ...................... ........

Wanted later

1972 .......................................................................... ............................ ..............

1969 ............................................................... .................................................. ...

1968 ....................................................................................................................

Unwanted

1972 ............. ........................................................................................ ...............

1969 ....................................................................................................................

1968 ....................................................................................................................

15-44

yearsl

100.6

119.3

117.7

64.9

74.9

69.9

27.4

30.7

32.8

8.3

13.7

15.0

15-19

yearsz

381.2

436.7

462.5

233.6

248.6

259.5

129.4

158.2

177.0

18.1

29.9

26.0

Age of mother

20-24

years

192.7

246.9

242.5

127.4

166.2

152.8

57.1

66.4

73.2

8.2

14.3

16.5

25-28

years

136.3

161.3

157.3

94.9

108.1

100.3

31.4

38.0

38.4

10.1

15.2

18.5

1Rates ~omputed by relating total legitimate births, regardless of age of mother, to married women aged 15-44 Years.

2Rate5 computed by ~e]ating legitimate birthstomothers under 20 years to married women aged 15-19 years.

3Rates ~omputed by ~elating legitim~te birthstomothers 35 years and over tO married women wed 35-44 Yearstiming of births. This is consistent with the

increases in the use of more effective methods of

contraception (the “pill” and intrauterine

device) and in sterilization, especially among

older couples.* )3

The 1972 survey permitted the mother to

indicate that she would have liked the pregnancy

to occur earlier, an alternative that was not

presented to the responding mother in 1968 or

1969. This represents a different type of timing

failure-failure to become pregnant when desired

rather than becoming pregnant sooner than

desired. In 1972, 20.5 percent of the legitimate

births were wanted earlier than they actually

occurred. White births were more likely to be

reported as wanted earlier than were all other

births (21. 1 percent as compared with 16.1

percent).

There is an inverse relationship between the

percent of births wanted earlier and birth

order—24 to 25 percent of the first and second

order births were wanted earlier while only 6.9

30-34

years

67.0

80.6

80.2

39.3

43.7

42.2

18.3

18.6

19.6

9.4

18.3

18.4

3544

/ears3

16.6

22.8

24.2

8.3

10.9

10.7

2.9

3.0

3.8

5.5

8.9

9.8

percent of the fifth and higher order births were

in this category (figure i). There is a slight

tendency for the percent of births wanted earlier

to increase with age of mother; the proportion

increased from 16.8 percent for mothers under

20 years to 22 to 23 percent for mothers aged

25-29 and 30-34 years.

Birth Order and Age of Mother

The birth order of the infant is closely

related to the wontedness status of the birth, as

may be seen in table 1 and figure 2. With few

exceptions, the higher the birth order the more

likely it is that the birth was classified as

unwanted and the less likely it is that the birth

was classified as wanted then. For exarnple, only

1.3 percent of the first order births in 1972 were

unwanted, compared with 4-1.1 percent of the

fifth and higher order births. Conversely, first

order births were twice as likely to have been

wanted then (74.3 percent) as were fifth and

5
1 2 3 4 5 and

over

LIVE-BIRTH ORDER

30

20

10

0

22,9 22,3

Under 20.24 25.29 30.34

20 years

35 yem

years years years and over

AGE OF MOTHER

Figure 1. Percent of legitimate live births wanted aadier, by Iiva-birth order

Natality Survay

and by age of mother: United States, 1972 National

WANTED THEN WANTEO LATER UNWANTED

1 2 3 4 5 and 1 2 3 4 5 and 1 2 3 4 5 and

OVe, over over

LIVE. BIRTH ORDER

Figure 2. Percent of legitimate live birth8 by wontedness status, by live-birth order: United States, 1972 National Natality Survey

6
higher order births (34.4 percent). There was no

significant difference between first and second

or between the fourth and fifth and higher order

births in the percent wanted then. The biggest

differences in the percent unwanted were

between the second and third children (2.0

percent compared with 16.1 percent) and

between the fourth and fifth and higher order

children (21. 1 percent compared with 41.1

percent).

The distribution of births by live-birth order

shifted toward the lower orders between 1968

and 1972. The downward shift in birth order

may be seen in the change in the proportion of

legitimate births that are fourth or higher orders.

Between 1968 and 1972, this proportion

decreased from 22.1 to 14.7 percent. Since the

higher order births are more likely to be

unwanted, the decline in the percent of births

that were unwanted would account for some of

the decline in this proportion.

Although the proportion of births that were

unwanted in 1968 was lower for white mothers

than for a.11other mothers at every birth order,

the difference is significant only for second and

third order births. By 1972 the proportion was

significantly lower only for first order births and

was significantly higher for fifth and higher

order births; for third and fourth orders the

percents unwanted were higher for white

mothers, but not significantly. Between 1968

and 1972 there were declines in the percent

unwanted for all other mothers in all birth

orders except the first order.

The wontedness status of the birth is also

related to the age of the mother (table 1 and

figure 3). In 1972 the percent of legitimate

births that were wanted then increased from

80

[

80

[

80

WANTED THEN WANTED LATER

[

UNWANTED

70

I

70 -

60 -

50 -

40 -

30 -

20 -

10 -

o—

70 -

60 -

50 -

40 -

30 -

20 -

10 -

0 — El,,.,, :‘,’,’d

,,, .’:

,,,.

., ,,

,,,

:, . ‘

,,, .’., ,,,, , ,,

,,, ,

,:,,

.,

., ,. .,’: ~::

Under 20.24 2529 30.34 35 years Under 2S24 25.29 30.34 35 years Under 20.24 25.29 30.34 35 years

. 20 years years years years and over 20 years years years yews and over 20 years years years years and over

AGE OF MOTHER

Figure 3. Percent of legitimate live births by wontedness status, by age of mother: United States, 1972 National Natality Survay

7
61.3 for mothers under 20 years to 69.6 for the

25-29-year age group and then decreased to 49.9

for mothers 35 years and older. The percent

wanted later generally decreased with age, ranging from 34.0 percent for mothers under 20

years of age to 17.2 percent for mothers 35

years and older. The percent of births not

wanted at all increased from 5 and 4 percent for

mothers under 20 and 20-24 years, respectively,

to about 33 percent for the oldest age group.

The rate per 1,000 married women and the

percent of births that were wanted later had the

same relationship with age of mother—the older

ages had lower rates and lower percents (table

B). The rate had generally this same relationship

with age for births that were unwanted and that

were wanted then. However, the percent of

births unwanted was higher for older mothers

and the percent wanted then was higher for

mothers aged 25-29 years than for younger or

older mothers. The most striking difference between these two measures was for births classified as unwanted; in this category the percent

was highest and the rate was lowest for women

35 years and older. This reflects the fact that

few of these older women were having births but

a large proportion of the births that did occur to

these women were unwanted.

The percent of births unwanted was lower in

1972 than in 1968 for each age-of-mother group

except for those in the age group 18-19 years.

The percent of births wanted then was higher in

1972 for all mothers except those aged 20-24

years.

There were significant declines in the rate of

unwanted childbearing for women in all age

groups. For births that were wanted later the

rates declined for all women except at ages

30-34 years; for births wanted then there were

declines only for ages 20-24 years and 35 years

and over.

Birth Expectations

Women who expect no more children are

much more likely than other women to have

classified the last birth as unwanted and are

much less likely to have classified it as wanted

then, as may be seen in table 2. This is to be

expected since women who say their last child

was unwanted would be far less likely than other

women to expect more children. This same

pattern is seen for all birth orders except the

second.

Expected completed family size is strongly

related to the wontedness status of the birth.

This is because current birth order, which is one

of the components of family size, is related to

wontedness status. Within each order, the number of additional births expected by the

mother—the other component of family size—is

not related to the percent of births wanted then.

This is also true for births wanted later and for

unwanted births.

Age at Marriage

Age at marriage is related to the wontedness

status of the birth, as shown by the data in table

3. In 1972, mothers who had married at age 30

or older were more likely than mothers who had

married younger to classify their birth a.s unwanted. There was also a general tendency for

the percent of births wanted later to decrease as

the age at marriage increased and for the percent

wanted then to increase as age at marriage

increased. These relationships for births that

were wanted then and wanted later are alscl seen

in the 1968 data. However, for unwanted births

the relationships were quite different in 1968

than in 1972. Indeed, in 1968 mothers most

likely to classify their birth as unwanted were

those married before age 18. The only significant

declines between 1968 and 1972 in the proportion of mothers who classified their birth as

unwanted were for those who were married

before age 18, at ages 19-20, and 21-22. These

declines were accompanied by increases in the

percent of births wanted then for these age-atmarriage groups.

Although table 3 shows some large differences by color in the percent of births unwanted,

many of these percents are based on relatively

small numbers of births and, therefore, have

large sampling errors. This is especially true for

all other births.

Duration of Marriage

Although no direct question was asked concerning premarital conception, the 1972 data

can be used to calculate the number of mcmths
between the date of the woman’s present marriage and the date of the present birth (table C).

When analysis is restricted to mothers who have

been married only once, it is seen that 12.5

percent of the first births occurred less than 8

months after marriage and probably were the

result of a premarital conception. These infants

were less likely than other births to be wanted

then, and more likely to have been wanted later.

For first births occurring within 8 months of

first marriage, 45.8 percent were wanted then,

and 53.4 percent were wanted later. By contrast,

of first infants born 12 or more months after

marriage 85.7 percent were wanted then and

13.0 percent were wanted later. There was no

significant difference in the proportion r.mwanted for these duration-of-marriage groups.

Three general patterns are seen in the 1972

data when longer durations of marriage and all

birth orders are examined. These data, for

women married one time, are shown in table 4.

The first pattern is that births occurring less

than 12 months after marriage were more likely

than those occurring 12-23 months after marriage to be wanted later (i.e., timing failures),

and were less likely to be wanted then. This is

primariIy a function of the incidence of premaritally conceived births within the

0-1 l-month category, because it was observed

only for first births. For first births, 48.3 percent occurring less than 12 months after marriage but only 18.6 percent occurring 12-23

months after marriage were timing failures. By

contrast, about half of the second order births

occurring both less than 12 months and 12-23

months after marriage were timing failures.

Similarly, among first order births 50.5 percent

of the births within 12 months after marriage

and 80.7 percent of those 12-23 months after

marriage were wanted then; among second order

births about half of the births in both groups

were wanted then.

The second major pattern in table 4 is that

after 3-4 years of marriage (36-47 months) the

longer the duration of marriage the greater the

probability that the birth was classified as unwanted. Although this tendency was present

within all birth order categories except the first

and fifth and higher, some of the differences for

specific birth orders were not significant.

The third pattern seen in table 4 is that for

first, second, and third order births the longer

the duration of marriage the less likely that the

birth was a timing failure. For second order

births in 1972, the percent of births that were

timing failures declined from about 50 percent

Table C. Estimated number of legitimate first births to women married once and percent distribution by wontedness status, by duration

of marriege and color of mother: United States, 1972 National Natality Survey

Color of mother and duration of marriage

Number of births Total

Wanted Wanted

(in thousands) then later Unwanted

Percent distribution

Total .......................... ............................................................ 1,001 100.0 74.3 24.5 1.3

0-7 months .................................................. ............... .................... ........ 125 100.0 45.8 53.4 0.8

8-11 months ................................................................................... ........ 201 100.0 53.4 45.1 1.5

12 months and over ..................................... ........................................... 676 100.0 85.7 13.0 1.3

White ............................... ...... ...................................................... 887 100.0 74.8 24.1 1.1

0-7 months .............................. .................... ..................... ...................... 108 100.0 45.6 53.9 0.5

8-11 months ........................................... .................... ............................ 175 100.0 54.1 44.2 1.7

12 months and over ..... .................................. ......................................... 604 100.0 86.1 12.9 1.0

All other .... .......................... ........................................................ 114 100.0 69.8 27.6 2.7

0-7 months ................................ ...... ....................................................... 17 100.0 46.6 50.3 3.1

8-11 months .............................................................. ............................. 26 100.0 49.0 51.0

12 months and over .... ............................................................................ 72 100.0 82.6 13.9 3.6

NOTE: Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding.

9
among births occurring less than 2 years after

marriage to only 4.1 percent among women

giving birth 14 years or more after marriage.

Education of Parents

The wontedness status of the birth in relation

to the educational attainment of each parent is

shown in tables 5 and 6 and figures 4 and 5.

Higher educational attainment of the father was

generally associated with a higher percent of

births wanted then and a lower percent of births

unwanted. In 1972, 53.6 percent of the births to

fathers with O-8 years of school were classified

by the mother as wanted then as compared with

71.9 percent for fathers with 4 or more years of

college. The percent of births unwanted was

15.9 percent for fathers with the lowest education, decreased to 4.6 percent for those with

some college, and then increased slightly to 7.2

percent for fathers who had completed 4 or

more years of college. Examined through time,

the likelihood of a birth being unwanted has

decreased significantly between 1968 and 1972

for all fathers except those with O-8 years of

school (figure 6), while the percent of births

wanted then increased for fathers with 9-11

through 13-15 years of school.

Similar patterns are present for the educational attainment of the mother. However, the

percent of births wanted then decreased from

the O-8- to 9-1 l-years-of-school category, and

80

[

80

r

80

WANTED THEN WANTED LATE R

[

UNWANTED

70

60 -

50 -

$

g 40

E

30

20 -

10

0

70 -

60 -

50 -

40 -

30 -

20

10

0 1

70

60 -

50

40 -

30 -

20 -

10

0 —

08 9.11 12 1315 16 and 0.8 911 12 1315 16 and 0.8 9.11 12 13.15 16 and

over over over

YEARS OF SCHOOL COMPLETED BY FATHER

Figure 4. Percent of legitimate live births by wontedness status, by educational attainment of father: United States, 1972 National

Natality Survey

10
80

70

60

50

+

z

: 40

2

30

20

10

0

WAN TED THEN

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

0+3 9.11 12 13-15 16 and

over

80

WANTED LATER

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

0.6 9.11 12 13.15 16 and

over

YEARS OF SCHDOL COMPLETED 6Y MOTHER

UNWANTED

0.6 9-11 12 13.15 16 and

over

Fiaure ..=—.-5.—..Percent of Ieaitimate live births by wontedness status, by educational attainment of mother: United State% 1972 National

Natality Survey

then increased to the highest education group.

In general, the higher the number of grades

completed by the mother the less likely it was

that the birth was classified as unwanted. When

birth order is controlled, the negative relationship between unwanted childbearing and the

mother’s education generally disappears. Between 1968 and 1972, unwanted childbearing

declined among mothers at all educational levels.

There were differences in unwanted childbearing between white and all other mothers in

the O-8-, 9-11- and 12-year categories of educational attainment in 1968. In 1972, the only

significant color difference was for mothers with

9-11 years of school completed.

Husband’s Income

Between 1968 and 1972, the percent of

births unwanted declined for all but the lowest

(under $2,000) income group (table 7). In 1968,

husband’s income was unrelated to whether the

birth was classified as unwanted. However, in

1972 the percent unwanted declined from the

under-$2,000 to the $2,000-$3,999 category

and then increased to the income groups $7,000

and over.

Husband’s income is inversely associated

with the proportion of births that were timing

failures. In 1972, 38.2 percent of births in the

lowest income category were wanted later as

11
30

[

I

20

t m.

❑ “68

~ ,,72

0-8 9.11 12 1315 16 and

over

YEARS OF SCHOOL COMPLETED ‘Y FATHER

30 r

20IFYI

0.8 911 12 13-15 16 and

over

YEARS OF SCHOOL COMPLETED BY MOTHER

Figure 6. Percent of legitimate live births unwanted, by educational attainment of father and of mother: United States,

1968 and 1972 National Natality Surveys

compared with only 17.8 percent in the highest

income category. Thus people in the lowest

income category were about twice as likely as

people in the highest category to experience a

timing failure.

The pattern of increase in the percent of

births unwanted with increasing income for total

and white mothers may be primarily a reflection

of differences in the duration of marriage.

Higher income groups have a longer duration of

marriage and, as we have already observed, after

3-4 years of marriage the proportion of births

unwanted rises with duration of marriage (table

4). Table 8 shows the percent of births unwanted by husband’s income within four

duration-of-marriage groups for women married

once. These data show no significant differences

in the percent unwanted for incomes of $2,000

or more for any duration-of-marriage category.

In fact the patterm, although not significant, is

toward a decrease rather than an increase in the

percent unwanted with higher income in each

duration-of-marriage category.

Religious Preference of Parents

The 1968 and 1969 surveys contained a question concerning the religious preference of each

parent. Differences in wontedness status by religious preference were minimal, with one exception. Jewish women were less likely than other

women to report their birth as unwanted or as

wanted later and were more likely to report it as

wanted then (table 9). This is shown by the Idata

on both the mother’s and the father’s religious

preference.

CHARACTERISTICS OF WANTED

AND UNWANTED BIRTHS

Previous sections of this report have focused

on the distribution of births by wontedness

status within specific groups such as live-birth

order, age of mother, and so on. In this section,

the births of a particular wontedness category

are described in terms of these other characteristics. For example, are mothers of unwanted

births older or younger than mothers of births

that are wanted then? Estimated numbers of

12
legitimate births and percent distributions by

selected characteristics are shown for each category of wontedness status in tables 10 and 11.

Color and Live-Birth Order

In each of the three survey years, about 90

percent of the births wanted then and about 85

percent of the births wanted later were to white

mothers. The percent of unwanted births to

white mothers increased from 80 percent in

1968 to 86 percent in 1972 reflecting the

greater decline in unwanted childbearing among

mothers of all other races. Unwanted births

were of higher birth order than births in the

other two wontedness categories. In 1972, 86

percent of the unwanted births were third and

higher order as compared with only 20 percent

of the births wanted then and 38 percent of the

births wanted later; this is also reflected in the

median birth orders of 4.3, 1.2, and 1.6, respective y. Since age of mother and live-birth order

are related, it is expected that mothers of unwanted births would be older on the average

than mothers of other births would be. Median

ages show that mothers of unwanted births were

4 to 5 years older on the average than mothers

in the other two categories.

Educational Attainment of Mother

Although there is little difference in the

median years of school completed by the

mother for the different categories of wontedness status, the percent distributions show that

mothers of unwanted births had somewhat

lower educational attainment than the other

groups of mothers had. While 30.0 percent of

the mothers of unwanted births had not completed high school, only 18.8 percent of mothers

whose births were wanted then were in this

educational group. In addition, only 5.7 percent

of the mothers of unwanted births had completed 16 or more years of school as compared

with 13.7 percent of the mothers of births that

were wanted then.

Income

Income data are often used as a measure of

socioeconomic status. The distributions of births

by husband’s income and median income shown

in tables 10 and 11 can be compared from one

wontedness category to another, but should not

be compared from one year to another because

the income data are not given in constant

dollars.

The data in table 11 show that the lowest

median income is associated with births that

were wanted later. This is consistent with the

fact that most births in this category occur to

young mothers, whose husbands are presumably

just beginning their careers.

