NATIONAL CENTER Serie”s 21 

For HEALTH STATISTICS INumber 1 

VITAIA and HEALTH STATISTICS 

DATA FROM THE NATIONAL VITAL STATISTICS SYSTEM 

Natality


Statistics


Analysis


United States � 1962 

An ana Iytica I study of ferti Iity trends in terms of 

period and cohort measures. Also, a discussion of 

characteristics of live births including plurality, 

seasonal variation, period of gestation, weight 

at birth, sex ratio, attendant at birth, and legitimacy. 

Washington, D .C. October 1964 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

HEALTH, EDUCATION , AND WELFARE Public Health Service 

Anthony J. Celebrezze Luther L. Terry 

Secretary Surgeon Genera 1 
.

. .8 .. 

,, ,!. , 

,\. 

., ...’ J,’,.,,.. 

,(. ‘.. , ,.! 

* .. ‘!j -”””’ 

See inside of back cover 

for catalog card. 

I I 

Public Health Service Publication No. li)oo.serie~ 21.N0.1 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 

Washington, D.C., 20402 - Price 45 cents 
NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS 

Forrest E. Linder, Ph. D., Director


Theodore D. Woolsey, Deputy Director


Oswald K. Sagen, Ph. D., Assistant Director


(for Professional Relations)


Walt R. Simmons, M.A., Statistical Advisor


Alice M. Waterhouse, M.D., Medical Advisor


James E. Kelly, D.D.S., Dental Advisor


Louis R. Stolcis, M.A,, Executive Officer


DIVISION OF VITAL STATISTICS


Robert D. Grove, Ph. D., Chief


Public Health Service Publication No. 1000-Series 21-No. 1 
-------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------

---------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

-------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------

-------------------------

------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------

---------------------

------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------

------------------------

---------

------------------------------------------------

CONTENTS 

Introduction


Early Development of Btih RegisWation


~eModel Law---------------------------------------------------


The Birth-Registration Area


Formation oftie Ditision of Vital Statistics, National Center for Hedti


Statistics


The Standard Certificate of Live Btiti


Sources and Qualifications of Data ---------------------------------


The Decltie in Birtis-----------------------------------=-----------

Measurement of Fertfliw


.Period Rates


Cohort Rates


Natality Statistics by Selected Characteristics


Attendant at Birth


Plural Birtis


Trend in the Sex Ratio at Bii"th


Birth Weight -----------------------------------------------------


Period of Gestation


Seasondiw of Btifis


Births by Color, Race, Residence, and Legitimacy


Fertilityby Color


Fertilityby Specified Race for 1960


Fertili~ by States and Geographic Divisions-”


Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan andUrban and Rural Areas


Illegitimate Btihs


Births in Puerto Rico mdtie Vkgiri Isl~ds---=----------------------

Illegit@ate Births---'--------------------------------------------

III 

Page 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

3 

3 

4 

6 

6 

18 

26 

26 

27 

29 

29 

33 

36 

39 

39 

42 

43 

45 

45 

51 

52 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------

CONTENTS—Continued 

Figure ——.——. —— Page .— 

1. 

2. 

.

?. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

16. 

17. 

18. 

19. 

20. 

21. 

22. 

Live births and birth rates,l94O-62---------------------------------------------------


Birth rates for the United States and selected countries, 1953-62------------------------


Birth rates byage ofmother, l94O-62------------------------------------------------


Indexes of the birth rate, the fertility rate, and the total fertility rate, 1940-62------------


Birthrates by live-birth order, l94O-62-----------------------------------------------


Birth probabilities by parity and exact age ofmother, 1940-63--------------------------


Fertility rates, actual and proj.ected, l95O-85-----------------------------------------


Cumulative birth rates for all births for selected groupsof cohorts of all women, by exact


age of mother, l92O-63------------------------------------------------------------


Cumulative birthrates for first births for selected groups of cohorts of all women, by exact


age of mother, l92O-63------------------------------------------------------------


Percent distribution of all women, by parity, byexact ages 20-24 years for selected groups


of cohorts


Percent distribution of all women, by parity, by exact ages 40-44 years for selected groups


of cohorts


Cumulative birth rates’, actual and projected, for all women, by exact ages 50-54 years, in


groups of cohorts, 1930-2000


Percent of live births occurring inhospitals, by color, 1940-62--------------------------


Birth rates, unadjuite dandadjuste dforseasonal variation, 1952-62---------------------


Monthly indexes of live births, 1939, 1950, and 1962------------------------------------


Monthly indexes of live births, by color and geographic region, 1962---------------------


Monthly indexes of live births: England and Wales, 1962, and Japan, 1961-----------------


Fertility rates by color, l92O-62-----------------------------------------------------


Illegitimacy ratios for selected comtries, l953-62-------------------------------------


Percent distribution of unwed mothers, by age, 1940-62--------------------------------


Estimated illegitimate live births by color, 1942-62------------------------------------


Live births and birth rates, Puerto Rico, l943-62--------------------------------'------


7 

8 

10 

12 

14 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

.22 

25 

26 

36. 

37 

38 

39 

40 

46 

48 

“49 

51 

Iv

-----

--

------------------------

-------------------

CONTENTS—Continued 

Table Page 

1. Live births, birth rates, and fertility rates, by color: United States, 1909 -62---—---—=--- 5 

2. Birth rates: United States and selected countries, 1962 --~------—-—----------—---—-- 7 

3. Age-sex-adjusted and unadjusted birth rates: United States, 1940, 1950, and 1960 -62— 8 

4. Birth rates by age of mother: United States, 1940 -62--—-----——-----—--—-—--—-- 9 

5. Intrinsic rates, crude rates, and reproduction rates: Urnted States, 1950 and 1960 -62--—— 12 

6. Percent distribution of live births, by live-birth ordec United States, 19S0 and 1960-62 13 

7.	 Birth rate indexes, by live-birth order for women aged 15-44 years:, United States, 1950, 

1957, and l96O-62------------------------------------------------------------- 14 

8.	 Birth rates, by first and second live-birth order and age of mother: United States, 1960 and 

1962 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 15 

9. Birth rates by age of mother and live-birth order United States, 1962 -----——------- 15 

10. Birth probabilities, by parity and exact age of mother: United States, 1940 -62------------- 54 

11.	 Annual central birth rates for all women, by live-birth order, by current age, in groups of 

cohorts from 1914-18 to 1943-47: United States, 1958 -62----------------------—------ 56 

12.	 Annual central birth rates, for all women, by live-birth order, by current age, in each cohort 

from 1909 to 1948: United States, l958-62------------------------------------------ 57’ 

13.	 Cumulative birth rates for all women, by live-birth order, by exact age, in groups of cohorts 

from 1905-09 to 1944-48: United States, 1959 -63------—---— 61 

14.	 Cumulative birth rates for all women, by live-birth order, by exact age, in each cohort 

from 1909 to 1948: United States, 1959 -63--------—--—------------------—------— 62 

15.	 Cumulative birth rates, by live-birth order, for all women, by exact ages 50-S4 years, in 

selected groups of cohorts &om 1876-80 to 1909-13: United States, 1930 -63. ------.—----- 20 

16.	 Percent distribution of all women, by parity, by exact age, in selected groups of cohorts 

from 1876-80 to 1944-48: United States, 1920~63-----------------—-——-—---------- -66 

17.	 Median age of childbearing, by live-birth order, for all women in selected groups of cohorts 

from 1896-1900 to 1903-13: United States, 1950 -63----------------------------------- 23 

18. Estimated ,reproduction rates of all women in selected groups of cohorts IYom 1876-80 to 

1909-13: United States --------------------------------------------------------- 24 

19, Projected cumulative birth rates for all women, by exact ages 51-54 years in selected 

groups of cohorts from 1911-15 to 1946-50: United States, 1965-2000 26 

20, Percent distribution of nonwhite live births and urban and rural areas by attendant: United 

States, 1940, 1950, 1960, and l962------------------------------------------------- 27 

\ 

v 
---------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------

CONTENTS—Continued 

Table 

21. 

22. 

23. 

24. 

25. 

26. 

27. 

28. 

29. 

30. 

31. 

32. 

33. 

34. 

35. 

36. 

37. 

38. 

39. 

40. 

41. 

Percent distribution of single and plural live births, by birth weight: United States, 1962---

Males per 1,000 females for white live births, by age of mother and live-birth order: United 

States, 1946, 1950, 1960, mdl962--------------------------------------------------

Immature live births, as percent of total live births in each group, byageof mother and 

color: United Stxes 

Percent distribution of live births, bybirth weight and specified race: United States, 1962--

Immature live births, as percent of total live births in each group, by color: United States 

and urban and rural areas, 1950, 1953, 1955, 1960-62---------------------------------

Immature live births, as percentoftotallivebirthsin each group, bycolor and size ofplace: 

United States, 1960and 1961 

Percent distribution of live births, by period of gestation and color: United States and 

selected areas, l962--------------------------------------------------------------

Premature live births, as percent of total live births, by color: United States and selected 

areas, l962----------------------------------------------------------------------

Imman+re live births, as percent of total live births in each group; by color and periodof 

gestation: United States 

Percent distribution of live births, by sex, color,and period of gestation: California and New 

York City, l962-------------------------------------------------------------------

Ratio ofquarterly birtis, byageof motierto average quarterly births: United States, 1962-

Birth rates, by age of mother, color, and live-birth order: United States, 1962------------

Median age of mother, by live-birth order and color: United States, 1962-----------------

Indexes of the total fertility rate, by color: United States, 1950 and 1960-62---------------

Age-adjusted and unadjusted birthrates and fertility rates, by specified race: United States, 

1960 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Live births and birth rates: United States, each division and State, 1962------------------

Estimated illegitimate live births, illegitimacy rates and ratios: United States, 1940-62----

Estimated illegitimacy rates, byage of mother: United States, 1940-62-------------------

Indexes of the illegitimacy rate by age of mother: United States, 1952 and 1960-62--------

Estimated illegitimate live births andillegitimacy ratios, bycolor: United States, 1940-62--

Percent distribution of live births, by live-birth order, color, and legitimacy status: United 

States and 35 reporting States, l962-------------------------------------------------

Page 

28 

~+ 

31 

32 

32 

33 

34 

34 

35 

35 

38 

41 

41 

42 > 

43 

44 

46 

47 

48 

50 

50 

VI 
---

------------------

---------------------------

-----------------

-- ---

I 

SYMBOk 

Data not available-----------------------’ 

Category not applicable 

Quantity zero 

Quantity morethan Obutless &an O.05----

Figure doesnot meet standardsof 

reliabilityor precision 

. --.,,— . . 

. . . 

-

0.0 

* 

VII 

t 
.,, 

NATALITY RATES AND RATIOS, 1962 

TOTAL NUMBER OF LIVE BIRTHS-4,167,362 

RUDE BIRTH RATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.4


:per 1,000 population),


?J.JDE RATE OF NATURAL INCREASE.. . . .12.9


:persons per 1,000 population)


ITRINSIC RATE OF NATURAL INCREASE . ..18.8


per 1,000 female population)


iOSS REPRODUC’TION RATE. . . . . . . . . ..1,695


3T REPRODUCTION RATE . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,633


)TAL FERTILITY RATE . . . . . . . . . ...3.471.0


:NERAL FERTILITY RATE. . . . . ., . . . . . .112.1


per 1,000 female population 15-44 years)


JMULATIVE BIRTH RATE BY AGE OF


YOMEN, JANUARY 1, 1963


per 1,000 females)


5t019 years: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...93


:Oto24 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...957


:5t029 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...2.141


0t034y ears . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...2.714


5t039y ears . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...2.809


0t044 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...2.739


5t049y ears . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...2.402


0t054y ears . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...2.283


NOTES 

1.	 Alaska and Hawaii. —All tables showing time series 

include data for Alaska beginning 1959, Hawaii 1960. 

2,	 50-percent sample. — All data for the years 1951-54 

and 1956-62 are derived from 50-percent samples 

of birth records. Statistics for these years were 

obtained by multiplying the sample figures by 2. 