The median income for fathers of—unwanted

births was as high in each survey year as for

fathers of births that were wanted then. The

mothers of unwanted births were considerably

older and their husbands were far closer to their

maximum earning power than were the mothers

of births wanted then. The data on income are

thus consistent with a lower socioeconomic

status for mothers of unwanted births than for

mothers of births wanted then, and the distributions of births by husband’s income are compatible with those by education.

EFFECT OF UNWANTED CHILDBEARING

ON POPULATION GROWTH

The number of unwanted legitimate births in

each year was quite large, ranging from 405,000

in 1968 to 234,000 in 1972. To what extent did

these unwanted births contribute to the Nation’s

population growth during these years? Table D

shows estimates of the population growth that

would have occurred if there had been no

unwanted legitimate live births in each year.

Under these conditions, the amount of population growth would have been reduced by 20.7

percent in 1968, 17.9 percent in 1969, and 14.5

percent in 1972.

Another way of looking at this question is to

estimate what proportion of the decline in the

birth rate between 1968 and 1972 can be attributed to changes in unwanted marital childbearing. The crude birth rate for the United States

declined from 17.5 births per 1,000 population

in 1968 to 15.6 in 1972, a change of 1.9 points.

If no unwanted legitimate births had occurred in

1968, the birth rate would have been 15.5, and

13
Table D. Effects of unwanted childbearing on population growth: United States, 1968, 1969, and 1972

[ Rates per 1,000 population]

#

Population growth Rates of population growth

Year With Without Percent With Without Percent

unwanted unwanted reduced unwanted unwanted

birthsl births birthsl births

reduced

1972 .................................................................................... .. 1,615,000 1,381,000 14.5 7.7

1969 .....................................................................................

6.6 14.3

2,089,000 1,716,000 17.9 10.3

1968 ......................................................................................

8.5 17.5

1,952,000 1,547,000 20.7 9.7 7.7 20.6

lBa5ed on components of change published by the U.S. Bureau of Census in Current pOpUkZtiOn Reports, series P-2$ No. 521,

Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, May 1974.

if no unwanted births had occurred in 1972 the

rate would have been 14.5. Thus, about half of

the reduction in the crude birth rate between

1968 and 1972 can be attributed to reductions

in unwanted marital childbearing and the other

half can be attributed to changes in other factors

including wanted (wanted then as well as wanted

later) legitimate births.

Because the data in this report do not represent the total childbearing experience of an

actual cohort of women as it passes through the

childbearing ages, it is not possible to determine

the effects of eliminating unwanted childbearing

upon actual completed family size. However, the

total fertility rate provides an estimate of completed family size (per 1,000 women) ifcurrent

levels of fertility and timing patterns persist and

ifthe mothers in the sample are representative

of all women in their birth cohorts.

Total fertility rates were computed with the

unwanted births excluded and compared with

the actual rates. In 1968, the adjusted total

fertility rate (excluding unwanted births) was 13

percent lower than the actual rate, 2,158 compared with 2,477. In 1972, when there were

fewer unwanted births, the difference was reduced to ‘8 percent (1,853 compared with

2,022). It should be emphasized that these rates

show the implications of current age-specific

00

levels of fertility for completed family size and

not actual or expected family size.

So far we have been discussing the effect of

number failures on rates of population change.

The demographic effect of timing failures is

more difficult to estimate since these are births

that were wanted, but at some other time. This

report has concentrated upon a subset of these

births, those that were wanted later rather than

earlier. In each year, the number of births

wanted later was substantially larger than the

number of unwanted legitimate births. In ;1972

there were about three times as many births

wanted later as there were unwanted births. The

demographic effect upon period fertility rates of

hypothetically postponing these births until

they are wanted is minimized by two considerations. First, any downward pressures on the

birth rate caused by the removal of this many

births from the numerator would be shortl[ived

and would last only until the postponed births

began to occur in subsequent years, when they

would exert upward pressures on the birth rate.

Second, the 1972 data indicate that 20.5 percent of the births were wanted at some earlier

time. Having these births at the time they were

wanted would, in turn, partially offset the effect

of the postponement of births that were wanted

later.

o

14
REFERENCES

IPresser, H. B.: Perfect fertility control: Consequences for women and the family, in C. F. Westoff, et

al., eds., Toward the End of Growth. Englewood Cliffs.

Prentice-Hall, 1973.

2Westof f, c. F.: The modernization of U.S. ~on~aceptive practice. Farn. Plann. Perspec. 4(3): 9-12, July

1972.

3National Center for Health Statistics: Contraceptive utilization among currently married women 15-44

years of age; United States, 1973, by Kathleen Ford.

Monthly Vital Statistics Report. Vol. 25, No. 7, Supp.

DHEW Pub. No. (HRA) 76-1120. Health Resources

Administration. Rockville, Md., Oct. 1976.

4Nation~ Center for Health Statistics: Replication,

an approach to the amdysis of data from complex surveys, by Philip J. McCarthy, Ph.D. Vital and Health Statzktics. PHS Pub. No. 1000-Series 2-No. 14. Public Health

Service. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office,

Apr. 1966.

5National Center for Health Statistics: Pseudoreplication-Further evaluation and application of the ba.lanced ha.lLsample technique, by Philip J. McCarthy,

Ph.D. Vital and Health Statistics. PHS Pub. No. 1000-

Series 2-No. 31. Public Health Service. Washington.

U.S. Government Printing Office, Jan. 1969.

15
1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

i’.

8.

9.

10.

11.

LIST OF

Estimated number of Ieaitimate live births and

DETAILED TABLES

~ercent distribution bv wontedness status. accordina to aae of mother.

live-birth order, and color of mother: United States, 1968, 1969, and 1972 National Natality Surveys . ..................................

--

Estimated number of legitimate live births and percent distribution by wontedness status, according to number of additional

births expected, live-birth order, and color of mother: United States, 1968, ‘f969, and 1972 National Natality Surveys ..........

Estimated number of legitimate live births and percent distribution by wontedness status, according to age at marriage and

color of mother: United States, 1968, 1969, and 1972 National Natality Surveys ...................................................................

Estimated number of legitimate live births to women married once and percent distribution by wontedness status, according

to color of mother, live-birth order, and duration of marriage: United States, 1972 National Natality Survey ........................

Estimated number of legitimate live births and percent distribution by wontedness status, according to educational attainment of father and color of mother: United States, 1968, 1969, and 1972 National Natality Surveys .....................................

Estimated number of legitimate live births and percent distribution by wontedness status, according to educational attainment of mother, live-birth order, and color of mother: United States, 1968, 1969, and 1972 National Natality Surveys .........

Estimated number of legitimate live births and percent distribution by wontedness status, according to husband’s income and

color of mother: United States, 1968, 1969, and 1972 National Natality Surveys ....................................................................

Estimated number of legitimate live births to women married once and percent distribution by wontedness status, according

to color of mother, duration of marriage, and husband’s income: United States, 1972 National Natality Survey ....................

Estimated number of legitimate live births and percent distribution by wontedness status, according to religious preference

of mother and of father: United States, 1968 and 1969 National Natality Surveys ............ ......................................................

Estimated number of legitimate live births, by wontedness status and selected characteristics: United States, 1968, 1969, and

1972 National Natality Surveys ................................................................................................................................................

Percent distribution of legitimate live births by selected characteristics, according to wontedness status: United States, 1968,

1969, and 1972 National Natality Surveys ............................................................................................... .................................

17

20

22

23

24

25

27

28

29

30

31

16
Table 1. Estimated number of legitimate live births and p+rcent distribution by wante

States, 1968, 1969, and 19X

..–—..——,.––...-,.. ,... —–, , .–.–..., . .. .

ss slaws, accoramg 10 age OT mouw, we-mm oraer, arm cow OT roomer: wmea

nional Natality Surveys

Age of mother, live birth order, and colm of mother

Wontedness status

Wanted then Wanted later I

Unwanted

Legitimate live births

1972 I 1969 I 1968 1972 1969 1968 1972 1969 1968 1972

I

1969 196a

Number in thousands Percent TOTAL

All ages ............................................. ................... 2,839 3,242

_

1,133

909

566

27o

365

431

326

81

24

101

88

12

“2

330

238

70

22

1,246

564

442

163

77

465

273

144

54

13

761

291

297

109

64

921

193

29o

245

91

100

409

38

z

79

127

236

1

12

26

40

37

121

3,176 64.5 62.8 59.4 27.2 25.7 27.9 8.2 11.5 12.7

_ . .

69.5

72.9

51.5

39.8

26.6

56.1

59.7

50.3

30.0

51.2

52.2

40.7

“57.3

57.9

1,036

951

435

202

214

419

1.125

651

497

310

393

456

350

75

31

122

106

12

“3

335

74.3

74.1

47.1

39.1

34.4

61.3

72.8

73.0

55.1

46.9

29.6

56.9

58.7

55.6

37.0

57.1

56.0

59.6

56.6

24.4

23.9

36.7

39.7

24.E

34.C

33.1

33.7

37.7

32.5

33.7

27.2

36.9

34.6

24.6

22.9

29.2

28.3

28.7

36.2

35.6

37.1

42.0

36.2

34.9

40.4

‘70.4

36.2

27.6

23.7

32.9

32.7

27.6

38.3

36.1

47.8

40.3

43.1

42.1

55.5

●28.2

36.5

1.3

2.0

16.1

21.1

41.1

4.6

—

2.3

0,9

21.0

2.6

0.6

20.2

5.7

2.6

4.0

15.7

24.7

41.6

6.8

5.7

7.1

21.0

6.7

7.1

“29.6

6.9

2.9

3.4

15.6

27.6

45.8

5.6

4.3

1.9

30.0

5.7

5.7

3.6

“14.5

5.6

Under 20 years .............. .................... .........................

252

104

63

125

—

80

31

14

294

64.7

65.3

41.3

64.9

65.6

72.6

43.0

59.8

172

73

50

1,037

244

63

26

1,193

64.2

62.2

40.9

66.1

58.9

55.2

40.4

67.3

62.9

52.3

26.6

63.o

32.8

36.5

38.0

29.6

35.8

36.5

39.4

26.9

33.4

46.3

41.7

30.2

3.0

1.3

21.2

4.3

5.2

8.4

20.2

5.8

3.7

1.5

31.7

20-24 years ........................................................ ......... 6.8

461

396

109

69

366

533

417

160

84

487

74.7

69.8

37.4

33.0

63.7

74.8

69.3

49.4

39.6

68.2

69.9

69.6

40.0

30.7

60.9

24.6

26.8

51.1

33.8

31.9

23.5

26.7

37.3

30.5

27.4

27.4

26.4

42.8

42.0

32.7

0.8

1.4

11.5

33.3

4.4

1.7

4.1

13.3

29.4

4.5

2.7

4.0

17.3

27.0

6.3

185

130

28

22

671

275

268

81

47

854

231

322

186

70

45

361

273

159

41

14

706

71.9

65.2

27.6

32.6

67,4

76.6

72.1

40.8

33.2

69.6

76.0

64.9

48.2

23.8

66.8

73.6

71.4

50.1

42.8

67.0

65.2

81.7

59.4

47.7

26.2

54.2

66.2

63.8

25.8

27.1

64.5

73.7

73.2

44.8

31.5

63.8

27.3

32.9

58.9

30.6

28.4

22.7

26.8

48.4

35.3

23.0

22.0

30.8

44.3

29.2

26.6

25.0

24.6

33.8

30.8

23.5

14.3

16.1

27.6

36.3

41.1

23.1

30.5

30.3

55.6

37.1

26.4

24.3

24.0

36.4

43.0

24.4

17.8

16.3

30.8

31.7

36.7

24.4

0.8

1,9

13.6

36.8

4.2

0.7

1,1

10.7

31.5

7.4

—

0.9

1.3

16.9

15.6

32.3

14.1

2.1

4.2

7.5

45.4

6.6

3.3

5.9

18.6

35.0

7.1

2.1

2.9

16.8

25.4

11.8

1.9

1.5

11.9

25.9

39.9

23.0

260

258

119

70

870

1.4

4.0

16.2

26.1

9.4

0.5

2.2

?2.9

16.1

32.7

22.8

25-29 years .................................................................

192

256

198

120

101

401

62.1

62.0

50.0

44.6

36.3

56.6

80,3

82.2

57.3

42.4

23.4

52.6

17.0

16.7

33.1

39.7

31.5

27.2

71

97

74

54

66

168

34

76

82

87

123

256

78.1

75.8

54.8

31.5

39.1

49.9

97.3

80.1

57.3

47.5

28,7

47.8

91.2

85.6

61.9

38.1

25.4

43.9

19.7

20.5

26.5

46.4

31.3

17.2

2.7

15.9

26.6

25.5

28.9

13.3

8.8

11.6

27.9

33.9

27.7

15.7

2.2

3.8

18.6

23.1

29.6

32,9

4.0

16.0

26.9

42.3

38.9

2.7

10.2

28.0

46.9

35 years and over ..................................... ................... 40.4

21

31

28

26

62

16

24

30

50

134

61.7

70.2

45.5

49.2

31.0

84.6

76.0

56.1

49.3

34.9

93.8

62.5

62.7

48.8

26.5

16.1

12.7

29.6

19.0

13.5

15.4

10.3

4.5

8.S

16.0

6.2

18.8

5.1

13.2

19.6

2.2

17.2

24.9

31.9

55.5

13.7

39.4

42.0

47.2

18.8

32.2

37.9

52.1

NOTE: I:igures may not add to totals due to rmmding.

17
Table 1. Estimated number of legmmate Iwe bjrths and percent dmr(button by wontedness status, accord(ng to age of mother, live-birth order, and color of mother United

States, 1968, 1969, and 1972 National Natality Survevs—Con.

Age of mother, lwe.birth order, and color of mother

Leg#t[mate live births

Wontedness status

Wanted then Wanted later Unwanted

1972 1969 1968 1972 1969 1966 1972 1969 1968 1972 1969 1968

White Number !n thousands

All ages .......................................... .... .. . . .....

Percent

2,504 2,844 2,774 26.4

.

24.1

22.7

35.8

39.8

22.0

32.9

65.6 24.8

.

74.9

75.2

47.8

38.0

35.1

63.0

65.1

_

74.1

74.5

57.2

47.6

32.1

59.6

61.3

70.3

74.8

52.4

41.2

28.2

57.8

27.1 6.1 1o.: 11.6

. .

920

648

390

174

173

355

1,033

817

49C

232

27i

365

1,015

757

427

272

304

376

23.6

21.6

28.5

27.8

28.3

34.3

27.0

22.3

33.0

31.6

26.9

37.4

1,1

2.C

16.4

21.2

42.g

4.1

2.:

3.7

14.:

24.6

39.E

6.1

2.8

3.0

14.6

27.0

44.9

4.9

222

63

50

106

71

24

13

247

26E

66

li

84

303

54

18

99

65.5

68.6

42.4

65.6

60.7

57.4

46.8

61.9

60.7

49.2

35.0

52.0

32.9

30.1

37.6

31.3

33.6

33.7

46.0

33.1

35.2

49.2

39.8

42.5

1.E

1.1

20.C

3.1

5.4

8.7

6.5

4.9

4.2

1.7

25.1

Under 18 years ................... .................................. 5.5

73

10

‘1

281

90

“6

“2

277

66.2

76.2

42.5

61.9

63.1

58.3

58.9

59.9

57.3

50.0

69.4

52.6

●42.9

“50,0

59.8

33.1

23.8

35.6

33.6

—

32,8

32.7

38.3

29.4

31.2

41.7

“100.0

34.6

34.8

32.4

42.2

25.9

41.3

“57.1

“50.0

35.6

32.5

48,1

38.8

29.9

0.7

21.9

4.6

2.0

1.6

19.3

4.0

5.7

6.4

5.4

10.3

6.9

4.6

6.0

4.6

3,4

1.9

27.9

5.4

151

59

38

920

213

56

12

1,103

213

4s

16

1,056

65.2

65.7

42.4

66.7

64.o

50.0

33.3

20-24 years ..... .................................. ....................... 64.7

412

360

93

56

314

522

394

126

59

424

490

375

132

59

427

246

140

33

‘6

629

74.9

69.7

37.4

34.5

64.4

72.4

65.0

29.3

34.4

67.6

75.6

70.5

51.5

44.4

70.0

76.8

65.7

51.3

‘27.5

69,0

70.4

71.4

38.7

32.1

62.5

66.8

66.0

23.5

‘1 5.5

66.2

24.4

28.9

50.8

33.5

31.2

22.9

25.7

36.9

31.1

26.9

27.1

25.2

45,8

46.4

32.7

30.6

28.6

59.2

“46.3

27.9

0.7

1.3

11.9

32.0

4.4

1.4

3,8

11,6

24.0

3.1

2.4

3.4

15.5

20.8

— 4.8

162

111

23

16

606

250

249

70

37

771

249

122

44

‘8

679

27.0

33.3

54.1

26.1

28.4

21.6

30.6

43.5

“42.5

25.4

0.6

1.7

16.6

39.5

3.7

1.6

3.6

5.2

“27.5

5.6

2.6

4.5

17.3

‘34.5

5.9

272

272

84

51

622

242

234

99

53

773

76.6

71.9

40.0

34.5

70,4

74.9

72,7

51.5

47.0

69.0

74.2

74.7

43.7

34.0

65.9

22.7

26.9

49.7

37.1

22.1

24.0

23.6

33.4

29.3

23.2

23.6

22.6

41.4

46.2

23.5

0.8

1.2

10.3

28.4

7.6

1.1

3.8

15.1

23.4

7.8

2.2

2.7

14.9

19.3

10.6

206

292

174

61

36

314

60

66

68

46

53

144

18

27

25

23

51

176

268

227

76

71

354

35

64

87

71

98

200

176

238

176

109

72

350

83,0

83,5

49.7

45.0

34.0

59.9

85.3

83.0

60.3

46,3

28.2

56.3

80,4

83.2

58.5

42,7

26.7

54.2

16.3

15.5

32.8

38.6

29.6

25.6

14.1

15.5

27.8

37.8

44.5

21.9

17.6

15.5

29.5

31.6

36.8

23.2

0.8

1.0

17.5

16.4

36.5

14.5

0.6

1.5

11.9

15.9

27.5

21.8

2.0

1.2

11.9

25.5

36.8

22.6

30

67

76

76

99

219

16

22

26

47

109

78.6

77.6

56.6

31,6

39.6

51.4

83.9

71.9

46.1

46.7

33.6

97.1

80.6

58.3

47.2

30.7

50.8

84.6

75.0

57.5

50.0

37.7

93.1

87.6

61.1

38.7

26.9

46.0

93.4

63.6

64.0

52.1

28.9

19,5

18.1

23.8

46.2

28.2

16.0

2.9

16.1

25.9

23.6

27.6

12.1

15.4

10.7

5.0

7.9

16.4

6.9

9.3

28.4

31.5

26.9

14.7

6.6

18.2

4.0

13.0

18.4

1.9

4.2

19.7

22.2

32.0

32.6

3.2

15.6

29.2

41.8

37.1

3.1

10.5

29.7

46.2

35 years and over ........ ....... . . . . . . . . 39.2 —

12

25

36

:

13.5

10.5

30.7

19.3

11.2

2.7

17.6

23.3

34.0

55.1

14.3

37,5

42.1

45.9

18.2

32.0

34.9

52.7

NOTE: Figures may not add to totals due to rou”dmg.

18
Table 1. Estimated number of legitimate Iwe brrths and percent distributmn by wontedness status, according to age of mother, Iivt?.birth .arder, and color of mother: United

States, 1988, 1969, and 1972 National Natality Surveys-Con.

Wontedness status

Legmimate live births

Wanted then I Wanted later I Unwanted

1972 I 1969 I 1968 1972 I 1969 I 1968 I 1972 I 1969 ] 1966 I 1972 I 196S I 1968

335 398 402 33.7 =4= 56.9 46.3 46.1 9.5 21.2 20.5

- . _ .

116

103

46

28

41

64

100

92

76

36

93

66

110

94

70

38

89

61

69.4

64.4

41.6

39.7

31.3

51.6

59.7

60.2

42.1

42.6

23.o

42.o

62.2

58.5

46.5

29.4

20.9

48.5

27.5

33.6

44.6

39.5

35.1

39.9

34.7

33.0

33.4

35.2

32.5

38.9

29.8

3.1

2.1

13.8

20.8

33.6

8.3

5.6

6.8

24.6

25.8

47.4

11.1

4.4

6.3

22.0

31.7

49.3

9.1

33.4

31.6

29.6

46.8 42.4

30

34

17

.

“9

“8

47

40

26

17

47

34

23

58.3

45.9

60.2

44.2

36.6

33.5

53.3

41.6

48.0

34.8

44.4

39.8

48.o

45.2

42.o

42.8

6.9

9.6

7.8

16.0

15.3

4.9

15.3

51.2 45.6 6.5

14

‘3

49

25

23

143

16

“8

58

—

31

26

137

“61 .3

“ 59.0

48.6

57.0

41.9

61.6

32.1

‘40.0

45.1

51.2

38.6

51.3

50.0

‘44.0

48.6

55.0

40.9

50.1

‘38.7

●41 .0

39.9

33.0

45.5

31.6

53.6

+40.0

46.4

“44.0

14.3

“20.0

9.5

4.1

15.5

14.6

3.6

‘ 13.3

10.3

5.4

15.9

17.5

,.

11.4

10.0

12.6

6.7

45.3

44.7

45.9

41,1

39.6

42.4

.

21

26

116 34.1 32.4

49

38

30

52

42

47

53

61

24

22

15

82

42

42

53

60

—

25

19

16

77

72.8

70.7

32.7

59.6

68.9

66.7

●21 .9

63.5

62.2

58.6

36.0

55.4

67.4

60.5

29.6

48.1

63.0

53.1

37.3

49.5

60.4

47.2

35.6

50.5

26.1

27.9

45.0

36.3

28.9

30.5

“66.7

27.7

31.7

34.9

35.0

30.8

37.2

30.1

1.1

1.4

22.3

4.1

2.2

2.8

●11.3

8.8

5.9

6.3

28.3

13.9

6.2

9.7

32.8

17.5

10.4

16.7

29.4

17.5

30.7

26.1

33.0

29.2

—

24

19

“9

84

6.5

7.0

34.9

15.2

32.5 36.1

34.9 35.6

36.7 32.o

76.5

74.8

37.6

62.1

55.6

57.0

38.5

50.6

66.7

57.9

38.1

46.9

23.5

25.2

35.1

32.o

36.9

36.8

35.1

33.3

37.8

27.7

5.6

6.1

25.7

23.1

25

19

21

82

19

25

38

98

17

23

36

97

27.4

5,8

4.3

34.2

26.3 31.9 21.1

23

30

13

17

47

15

23

18

43

55

17

%

40

50

73.8

67.2

54.1

43.9

50.5

83.9

65.9

48.6

31.7

40.5

80.0

70.4

46.5

21.7

40.9

23.8

29.2

37.6

43.6

38.2

16.1 20,0

23.5 25.4

25.5 41.9

2.4

3.6

8.3

12.5

11.3

10.7

25.7

36.6

28.7

4.2

11.6

43.1

25.9

31,5 35.2

11

11

“6

19

24

●4

●6

●8

38

35

“1

“4

30

“4

“9

‘6

32

36

—

“1

●2

●5

29

—

75.2

61.4

●35.7

34.7

41.3

“71 .4

●57.1

“40.0

29.6

‘ 100.0

“75.0

●45.5

28,6

30.8

“1OO.O

“42.9

26.6

“75.0

“71.4

’71.4

22.2

31.4

“1OO.O

“50.0

●55.6

23.7

20.8

38.6

●57.1

42.0

23.9

“28.6

“28.6

“20.0

22.2

‘ 25.0

‘1 2.5 ‘28.6

“36.4 “21.4

35.2 37.7

4.0

●7.1

23.3

34.8

“ 14.3

“40.0

46.1

●12.5

●18.2

36.o

49.2

“57.1

49.8

‘7.1

40.2

47.1

“25.0

“33.3

52.6 *

20.0 21.4

“25.0

“11.1

23.0 23.7

●4

●4

“3

14

19
Table 2. Estimated number of Iegmmate IIve b,rths and percent dlstr!button by wantednes$ status, accord!ng to number of addmonal births expected, live-birth order, and

color of mother Unmed States. 1968, 1969. d 1972 National Natal)ty Surveys

Legmmate live b!rths

Wontedness status

Wanted then I Wanted later Unwanted

Number of additional b!rths expected, Iwe.

birth order, and color of mother

V_kE_.k

Number in thousands

1972 1969 1968 1972 1969 1968 1972 1969 1968

Percant

!,839 1,176

.

I ,347

1,829

872

604

234

119

1,125

106

[ ,020

368

371

197

83

851

64.6 62.8 59.4 27.2 25,7 27.9 8.2

.

16.2

1,8

2.3

0.7

1.6

3.7

1.3

4.1

0.9

1.1

0.2

0.7

3.7

2.0

1,242 11.5 12.7

,354

,486

906

422

100

57

,036

138

898

516

278

73

31

951

,477

1,765

964

514

190

97

1,133

115

1,o18

479

325

159

56

909

56.3

72.0

70.6

74.0

75.5

72.8

74.3

69.3

75.0

74.2

76.5

75.4

75.5

74.1

53.9

70.3

70.1

71.0

70.4

67.7

72.8

6s.1

73.3

74.7

71.9

71.3

76.0

73,0

48.9

67.1

65.5

68.3

58.9

69.2

69.5

63.1

70.1

71.1

66.6

70.s

71.1

72,9

28.4

26.2

27.1

25.3

22.9

23.5

24.4

26.7

24.1

24.7

23.3

23.9

20.8

23.9

25.0

26,3

26.o

26.2

25.0

31.4

24.6

26.2

29.1

29,4

29.4

28.1

27.5

27.6

28.5

27.5

26.1

29.8

26.5

26.1

23.7

21,1

3.5

3.9

2.7

4.6

1.0

2.6

4.5

2.4

1.8

2.7

4.2

4.0

24.9

3.8

5.2

2.3

2.9

3.3

2.9

—

8.4

2.4

2.8

1.6

2.7

2.8

3.4

27.4

24.3

23.5

25.4

24.5

24.0

22.9

539

412

260

113

20

19

435

467

441

264

136

19

21

666

396

170

131

22

16

635

378

473

275

156

22

21

497

74.9

72.9

70.3

77.0

60.7

76.9

47.1

72.2

73.9

74.2

75.5

63.4

69.7

55.1

74,1

72.0

70.7

74.3

73.8

71.2

51.5

21.9

26.5

28.9

23.0

19.3

20.7

36.7

22.1

23.8

24,0

22.0

27.3

30,3

29.2

20.1

26.6

28.0

24.1

23.8

28.8

32.9

3.1

0.6

0.8

2,5

16.1

5.7

2.2

1.8

2.5

9,4

15.7

5.6

1.4

1.3

1.6

2.4

15.6

334

101

76

17

“8

417

320

177

127

36

12

703

44.5

56.0

59.4

40.7

“56.2

36.7

50.8

65.3

64.8

66.8

67.1

37.0

50.8

52.7

54.3

52.5

35.3

32.4

37.1

35.6

32.8

47.4

‘37.7

31.9

29.2

29.0

29.3

29.1

26.2

28.5

29,8

38.5

36.0

42.5

52.1

29.8

18.5

8.4

7.8

11.9

‘6.1

31.4

20,0

5.7

5.9

4.1

5.5

34.4

19.4

8.8

9.7

5.0

11.6

37.8

343

74

53

21

?,504

=

I ,197

I ,307

795

375

87

49

920

499

136

90

46

2,844

.

1,274

1,570

847

466

171

86

1,033

544

159

102

58

2,774

.

1,157

1,617

749

546

214

108

1,015

33.4

51.7

53,8

46.5

65.6

_

57.4

73.1

71.4

75.4

77.9

72.9

74.9

35.8

41.5

41.2

42,3

65.1

.

56.4

72.2

72.2

72.1

71.7

72.5

74.1

27.5

49.0

44.8

56.3

61,3

.

51,6

68.2

66.9

696

88.1

89.4

70,3

31.0

36.4

32.8

45.9

26.4

.

27.5

25,3

26.6

23.9

21.5

22.9

24,1

23.9

45.4

40.3

55.3

24.8

24.4

25.0

24.8

25.3

24.2

27.5

23.6

27.9

36.3

36.6

35.8

27.1

=

25.1

28.5

28.6

28.4

28.2

27.8

27.0

35.6

11.8

13.5

7.7

8.1

15.1

1.6

2.0

0.7

0.6

4.2

1.1

40.3

13.0

18.5

2.2

10.2

.

19.2

2.8

2.9

2.6

4.1

2.3

44.6

14.6

18.6

7.6

11.6

23.3

3.3

4.5

2.0

2.7

2.7

2.8

109

811

468

252

64

26

846

99

934

439

300

144

51

817

95

920

320

343

180

77

757

72.2

75.2

73.6

77.3

78.6

76.8

75.2

75.7

74.6

72.3

79.0

77.8

75.5

70.2

74.5

75.5

72.4

73.0

81.9

74.5

64.4

70.9

71.7

69.9

70.8

71.8

74.8

76.3

73.5

72.3

75.1

75.6

74.2

25,1

23,9

25.4

22.5

20.8

18.9

22.7

26.7

23.3

22.9

24,8

23.4

18.1

21.8

26.2

27.0

25.8

28.7

26.5

26.0

22.3

2.7

.8

1.0

0.2

0,8

4.3

2.0

3.1

2.2

1.6

2.7

3.6

3.7

9.3

2.1

2.4

1.4

2.7

2.4

3.0

5.1

1,3

1.3

1.6

497

352

218

98

18

78

427

390

232

123

16

17

341

416

238

137

21

19

73.3

75.8

75.8

77.1

64.0

78.4

21.2

24.8

27.0

21.0

22.2

21.9

21.5

22.2

22.8

20.5

26.1

21.6

18.6

25.2

26.3

23.3

24.4

25,8

3,1 5.2

0.6 , 2.1

0.7 1,4

2.4

9.9

2.6 -

20
Table 2. Estimated number of legitimate live births and percent distrlbutmn by wontedness status, according to number of additional btrths expected, Iwe+lrth order, and

color of mother: Unmed States, 1968, 196S, and 1972 National Natallty Surveys–Con.

Wontedness status

Legmmate live births

1972 1969 1968

Number of additional births expected, lwe.

birth order, and color of mother Wanted then Wanted later Unwanted

1972 1969 1968 1972 1969 1968 1972 1969 1968

Number In thousands Percent

390 490 427 47.8 57.2 52.4 35.8 28.5 33.0 16,4 14.3 14.6

300

90

69

14

“7

347

292

55

41

74

335

.

156

179

111

47

13

“7

116

347

143

110

19

14

504

401

103

66

37

398

279

148

106

32

10

576

442

134

84

50

402

44.7

58.0

60.9

44.4

“57.3

37.1

33.6

55.3

59.1

44.6

56.9

52.4

68.8

69.0

58.4

67.6

39.2

38.5

42.2

43.4

39.8

46.3

52.0

53.3

54.8

55.1

30.2

34.4

29.5

50.5

48.1

54.4

46.1

36.0

35.0

32.8

45.1

‘35.7

30.9

—

30.4

33.6

27.2

51.9

33.7

28.7

28.1

27.0

31.6

31.6

28.1

23.2

47.1

41.4

57.5

32.6

29,9

38.7

36.8

38.9

59.4

29.2

26.9

36,8

35.4

39.2

33.4

19.2

7.0

6.3

10.4

‘7.0

32.0

35.9

11.1

13.7

3.5

9.5

18.9

3.0

3.9

32,7

—

38.3

10.8

15.2

2.7

21.2

18.1

8,0

8,4

6.0

9.4

36.4

43.6

12.5

16.5

6.0

20.5

203

195

117

48

19

12

100

190

212

123

58

20

?1

110

48.3

64.3

64.9

63,0

59,6

‘72,7

69.4

37.9

55.0

54.5

60.3

59.1

33.4

59.7

32.6

58.2

66.8

56.5

67.2

56.8

62.2

35.4

32.1

30.9

35.8

32.2

‘27,3

27.5

29.2

36.1

34.4

35,7

32.6

60.5

34.7

32.8

33.9

33.8

38.3

27.4

“24.1

33.4

16.3

3.5

4.3

1.1

8.2

3,1

32.9

8.9

11,1

4.0

8.3

8.2

5.6

34.6

7.9

9.4

5.2

5.4

9.1

4.4

29

88

49

25

“9

“5

103

16

84

40

25

15

‘5

92

40

51

33

13

●6

76

49

27

21

‘3

‘3

130

11

100

48

28

17

“6

94

37

58

36

20

“2

70

58.1

73.1

79.6

68.9

“52.3

“58.8

64.4

65.9

63.3

59.9

63.9

‘1OO.O

41.6

42.0

40.5

“46.1

‘20.2

“49,0

34.8

55.2

60.5

65.5

65.1

54,8

‘11.2

60.2

60.9

59.6

62.9

60.0

‘40.4

42,1

39,5

46.3

42.5

“57.7

“64,3

28.6

51.6

63.3

67.0

52.7

70.6

‘63.5

68.5

53.9

61.5

59.6

68,6

‘25,0

45.5

42.2

50.2

52.0

“39.1

‘62.5

23.4

32.7

25.8

18.5

31.1

“47.7

’31.2

33,6

32.0

35.2

30.7

32,8

34,6

“88.8

33.0

28.5

36.3

32.6

36.2

“57.9

33.4

33.1

33.7

41.2

“14.1

30.2

48.4

31.8

27.5

43.5

26.1

‘27.7

35.2

33,8

36.1

39.0

29,2

“50,0

32.5

29.2

37.3

31.9

“60.9

“20.8

32.5

S.2

1.1

2.0

2.1

3.8

.9

1.3

13.8

12.1

18.9

‘21.0

‘20.1

28,4

12.8

4.2

3.9

2.1

10.5

6.8

10.5

3.9

4.5

3.8

24.6

—

27,4

19.3

16.4

‘28.2

’321

41,2

4.9

5.6

3.8

3.3

‘8,8

6.3

12.3

2.4

1.4

2.2

‘25.0

22.0

—

28.6

13.2

16,1

“20,6

44.1

43

61

42

15

“4

46

34

11

“8

“3

‘1

70

30.3

35.8

38.8

36.1

44.6

40

30

21

“6

‘2

127

46,0

40.6

‘32.9

‘59.7

“51 .0

36.9

51

19

13

‘6

98

32

23

“9

102

25

18

‘8

32.3

41.4

36.6

“50.8

24.9

39.6

34.9

“52,6

19,2

40,9

29.0

“58.4

34.0

44.5

50.7

‘32.2

27.0

39.9

37,3

.47.2

32,3

33.7

42.5

“13.2

33.7

14.1

12.7

‘17.0

46.1

20.1

27.8

48.6

25.8

28.4

‘19.7

21
Table 3. Esnmated number of legitimate Iwe births and percent dis

19

. . .. ... .... J--- . . ---.. J,.- .- .-. . . —-..,... --- .-, .-. . —- . . . . . , ,-: . . . . . . . . . .,. -”

..r, on w w.nw.me55 m

and 1972 National Nata

Leg!tlmate Iwe b!rths

~

Number In thousands

>,Wx”ru,, ,g ,0 age a, ,,,iirr,ag. W,a .“,0, 0, ,,,”,,,.,; “r,, wa >,.,.>, ,mm,

, Surveys

Wontedness status

Wanted then Wanted later Unwanted

1972 1969 1968 1972 1969 1968 1972 1969 1968

Age at marriage and color of mother

Percent

3,242

_

760

497

924

585

26o

184

32

2,844

647

437

828

526

224

157

26

398

113

60

96

59

37

28

“5

3,176 27.9

.

30.5

31.4

27.4

25.6

26.4

21,9

15.5

27.1

2,839 64.5 62.8 59,4 27.2 25.7 8.2 11.5 12.7

_ .. . .

560

462

824

544

250

161

38

2,504

792

464

892

555

246

176

51

2,774

57.0

61.5

65,3

69,9

66,5

74.3

63.2

65.6

6s.0

59.9

64.4

64.4

69.0

66,6

74.7

65.1

51.3

5s.3

60.2

64.0

64.7

67.3

75.4

61,3

33,4

29.6

26.2

24.o

26.8

18.0

19.2

26.4

25.5

2S.5

25.2

27.6

21.3

23.6

16.2

24.8

9.6

9.0

8.5

6.1

6.7

7.7

17.6

8.1

16.6

11.6

10.4

8.0

9.7

9.8

9.1

10.2

18.2

10.2

12.4

10.4

8.9

10.8

9,1

11.6

58.6

62.8

65.5

71.3

66.2

77,2

66.9

56.9

53.9

59.7

62.4

64.9

65.3

69.5

79.9

46.1

32.5

28.3

26.1

22.8

26.6

14.9

16.1

33.7

23.6

27.4

24.1

27.1

21,6

23.9

14.7

32.6

8.9

8.9

8.4

5.9

7.2

7.9

17.0

9.5

493

405

733

486

219

138

31

335

67

57

91

58

31

24

“7

661

410

795

497

223

149

40

402

62.2

62.0

66.3

65.9

70.8

66.1

78.4

46.3

29.1

31.1

26.7

25.2

25.8

20.8

15.1

33.4

14.2

10.6

9.6

7.1

7.6

10.0

6,8

21,2

17.0

9.2

10.9

10.0

8.9

9.7

5.0

20.5

131

55

96

58

24

27

11

45.2

52.1

63.9

58.7

68.7

57.4

‘47.2

33.6

44.4

47.8

51.0

58.0

68.1

‘56.5

38.1

48.0

42.2

56.8

59.8

55.1

58.9

40.4

38.6

26.6

34.2

28.2

35.7

‘32.4

36.o

36.1

34.9

32.4

19.6

21.9

●23,2

37.7

34.2

33.2

29.4

32.0

27.9

17.0

14.4

9.3

9.5

7.2

3.1

6.9

“20,4

30.4

19.4

17.3

16.6

22.4

9.0

‘20.2

24.1

17.8

24.6

13.8

8.2

16.9

24.2

NOTE: Figures may not add to totals due to rmmding.