3.	 Not stated data. — Age of mother, live-birth order, 

birth weight, and period of gestation data which were 

not stated in frequency tables, Vital Statistics of the 

United States, 1962, Volume 1, were distributed in the 

preparation of rate tables, percent distributions, and 

indexes for this report. 

4. Race and CO1OYnot stated. -In 1962 the State of New 

Jersey omitted the item “color or race” from its 

certificate of live birth. Therefore, all tables showing 

data by color for 1962 for the United States exclude 

data for residents of New Jersey. 

PREMATURE BIRTHS (under 37 weeks gestation)..............:. . . . . . . . . . . ...6.9 

(per 100 live births) 

IMMATURE BIRTHS (2,500 grams or less). . .8.0 

(per 100 live births) 

MEDIAN WEIGHT AT BIRTH. . . . . . . . . ...3.290 

(in grams) 

HOSPITAL DELIVERIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...97.2 

(per 100 live births) 

PLURAL DELIVERIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.5 

(per 1,000 live births) 

SEX RATIO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...1.048 

(males per 1,000 female live births) 

ESTIMATED LEGITIMATE FERTILITY 

RATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...152.1 

(per 1,000 married female population 15-44 years) 

ESTIMATED ILLEGITIMATE FERTILITY 

RATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...21.. 

(per 1,000 unmarried female population 15-44 years) 

ESTIMATED PERCENT COMPLETENESS 

OF BIRTH, REGISTRATION . . . ‘. ., . . . . ...98.9 

TO TABLES 

5.	 Adjustment fov umderyegistration of bivths. —Births 

were adjusted for underregistration for all years in 

tables 10 through 19. In other tables births were adjusted as shown in footnotes. 

6.	 population bases. — Except as noted, birth rates 

shown in this report for the United States and the 

individual States are based on populations present in 

the respective areas. These populations exclude the 

Armed Forces overseas and persons living abroad 

but include the Armed Forces stationed in each area. 

Rates for 1940,1950, and 1960 are based on the population enumerated as of April 1; for all other years, 

estimated as of July 1. 

In tables 10 through 19 numbers of women were 

adjusted for underenumeration and misstatements of 

age in censuses. 

‘VIII 
NATALITY STATISTICS ANALYSIS


Anders S. Lunde, Louise M. Okada, and Harry 

INTRODUCTION 

This publication of the Division of Vital Statistics, National Center for Health Statistics, is the 

first report of Series 21, presenting natality 

statistics and their analysis and related methodological subjects. This report supplements Volume 

of Vital Statistics of the United States, 1962, 

‘‘Natality,” which contains general tables and rate 

tables dealing with birth statistics in the United 

States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. I 

Included in the introduction are brief statements on the history and development of birth 

statistics in the United States; the work of the 

Division of Vital Statistics, National Center for 

Health Statistics; and the sources of data presented in this publication. 

Early Development of Birth .,Registrationl’2 

Throughout the 17th and 18th centuries various colonies attempted to obtain information on 

vital events. In 1632 the Grand Assembly of 

Virginia required ministers to report annually on 

all christenings, weddings, and burials in their 

parishes. In 1639 the legislative bodies of the 

Massachusetts Bay Colony Connecticut, Plytnouth, 

and other colonies required government officials 

to record births, deaths, and marriages. Some 50 

years later, in an improved registration law, 

Massachusetts enforced a penalty clause against 

next of kin for failure to register a birth or a death 

and authorized town clerks to issuecertificates to 

anyone desiring such a record. In 1795: this State 

made householders responsible for “reporting 

M. Rosenberg, Division of Vital Statistics 

births and deaths which occurred in their ,households, and it required institutions to report events 

occurring in them. .— . ,.. It was not until the 19& century ti-at an increasing interest in vital statistics stimulated the 

@“owth of State registration programs. In 1841 

Massachusetts passed whar has been called the 

first “modem” State registration law, which was 

revised in 1842 and 1844. This included provisions 

for uniform certificates and the establishment of a 

statewide file of copies of the records. By 1859 

eight States had established some form of systematized registration. The registration movement 

was actively supported by such groups as the 

American Statistical Association, the American 

Medical Association, and the American Public 

Health Association. 

The enumeration system which had been used 

by the U.S. Bureau of the Census to.attempt a count 

of mortality in census years was extended to include births in the censuses of 1880, 1890, and 

1900. Actually, no attempt was made to enumerate 

births; “the number of births was taken as the 

sum of the infants enumerated in the census of 

population under 1 year of age and the number of. 

infants born and dying during the census year. ” 3 

According to Wilbur, this method was unsatisfactory, but it gave better results than were 

available from. State registration at the time. 

In 1908, in an attempt to determine the feasibility of establishing a permanent birth-regis- . 

tration area, the Bureau of the Census made an 

exhaustive collection of transcripts of all births 

registered in the United States by State and local 

offices. The results indicated that only about onehalf of the births that occurred each year were 

recorded. The collection of transcripts of births .. 

743-691 0 -64.2 1 

I 
---

occurring in eight States, New York City, and the 

,District of Columbia (called the ‘provisional 

birth-registration area”) was continued in 1909 

and 1910. While work connected with the Thirteenth Census caused the transcript collection to 

be discontinued, it was thought that the work should 

be resumed for those areas which had practically 

complete registration and in which the laws pertaining to registration were enforced. 

The Model Law 

The vital registration laws of many States 

were diverse and inadequate; the lack of uniformity 

and enforcement prevented the development of 

national statistics on vital events. At a meeting in 

Denver in 1895 the Committee on Vital Statistics 

of the American Public Health Association first 

proposed the drafting of a registration law suitable 

for adoption by States. In Buffalo in 1900 the committee reported that it was undertaking the preparation of a model form of legislation. The so-called 

Model Law, the Standard Certificate of Death, and 

the Standard Certificate .of Birth resulted by 1915. 

In 1902 Congress formed the permanent 

Bureau of the Census and provided for the collection of statistics on births and deaths annually 

in registration areas. In the following year, Congress adopted a resolution emphasizing the importance of a uniform system of registration 

throughout the United States ,and urged the cooperation of the various States in realizing this 

goal. Uniform principles concerning the registration of deaths and births were established and 

a draft of a law for such registration was prepared. 

The model bill in general provided that State 

Boards of Health should have authority over registration matters, fixed responsibility of registering 

births with the attendant at birth, and listed a 

minimum set of items for inclusion in the State 

certificates. This model was adopted in draft form 

by Pennsylvania in 1905 and was submitted to the 

States in final form in 1907. The Model Law was 

revised in 1942 and in 1959. Today every State has 

adopted the principles of the first and subsequent 

model laws in composing vital statistics legislation. Since the promulgation of the Model Law, 

the work of the national and State vital statistics 

offices has been closely interwoven. 

The Birth JRegistration Area 

In 1915 the birth-registration area of the 

United States was formed with 10 States and the 

District of Coltimbia. Most of these States were 

in the northeast and north-central regions and had 

fairly well-established registration systems. 

Thereafter admittance was based on birth-registration tests, it being required that birth registration be 90 percent complete in each State before 

admission to the area. By 1920, 23 States and the 

District of Colu-mbia representing 60 percent of the 

population had been admitted to the birth-registration area, and by 1930,46 States and the District 

of Columbia had been admitted representing 95 

percent of the population. With the admission of 

Texas in 1933, the area was complete for the 

United States. 

The organized Territories of Hawaii and 

Alaska were admitted in 1929 and 1950, respectively. Data from these areas were prepared 

separately until they became States—Alaska in 

1959 and Hawaii in 1960. 

The cities of Baltimore, New Orleans, and 

New York make separate returns to the Division 

of Vital Statistics and are considered as distinct 

parts of the birth-registration area. Returns from 

these cities are combined with returns from their 

respective States in the national tabulations. 

The Virgin Islands of the United: States was 

admitted to the area in 1924 and the ‘Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in 1943. Data received from 

these places are not included in the totals for the 

United States but are prepared separately. Birth. 

records are not received from other regions unde~’ 

United States sovereignty or jurisdiction, such as 

the Canal Zone, Guam, American Samoa, and the 

Trust Territories. 

Formation of the	 Division ofI Vital” “. Statistics, . 

National Center for Health Statistics 

The Bureau of the Census in 1917 published 

the first report containing statistics on births in 

the registration area titled Birth Statistics fov the 

Registration Ayes of the United States: 1915. The 

Division of Vital Statistics of the Bureau thereafter published statistics on births annually 

2 
through 1945. By an executive order, which became effective on, July 16, 1946, the Division of 

Vital Statistics and all of its functions were transferred to the Public Health Service in the Federal 

Security Agency. The official designation of me 

division became the National Office of Vital 

Statistics. In April 1953 the authority for Federal 

functions in vital statistics was transferred from 

the Federal Security Agency to the Department of 

Health, Education, and Welfare. 

The National Center for Health Statistics, 

responsible directly to the Surgeon General of the 

..Public Health Service, was established in August 

1960. The National Office of Vital Statistics became the National Vital Statistics Division, one 

of two divisions of the Center. The rapid growth ..—. of its program in gathering, analyzing, and disseminating basic data relevant t~the health of the 

United States and its demographic problems led 

to a further organization of the Center in October 

1963. Under this reorganization the National Vital 

Statistics Division became one of five major 

divisions under a designation which it once had in 

the Bureau of the Census, the Division of Vital 

Statistics. -

The Division, besides preparing and publishing statistics on births, deaths, marriages, and 

divorces, conducts research and methodological 

studies in vital statistics areas. It conducts relations with the States in the matter of registration methods and maintains a continuing program to improve the quality and usefulness of 

vital statistics through technical assistance. 

The Standard Certificate of Live Birth 

The Standard Certificate of Live Birth, issued 

by the Division of Vital Statistics, has served for 

many years as the principal means for gaining 

uniformity in the content of the documents used 

to collect information. It has been modified by 

each State to the extent made necessary by the 

particular needs of the State or by special provisions of the State Vital Statistics Law. The 

certificates of most States conform closely in 

content and format to the standard certificate. 

Where they do not do so, they provide, with certain 

exceptions, the basic information required for 

national statistics. 

The first issue of the standard certificate 

appeared shortly before the formation of the 

birth-registration area and was in use during the 

period 1915-17. The certificate has been revised 

periodically to take into account changes in the 

focus of information needed and the increasing 

interest in factors related to health and social 

conditions. The present standard certificate was 

revised ~in 1956 and the next revision is planned 

for 1966. 

Sources and Qualifications of Data 

Natality tabulations for 1962, with the exception noted below, are based on information obtained from microfilm copies of. the. original 

certificates of live birth. Birth data for the United 

States are confined to events registered within the 

United States and include events occurring to nonresident aliens. Births occurring abroad to U.S. 

citizens are not included. The data for Puerto 

Rico and the Virgin Islands are confined to events 

registered in these areas and are treated separately. 

The statistical information on the birth 

records was edited, classified, placed on punchcards, and tabulated in the National Vital Statis -

tics Division. The 1962 birth statistics for California were obtained by. a different method. me 

Bureau of Vital Statistics and Data Processing of 

the California State Department of Health coded 

the information on their certificates according to 

the rules followed by the National Vital Statistics 

Division. From punchcards prepared for its own 

use the Bureau reproduced the information required for national tabulations on uniform punchcard forms. The reproduced cards were verified 

and’ tabulated with the cards for other areas. 

All birth statistics for the United States as a 

whole by color or race exclude data for residents . 

of New Jersey because this State did not require 

reporting of the item; the absence of this information for New Jersey affects all birth rates 

classified by color or race for the total United 

States. This results from the fact that it was not 

possible to obtain denominators by color to corr&pond with the natality data excluding this State; 

intercensal population estimates by age, color, and 

sex are not available for individual States. There-
fore, in order to prepare birth rates by color for 

the United States, estimates were made for the 

population of the United States by age, color, and 

sex excluding New Jersey. A more comprehensive 

exphnation of this problem may be found in 

Section 5, Technical Appendix, Volume 1, Vital 

Statistics of the United States, 1962. 