22
Table 4. Eetimated number of legitimate live births to women married 9nce and percent distribution by wantadness status, according to color of mother, Iivetirth

order, and duration of marriage: United States, 1972 National NetaliW Survey

Total

=

Percent distributmn

White

=

Percant distribution

All other

Live-birth order and

duration of marriage

Legitimate live

births in

:housands

2,802

Legitimate live

births In

housands

2290

Legitimate Iiva

births in

thousands

311

!d-Elkk Percent distribution

All orders ..... ....... .. 65.3 27.1 7.5 66.4 26.2 7.4 57.4 34.0 6.7

0-11 months ... ....... ................

12-23 months . ............ .......... .

24-35 months ........... .............

36-47 months ...... .......... ..... ...

48-107 months ................... ...

108-167 months, .............. .....

168 months and over ... .. ........

363

297

308

302

920

278

133

1,001

50.9

70.8

72.3

78.1

69.5

54.8

40.3

74.3

47.8

27.5

25.4

20.4

23.5

25.5

18.3

24.5

1.3

1.7

2.3

1.5

7.0

19.8

41.4

1.3

31.0

255

273

272

818

247

116

887

51.7

73.8

72.8

78.7

70.5

55.1

40.8

74.8

47.0

25.4

25.0

19.8

22.6

24.6

17.7

24.1

1.3

0.8

2.2

;:;

20.2

41.5

1.1

53

42

35

31

102

31

17

114

46.5

53.0

66.3

73.0

61.5

51.9

37.0

69.8

52.5

39.7

28.6

25.2

28.9

32.1

22.3

27.6

1.0

7.3

3.1

::;

16.0

40.7

2.7

1.2

4.2

4.1

4.7

2.2

First child ........... ........

0-11 months .. .......... ..... .........

12-23 months ............. ....... ....

24-35 months ... ..... ................

3647 months ...... ..... .............

48-107 months .. ....... ..... ........

108-167 months ............ ..... ...

168 months and over ... ....... .. .

325

223

167

114

156

13

‘3

676

50.5

80.7

84.0

91.7

89.4

96.2

‘84.4

74.6

48.3

18.6

13.2

8.3

9.0

3.8

“15.6

23.9

1.2

0.7

2.8

1,6

1.5

283

198

154

102

135

13

“2

777

50.8

81.1

64.4

92.3

89.7

96.0

●81 .0

76.0

47.9

18.7

12.9

7.7

9.2

4.0

+19.0

22.5

12

0.3

2.7

1.1

1.5

42

25

13

12

21

●1

99

48.1

77.5

79.1

86.7

87.6

●1OO.O

63.5

50.7

18.3

16.8

13.3

7.7

Second child ..... ..... ..... 34.4

0.11 months .. ..... ...................

12-23 months .................... ....

24-35 months ... ..... .. ...... ........

36-$7 months ...... ..... .............

46-107 months ......... .. ..... ......

108-167 months .. ....... ..... ..... .

168 months and over .............

27

66

128

153

443

46

12

367

11

10

29

230

69

17

169

50.8

43.3

60.0

76.2

82.9

87.8

79.9

45.6

36.7

43.8

40.6

44.6

49.4

51.3

39.8

49.2

53.7

38.9

22.8

16.1

7.8

4.1

37.6

51.6

56.2

49.3

40.2

29.4

5.7

40.1

20

53

109

139

403

41

12

346

16

26

205

84

14

143

56.5

49.4

59.1

76.5

83.7

86.4

79.0

46.4

43.5

47.9

40.0

22j8

15.3

8.7

4.3

36.5

51.9

46.3

39.5

28.2

6.9

40.5

‘8

13

20

13

40

●5

42

“35.8

19.3

64.7

73.3

74.8

‘1 OO.O

38.2

●64.2

76.7

32.6

22.7

23.9

46.6

3.0

1.2

1.0

1.0

4.4

16.0

16,9

2.7

0.9

0.7

1.0

4.9

16.7

17.1

3.2

11.0

14.9

21.5

48.6

20.0

4.0

2.8

4.0

1.3

Third child ... .......... ..... 15.2

0-23 months ............ .......... .. ..

24-35 months .......... ....... ..... ..

3647 months ........................

48-107 months ........ ..... .........

108-167 months ....... .............

188 months and over ..... ........

9.8

10.0

15.1

21.2

43.1

20.2

45.0

42.7

45.6

50.3

44.5

39.5

“8

25

●9

25

“26.1

36.9

● 53.0

41.1

“66.5

48.3

“29.8

37.7

“7.3

16.9

“17.2

Fourth child . ..... ..... .... 21.2

047 months ....................... ...

48-107 months ....... ...............

108-167 months .. .......... ..... ...

168 months and over ........ .....

●7

66

71

24

169

10

23

59

77

● 24.5

37.6

42.1

43.3

35:4

73.7

20.6

43.2

28.9

“80.6

43.6

37.6

31.8

23.0

16.2

36.7

23.6

19.4

●14.9

18.9

20.3

24.9

41.6

●2

56

62

23

138

“20.7

37.0

41.3

43.0

36.3

●79 .3

45.6

37.9

30.9

20.1

‘4

12

10

31

●26.8

40.1

48.1

31.2

’49.3

33.9

37.4

36.2

“23.8

26.0

14.4

32.6

17.4

20.6

26.o

Fifth child and over .. .. 43.6

0+7 months ....... ..... ..... .........

48-107 months .................... ..

108-167 months . ..... ..... .........

168 months and over .............

10.1

42.7

33.2

51.7

‘7

19

48

65

●75.9

22.5

43.7

30.6

“9.3

30.7

20.4

17.9

“14.8

46.7

35.9

51.3

“7

12

12

●36.1

41.1

18.2

“49 .4

36.5

27.6

“14.5

22.3

54.2

NOTE: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding

23
Table 5. Estimated number of legitimate live births and percent dmt

States, 1!

Years of school completed by father

and color of mother

according to educational attainment of father and color of mother: United

datality Surveys

Wontedness status

Warned then Wanted later Unwanted

1972

I

1969 1968 1972 1969 1968 1972 1989 1968

man by wontedness stat

, 1969, and 1972 Nation

Legmmate Iwe births

1972 ] 1969 I 1968

Number In thousands Percent

2“83’ =4= 27.2

_

30.5

33.3

27.5

28.1

20.9

26.4

25,7

_

29.7

27.9

24.1

28.6

22.3

24,6

59.4

50.5

50.9

61.6

62.4

69.6

61.3

27.9

=

30.9

31.2

27.7

30.0

18.8

27.1

8.2

.

15,9

11.0

8.o

4.6

7.2

8.1

11.5

—

19.7

15.7

10.6

9.9

5.9

10.2

12.7

.

18.7

17.8

10.7

7.6

11.6

11.6

64.5

53.6

56.7

64.4

67.4

71.9

65.6

62.8

.

54).6

56,5

65.2

61.5

71.8

65.1

183

405

1,188

469

595

2,504

:

346 397

584 626

1,224 1,196

480 501

608 456

2,844 2,774

272 320

474 518

1,080 1,055

440 446

579 432

398 402

74 77

110 108

144 141

40 52

29 24

136

349

1,036

430

551

335

46

55

152

39

44

54,6

57.6

65.4

67.5

72.2

56.9

50.5

43.9

57.7

66.3

66.3

54.7

59.3

67.4

63.2

71.9

46.3

35.5

44.5

49.3

43.6

69.6

54.7

52.4

63.6

63.1

69.4

46.1

32.8

43.7

46.7

56.9

73.3

—

29.o

31.8

26.7

28.1

20.3

33.7

35.3

42.6

33.1

27.4

28.2

29.5

25.9

23.0

27.9

22.4

32.6

30.1

36,4

32.4

35.4

20.4

30.0

31.0

26.5

29.6

19.1

33.4

34.6

32.4

36.6

33.9

14.0

16.4

10.6

7.9

4.4

7.5

8.5

14.2

13.5

9.2

6.3

3.5

15.7

14.9

9.6

8.9

5.7

21.2

15.3

16.6

9.9

7.4

11.5

20.5

34.3

19.1

18.3

21,0

9.3

32.6

23.9

16.7

9.2

12.7

—

24
Table 6. Estimated number of Iegttimate live births and percent distributmn bv wontedness status, according tO educational attainment of mother, live-birth order, and color

of mother: United States. 1968.1968. and 1972 National Natalitv Survevs

Wontedness status

Legitimate live births

~

Number in thousands

Years of school completed by mother, live.

birth order, and col.m of mother Wanted then Wanted later Unwanted

1972 1969 1968 1972 1969 1968 1972 1969 1966

Percent

2,639

.

124

481

1,355

543

336

1.887

3.242 3,176 64.5 62.8 59.4 27.2 25.7 8.2 11.5 12.7

. -

296

716

1,421

463

324

2,042

127

368

955

350

242

635

287

725

I ,434

452

276

1,976

63.7

55.2

65.5

842

74.9

74.2

55.4

56.1

63.7

67.8

72.9

72.9

45,6

53.0

62.o

62.5

71.4

71.0

23.2

33.6

27.2

26.5

21.2

24.2

26.5

27.0

26.0

26.3

20.1

23.9

33.s

29.c

28.c

25.5

22.1

25.9

13.0

11.2

7.4

9.3

4.0

1.6

18.1

16.9

10.3

5.9

7.1

3.2

20.6

16.0

10.0

12.0

6.5

3.1

65

297

994

357

274

638

—

35

117

260

152

53

214

115

391

932

336

203

806

85

217

366

77

60

393

76.7

65.1

72.8

79.8

81.3

44.6

71.0

66.5

73.0

73.9

81.7

52.5

62.6

65.0

73.3

69.3

79.3

47.0

20.9

32.5

26.6

18.7

18.o

37.7

23.5

26.2

24.6

24.5

16.6

26.9

31.7

29.0

24.9

26.5

20.2

32,6

2.4

2.4

1.7

1.6

0.7

17.7

5.4

7.3

2.4

1.6

1.7

1a.6

5.7

6.0

1.8

4.2

0.5

20.2

76

234

346

10s

70

365

56.6

42.7

48.6

35.3

45.6

34.4

52.S

53.2

50.7

57.8

50.0

29a

42.3

45.9

46.4

51.1

55.7

26.6

29.3

37.7

339

48.3

3a.5

24.5

29.7

27.0

29.1

29.6

32.4

28.7

38.4

30.6

34.6

24.8

32.5

27.6

14.2

19.6

17.3

18.4

‘36.0

41.1

—

40.4

35.5

42.9

50.5

‘32.3

6.1

=

11.9

9.9

7.6

9.6

4.0

1.5

17.3

19.7

20.2

12.6

17.5

41.6

36.0

42.2

44.6

39.5

51.9

10.2

19.1

23.6

19.0

24.1

11.9

45.9

—

41.6

47.4

42.1

56a

64.9

11.6

24

67

81

34

“9

2,504

93

115

121

24

13

2,644

87

117

136

38

15

!,774

36.8

33.2

34.1

30.0

’51.0

65.6

36.2

23.4

27.2

23.6

29.6

65.1

26.5

26.2

27.1

25.2

28.5

61.3

20.8

31.3

23.1

19.4

‘1 6.7

26.4

27.6

29.4

28.2

36.6

16.5

24.8

-

27.7

24.6

25.2

25.3

20.1

22a

23.4

24.1

23.6

23.4

16.9

28.3

31.9

26.4

30.6

17.9

6.6

27.1

=

33.4

27.6

27.3

24.7

22.7

25.0

—

29.3

27.S

Z3.9

25.7

20.7

12.5

—

104

400

1,223

473

304

1.768

247

580

1,269

436

302

1.650

237

582

,291

410

255

,772

67.2

57.7

66.1

64.2

75.4

75.1

5a.o

60.6

85.1

89.1

73.8

74.2

—

71.6

69.0

74.2

76.3

61.7

54.1

~8.7

56.0

63.4

63.4

70.9

72.2

.

?4.7

36.6

74.6

70.4

76.7

!8.1

20.s

32.4

26.4

26.2

20.5

23.4

—

19.6

31.1

24.9

18.4

17.2

37,0

14.8

14.6

9.7

5.6

6.0

2.9

17.9

16.5

9.3

12.0

6.3

2.9

56

255

698

308

251

564

32

98

264

135

46

173

115

328

684

318

226

722

102

340

639

306

185

699

—

72

167

334

69

57

304

—

63

75

118

35

13

79.5

67.1

73.4

79.9

82.0

45.1

—

57.2

44.1

46.9

35.9

44.8

35.1

45.3

34.6

34.1

20.2

44.3

0.9

1.8

1.7

1.7

0.8

17.9

4.9

6.9

2.2

1.3

1.3

17.6

6.0

5.6

1.5

3.9

0.6

19.4

66

188

305

99

64

272

66

74

100

19

11

53.5

56.3

51.7

58.1

53.4

32.1

—

38,6

34.3

27.5

23.7

33.3

13.6

16.6

$7.6

51.9

i6.3

28.3

—

?9.0

28.6

?9.1

?4.5

?5.0

28a

37.1

33.1

45.5

39.1

22.0

31.6

25.1

28.4

29.4

31.9

28.3

10.2

26.6

34.2

23.1

12.7

?6.9

13.9

16.8

18.0

18.6

16.1

42.9

14.6

18.6

19.9

12.4

14.6

39.6

16.1

23a

18.2

25.0

11.0

44.6

17

47

71

30

●8

10.2

29.6

21.0

20.1

19.0

29.0

27.1

26.7

35.3

16.7

12.1

Z2.O

12.0

18.0

7.7

44.5

35.8

44.9

49.7

36.6

32.2

36.6

43.9

41.0

50.0

3a.s

49.4

38.9

57.5

67.3

25
Table 6. Estimated number of Iegmmate live b!rths and percent d($trlbutmn by wontedness status, according to educ.ationd attainment of mother, Iive.bwth order, tmd color

of mother: United States, 1968, 1969, and 1972 National Natalmv 8urvevs—Con.

Leg!trmate hve births

~

Number in thousands

Wanted then Wanted later Unwanted

1972 1968 1968 1972 1969 1966 1972 1969 1968

Percent

335 398 402 56.9 46.3 I 46.1 33.7 32.6 33,4 9.5 20.5

-

36.0

34.9

33.7

34.1

15.7

34.2

21,2

20

81

132

70

32

219

“9

::

49

24

74

“3

20

27

24

41

‘7

20

10

‘6

50

127

152

46

23

192

12

40

91

32

16

113

12

46

40

16

93

26

40

20

“6

51

143

143

41

24

205

14

?3

30

18

107

13

50

32

12

89

24

42

18

“5

45.6

42.8

60.2

64.2

69.3

67.0

42.6 30.8

36.1 41.0

51.9 49,6

55.5 53.5

59.6 76.2

50.0 60.5

64.7 46.3

46.4 54.5

61.4 61.8

50.2 58.2

81.4 84.9

42,2 39.8

49.2 35,6

40.7 43.3

43.4 34.4

37.6 44.4

23.0 20.9

29.9 19.6

17.4 21,9

26.1 14.5

●18.6 *39.6

35.5

39.6

34.3

28.0

27,4

30.3

23.1

37.2

33.0

34,9

20.2

33.9

18.9

17.6

5.5

7.8

3.3

2,6

34.3

27.7

15.1

9.5

20.2

6.2

33.0

24,1

16.7

12.4

8.5

5.3

●60.6

52.3

66.4

78.8

73.5

40.9

“49.9

36.1

47.8

36.1

31.3

●23.2

29.9

33.7

“44.9

“28.3

41.3

31.9

20.3

26.5

42.7

“33.5

40,3

41.2

47.4

35.1

●46.2

35.3

38.5

‘1 1.1

25.2

43.5

34.2

35.0

12.4

32.8

16.6

35.0

33.8

34.2

29.6

24.2

33.6

25.8

‘40.7

50.0

36.5

34.3

34.6

15.1

34.8

—

29.5

33.9

38.0

35.9

29.8

—

31.7

34.3

23.o

11.3

“11.1

6.4

1.7

0.9

16.5

“ 16.6

23.7

11.0

16.5

33.6

10.1

10.1

4.4

4.8

6.2

25.0

—

32.2

24.3

22.8

27.5

47.4

—

45.8

49.0

48.1

“42.4

3.7

9.0

3.9

7.2

25.4

—

35.6

22.8

27.6

19.7

49.3

—

48.8

43.9

62.4

‘49.1

“30.6

34.9

27.9

●44.O

NOTE: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding,

26
Table 7. Estimated number of legitimate live births and percent dh

lC

mtmn by wontedness sta

, and 1972 National Nati

, accmdmg to husband’s Income and color of mother: United States, 1968,

/ Surveys

Wontedness status

Wanted then Wanted later Unwanted

1972 1969 1968 1972 1969 196a 1972 1969 1968

Legitimate live births

Husband’s !ncome and color of mother

X_lx+E

Number in thousands

2,839 3,242 3,176 64.5 62.8 59.4 27.2 25.7 27.9 8.2 11.5 12.7

. . . .. . . . .

195

241

651

773

729

250

2,504

308

467

1,031

837

456

143

2,s44

313

570

1,160

732

292

109

2,774

52.4

58.8

60.8

65.5

69.5

71.6

65.6

51.2

56.8

63.2

68.1

65.9

63.4

65.1

57.4

52.8

58.0

64.0

66.8

63.6

61.3

38.2

35.7

32.4

26.1

21.3

17.8

26.4

34.1

32.5

26.3

21.9

21.6

16.6

24.8

31.2

34.5

30.1

22.7

18.4

19,8

27.1

9.4

5.5

6.8

8.4

9.2

10.5

8.1

14.7

10,7

10.6

9.9

12.5

20.0

10.2

11.5

12.7

11.9

13.3

14.8

16.7

11.6

223

370

698

778

437

138

398

60.3

56.1

59.9

64.4

66.6

63,6

46.1

—

50.5

40.6

43.2

54.2

69.5

61.2

32.o

33.3

29.7

22.4

18.0

19.8

33.4

29.2

39.2

33.0

29.9

26.7

20.0

6.9

4.9

6.4

8.3

9.3

10.7

9.5

14.7

8.2

8.9

8.8

6.9

●5.4

131

196

557

702

675

242

335

219

449

1,025

697

227

107

402

94

121

135

36

15

●2

56.6

58.1

61.8

66.0

69.6

72.3

56.9

43.8

62.0

546

60.7

67.6

’51.3

64.2

59.4

66.1

69.2

66.6

63.6

46.3

43.5

46.8

43.5

53.9

49.3

●55.9

36.5

37,1

31.7

25.6

21.0

17.0

33.7

41.5

29.7

36.5

30.5

26.3

‘43.3

34.5

32.3

24.7

21.4

21.8

16.8

32.6

33.0

33.2

36.7

28.1

17.4

+10,3

11.3

8.3

9.2

9.3

11.6

19.6

21.2

23.5

20.0

19.8

18.0

33.3

“33.8

7.7

10.6

10.4

13.2

15.4

16,6

20.5

—

20.3

20.3

23.8

15.9

3.6

18.8

64

44

94

71

54

“8

85

96

134

60

18

●5

27
Table8. Estimated number of legitimate live b!rths to women marriad once andpercent distribution bvwantedness status. according tocolor ofmother, duration

of marriage, and husband’s income: United States, 1972 Natiorial Natality Survey

Total

I

All other

E

Percent distribution

White

m

Duration of marriage and

husband’s income

Legltinate live

births in

housands

Leg it imate live

births in

thousands

Vanted Wanted

then later

unwanted

Percent d!str!bution I Percemdistributi.m

454.5 ~

60.9

66.3 I

70.7

50.9

27.1

-

38,0

33,0

26.2

20.4

47.8

7.5

-

7.5

6.1

7.4

8.9

1.3

8.7 —

13.2

8.5

7.2

6.2

1.0 T

2,290 66.4

117 59.1 j

666 61.8

651 66.7 I

837 71.1

310 51.7

44 47.9

161 50.4

59 54.5

46 56.2

799 75.1

+

36.3 I

32.6

25.8

19.9

47.0

Total .... . .. . ...... .. 7.4

Under $2,000 ...... .............. ....