The rate tables give data for varying periods-—some only for recent years and others back 

to the earliest years for which data are available. 

In many cases corresponding rates for earlier 

years will be found in preceding issues of Volume 

1 of Vital Statistics of the United States. Cohort 

rates for years prior to 1958 will be found in a 

previous report: 

Adjustment of natality statistics for estimated 

underregistration of live births was discontinued 

in 1960 where absolute frequencies and peviod 

rates are shown, for reasons discussed in the 

Technical Appendix of Volume 1. In time-trend 

tables, data which have been shown on an adjusted 

basis in previous reports are shown in this report 

as adjusted through 1959 and on a registered 

(unadjusted) basis for 1959 and years thereafter. 

Adjusted figures were used in the computation of 

all coho~t rates, as described in the report cited 

in reference 4. In all tables data adjusted for 

underregistration are so indicate~ otherwise, 

the tables include data based solely on registered 

births. 

THE DECLINE IN BIRTHS’-

In 1962 there were 4,167,362 live births 

registered in the United States, a decrease of 

100,964 or 2.4 percent from the number in 1961 

(table 1). This was the tenth consecutive year in 

which births exceeded 4 million; nevertheless, the 

decline was greater than that which occurred in 

1958, when the drop from the peak year of 1957 

was only 1.2 percent. 

In 1915, when the birth-registration area was 

established, there were an estimated 2,965,000 

live births in the United States. The number of 

births dropped to 2.7 million in 1919, rose following World War I to over 3 million in 1921, then 

declined fairly steadily to a low of 2.3 million in 

1933, during the depression period. Beginning in 

1940 a definite upswing occurred, associated with 

industrial recovery and the,outbreak of World War 

H; there was a rapid rise to a peak of ,3.1 million 

births in 1943. A 2-year decline, related to overseas troop movements, was followed at the end 

of the war by a rise in the marriage rate and a 

“baby boom” which reached a peak of 3.8 million 

births in 1947. Another leveling off period of 3 

years was followed by a steady increase in births 

until, the number exceeded 4 million in 1954. 

In the decade 1950-60, mothers gave birth to 

more babies than in any previous 10-year period 

in this country, a total of over 40,000,000 live 

births. This was very unusual, since most of these 

mothers represented the small cohorts of women 

born during the depression period, the 1920’s and 

1930’s. In 1957, a peak year in the fertility history 

of the United States, 4,308,000 births were recorded; Since 1957 there has been a declining trend 

in the annual number of births. 

The declining trend in fertility is reflected in 

almost all measures of period fertility. me crude .—. birth rate, 25.3 live births per 1,000population in 

1957, dropped to 22.4 in 1962. Both the general 

fertility rate and the total fertility rate declined 

by’ 8 percent during this period. The decline was 

e~erienced among both white and nonwhite women 

bearing children of almost all birth orders from 

first to fifth. 

Changes in cohort fertility do not yet indicate 

the implications for family formation of the current declines in period fertility rates. The reduction in the number of births to women of all 

ages may reflect a trend toward a smaller average 

family size or merely to a temporary postpone­

, ment of childbearing. It is interesting to note the 

reversal in the declining trend of average cornpleted family size that has taken place since 1960. 

Women who completed their reproductive period 

in 1930 averaged 3.6 children each; by 1961 this 

figure had reached a low of 2.3. But there are signs 

of a sharp recovery. For example, women aged 

30-34 years had already borne over 2.7 children 

per woman by the end of 1962. 

The decline in period fertility is undoubtedly 

related to the pattern of family formation in the 

period following World War II. Early marriage, 

followed by early childbearing, were factors in 

the high fertility of the 1950’s. Median age at first 

marriage for brides dropped from 21.4 years in 

1951 to 20.1 years in 1960 and for grooms from 

23.8 years to 23.1 years. There was an increase 

4 
-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

----------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

---------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

--------------------------

-------------------------------

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

--- ---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Table 1. Live births, birth rates, and fertility rates, by color: United States, 1909-62


(Notes to tablesgiven o. pageVIII) 

Live births Birth ratel Fertility rate


Year
 Nm-
 Total II White white Total II Nhite I 

Nmwhite
 I
 ZEIEEEE


Rates per 1,000 female
 Registered births Number Rates per 1,000 popuhtim mpulation aged 15-44 years


1962------------------------------- 4,167,362 3,394,068 641,580 22.4 30.5 112.1 107.5 148.7 

1961------------------------------- 4,268,326 3,600,864 667,462 23.3 - ::; 3?-.6 117.2 112.2 153.5 

1960 4,257,850 :,::;,;$ 657,106 ;;.: 32.1 118.0 113.2 153.6 

1959 4,244,796 >, 647,366 22:9 32.8 118.7 113.8 156.1 

Births adjusted for under-


registrati0n2


1923--------------— 

1959 4,295,000 3,622,000 673,000 24.3 23.1 34.1 120-1 114.6 162.3 

1958 4,255,000 3,598,000 657,000 24.5 23.3 34.3 120-1 114.8 160.5 

1957------------------------------- 4,308,000 3,648,000 660,000 25.3 24.1 35.3 122.7 117.5 162.8 

1956------------------------------- 4,218,000 3,573,000 645,000 25.2 24.0 35.4 120.8 13.5.6 160.5 

1955------------------------------- 4,104,000 3>488,000 617,000 25.0 23.8 34.8 118.0 11.3.3 154.8 

1954------------------------------- 4,078,000 3>475,000 603,000 25.3 24.2 34.9 117.6 113.1 1.52.5 

1953 3,965,000 3>389,000 575,000 25.0 24.0 34.1 114.8 220.7 146.8 

1952------------------------------- 3,913,000 3,358>000 555,000 25.1 2L+.1 33.7, L23.6 109.9 1G3.0 

1951------------------------------- 3,823,000 3,277,000 546,000 24.9 23.9 33.8 12.1.3 107-5 141.9 

1950 3>632,000 3,108,000 524,000 24.1 23.0 33.3 106.2 102.3 3.37.3 

1949-------— 3,649,000 3,136,000 513,000 24.5 23.6 33.0 L07.1 103.6 3.35.1 

1948 3,637,000 3,141,000 495,000 24.9 24.0 32.4 107.3 104.3 131.6 

1947------------------------------- 3,817,000 3,347,000 469,000 26.6 26.1 31.2 1L3.3 122.8 125.9 

1946 3,411,000 2,990,000 420,000 24.1 23.6 28.4 101.9 1::.: 113.9 

1945------------------------------- 2,858,000 2,471,000 388,000 20.4 19.7 26.5 85.9 106.0 

1944------------------------------- 2,939,000 2,545>000 394,000 2L.2 20.5 27.4 88.8 86.3 108.5 

1943------------------------------- ;,;g$,:lg 2,704,000 400,000 22.7 22.1 28.3 94.3 92.3 111.0 

1942------------------------------- 2,605,000 384,000 22.2 ?l.s 27.7 91.5 89.5 107.6 

1941------------------------------- 2:703;000 2,330,000 374,000 20.3 U .5 27.3 83.4 80.7 105.4 

1940------------------------------- 2,559,000 2,199,000 360,000 19.4 18.6 26.7 79-9 77.1 102.4 

1939 2,466,000 2,3.3.7,000349,000 18.8 18.0 26.1 77.6 74-8 100.1 

1938 2,496,000 2,148,000 348,000 19.2 18.4 26.3 79.1 76.5 100.5 

1937-------------------------------‘2,413,000 2,071,000 342,000 18.7 17.9 26.0 77.1 74.4 99.4 

1936 2,355,000 2,027,0do :::,gl: 18.4 17.6 25.1 75.8 73.3 95.9 

1935------------------------------- 2,377,000 2,042,000 > 18.7 17.9 25.8 77.2 74.5 98.4 

1934------------------------------- 2,396,000 2,058>000 338,000 19.0 18.1 26.3 78.5 75.8 100.4 

1933------------------------------- 2,307>000 1,982,000 325,000 18.4 17.6 25.5 76.3 ;;.~ 97.3 

1932------------------------------- 2,440,000 2,099,000 341,000 19.5 18.7 26.9 81.7 103.0 

1931--------------------7---------- 2,506,000 2,170,000 335,000 20.2 19.5 26.6 84.6 82:4 102.1 

1930 2,618,000 2,274,000 344,000 23..3 20.6 27.5 89.2 87.1 105.9 

1929 2,582,000 2,244,000 339,000 21.2 20.5 27.3 89.3 87.3 106.1 

1928 2,674,000 2,325,000 349,000 22.2 21.5 28.5 93.8 91.7 111.0 

1927------------------------------- 2>802,000 2,425,000 377,000 23.5 22.7 31.1 99.8 97.1 121.7 

1926 2,839>000 2>441,000 398,000 24.2 23.1 33.4 102.6 99.2 130.3 

1925------------------------------- 2,909,000 2,506,000 403,000 25.1 24.3. 34.2 106.6 103.3 134.0 

1924------------------------------- 2,979,000 2,577,000 401,000 26.1 25.1 34.6 110.9 107.8 135.6 2,910,000 2,531,000 380,000 26.0 25.2 33.2 Ilo.5 108.0 ?-30
.5

1922------------------------------- 2,882,000 2,507,000 375,000 26.2 g.; 33.2 111.2 108.8 130.8


1921------------------------------- 3,055,000 2,657,000 398,000 28.1 35.8 119.8 117.2 140.8


1920------------------------------- 2,950,000 2>566,000 383,000 27.7 26:9 35.0 117.9 13.5.4 137.5


1919------------------------------- 2,387,000 353,000 26.1 25.3 32.4 111.2
 1918 2,588,000 360,00.0 28.2 27.6 33.0 119.8


1917------------------------------- 2,587,000 357,000 28.5 27.9 32.9 121.o ‘_-


1916 2,599,000 29.1 28.5 123.4 121.8


1915------------------------------- 2,594,000 29.5 28.9 125.0 123.2


1914---— 2,966,000 2,588,000 29.9 29.3 126.6 124.6


1913-----------------------—------ 2,869,000 2,&97>OO0 29.5 28.8 124.,7 122-4


1912------------------------------- 2,840,000 2,467,000 W.8 29.o 125.8 123.3


1911------------------------------- 2,809,000 2,435,000 29.9 29.1 126.3 123.6


1910---------------------—-------- 2,777,000 2,401,000 30.1 29.2 126.8 123.8


1909 2,718,000 2,344,000 30.0 29.2 126.8 123.6


5. 
in the proportion of younger persons married for 

the first time. In 1951 in a group of 16 States for 

which continual records exist, brides under 20 

years of age constituted 38.5 percent of all brides 

and in 1960 almost half (49.0 percent). In these 

same States, grooms under 20 years of age in 

1951 constituted 10.5 percent of all grooms and in 

1960, 16.8 percent. 

During the 1950’s families were formed 

earlier than in previous years. The median age 

of mothers having their first child fell from 22.7 

years in 1950 to 21.5 years in 1960. The median 

age of all mothers dropped from 26.1 years in 

1950 to 25.5 years in 1960. 

Because of their high fertility during the 

1950’s, many of the women of childbearing age 

had borne most of their children at the beginning 

of this decade; by their high fertility and earlier 

childbearing, they had, in effect, “borrowed” 

children from the future. There was, in addition, 

a further factor which would have consequences 

in terms of the number of children that would be 

born in the following years. An increasing proportion of couples were having moderate-sized 

families of two to four children instead of the 

somewhat smaller families of the 1930’s and 

early 1940’s, while the large family of five 

children or more continued to declines 

Three interrelated factors, then, were at 

work during the 1950’s which portended a decline 

in the birth rate during the 1960’s. First, marriages occurred at younger ages; second, childbearing began earlier on the average than in 

previous years; and finally, average completed 

family size was approached sooner among many .— women. An increase in childbea~ing during the 

1960’s, in terms of most measures of period 

fertility, will occur only if childbearing is continued into older ages by women who already have 

moderate-sized families. 