$2,000-$6 ,999.., ...... ....... .......

$7,000-$9 ,999......,......,......,..

$10,000 and over ... ........... ..

0-11 months .... ...........

Under $2,000 ............ ............

$2,000 -$6989 ...... .............. ...

$7,000 -$9,999 ........ ...............

$10,000 end over .. ............ .. ..

1247 months . . .... ....

Under $2,000 ........... .... ......

$2,000 -$6,999 ..... ..... ....... ......

$7.000-$9 ,999 .............. .........

$10,OOO and over ........... .......

48-107 months ... ........

Under $2,000 ... .... . ..... .... ...

$2000-56,999 . . .... ............ .....

$7,000 -$9,s99 ........... ............

$10,OOO and over ..................

108 months andovw..

Under $2,000 ..... ...................

$2,000 -$6,999 ........ ............ ...

$7,000-$9 ,999 ..... ............ ......

$10,000 and over . . ..... .. . ...

2,602

—

176

815

715

896

363

311 —

59

129

65

59

53

4.6

5.6

7,5

9.1

1.3

45.5 41.3

56.4 35.1

62.6 30.2

65.6 28.2

46.5 I 52.5

61

182

71

50

908

44.6

50.0

53.8

57.7

73.8

52.8

48.6

45.6

42.3

24.4

2.6

1.4

0.7

1.8

49.8

48,1

44.7

43.8

23.4

2.3

1.6

0.8

1.5

17

21

11

b4

108

36.0 60.9

47.1 52.9

50.2 49.8

‘75.8 ‘24.2

3.2

63.6 I 32.0 4.4

i

45 74.6

299 70.6

233 74.9

222 81.6

818 70.5

20 55.8

164 63.6

256 69.4

378 75.1

363 50.5

‘8 940.4

62 43.6

101 48,1

192 54.5

77

348

255

234

920

62.3

69.9

75.2

81.4

69.5

32.6

28.5

23,6

16.7

23.5

5.1

1.6

1.2

1.9

7.0

13.9

8.1

6.6

6.1

26.8

31.0

30.2

27.7

24.6

24.3

28,1

23.8

16.4

22.8

36.9

28.3

24.0

18.8

22.4

*27 .7

26,0

23.9

20.3

1.1

1.3

1.3

2.0

6.7

7.3

8.1

6.5

6.1

27.0

●32 .0

30.4

27.9

25.3

26

48

22

12

102

13

39

19

31

48

“4

21

12

12

+

40.8 47.2

65.6 31.1

78.4 21.6

78.o 22.0

61.5 26.9

60.1 16.1

59.9 32.1

55.8 36.0

67.6 25.9

12.0

3.3

9.7

23.8

8.1

8.3

6.6

:24.7

——

●29.O

29,6

35.4

13.8

33

203

276

409

411

11

83

113

204

57.5

62.9

68.5

74.5

50.1

50.3

42.2

49.0

53.9

28,7

29.0

24.9

19.3

23.2

18.7

27.6

23.3

21.5 T

46.6 28.8

’71.0

38.7 32.3

56.8 17.8

43.9 42.3

NOTE: Figures maynotadd tototals due to rounding.

28
Table9. Estimated number of legitimate Iive births and percent distribution by wontedness status, according toreligious preference of

mother and of father: United States. 1968 and 1969 National Natal itv Survevs

Religious preference

Mother

Protestant .................................... .. ............ ............................ ..........

Roman Catholic ......................................... .................... ..................

Jewish ............................. ........................................ ............ .............

Other ..................... .......................... ................................................

None ..... ................ ................................................ ...........................

Father

Protestant ................................................................................. .......

Roman Catholic ..... .............. ............................................................

Jewish ............................... .................... ...... .....................................

Other ....................... ........................................................................

None ............................. ......... ............... ...........................................

NOTE: Figures maynotadd tototals due to rounding.

Legitimate live

births

2E-LEE_

Number in

thousands

T

3,242 3,176

1,864 1,857

1,014 1,021

61 60

194 141

109 97

3,242 3,176

1,817 1,840

977 924

69 62

172 159

207 192

Wontedness status

Wanted then I Wanted later ] Unwanted

1969 \ 1968 ] 1969 I 1968 I 1969 I 1968

62.8

62.5

62.5

76.8

62.2

64.4

62.8

63.0

61.5

77.0

62.1

62.5

59.4

59.1

58.7

79.7

65.6

49.3

59.4

59.0

58.4

79.1

69.0

53.1

Percent

25.7

25.3

26.9

17.8

25.2

26.4

25.7

24.8

27.7

19.7

24.0

27.2

T

27.9 11.5

27.3 12.2

29.6 10.6

15.0 5.4

23.0 12.6

36.7 9.2

27.9 11.5

-L27.9 12.1

29.1 10.8

14.0 3.3

21.7 13.9

30.9 10.2

12.7

13.6

11.7

5.4

11.4

13.9

12.7

13.0

12.5

6.8

9.3

16.0

29
Table 11. Percent distribution of legitimate live births by selected characteristms, according to wontedness status: United States, 1968, 1969, and 1972 National Natality

Selected characteristics

Total ......................... .... .. ....................

Total ...................................................

Median age of mother .......................... ...............

Age at marriage

Under 18 years .................................. ........... .......

18 years ............................................. .... ..............

19-20 years ....................................................... ...

21-22 years ............................................ ..............

23-24 years ....... ...................................................

25-29 yearn ........................ ........................ ..........

30 vears and wer ................ .. ...................... ........

Median age at marriage ........ .. ........................ ......

Educational attainment of mother

O-8 vears ............................... .......................... .....

9-11 years ............................... .............................

12 years ...............................................................

13-15 vears ........... ...............................................

16 years and aver ......................... .......................

Median years of school completed ............. ..........

Husband’s income

Under $2.000 ....................................... ...............

$2.000$3.999 .......................................... .. .........

$4.mo$6.999 .....................................................

$7.000*9.999 .....................................................

$lo.ooo$14.w9 .................................................

$15,000 and over ........ .. ........................ ..............

Median income ....................................................

surveys

Wontedness status

Total legitimate live births

Wanted then Wanted later Unwanted

1972 1969

I

1968 1972 1969 19S8 1972 1969 1968 1972 1969 196S

Number in thousands

2,839 3,242 3,176

I

1,832 2,035 1,886

I

773

I

833 S65 234 373 405

Percent distributmn

100.0

88.2

11.8

36.5

33.5

15.3

7.1

7.5

1.4

4.4

10.4

12.9

23.6

30.1

12.7

5.9

24.8

19.7

16.3

29.0

19.2

8.S

5.7

1.4

20.0

4.4

16.9

47.7

19.1

11.8

12.6

6.9

S.5

22,9

27.2

25.7

8.8

$8,300

100.0

87.7

12.3

35.0

28.0

17.4

8.3

11.3

1.5

3.1

10.2

15.0

23.5

28.4

12.6

7.3

24.8

23.4

15.3

28.5

18.0

8.0

5.7

1.0

19.8

9.2

22.1

43.8

14.9

10.0

12.4

9.5

14.4

31.8

25.8

14.1

4.4

;6.500

100.0

87.4

12.6

35.4

26.8

15.6

9.8

12.4

1.5

3.8

10.5

15.3

22.2

27.4

12.6

8.1

24.7

24.9

14.6

28.1

17.5

7.8

5.6

1.6

19.7

9.0

22.8

45.1

14.2

8.8

12.4

9.8

17.9

36.5

23.1

9.2

3.4

$5,800

100.0

89.6

10.4

42.0

38.5

11.2

4.3

4.0

1.2

4.4

9.6

12.7

24.7

32.4

11.6

4.6

24.8

17.4

15.5

29.4

20.8

9.1

6.5

1.3

20.2

4.3

14.5

48.4

19.0

?3.7

12.6

5.6

7.7

21.6

27.7

27.6

9.8

B8,SO0

100.0

91.0

9.0

40.5

32.6

15.3

6.2

5.3

1.3

2.8

9.2

16.2

25.0

30.3

10.9

5.5

24.6

21.6

14.6

29.2

18.5

6.8

6.0

1.2

19.9

8.1

19.7

44.6

16.1

11.6

12.5

7.8

13.0

32.0

28.0

14.8

4.4

66,700

100.0

90.2

9.8

41.4

32.9

13.6

6.5

5.5

1.3

3.3

10.3

15.7

24.1

29.4

11.2

6.0

24.6

21.5

14.4

26.5

18.9

8.5

6.3

2.1

20.0

6.9

20.4

47.2

15.0

10.5

12.5

9.5

16.0

35.7

24.6

10.3

3.7

$6,100

100.0

85.4

14.6

32.7

29.4

20.7

10.4

6.8

1.6

5.3

13.2

15.1

24.6

25.4

12.7

3.7

24.0

24.2

17.7

27.9

16.9

8.7

3.8

7.0

19.6

3.7

20.9

47.6

18.6

9.2

12.5

9.6

11.1

27.3

28.1

20.1

5.8

$7.200

100.0

84.5

15.6

33.5

25.0

19.8

9.2

12.6

1.7

4.4

14.3

15.9

24.3

26.0

11.3

3.8

23.9

23.2

17.0

28.0

19.4

6.7

5.2

0.6

19.7

9.4

23.2

44.3

15.2

7.8

12.4

12.6

1S.2

32.5

22.0

11.8

2.8

$5,800

100.0

84.9

15.1

35.1

22.8

18.5

11.4

12.3

1.7

5.9

13.6

18.0

22.6

24.0

11.1

4.5

23.6

27.3

16.5

27.6

16.1

7.3

4.3

.9

19.5

11.0

23.8

45.3

13.0

6.9

12.3

11.0

22.2

39.4

18.8

6.1

2.4

$5,300

100.0

S6.4

13.6

5.7

8.3

30.1

16.3

37.6

4.3

1.4

7.1

6.9

12.1

27.0

21 .s

23.7

29.2

22.9

17.7

29.9

14.1

7.1

5.3

2.9

19.6

6.9

23.1

42.6

21.7

5.7

12.5

7.9

5.6

18.9

27.7

28.6

11.3

;8,900

100.0

77.4

22.6

7.9

9.s

23.S

17.9

40.7

4.5

1.8

6.1

5.8

13.5

23.2

24.9

24.6

29.9

33.8

15.5

25.7

12.6

6.8

4.9

0.8

19.1

14.4

32.5

39.2

7.7

6.1

12.1

12.2

13.4

29.2

22.3

15.3

7.7

$6,500

100.0

79.7

20.3

8.1

7.?

19.2

21.1

44.5

4.7

1.7

4.6

7.6

12.4

25.3

22.8

25.5

29.7

35.5

11.8

27.2

14.2

5.4

4.7

1.1

18.2

14.6

32.2

35.4

13.4

4.4

12.1

8.9

17.8

34.1

24.1

10.7

4.s

$6,000

31
APPENDIXES

CONTENTS

I. Technical Notes on Methods ........................................................................................................

Background ............................................................................................................................

Sources of Data.......................................................................................................................

Sample Desi~ ........................................................................................................................

Collection of Data ..................................................................................................................

Response Ntes .......................................................................................................................

Processing of Data ..................................................................................................................

Imputation of Mksing Data ....................................................................................................

Estimation ..............................................................................................................................

Refiabifity of Estimates ..........................................................................................................

Rounding of Numbers ............................................................................................................

II. Source Forms ..............................................................................................................................

U.S. Standard Certificate of five Btiti ...................................................................................

1968 and 1969 National Nat~ty Smeys ..............................................................................

1972 National Natality Survey ................................................................................................

I.

II.

III.

N.

v.

VI.

WI.

.33

33

33

33

34

35

35

36

37

38

42

43

43

44

51

LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES

Number of live births in the United States and number of births in the 1968, 1969, and 1972

Nationaf Natafity Surveys ......................................................................................................... 34

Response rates for mothers, by age of mother and CO1OKUnited States, 1968, 1969, and 1972

National Natafity Surveys ......................................................................................................... 35

Item nonresponse rates for selected variables on mother’s questionnaire: United States, 1968,

1969, and 1972 Nationaf Natafity Surveys ............................................................................... 37

Age of mother, live-birth order, and color groups used for ratio estimation: United States,

1968, 1969, and 1972 Nationaf Natrdity Surveys ..................................................................... 38

Approximate standard errors for ag~egates: United States, 1968 and 1969 Nationaf Natality

Surveys .................................................................................................................................. .. 39

Approximate standard errors for aggregates: United States, 1972 National Natafity Survey ....... 39

Approximate standard errors for percenta~es for totaf births: United States, 1968 and 1969

N-ationai Natality Surveys .........~............. .....................................................~.......................... 40

VIII. Approximate standard errors for percentages for white births: United States, 1968 and 1969

National Natality Surveys ......................................................................................................... 40

Ix. Approximate standard errors for percentages for alf other or black births: United States, 1968

and 1969 National Natality Surveys ........................................................................................ 41

x. Approximate standard errors for percentages: United States, 1972 National Natality Survey ..... 41

32
APPENDIX I

TECHNICAL NOTES ON METHODS

Background

This report is based on the findings of the

1968, 1969, and 1972 National Natality Surveys. The surveys were conducted by the

National Center for Health Statistics to supplement data available from the birth certificate by

obtaining additional social and demographic

information from a sample of women who had

babies during those years. In 1972, additional

medical information was obtained from the

attending physicians and from the hospitals

where the babies were delivered.

Sources of Data

The original data source for these surveys

was the live-birth certificate. The name and

address of the mother of each infant in the sample was obtained from the birth certificate. The

data in this report were derived solely from birth

certificates and questionnaires mailed to mothers.

Facsimiles of the U.S. Standard Certificate

of Live Birth and of the questionnaires sent to

the mothers are shown in appendix II. Although

most of the registration areas’ birth certificates

include the same basic information, the standard

certificate is not used by all registration areas.

The legitimacy item was omitted by 10 areas in

1968, 11 areas in 1969, and 12 areas in 1972,

and legitimacy was inferred for their records as

described in the section, “Sample Design. ”

The same questionnaire was sent to the

mother in both 1968 and 1969 and was designed

primarily to obtain information about the health

care received by the mother and her newborn

infant as well as social and demographic information. Although the 1972 questionnaire included much of the same information as in

1968 and 1969, some items were dropped and

others were added.

Sample Design

The sampling frames for the National Natality Surveys were the files of microfilm of livebirth certificates received by the National Center

for Health Statistics from the 54 birth registration areas of the United States. These birth registration areas included the 50 States, the District

of Columbia, and the cities of New York, Baltimore, and New Orleans, which had independent

registration systems. Each of the registration

areas assigns a file number to each birth certificate, and these file numbers run consecutively

from the first to the last birth occurring during

the year in that area. The samples for these surveys were based on a probability design that

made use of these certificate numbers.

In 1968 and 1969, the sample was composed

of 1 out of every 1,000 births of white infants

and 1 out of every 500 births of all other infants. Two records were selected at random

from each 1,000 consecutive records for each

registration area. The second of these two records was rejected if the infant reported on this

second record was white. This method of sample

selection forced the sample to be representative

by geographic area and time of occurrence for

births of white and all other infants while preserving the probability design within each registration area. In 1972, each 500 consecutive records from each area constituted a primary sampling unit, and one record from each primary

unit was selected at random. Thus, the sample of

selected certificates represented l/500th of the

live births occurring in the 54 areas during 1972.

33
Sampled records for infants who were reported or inferred to be illegitimate were excluded from the survey and no questionnaires

were mailed to the mothers. Thus, the statistics

presented in this report pertain only to legitimate live births occurring in the United States

during 1968, 1969, and 1972. The inference of

illegitimacy was necessary for some of the certificates, since 10 to 12 of the registration areas

did not have a legitimacy item on some or all of

their certificates in these years. A birth was

inferred to be illegitimate when any of the following conditions was present on the certificate:

(1) the name of the father of the child was

omitted; (2) the mother’s surname as stated in

the “informant” or “mailing address” section

was the same as her maiden name and was different from the father’s surname; (3) the mother’s

surname was different from her maiden name

but also differed from the father’s surname and

differed from the baby’s surname; (4) the mother’s surname was missing from both the “informant” section and the “mailing address” section

of the certificate and the baby’s surname was

different from the father’s surname. Using these

rules, 259 sample records were inferred to be for

illegitimate births in 1968-69 and 261 were

inferred illegitimate in 1972.

In addition to the cases excluded from the

surveys due to illegitimacy, 121 cases in 1968

and 55 cases in 1969 had to be excluded because

the States in which the mothers resided would

not allow the survey to query these women or

because the mother was not a resident of the

United States. These “not-queried” cases were

handled as - though they were nonrespondents

and data were imputed for them; the illegitimate

cases were excluded entirely.

Table I shows the number of live births in

the United States and in the original sample, the

number of legitimate births included in the survey, and the number of mothers to whom questionnaires were mailed.

Collection of Data

Data for the 1968, 1969, and 1972 National

Natality Surveys were collected primarily by

mail. Using the addresses given on the birth certificates, questionnaires were mailed to mothers

and, in 1972, to hospitals and physicians as welI.

No questionnaires were mailed in cases where

the birth was reported or inferred to be illegitimate.

In 1968 and 1969, followup procedures for

nonresponses consisted of a questionnaire sent

by certified mail 16 days after the original firstclass mailing and a second followup questionnaire sent by regular mail 3 weeks after the certified reading. When the questionnaire was returned and certain items were incomplete or

inconsistent, either a specizd letter was sent or a

telephone call was made to obtain the missing

data. A final followup was made by U.S. Bureau

of the Census interviewers for mothers who did

not respond or whose responses were largely

incomplete.

In 1972, the mothers were sent the first as

well as the followup questionnaire by regular

first-class mail. Followup questionnaires were

sent if the original questionnaire was not returned within 16 days. If after an additional 21

days the followup questionnaire elicited no

response, an interview by telephone or in person

was attempted. Incomplete or inconsistent items

on the questionnaires from the mothers were folTable 1. Number of live births in the United States and number of births in the 1968, 1969, and 1972 National Natality Surveys

Item

Live births in the United States ....................................................................................................