Despite the anticipated decline in fertility 

rates in the immediate future, there is a strong 

likelihood that the annual number of births will begin to increase about 1965 or 1966. This will be’ 

associated with the increase in the number of persons reaching marriageable age after 1965, the 

large cohorts of children born immediately after 

the Second World War who will place an increasing 

number of potential parents into the population 

during the late 1960’s and the 1970’s. 

MEASUREMENT OF FERTILITY: 

Period Rates 

Birth rates reflecting two different but complementary approaches to the measurement of 

fertility are presented in this report. The first 

approach, used more widely,’ “deals with period 

Yates of fertility, that is, yearly indexes of &e 

childbearing performance of the population. The 

second approach, presented later in this report, 

is based on the concept of female birth cohorts, 

or groups of women who are born in the same 

year. Cohort ~ates, as retrospective rather than 

annual measures of fertility, describe the reproductive history of a group of women up to a 

specified age. 

Period rates, showing the fertility of the 

population in 1962, are discussed below. The 

various measures are presented in sequence as 

the population “at risk” to bear children is successively refined by such factors as. age, sex, 

marital status, and parity. Initially, fertility in the 

United States is discussed in terms qf the most 

general and the most widely used period rate, the 

crude birth rate. 

The crude bivth vate .—The crude birth rate 

relates the number of births occurring in an area 

to the total population of that area without regard 

to age or sex distribution. The crude birth rate 

for the United States in 1962 was 22.4 live births 

per 1,000 population, measured on the basis of 

4,167,362 live births compared with a population 

of 185,822,000 as ,estimated by the Bureau of the 

Census on July 1, 1962. ‘ 

The crude birth rate is most commonly used 

for comparisons between countries of the world 

because of the simplicity and the universality of 

its use. Compared with other industrialized 

countries, the crude birth rate for the United 

States in 1962 was relatively high; however, in 

North ‘America the rates were higher for Mexico 

and Canada (table 2)., 

The rate for the United States is generally 

below the’ rates for the developing countries of 

Asia, South America, and Africa. Crude rates as 

high as 47 births per 1,000 population in South 

America, 50 in Asia, and 56 in Africa have been 

reported.6 ,’ 

6 
--------------- -------- ---------------- ---------- ---------------- ---------- -------------- ---------

--------------

---------------

--------------

. 

. Table 2. Birth rates: United States and 

selected countries, 1962 

(Notes to tables given on page VIII) 

Country Rates per 1,000


population


Mexico--------------- 44.7


Canada 25.3


,UnitedStates 22.4


Spain 21.3


Netherlands 20.8


Italy 18.7


Switzerland 18*5


Austria 18.6


West Germany 18..1


England and Wales---- 18.0


France--------------- 17.7


Norway--------------i 17.3


Japan---------------- 17.0 

Belgium 16.8 

Sweden 14.2 

Hungary 12.9 

NOTE: Based on data in United Nations,


Population and Vital Statistics Rep?rt~


Series A, vo=v~4, New York. Un~ted


Nations, 1963.


Th~trendofthecrudebirthrateinthe
 United


Statesshowedadecline throughoutthe19th
 century


untilthemid-1930’s.
In1909theratewas30.0;in


1933ithaddropped
to18.4.Theratesubsequently


rosetotwopeaks-22.7 in1943and26.6in 1947.


Duringtheperiod1950-60therate fluctuatedin


a narrow range between24 and25 withpeaksin


1954and 19570f25.3birthsper l,OOOpopulation.


After1957thecrudebirthrate,paralleling
 other


measures ofperiodfertility, declined
toa lowof


22.4(fig.
1).


The trendof the crude birthratein other


countriesis shown in figure2. No consistent


patternof crude birthratesis apparentin the


Western worldatpresent. l%e declining
 trendin


the UnitedStateshas beenfollowed
most closely


by Canada.Insome Europeancountries
the,rates


have tendedto riseinrecentyears.Thefertility


upsurgeinEnglandandWales since1956hasbeen


explainedonthebasisofan
increaseinmarriages,


earliermarriages, earlierparenthood, and


shorter,intervals betweenbirths.
There areindi­


cationsthatmarriedwomen arecompleting
their


familiessooneraftermarriagethaninprevious


years.’Ifthisistrue,thenEngland
 andWales may,


MILUONS BIRTHS PER 

OF BIRTHS 1,000 POPULATION 

Number 4 — — 40 

3 — — 30


*. .*.,
 %,*.*’


2 # — 20


I— — 10


0 .1 111111 1’ I 1111 11111 I 11111111 

1940 1950 1960 197: 

‘Figure 1. Live births and birth rates, 19W0-62. 

(Trend lines for 1959-62 based on registered live 

births; trend lines for 1940-59 based on live 

births adjusted for underregistration) 

‘reexperiencing
 thepattemwhichwasobservedin


the United Statesduring the early1950’s.In-


creasesincrudebirthratesoverthepast5years


have taken place in Austria,West Germany,


Switzerland,and Italy;morerecent
 increaseshave


alsooccurredinDenmark, Ireland,
Portugal,and


Sweden. Definitedeclinesin the rateover the


past 5 years have been observed in Hungary


and Poland.In these countries,the increased


use oflegalabortionhas been a major factorin


fertility
 control.


The usefulnessof the crude birthrateasa


measure of fertiIity
 is somewhat limitedby tie


factthatitdoesnottakeintoaccounttheage and


sex compositionof the population,
which may


change over the courseofseveralyears.Stand­


ardization
of the crude birthrateandtheuseof


more refinedmeasures offertili~permitabetter


assessmentofchangesoffertility
 overtime.


7 
50 

/—— Mexico 

40 

30 

z 

3 

: 

a 

A 

~ 

3 

L 

> 

> 

3-. . . . . ‘s Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..- r 

U 

~ 20 _’\ 

n 

u 

: , / x 

England and Wales 

10 

1953 ’55 1960 1965 

Figure 2. Birth rates for the United States and


selected countries, 1953-62.