Births selected in the sample ...... ...................................................................................................

Illegitimate births excluded from the sample ...........................................................................

Legitimate births in the survey .............. ................................................. .................................

Mothers mailed a questionnaire ..........................................................................................

Mothers not mailed questionnaire because of State restrictions ........................ .................

Mothers not mailed questionnaire because mother not U.S. resident .................................

1972

3,258,411

6,505

816

5,689

5,676

13

1969

3,600,206

4,205

539

3,666

3,611

42

13

1968

——

3,501,564

4.,082

487

3,595

3,474

113

8

34
lowed up by telephone or personal interview.

The mother of the infant was the only person

from whom the information on the mother

questionnaire was accepted. In the telephone

and personal interviews, no proxy respondents

were accepted.

Response Rates

In 1968, the rate of response from the 3,595

mothers was 88.9 percent, and in 1969, 84.8

percent of the 3,666 mothers responded. By

1972 the response rate had declined to 71.5 percent of the 5,689 mothers. The response rates

varied with age—the younger mothers had lower

response rates. At each age, the response of

white mothers was higher than that of all other

mothers. The number of births in the sample

and the response rates by age of mother and

color are shown in table 11.

Processing of Data

After all attempts to obtain completed questionnaires had been exhausted, the information

.

from the questionnaires received by mail and

through interviews was coded, verified, and transcribed onto computer tapes. The computer tape

records were then edited for valid ranges of

codes and consistency of answers within each

data source. Where two or more items within

one data source were found to be inconsistent,

other information from that source could sometimes be used to determine which items could be

kept and which rejected. When no such decision

was possible, all the inconsistent items were considered to be nonresponses so that they could

later be imputed utilizing other information that

was known about the mother or infant.

No attempt was made to reconcile inconsistencies between different sources of information.

For example, if the birth certificate stated the

mother’s age to be 25 and the mother’s questionnaire said it was 27, the two ages were both

recorded as stated with no resolution of the difference. It was neither possible nor desirable to

decide which source had provided the “right”

information and to change the other to conform.

Table 11. Response rates for mothars, by age of mother and color: United States, 1968, 1969, and 1972 National Natality Surveys

1972

Age of mother and color

m

Total .................. .............. ...... ..................

Under 20 years ........................................................

20-24 years ...................................... .............. ..........

25-29 years ................. .............................................

30-34 years ................................................ ..............

35 years and. over ............. ........................................

White .................................................... ........

Under 20 years ...................................................... ..

20-24 years ..............................................................

25-29 years ......................... ........ ............ ...... ...........

30-34 years ...... ...... ................................ .. ...... ...... ....

35 years and over ......... ...... ........ ..............................

All other ..................... ......... ........... ..............

Under 20 years ........................................................

20-24 years ...................... ...... ..................................

25-29 years ........ ..... ............... ..................................

30-34 years .................. ............................................

35 years and over .....................................................

5,689 \ 71.5

833 57.5

2,137 70.7

1,681 76.9

692 74.7

346 77.2

5,007 I 73.6

708 58.9

1,899 73.5

1,517 78.8

586 75.6

297 78.8

682 I 56.0

125 49.6

238 48.7

164 59.1

106 69.8

49 67.3

1969

Number in I

Percent

sample responding

3,666 [ 84.8

495

1,375

1,057

451

288

2,852

369

1,068

840

353

222

814

76.2

84.9

88.7

86.0

82.3

87.2

80.5

87.0

91.1

86.7

85.1

76.4

126

307

217

98

66

63.5

77.9

79.7

83.7

72.7

1968

Number in I

Percent

sample responding

3,595 I 88.9

569 85.6

1,289 88.2

1,026 90.9

434 89.6

277 90.3

2,766 89.7

410 85.6

1,007 90.2

815 90.8

330 90.0

204 91.2

829 86.1

-L159 85.5

282 81.2

211 91.5

104 88.5

73 87.7

35
Imputation of Missing Data

In any survey where the participation of the

subjects is not mandatory, there will be some

subjects who do not respond to the survey questionnaire. In the 1972 survey, the mothers, doctors, and hospitals were all told, both on the

printed questionnaires and by the telephone and

personal interviewers, that they were under no

legal obligation to participate in the survey, that

their participation was completely voluntary.

Some sources who were mailed questionnaires

did not return them (unit nonresponse), and

some who returned them did not answer all

the questions (item nonresponse). Unit nonresponses were not deleted from the data file

because birth certificate data was available. The

missing information was imputed on the basis of

information on the certificate and also given, in

most cases, by at least one other source. For

example, if a physician did not respond, but

both the hospital and the mother did, information from these sources could be used along with

the birth certificate to impute data that were

missing data from the doctor.

In the 1968 and 1969 surveys, imputation

procedures differed for unit nonresponse and

item nonresponse. Unit nonresponse was imputed as a whole unit, taking the entire set of

information from another questionnaire, matching that case’s age, live-birth order, and color to

that of the nonrespondent, which are available

from the birth certificate. For example, if a

mother did not return a questionnaire, the entire

“mother section” for that case record could be

imputed from the record of a mother with the

same age, number of children, and color who did

respond to the survey. This method of handling

unit nonresponse has the advantage of assuring

internal consistency of responses for a particular

birth within that section of the record which is

imputed. Since the respondent’s record would

have been checked for internal consistency prior

to imputation, the nonrespondent would be

receiving an internally consistent record. A

disadvantage of this method is that all of a given

respondent’s answers would have greater weight

in the final results. Furthermore, the respondent’s record may have had some item nonresponse in it, and after unit imputation, the record would have to be handled again in order to

impute for item nonresponse.

The method used in the 1972 National

Natality Survey was to treat unit nonresponse as

a series of individual item nonresponses and

impute each item separately. This way, whole

blocks of answers were not taken from one

respondent and imputed to a nonrespondent. An

advantage is that no one respondent’s answers

were given undue weight. Also, there is only one

imputation process instead of two. The disadvantage to this method rests in the possibility of

creating internal inconsistencies by imputing one

item from one respondent, another item from a

second respondent, and so forth. Inconsistencies

were minimized by carefully selecting qualifying

characteristics, which vary with the type of

information being imputed. Since postimputation consistency checks must be made, to check

for a valid range of responses, these same checks

can be used to locate any inconsistencies that

may have been caused by the imputation.

The item imputation process was accomplished by a program that constructed a matrix

for each variable requiring imputation. The

dimensions of this matrix were determined by

the number of control characteristics used and

the number of levels of classification of each

characteristic. At the start, the cells of the matrix were filled with average or modaJ values,

which were replaced as soon as a record was read

from the file having a known value for that item

and the appropriate characteristics for that cell.

The cell values were continually replaced by successive known values as the file of records was

processed. When a record was read that contained a nonresponse for a particular item, the

nonresponse code was replaced with whatever

value resided at that moment in the matrix cell

corresponding to the qualifying characteristics

of the nonrespondent. Some examples of the

qualifying characteristics used for item imputation are: (1) to impute age of mother, the control items were age of father, mother’s education, and mother’s parity; (2) to impute age of

father, the mother’s age and the father’s education were used; (3) to impute father’s income,

the father’s race, education, and age were used.

Table III shows the item nonresponse rate

for selected variables from the mother’s ques36
Table I I 1. Item non response rates for selected variables on mother’s questionnaire: United States. 1968, 1969, and 1972 National

Natality Surveys

Selected variables

Wontedness status ..... .................... .................. ................................................ ................................ ............... .......

Expectation of additional children .......... ...... .......................................................................... ................. ............

Number of additional children exPected .. ................................................ .............................. .. ...... ...... .................

Year of first marriage .......... ...................... .................... ...... ..................................................................................

Year of present marriage ..... ............................ ......................................................................................................

Education of father ........................... ...... .................. .................................................... .................... ............... ....

Education of mother .................................... ........................................................................................................

Husband’s income ......... .................. .............. ...... ...... .................... .................................. ................................ ......

Religious preference of father ....................................................................................... ........................................

Religious preference of mother ............ ......... ........................................................................................................

tionnaire. These figures do not include cases

where no questionnaire was returned or where a

“don’t know” response was allowed.

The increase in unit nonresponse between

1968 and 1972 was partially offset, for the item

on wontedness of the pregnancy, by the decline

in the item nonresponse such that total nonresponse for thk item was only slightly higher in

1972 (29.8 percent) than in 1968 (25.7 percent). Since wontedness status was imputed for

about 30 percent of the cases, the validity of the

imputation was checked for the 1972 data by

comparing the distribution of births by wontedness status for respondents with that for nonrespondents. When this was done for selected agebirth-order-education groups, it was found that

the distributions were similar for respondents

and nonrespondents. Therefore, it appears that

imputation did not seriously distort the overall

distribution of births by wontedness status.

Estimation

The weights that are used to inflate the sample statistics so that they represent national estimates of legitimate live births are calculated

using a poststratified ratio estimation procedure.

The purpose of ratio estimation is to take into

account available relevant information, thereby

reducing the variability of the estimate. The relevant information used in the National Natality

Surveys was age of mother, Iive-birth order, and

color. These three items are recorded on the

birth certificate, and statistics showing the national totals are published annually in Vital Statistics of the United States.

EE!EIE

Percent item

non response

1

1.3 7.0

0.9 0.8

2.6 3.4

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.7

0.9 0.8

0.2 0.2

3.8 5.1

. . . 0.8

. . . 0.5

14.6

1.2

5.0

0.8

0.7

1.0

0.4

4.1

0.8

0.7

The birth certificates were first checked to

be certain that these items were complete on all

records. When they were not, the items were

imputed, using other information from the certificate.

All certificates were classified as beIonging

in one of the 24 groups as shown in table IV.

The number of births in the United States in

each of these 24 groups was obtained from the

vital registration data. The births in the “livebirth order not stated” category in the national

data were distributed to known categories for

each age and color group in the same proportions as the births with known live-birth order.

Twenty-four weights (~i, i = 1 to 24) were

then calculated as ratios of national statistics to

sample statistics for each of the 24 groups. The

number of registered U.S. births in each group

( Yi) was divided by the total number of sample

births (legitimate and illegitimate) in each group

(Y~). Thus ZOi= Yi/Yp

The estimates of characteristics are produced

from the sample using the following formula:

where X’ is the estimated number of legitimate

births in the United States with a particular

characteristic, xi is the number of legitimate

births in group i of the sample with the characteristic, and wS. is the weight assigned to each

birth in group i of the sample.

37
Table IV. Age of mother, live-birth order, and color groups used

for ratio estimation: United States, 1968.1969. ,. and 1972

National Natality Surveys

Group Color and age

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

White

Under 20 years ... ......................................

Under 20 years ............ .............................

20-24 years .................. ................ .............

20-24 years ...............................................

20-24 years ...............................................

25-29 years ...............................................

25-29 years ............. ..................................

25-29 years ...............................................

25-29 years ...............................................

30-34 years ...... ...... ........ .. .........................

30-34 years ...................... .........................

30-34 years ............................ ........ ...........

35 years and over ................... .......... .........

35 years and over ......................................

All other

Under 20 years .........................................

Under 20 years .........................................

20-24 years ...... .........................................

20-24 years ...............................................

25-29 years ...... ........ ........ .........................

25-29 years ........ ........ ...... .........................

25-29 years ...... ................ .......... ...............

30-34 years .............. .................................

30-34 years ...............................................

35 years and over .....................................

-ive-birth

order

1

2+

1

2

3+

1

2

34

5+

1-2

34

5+

14

5+

1

2+

1-2

3+

1-2

34

5+

14

5+

All

Reliability of Estimates

Since the statistics derived from this survey

are estimates based on a sample, they may differ

from the figures that would have been obtained

had all legitimate births been surveyed using the

same questionnaire and procedures.

The probability design of the sample for the

survey makes possible the calculation of sampling errors. The standard error is a measure of

the sampling variation that occurs by chance

because only a sample rather than the entire

population is surveyed. The chances are about

68 out of 100 that an estimate from the sample

differs from the \alue for the entire population

by less than 1 standard error. The chances are

about 95 out of 100 that the difference is less

than 2 standard errors and about 99 out of 100

that the difference is less than 3 standard errors.

The standard error of a difference between two

sample estimates is approximately the square

root of the sum of squares of each standard

error considered separately. This formula represents the actual standard error quite accurately

for the difference between separate and uncorrelated characteristics, although it is only a

rough approximation in most other cases.

The variance of a statistic depends not onIy

on the design of the sample, but also on the

dktribution of the statistic itself; the variance is

greater for measurements that are highly variable

from one individual to another, and lower for

measurements that are less variable. Because the

estimates of the sampling error are obtained

from the sample data, they are themselves subject to sampling error, which may be large in

some instances.

Estimates of sampling variability for the statistics derived from these surveys have been

computed using 20 random half-sample replications. This technique yields overall variability

through observation of variability among random subsamples of the total sample. It reilects

both the error that arises from sampling and a

part of the measurement error, but it does not

measure any systematic biases in the data. More

technical discussions of the development and

evaluation of replication techniques for estimat in g variance have been published elsewhere.A ~5 However, the procedures and computations required to estimate variances by this

method in these National Natality Surveys are

described briefly as follows.

Each record from the entire file of records in

the survey was assigned systematically to a random group between 1 and 40. Twenty random

pairs were created from these 40 groups. A halfsample was formed by randomly selecting one

group from each of the 20 pairs. This process

was repeated until 20 replicate half-samples were

formed from which variance estimates were derived. The composition of the 20 half-samples

was determined by an orthogonal plan.

After the composition of each of the halfsamples was determined, all the estimation procedures used to produce the final estimates for

the entire sample were applied separately to

each of the resulting half-samples.

NOTE: A list of references follows the text.

38
An estimated variance S~, of an estimated

statistic x’ of the parameter X is obtained by

applying the following formula:

%’= *&(x y-x’)z

Z=l

where

x’ is the estimate of X based on the entire

sample

and

x;’ is the estimate of X based on half-sample

i

Rules to determine the approximate standard errors for estimates derived from this survey

are as follows:

1. Estimates of aggregates. –Approximate

standard errors for estimates of aggregates are

given in tables V and VI. Because different

sampling fractions were used for white and all

other births in 1968 and 1969, the standard

errors of estimates including only white births or

only all other births are shown separately in

table V (standard errors of all other births are

used for black births).

Example: Suppose 100,000 mothers indicated their pregnancy was unwanted in

Table VI. Approximate standard errors for aggregates: United

States, 1972 National Natality Survey

Size of estimate

Relative

standard

error (in

percent)

3.000.................................................

5.000.................................................

lo.ooo ...............................................

30.000 ...............................................

50.000 ...............................................

70.000 ...............................................

loo.ooo .............................................

2oo.ooo .............................................

5oo.ooo .............................................

7oo.ooo .............................................

1,000,000 .........................................

2,000,000 .........................................

2.500.000 ..........................................

29.2

22.6

16.0

9.2

7.1

6.0

5.0

3.4

2.1

1.7

1.3

0.6

0.4

1972. From table VI, the relative standard

error for an estimate of that size is 5,000.

Therefore, the chances are about 68 out of

100 that this estimate of 100,000 from the

sample differs from the value for the entire

population by less than 1 standard error,

that is, the number of mothers who had an

unwanted pregnancy ranges between 95,000

and 105,000 (100,000 f 5,000). The

chances are about 95 out of 100 that the

difference from the population value is less

than twice the standard error, and that the

number of mothers who had an unwanted

pregnancy ranges between 90,000 and

110,000 (100,000 f 10,000).

Size of estimate

(in thousands)

25 ...............................................................................

50 ...............................................................................

75 ...............................................................................

loo .............................................................................

150 .............................................................................

200 .............................................................................

250 .............................................................................

3oo .............................................................................

5oo .............................................................................

7oo .............................................................................

l.ooo .........................................................................

Standard

error

876

1,130

1,600

2,760

3,550

4,200

5,000

6,800

10,500

11,900

13,000

12,000

10,000

Table V. Approximate standard errors for aqqregates: -- - United States. 1968 and 1969 National Natalitv Survevs

Total

Relativa

standard

error

(in percent)

9.8

6.6

5.4

4.5

3.6

3.0

2.6

2.4

1.8

1.5

1.1

Standard

error

2446

3296

4035

4545

5369

6031

6595

7088

8805

10788

11144

White

Relative

standard

error

(in percent)

13.6

9.3

7.5

6.1

4.9

4.1

3.6

3.2

2.5

2.3

1.6

Standard

error

3393

4670

5603

6114

7284

8219

8934

9451

12576

15777

16436

All other or black

Relative

standard

error

(in percent)

9.3

6.4

5.1

4.2

3.3

2.8

2.5

2.2

1,7

1.5

1.1

;tandard

error

2329

3204

3845

4196

4999

5640

6132

6486

8631

10827

11280

39
2. Estimates of percentages in a percen t distribution. —Approximate standard errors for estimated percentages are obtained in one of the

following two ways, depending upon the source

of the base of the percentage:

a. When the denominator is one of the 24

ratio estimation classes shown in table

IV, the standard error of the denominator is negligible and the relative standard

error of the percentage is equivalent to

the relative standard error of the numerator, given in tables V and VI.

Example: Suppose that of the

approximately 116,000 mothers who

are white, age 30-34, and have had

3-4 live births, 26 percent, or about

30,000 had unwanted pregnancies in

1972. Since these women compose

the 1lth class of the 24 ratio estimation classes shown in table IV, the

relative standard error of the percentage is equivalent to the relative

standard error of the numerator.

Table VI shows that the relative

standard error for an estimate of

30,000 is 9.2 percent. Thus, 9.2 percent of the 26 percent estimate is

2.392 percentage points.

b. When the denominator is an estimate

from the sample that is not one of the

24 ratio estimation classes, the approximate standard errors are given in tables

VII through X.

Example: Suppose that 20 percent

of mothers in some category had an

unwanted pregnancy in 1972, and

the base of that percent is 50,000.

From table X, the 20-percent column and the 50,000 row indicate

that 2.9 percent is the standard

error. Therefore, the chances are

about 68 out of 100 that this

Table VI 1. Approximate standard errors for percentages for total births: United States, 1968 and 1969 National Natality Surveys

Base of percent

(in thousands)

Estimated percent

2 or 98 5 or 95 I

100r90 20 or 80 25 or 75 30 or 70

z

40 or 60 50

Standard errors expressed in percentage points

1.7 2.6 3.7 4.9 5.2 5.6

1.3 2.1 2.8 3.7 4.1 4.3

0.9 1.4 2.0 2.7 2.9 3.0

0.6 0.9 1.3 1.7 1.8 1.9

0.4 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.3 1.3

0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.0

0.2 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.7

0.1 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6

5.9

4.6

3.3

2.1

1.5

1.1

0.7

0.6

6.1

4.7

3.3

2.1

1.5

1.1

0.8

0.6

—

Table VII I. Approximate standard errors for percentages for white births: United States, 1968 and 1969 National Natality Surveys

Base of percent

(In thousands)

Estimated percent

2 or 98 5 or 95 100r90

Standard errors expressed in percentage points

1.8

1.4

1.0

0.6

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

2.8

2.2

1.6

1,0

0.7

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

3.9

3.0

2.1

1.3

0.9

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.4

5.2

4.0

2.8

1.8

1.3

0.9

0.6

0.5

0.4

5.6

4.3

3.0

1.9

1.3

1.0

0.7

0.6

0.5

5.9

4.6

3.3

2.1

1.4

1.0

0.7

0.6

0.5

6.3

4.9

3.5

2.2

1.6

1.1

0.8

0.6

0.6

6.4

5.0

3.5

2.3

1.6

1.1

0.8

0.6

0.6

40
Table IX. Approximate standard errors for percentages for all other or black births: United States, 1968 and 1969 National Natality

Base of percent

(in thousands)

30 ................. .. .............. .................... ............ .......

50 ........................................................................

loo ................................................ ........ ..............

250 ....................................................... ..... ..........

500 .................................. ...... .............. ...... ..........

l.ooo ...................................................................

2,000 ............... .. .............. .................... ...... ..........

3,000 ...................................................................

4,000 ......... ................................ ..........................

Estimated percent

2 or 98 5 or 95

Standard errors expressed in percentage points

1.3

1.0

0.7

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.1

2.0

1.6

1.1

0.7

0.5

0.4

0.2

0.2

0.1

2.8

2.1

1.5

0.9

0.7

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

3.7

2.8

2.0

1.3

0.9

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.3

4.0

3.0

2.2

1.3

1.0

0.7

0.5

0.4

0.4

4.2

3.3

2.3

1.4

1.0

0.7

0.5

0.4

0.4

Table X. Approximate standard errors for percentages: United States, 1972 National Natality Survey

Base of parcent

(in thousands)

3 ................................................ ...........................................

5 ............................ ..................................................... ..........

lo ....................... .............. ...................... .... ........ ..................

30 .............................................. ...........................................

50 ............................... .............. ........................ ...... ..............

70 ....................................................... ....... ...........................

loo ............ ...........................................................................

2oo ........................................................................ ...............

5oo .................... ........ ........................ ...................................

700 .......................................................................................

1.ooo ........................................................................... .........

2.000 .................................................................. ..................

2.500 .................................. ..................................................

4.5

3.5

2.5

1.6

1.1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.4

4.6

3.5

2.5

1.6

1.1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.4

—

Estimated percent

2 or 98 I

5 or 95 100r90 20 or 80 30 or 70 40 or 60 50

Standard errors expressed in percentage points

4.1

3.2

2.2

1.3

1.0

0.8

0.7

0.5

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

20. O-percent estimate from the sample differs from the value for the

entire population by less than 1

standard error, and the percent of

mothers in the population who had

an unwanted pregnancy ranges between 17.1 and 22.9 percent (20.0

percent t 2.9 percentage points).

3. Difference between two sample estimates.—The standard error of a difference is

approximately the square root of the sum of the

squares of the standard errors of the two estimates. This formula will represent the actual

standard error quite accurately for the difference between mothers with separate and uncorrelated characteristics, although it is only a

L

6.4 8.8

4.9 6.8

3.5 4.8

2.0 2.8

1.6 2.1

1.3 1.8

1.1 1.5

0.8 1.1

0.5 0.7

0.4 0.6

0.3 0.5

0.2 0.3

0.2 0.3

11.7

9.0

6.4

3.7

2.9

2.4

2.0

1.4

0.9

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.4

13.4

10.4

7.3

4.2

3.3

2.8

2.3

1.6

1.0

0.9

0.7

0.5

0.5

14.3

11.1

7.8

4.5

3.5

3.0

2.5

1.8

1.1

0.9

0.8

0.6

0.5

14.6

11.3

8.0

4.6

3.6

3.0

2.5

1.8

1.1

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.5

rough approximation in cases where the characteri;tics-~e correlated.

Example: Suppose that 700,000 mothers in

group A had a birth in 1972 that was wanted

then, and 500,000 mothers from group B

also had a birth wanted then. The difference

between these two estimates is 200,000. The

standard errors for 700,000 and 500,000

obtained from table VI are used as follows:

/1 1,9002 + 10,5002 = 15,870

This represents 1 standard error for the difference of 200,000, and 2 standard errors

would be 31,740. Thus, a 95-percent confidence interval for the 200,000 estimate of

41
difference is 168,260 to 231,q40 (200,000 t

31,740).

Note that linear interpolation will generally

suffice when the table values do not correspond

closely to the statistics being tested.

In this report an asterisk (*) is SIT~wn with

numbers and percents that are based G less than

10-20 sample cases (5,000-10,000 weighted

cases).

In addition to sampling errors, survey results

are subject to errors in conceptual formulation;

ambiguities in definitions in the wording of

questions; biases due to nonresponse or incomplete response; and errors in coding, editing, and

tabulation. Although there is no way of computing the magnitude of these errors, they were

minimized as much as possible.

Errors in conceptual formulation and ambiguities were reduced by pretesting the questionnaires before the surveys began. The steps

taken to reduce biases due to nonresponse were

discussed in the sections, “Collection of Data”

and “Imputation of Missing Data.” Errors in

coding and editing were reduced by independent

verification and by the consistency and interval

checks discussed in the section, “Processing of

Data. ” Errors in tabulation were reduced, if not

eliminated, by carefully cross-checking the

tabulations and by comparing data from this

survey with data from other sources when available.

Rounding of Numbers

The original tabulations on which the data in

this report are based show figures to the nearest

whole unit. In the published tables, estimates of

amre~ates are rounded to the nearest thousand

d“t%o~gh they

that detail. All

were computed

are not necessarily accurate to

percentages, ratios, and averages

using unrounded figures.

000

42
APPENDIX II

SOURCE FORMS

FOM APPROVED

,UOG,T WREN !40 ,t-R! 900 r 1

U.S. STANDARD r 1

TYPE, OR PRINT IN 10CA, mu N.*UR

CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH

PERMANENT INK

,!RTH ?4U?JIER

S[E HANDBOOKFOR

CHILD- NAME F,”sr w..,, m,, DATE OF BIRTH (~Nm, ‘AV. ‘EAR j HOUR

-1INSTRUCTIONS 1 2, n M,

SEX THIS BIRTH—sINGLE, WIN, rwmfl, flc IF NOT SINGLE 8!RTH-I08N 61,s1, SECOND.

I SPECIFY1 THIRD, 5TC ( S?ECIFY$

COUNTY OF BIRTH

3 4, 4b 50

CITY, TOWN, OR LOCATION OF BIRTH \~,~;:;, %:Y : :M;~; HOspITAL—NA9AE f I, r401 IN HOSW.L, cwf mm ..0 N.M*FR I

Sb $, 5d

MOTHER—MAIDEN NAME FIRS, M,..,, us, ~H:SEB,:mT,TIM OF STATE OF BIRTH I 1, NO, IN u S .4,, NAM COUtilN1

6, hb, 6<

RESIDE NCE—SIATE ~

— — CITY, TOWN, OR lCCATION rNsms CITY LIMITS STREW AND N“MBER

,SP,.,,, ,,, 0, ?40,

7< 7d 7*

FATHER—NAME flR5r Al,.ou LAsr $&En:;;ME OF STATE OF BIRTH <If NOr 1. U.S.A., NAMECOUNIN 1

lb &

RELATION TO CHILD

%

, <1”,,$” ,“.7 ,“, .,0”, NAM,. C“!,. WAS .0R?4 .,!”, AT THE ?, AC, AN. WA, . ..0. THf DATE ATTENDAN T-M 0,, D 0, IA,CWI,K 0,”S.

~ [ ,“PE 0* mm,\ MAILING ADDRESS I smmr OR n r D NO, cm ox row., sr.m ZIP I

REGtSTRAR— SIGNATURE DATE RECEIVED BY LOCAL REGISTRAR

mow” DAY YMt

1lh

cONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION FOR MEDICAL AND HEALTH USE ONLY

RACE —FArHER E22uCAT10N-sFfclFY HIGHEST GRADE COMPLETED I

PREVIOUS DELIvERIES—NOW MANY OTNER CHIIDZEN

WH!,I, NfG,?J, AA4E” ICAN ,..,.., Flc i M MNIAR? “c” K“oot CO,NGE .“, NOW ,,.,.6 WM ,0,. ALw, - WC”F 10”. .1..

, S,[CIF” ,

,,,, ,,,,,4, 0, :! I 1,2,1, 0[ 4! !l,l,l ,4, 01 5+!

NOW 0,.. UNAL m.r. A, ANY rwt

Atlc” Co.ccmtwl

RACE —MOTHER ECWCATIQN-SPECLW HIGHEST GRADE COMFIETED ;::Kof ~Jy EJym :N:”o? ~=’J~AL D::,H

_—— —.—

WTIM. NCGRO, A/A,,, CA. I. D, A., [K 1161AEMAW “K,” SCHWt — COUIGC

, SPec,, ”) ,,,,,2 ,,’, 01 1! ,,,, ,,,,4, 1 2.3,4, ,1 $+

15 16 I7. 1%

DATE LAST NORMA1 M~NSES BEGAN MONTH OF PREGNANCY PRENATAL PRENATAL VISITS 101A1IWH1lR LEGIIIIMIE 8!R1H WEIGHI

DEATH MONT” 0.? “c.” CARE BEGAN , ,, .0.,, ,0 ,,*,C , , sm.,,, “,s 0“ .01

UNDER ONE YEAR ,,,s,, Wc.tm. TlwD, n< r S,,ctrf ,

OF AGE

f.m mu m 48 !19. 19h 20 21

N“AIBFI OF DSATH

CCR1lftCAlf FO1

COMP1lC.AIIONS RELATED TO PREGNANCY { DESCRIBEOR WRITE NONE ) 1!*1H INJURIES To CH!LD 6DESCRIBEOR WRLIE NOM,,>

,“!s C“,,o

.22 23

COMPLICATIONS NOT REIAIED 10 PREGNANCY , .Csc”,,f on ‘.vWrf Now , CONGENITAL MAUORMA1!ONS OR ANOMALIES OF CHILD t DESCRIBE OR WRIIC “NONE ,

MULTIPLE BIRTNS

,.,, ” 5,.1, ?!,, ~, 15

.UM,I, for

MAR(S) COMPLICATIONS OF LABOR ,D,$e,l,, e, w,,,, ..3., ,

LIVE BIRTH(SI 26

FETAL DEATHIS)

43
1968 and 1969 National Natality Surveys

@

*.N “ ‘ 4..<,

‘0,

:

?..

@

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE .:

‘.,. ,+”’ PLIBLIC HEALTH SERVICE

,,.

WASHINGTON, D C 20201

NATIONAL CENTER FOR

HEALTH STATISTICS

r

REFER 10:

L

The United States Public Heelth Service is conductinga national study of

familieshaving babies during 1968. In this study,we are particularly

interestedin health care receivedby the rmtier and her baby. We are also

intcrestedin learningabout the size ad types of familieshaving babies

as well.as about other family characteristics. This informationis needed

in otier to plan medical care pzmgrsms and to understandbetter the growth

and changes takingplace in our population.

This study wilJ be based on intonation obtainedf?mm familieswhich were

chosen as a sample f?mm among the nearly 4 million familieshaving a baby

during 1968. Your family was one of those selected. Please auswer the

questionson the followingpages and return this form within five *S in

the enclosedpostage-freeenvelope.

Since this study is Iitited ta only one out of every 1,000 familiesin the

United States having a baby during 1968, it is important&at we receive

a r%Av f~m evew person who is sat a questionnaire. If YOU do IlOt hOW

the answers to some of the questionsor if they do xmt apply, please write

a note about those questionaand answer the others. Ev= if the baby

is not kiting with yvu or has tied, we would appreciateyour answering

each question. Xx2 are assured that sU informationwhich you reporb

about yourselfand your family will be kept completelyconfidentialin

accordancewith the regulationsof the Uhited States public Health

Service. The infomnationwilJ rmt be disclosedto any person or any

other agency and it wild.be used for statisticalpurpcsesonly.

T&ink you for your cooperation.

@gG:’-$

Director,Division of Vital.Statistics

Name of Child

Date of Birth File Number

2H

44
CONFIDENTIAL - All tnlormmw, which would pennzt id.ntif,c.um .f a. ,ctdiwd..l, or of an c.t.bl, shmem, XI1l be held c.nfxf.nu.1, UilL be used only by person, engaged

!. md for the purpose of ,he sur.q , and will be prot.ct.d a$ajnst J, SC1OS.K in .c.omh.c. m.,rb pro. tsmr. s of 42 CFR P.n I.

NATIONAL BIRTH SURVEY

PART 1. MEDICAL CARE

1. (a) Did you see a doctor about your pregnancy at

any time before you went to the hospital to have

your baby?

O Yes ❑ No

4

(b) How many months pregnant were you when

you first saw a doctor about your pregnancy?

months

2, (a) Have you been examined by a doctor since you

left the hospital after having your baby?

•l Yes ❑ No

4

(b) How long after your baby was born did you

first go to the doctor for an examination?

weeks

1. (a) Has a doctor examined your baby since he was

brought home from the hospital?

C! Yes ❑ No

(b) How old was your baby (c)

when you took him to

the doctor for his first

examination?

weeks

Has your baby

been examined by

a nurse at home

or at a clinic?

DYes •! No

:. (a) How many nights were you in the hospital after

your baby was born?

nights

(b) Did your baby leave the hospital with you?

❑IYes ❑ No

+

(c) If no, what was the TOTAL number of nights

the baby was in the hospital?

_ nights

PART Il. INFORMATION ABOUT YOURSELF

1. {a) Did you smoke cigarettes at all during the year 2. (a) When your baby was first born did you breast

before your baby was born? feed him?

El Yes ❑ NO

I

❑ Yes, breast fed, no Ixxtle ❑ No, did not

❑ Yes, breast fed and bottle breast feed

(b) on the average, how many cigarettes .4 DAY

did you smoke befove you knew you were

pregnant? _ cigarettes

(c) On the average, how many cigarettes A DAY

did you smoke after you knew you were

pregnant? cigarettes

(b) Ii breast fed, how old was your baby when

you stopped breast feeding him?

weeks or nStill breast feeding

3. How long after your baby was born did you start

to menstruate again?

weeks or ❑ .Still haven’t started

PHS-44?5-3 (Page I )

Rev. 4,’68

(GO ON TO PART III) F,,mApproved

BudgetBureau X<, 68-ROW3

45
PART Ill. INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR PREGNANCIES

In this part we are interested in knowing about all the times you huve eve-r been pregnant and about all

the children who have evev been born to you, even if they weve by a previous mawiag’e.

1. Have you ever had a miscarriage?

❑ No IJ Yes

+

How many have you ever had?

number

2. Have you ever had a stillbirth (that is a baby born

dead)?

Q No El Yes

+

How many have you ever had?

number

3. (a) How many babies have you ever had born alive?

(Be sure to count your new baby)

(b)

I Number I

Have any of these children died?

❑ No

❑ Yes

+

Please list here.

Date of Name of Child Sex Date of

Birth Death

i I I

!. were any of your children living away when your new

baby was born? (Do ——not list children away at school

or college. Do list those in the Armed Forces,

living with r=atives, etc.)

❑ No

IJ Yes

I

Please list here.

Name of Child Sex

Date of

Birth

5.Just before you became pregnant with your new baby,

did you want to become pregnant? (Check only ~ box)

•l Yes ❑No, wanted another baby, but clid not

want to become pregnant yet

❑ No, did not want another baby

6. (a) After each birth, some couples feel that their -

families are complete while others expect more

children. In your case, do you expect to have

more children?

Definitely yes ❑ Probably no ❑Probably yes ❑ Definitely no

+

(b) When do you expect to have your next baby?

_ years

4

(c) How many more babies do you expect to have?

babies

I

(d) If you expect to have more than one, in how many

years do you expect to have your last baby?

PHS-4425-3 (Page 2)

l?ev. 4/68

(GO-ON TO PART IV)

46
PART IV. INFORMATION ABOUT YOURSELF AND YOUR HUSBAND

1. Is this your fkst marriage? 3. What is the highest grade (or year) of school

that your husband has ever finished?

❑ Yes e Please give the year of

(Circle highest grade COMPLETED)

your marriage -------------

D

None ---------------- O

Public or other

{

123456

i

Please give the year of your

regular school 789101112

~ivst marriage ------------- Ui College or University 1 2 3 4 5+

I

•NO~ please give the year your

~

Other (specify)

first marriage ended -------- D

Please give the year of

7

4. What is your religious preference?

your present marriage ------ m

•l Protestant

2. (a) What isthe highest grade (or year)of school ❑ Roman Catholic

that you have ever finished? ❑ Jewish

(Circle highest grade COMPLETED) •l Other (specify)

None ---------------- O ❑ None

Public or other

{

123456 5. What is your husband’s religious preference?

regular school 789101112

•l Protestant

College or University 1 2 3 4 5+ \ ❑ RomanCatholic

Other (specify) I ❑ Jewish

(b) Please give the year you

❑ Other (specify)

finished that grade. -------- a

❑ None

PHS-4425-3 (Page 3)

Rev. 4/68

(GO ONTO PART V)

47
PART V. INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR HOUSEHOLD

In this part, information is asked about the membevs of the l?ousekold

who lived with you zohen youY new baby was born.

1. List below everyone who usually lived in your household at the time your ne~v baby was kern. Be sure to

list yourself, your husband (if he lived at home) and your newkmrn baby, as well as other children, relatives and nonrelatives living with you. Children who were away at school or college simuld also be listed,

Do not include persons who lived away (for example, persons in the Armed Forces). Also, do not include persons who were only visiting in your house temporarily at the time your baby was born.

Enter your name on the first line;

enter the names of every other

person who lived with you, including

your newborn baby, on the following

lines.

(First mme) (Last name)

For each person, provide the information requested below.

Relationship to you

(husband, daughter,

son, father-in-law,

nephew, stepson,

adopted daughter,

lodger, etc.)

Yourself

Month-Day-Year Married Separated

I

Widowed Divorced

1

(If moye space is needed, please continue on back)

2. At the time your new baby was born who was the

head of your household?

❑ Your husband

❑ Another person G Name of head

3. At the time your new baby was born, was your

husband serving in the Armed Forces?

❑ Yes D No

PHS-442 5-3 (Page 4)

Rev. 4/68

(GO ONTO PART W)

48
PART V L YOUR WORK HISTORY

These questions concern work for pay, LloYk in own business, PvoJession OYjay% OYunpaid work in Jamily ’s

business, jwofession or ,favm. Include full-time and seasonal work.

1. (a) Have you worked since the birth of your new baby?

E-JY s

i

(b) How old was your baby when you

returned to work?— months

1

❑ o

1

(d) Are you planning to go to work?

I_JYes

(c)A;e you working at the present time? fe) How soon do you plan to go to work?

❑ Yes ❑ No — months or — years

2. (a)Did you work at any time during ,your recent pregnancy?

•l Yes ❑ No

(b)H$w many months pregnant were you when you stopped working?

_months or ❑ Worked until baby’s birth

3. Did you work at any time between the birth of your new baby and the one before it?

•l Yes ❑ No

4. After you were first married, did you work before your first baby was born?

❑IYes ❑ No

5. Did you work at any time before you were first married?

❑ Yes ❑ No

F’IiS-442 U-3 (page 5)

Rev. 4/68

(GO ONTO PART VI1)
PART V1l. FAMILY INCOME

.——

The follomiw questions vefer to t;~nzoney income of all members of your family dwing 1967. Include all

income of all the membeys of the family whom you listed even if they zoeve not liv~w togethev du~i~ 1967.

1. (a) Did any member of your family earn money from

wages or a salary in 1967 ?

lJ Yes •1 No

(b) Did any member of your family receive any money

from reliet’, welfare, or ADC from state or local

government in 1967?

CIYes L7 NO

(c) Did any member of your family receive income

from his own farm, business, professional practice, or parmer~hip in 1967?

❑IYes ❑ No

(d) Did any member of your family receive or earn

money in any other way in 1967? (Include unemployment compensation, help from relatives, rent

from property, ‘-,:~~ia~Security, V.A. Benefits,

dividends, e!c.,1

‘.What was the total money received by your husband

from all sources in 1967? (Check the fmx that

agrees with your best estimate )

❑ None or loss rJ $4,000-$4,999

U Under $1,000 ❑ $5,000-$6,999

❑ $’1,000-$1,999 ❑ $7,000-$9,999

❑ $2,000-$2,999 •1 $10,000-$14,999

•1 $3,000-$3,999 ❑ $15,000 or more

1. Taken together then, what was the total money

received by YOUVfamily from all sources in 1967?

(Check the tmx that agrees with your beat estimate)

Q None or loss ❑ $4,000-$4,999

❑ Under $1,000 ❑ $5,000-$6,999

•1 $1,000-$1,999 c1 $7,000-$9,999

❑ $2,000-$2,999 •1 $10,000-$14,999

c1 $3,000-$3,999 •l $15,000 or more

LJY;S I_J!’40

Specify

PART Vlll. PERSON COMPLETING THIS FORM

NAME

ADDRESS

TELEPHONE NUMBER DATE OF COMPLETION

PHs.4425-3 (Page 6)

Rev 4 ’68

GPO 947.408

NOTES AND COMMENTS

50
1972 National Natality Survey

@

*’N “ ‘ %,,

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION. AND WELFARE ((~ ‘)

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE

,+.’ HEALTH SERVICES AND MENTAL HEALTH ADMINISTRATION

‘0 “$. RoCKV!LLE. MARYLAND 20652

,-

NATIONAL CENTER FOR

HEALTH STATISTICS

L

The Public Health Service is conducting a national survey of inedical

care provided to mothers who have babies during 1972. We are trying

to learn more about the medical care mothers received during the period

before and after the birth of the child. Past studies have shown that

medical care is related to the health of a mother and her baby. The

information which mothers throughout the country give us will greatly

aid in planning better medical care programs for all American women.

You are one of a small sample of mothers being selected to represent

all mothers having babies in 1972. Because of this you play an important role in telling us about the medical care you received before

and after the birth of your child.

All information you give us, as well as that provided by medical personnel and facilities listed by you in the questionnaire will be held

strictly confidential. No information will be released to any other

person or agency.

In giving answers to the first part of the form, please name every

doctor, hospital, or clinic from which you received any care related

to your pregnancy during the period specified in the question. It

is necessary that we obtain as complete and accurate a picture as possible of all the medical care you received before and after the birth

of your baby. If you do not know an exact answer to any of the questions in the form, give your best estimate. Please complete the form

and return it within the next few days in the enclosed postage-free

envelope.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely yours,

Robert A. Israel

Director, Division of Vital Statistics

i NAME m? CxmD ‘DATE OF BIRTH

J

M

51
I

ASS{ ’I{ AXC[: OF [.[)X1:l l)l:Nrl Al. [rY - All ,.lonn.uon wh, ch would pcrmtr ,dentif,c.r,o. of . . !nd,v,tfu al, ocof . . cst.bl,.hm.nt, WI1l he hckf confidential, will b.

.se J O.l V h~ ptvst,. s eng.~cd in and for the purpu. e of the s.r, q , and will bepmtccc.d a~amsc disclosure ,. accordance wirhpro, isions of 12 CFR Partl. I

\, f) LI’NT AR} P.4KTI( IPATIf)S — ( wnplctmg (h,, form IS voluntary, >.. wc .ndcr”o Icgai ohlig. tion to do . . .

NATIONAL BIRTH SURVEY

PART 1. SOURCES OF MEDICAL CARE

This part is concerned wjth persons or places which provided medical care m you. If you do not know a complete address, please give us as much in formation as you can.

1. (s) List the name and address of the dc.cror, m~dw]fe, or orher person

who del, vered your baby.

>AM F (bmo (L<l\l)

(CLIY or I’m II) (s1.1,) (Ztp (.04<;

(b) How many times were you seen for medical care by this person durMIg the year before the baby was born? (DO NOT include the delivery episode).

Number

3. Did you see a doctor, midwife, or other person for any medical care related to your pregnancy w,thin THREE MONTHS AFTER THE BIRTH

OF YOUR BABY?

g Yes co No (Go on to Part II)

1

List the names and addresses of aU peIsons who provided medical care

related to your pregnancy within three months after the birrh of your

baby.

NAh{E (F,,. t) (La., I)

ADDRESS (Number) (S frect)

(clly o? Tot, n) (Suite) {z ,f) code)

NAtd E (Firsf) ([..s t)

ADDRESS (Yumbvr) (S’(r.e’1]

(c, t. or Town) (State) (Z,p (; O(!<)

If more space is needed, continue below.

2. Were you seen by any other persons or places (hospitals, maternity

clinics, etc. ) for prenatal care (care related to your recent pregnancy)?

:: Yes ~_j No (Go IO quesc,on 3)

!

List the names and addresses of all persons or places which prov,ded

prenatal care m you.

,A. X,iilI. (i’l,,\/) (1,(,so

ADDRFSS (Lumbt.[) (.s/,,,01)

/(:11> Or r’(m n) (>,=L<.) (~tp (:ode)

How many times were you seen for prenatal care by the above?

(.+’umber)

——.—..———————.

H. SAMI! (Fro!) (Last)

ADDRESS t \unthrr) (,srreco

(C’iq or TOUflJ (,$ faL<.) (Z,p {;mfcl

How many times were you seen for prenatal care by the above?

(,}’wnber)

[f more space is needed, continue below.

HSM-254-1 IPAGE 2)

REV. 7-62

(GO ON TO PART 11) O.M. B. No. 68-S 72088

APPIOV. I .xpi,.~: 12-31-73

52
PART Il. INFORMATION ON HEALTH INSURANCE

—

In this part, we are interested in any health insurance you or your husband may haw had during the TWELVE hlONTHS before the baby was born.

1. Did you have any kind of health insurance for hospital or doctor bills sc any

time during the twelve months before your baby was born?

~ Yes LJ No (GO m question 6)

2. Did you have any kind of health insurance at the time your baby was born?

-J Yes “.] No

3. (a) Did health insurance pay for any part of che medical care you received

during your pregnancy PRIOR TO rhe delivery?

~~~ Yes NO medical care hill durmgpregnanc:

+ ‘--’No ‘“

(b) What part of the medical bills dur,ng pregn3ncy did vourinsurancepay~

r-~ , 1/4 or less over 1,2 to 3!4

-.

~~ over 1!4 co 112 over 3;4 ___

4. (a) Did health msurmce pay any part of the bospircd b,ll when your baby

was born?

,-~ Yes

——

:< No __ NO hospital bill

1

(b) What pm of the hospital bill did your insurance pay?

‘— 1/4 or less k. ~~ over 1:2 to 314

‘“- over 1 /.1 to 1/? ___ over 3/4

5. (a) Did health insurance pay any part of the doctor’s bill for

delivering your baby?

-J Yes ~ No ~ Nodoctor’s bill

1

(b) What part of [be doctor’s bill did your insurance pay?

:2 1/4 01 less ~ over 1/2 to 3/4

~~ over 1/4 to 1/2 ~ over 3/4

6. (a) Did ony organization or agency (such as the Armed Forces, Medicaid, welfare, lodges, unions, etc.), pay for or provide any pact of

the medical services connected with pregnancy or birth?

(b) What part of the medicd services were paid for or provided by

the organization or agency?

~~ 1/4 or less [~ over 1/2 t. 3/4

‘~ over 1/4 to 1/2 ~J over 3/4

(c) W’bat is tbe name of the agency or organization?

PART Ill. INFORMATION ABOUT YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN

We arc mterestcd in the outcomes of all the pregnancies you have ever had, even if they occurled before your present marriage. Please INCLUDE the

child listed on the front of the questionnaire.

1. How m.my children have vou ever h~d? (Counr all chose that were Emm

ALI\’E to YOU AT ANY TIhfE. )

m

2. Ha\,c any of these children died? (DO NOT count miscz.rrmges or babies that

vwre born dead. )

:, Yes ~~ No (Go to question 3)

1

Please list below,, the name, sex, and dates of birch znd death of each such

child.

NAhiE OF CHILD SEX DATE OF BIRTH DATE OF DEATH

(First) (.v,lfri/(./ hi F Mo. Day Year hfo. Day Year

—

HSM-254-1 (PAGE 3)

REV. 7-72

?,. were XIV of your chlldrcn living away from you when rhe child listed

an !he front of the quescionnalre was born? (For example, usualIy

Iivmg with relmives, adopted by someone else, in the Armed

Forces, etc. ) Do not include children who were away at school or

college.

:2 yc* ~ No (Go co question 4)

I

Please list below the name, sex, and dam of birtb of each such

child.

NAhfE OF CHILD SEX DATE OF BIRTH

ff’’m!) (!fzddk) h{ F MO. Day Year

4. (a) Have you evcrhad a stillbirth? (That is, a baby that was bomdead)

:1 Yes ~ No (Go to question 5)

I

(bl Hou, many bzve you ever had? —B

(c) Please g,ve the dare of your last stillbirth.

(!1.. De? Year)

(P.rt Ill continued on Page 4)

53
PART Ill. Coniinuad

>. (a) Have you ever had a miscarriage? (DO NOT include any stillbirth I

7. Do you expect to have more children?

counted in Question 4)

l-- ye, ~~ No (Go to question 6)

1 m

(b) How m’any have you ever had?

(c) Please givethe date of your last miscarriage.

(hf.. D.? } car)

U Definitely yes

I

~ How many more children do you think

[~ Probably yes

you will probably have?

l--+

6. Thinking back, just before you became pregnant with your new baby, did

you want to become pregnant at chat time> 1-

~~ Definitely no

I (GO ON TO PART w)

PART IV. INFORMATION ABOUT YOU AND YOUR HUSBAND

(Check ONE box only)

1. Is this your first marriage?

~~ Yes— Please give the date of your marriage

,Mo. ,0., } ccl,

[g NCJ IPlease give the date of your present rnamiage

V.. /),, , } <,.,

2. (a) Wlat is the highest grade of regular school (elementary school, high

school, two year or four year college or university) chat you COMPLETED? (DO NOT include business or trade schools, or other

specialized training)

3. (a) What is the highest grade of regular school (elementary school,

high school, two-year or four-year college or university) that

your husband COMPLETED? (DO NOT include business or

trade schools or ocher specia Iized train ing.)

(Circle the highest grade of regular school completed) (Circle the highest grade of regular school he completed)

o 1234 s678 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18+

None Elementary school High school

University or Graduate

college school

(b) Other specialized training;

[: Y;, ~ No

Specify: _

(trade schools, beauty-barber college, hospital schools, etc.)

Circle years completed

Less than one 1 2 3 or more

o 123456789101112 13 14 15 16 17 18+

None Elementary school High school

University or Graduate

college school

(b) Ocher specialized training;

~ No

Specify:

(trade schools, beauty-barber college, hospital schools, etc.)

Circle years completed

Less rhan one 1 2 3 or more

(GO ON TO PART V)

HSM-254- ! (PAGE 41

REV. 7-72

54
PART V. lNFORMA~lON ABOUT YOUR FAMILY

Inthis part information is asked shout all relatives Iiving with you when the baby listed on the front of the questionnaire was born.

1. List below all relatives who usuaIly lived with you at the time of your recent delivery. Be sure to Iist yourself, your baby, your husband (if be lived at

home), as well as any of YOUI children and other relatives living with YOU. Include children who were away at school oc Cobe- Do NOT include relatives who lived somewhere eIse (for example, relatives in the Armed Forces). AIso, DO NOT include relatives who were only staying in your home

temporarily when the baby was born.

NAME For YOURSELF and EACH RELATIVE, provide the information requested beIow.

Enter your name on the first line; enter the names of every

other relative who lived with you on the following lines. Be RELATIONSHIP TO YOU

sure to include the baby,

(Husband, daughter, son,

father, father-in-law, nephew,

stepson, adopted daughter,

etc. )

(First Nume) (La. t ham.)

—

YOURSELF

—

DATE OF BIRTH

Mo. Day Year

—

2. Who was the head of this family? (This person must be you or one of the relatives who is listed above.)

❑ Your husband

m YouIself

MARITAL STATUS

Single (never married)

Married

Separated

Widowed

Divorced

❑ Another relative_ Name of head

[GO ON 70 PART Vl)

HSM-254-1 (PAGE 51

REV. 7-72

55
PART V1. FAMILY INCOME

The following questions refer to the money income of members of your family during the TWELVE MONTHS before the baby was born. Include all incomes

of members of the family whom you listed even lf they were not living together during part of the twelve months. Include all income from wages, salaries,

investments, property, Social Security, welfare, unemployment compensation, help from relatives, etc.

1. What was the income (cocal income before deductions for taxes, bonds,

dues, msunmce, etc.) rece,ved by YOUR HUSBAND from all sources

during the rwelve months before the baby was born? (Thjs income should

include money from wages, salaries, commissions, bonuses, tips, own

business, professional practice, farm, unemployment compensation, etc.)

If exact amount is not known, please check your best estimate.

(Check one)

❑ none or under $1,000 U $S,000 to $6,999

n $1,000 to $1,999 [] $7,000 co $9,999

❑ $2,000 to $2,999 [] $10,000 co $14,999

r-g $3,000 to $3,999 u $15,000 co $24,999

0$4,000 to $4,999 [1 $2>,000 or mom

2. What was che rota 1family income (before deductions for taxes, bonds, dues,

insurance, etc.) received by YOURSELF, YOUR HUSBAND, and ALL

OTHER LISTED FAMILY MEMBERS from all sources during the twelve

months before the baby was born? (This income should include money

from wages, salaries, commissions, bonuses, tips, own business, professional practice, farm, unemployment compensation, etc.) If exact

amount is “ot known, please check your best estimate.

(Check one)

m none or under $1,000 U $5,000 to $6,999

[3 $1,00010$1,999 0 $7wJ to $9,999

[1 $2,000 to $2,999 ❑ $10,000 to $14,999

[J $3,000 co $3,999 n $15,000 to $24,999

[] $4,000 to $4,999 U $25,000 or more

(GO ON TO PART W)

PART V1l. PERSON COMPLETING THIS FORM

NAME

ADDREss

(Number) (Street)

(City or Town) (sm.?) (Zip Code)

TELEPHONE NO. DATE OF COMPLETION

(Month, day, year)

NOTES AND COh4MENTS

t+sr+2s4-1 (PAGE 61 If more space is needed concinue on back. GPO 0s0.900

REV. 7-72

56

* U. S, GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE :1978 260-937/22
VITAL MJD HEALTH STATISTICS Series

Series 1. Programs and Colkction Procedures. –Reports which describe the general programs of the National

Center for Health Statistics and its offices and divisions and data collection methods used and include

definitions and other material necessary for understanding the data.

Series 2. Data Evaluation and Methods Research. –Studies of new statistical methodology including experimental tests of new survey methods, studies of vital statistics collection methods, new analytical

techniques, objective evaluations of reliability of colIected data, and contributions to statistical theory.

Series 3. Analytical Studies. –Reports presenting analytical or interpretive studies based on vital and heaIth

statistics, carrying the analysis further than the expository types of reports in the other series.

Series 4. Documents and Cornrnittee Reports. – FinaI reports of major committees concerned with vital and

health statistics and documents such as recommended model vital registration laws and revised birth

and death certificates.

Series 10. Data From the Health Interview Sumey. –Statistics on illness, accidental injuries, disability, use of

hospital, medical, dentaf, and other services, and other health-related topics, afl based on data collected

in a continuing national household interview survey.

St.rics 11. Data From the Health Examination Survey and the Health and Nutrition Examination Survey .-Data

from direct examination, testing, and measurement of national samples of the civilian noninstitutionalized population provide the basis for two types of reports: (I) estimates of the medically defined

prevalence of specific diseases in the United States and the distributions of the population with respect

to physicaf, physiological, and psychological characteristics and (2) analysis of relationships among the

various measurements without reference to an explicit finite universe of persons.

Series 12. Data From the Institutionalized Population Surveys. –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 facilities

providing long-term care, ambulatory care, hospital care, and family planning services.

Series 14. Data on Health Resources: Manpower and Facilities. –Statistics on the numbers, geographic distribution, and characteristics of health resources including physicians, dentists, nurses, other health

occupations, hospitals, nursing homes, and outpatient facilities.

Series 20. Data on Mortality. –Various statistics on mortality other than as included in regulm annual or monthly

reports. Special analyses by cause of death, age, and other demographic variables; geographic and time

series analyses; and statistics on characteristics of deaths not available from the vital records based on

sample surveys of those records.

Series 21, Data on Natality, Marriage, and Divorce. –L’arious statistics on natality, marriage, and divorce other

than as included in regular annual or monthly reports. Special analyses by demographic variables;

geographic and time series analyses; studies of fertility; and statistics on characteristics of births not

available from the vital records based on sample surveys of those records.

Series 22. Data From the National Mortality and Natalitv Survey s.-Discontinued effective 1975. Future reports

from these sample surveys based on vital records will be included in Series 20 and 21, respectively.

Series 23. Data From the National Survey of Family Growth. –Statistics on fertility, family formation and dissolution, family pkaming, and related maternal and infant health topics derived from a biennial survey

of a nationwide probability sample of ever-married women 15-44 years of age.

For a list of titles of reports published in these series, write to: Scientific and Technical Information Branch

National Center for Health Statistics

Public Health Service

Hyattsville, Md. 20782
NCHS U S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EOUCATION, ANO WELFARE

P.bltc Health Sewce

Nmon.1 Center for Health Stmmcs

3700 E.,! West H,ghway

Hwm.tile. Maryland 20782

OFFICIAL BuSINESS

pENALTy FOR PRIVATE usE, $300

Pr,sl,w,c ArdD FEES PAIO

U S, OEPARTMEPdT OF HEW

HEW-3 96

c

*-

THIRD CLASS US.MAIL

BLK. RATE I

F., pubbcau.nsm the

;,!td and t{, .l,h ,>t.,,,(,c,

Sows all 301436. NcIK.

I