(Logarithmic scale)


Theage-sex-adjukted cwdebirthrate .—Agesex-adjusted crude birth rates showwhatthebirth 

rate would be in a specified year if the age and 

sex distribution in the population were the same 

as inlthe 1940 population, which is used as the 

“standard” population. The adjusted crude birth 

rates were computedby “directstandardization,” 

that is, by multiplying the age-specific birthrates 

(see section on birth rates byageofmother) for 

females aged10-49 ina specified year bythenumber of females inthecorresponding age group of 

the 1940 population. The sum of these products 

divided by the total 1940 population is the agesex-adjusted, or standardized, crude birth rate 

(table 3). 

The major value of the standardized figures 

is that they may be compared over a period of 

years with the knowledge that theobserveddifferences are not attributable to or obscured by 

variations in the age and sex composition of the 

population. Factors such asthelow birth ratesof 

the 1930’s, wartime casualties, changes in the 

age-specific mortality rates, and migration have 

contributed to changes in the age and sex distribution. This isparticularlyapparent fortheperiod 

1950-60, when the standardized rate showed an 

increase in the fertility of thepopulation of almost 

19 percent, while the unadjusted figure showed 

virtually no change in the rate at which children 

were being added to the population. 

The standardized birth rate shows that had 

the age-sex composition of the population remained constant from 1940 to 1962, the crude birth 

rate would have risen from 19.4 per 1,000 population to 29.7, an increase of 53 percent during 

this period compared with an increase in the 

unstandardized rate of 15 percent from 1940 to 

1962. 

Table 3. Age-sex-adjusted and unadjusted 

birth rates: United States, 1940, 1950, 

and 1960-62 

(Notes to tables. given on page VIII) 

Birth rate 

Year 

Age-sex-l Unadjusted adjusted 

Rates per 1,000 

population 

lComputed by the direct method using as 

the standard population the age distributionof the female population aged 10-49 

years as enumerated in 1940 and the total 

enumerated population of the United States 

for that year. 

2Births adjusted for underregistratio~ 

8

------- -----

The general fertility ~ate, —It is useful, in the 

measurement of fertility, to relate live births to 

the population “at risk” to bear children, that is 

to women in the childbearing ages (15-44 years) 

rather than to the total population which includes 

males and females, the young as well as the 

elderly. The general fertility rate represents the 

total number of live births per 1,000 female population aged 15-44 years (table 1). In 1962 this 

rate, computed on the basis of registered live 

births, was 112.1 compared with 117.2 for the 

previous year and 118.0 for 1960. In 1950 the rate 

was 106.2, and during the 1930’s it was as low as 

75.8 live births per 1,000 women aged 15-44 years. 

This measure illustrates more clearIy than the 

crude birth rate the sharp fluctuations in annual 

fertility that have occurred since 1940 (see section 

Fertility by Color). 

13t%% rates ‘ by age of mot?zev.-ln table 4 

birth rates by age of mother, or age-specific birth 

rates, relate the number of births to mothers of a 

given age to the female population of that age. These 

rates are associated with various factors that affect fertility,” such as age at marriage, biological 

Table 4. Birth rates by age of mother: United States, 1940-62 

(Notes to tables given on page VIII)


Age of mother 

Total 

Year fe;~;;ty 

10-14, 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 : 

years years years years years years years yearsg 

Registered 

births Rates per 1,000 female population 

1962 ------------ 3,471.0 0.8 81.3 243.8 191.3 108.7 52.6 14.8 0.9 

1961------------ 3,627.6 0.9 88.0 253.6 197.8 113.3 55.6 15.6 0.9 

1960 ------------ 3,653.6 0.8 89.1 258.1 197.4 112.7 56.2 15.5 0.9 

1959 ------------ 3,670.2 0.9 89.4 257.8 198.5 114.1 57.2 15.3 1.0 

Births adiusted 

for underreglstrataon 

1959 ------------ 3,712.9 0.9 . 90.7 260.4 200.4 115.4 58.2 15.6 1.0 

1958 ------------ 1957 ------------ 3,703.3 

3,767.4 

0.9 

1.0 

91.5 

96.0 

258.9 

261.0 

198.8 

200.4 

115.7 

117.5 

58.3 

60.5 

15.6 

16.0 

1.0 

1:1 

1956 ------------ 3,688.5 1.0 94.1 254.3 195.4 116.0 60.1 15.9 1.1 

1955------------ 3,578.6 1.0 89.6 242.8 190.8 115.5 59.4 15.7 1.1 

1954------------ 3,541.5 89.8 237.4 188.5 116.1 58.7 15.8 

1953------------ 3,424.5 N 87.5 225.9 183.9 112.9 57.2 15.5 ::: 

1952 ------------ 3,357.4 0.9 85.4 219.1 180. 5“ 113.0 56.1 15.3 1:2 

1951 ------------ 3,268.0 1.0 86.9 212.6 174.3 108.3 54.1 15.3 1.2 

1950 ------------ 3,090.5 1.0 81.6 196.6 166.1 103.7 52.9 15.1 1.2 

1949 ------------ 3,110.1 83.4 200 � 1 165.4 102.1 53.5 15.3 

1948 ------------ 3,108.6 N 81.8 200.3 163.4 103.7 54.5 15.7 M 

1947 ------------ 3,273.5 79.3 209.7 176.0 111.9 58.9 16.6 1.Z! 

:;&---------- 2,942.7 ::? 59.3 181.8 161.2 108.9 58.7 16.5 1.5 

2,491.2 0.8 51.1 138.9 132.2 100.2 56.9 16..6 1.6 

1944------------

1943------------- 2,567.6 

‘2,718.3 %: 

54.3 

61.7 

151.8 

164.0 

136.5 

147.8 

98.1 

99.5 

54.6 

52.8 

16.1 

15.7 

1.4 

1.5 

1942------------ 2,628.2 0.7 61.1 165.1 142.7 91.8 47.9 14.7 1.6 

“1941------------ 2,399.1 56.9 145.4 128.7 85.3 46.1 15.0 1.7 

1940------------ 2,301.3 H 54.1 135.6 122.8 83.4 46.3 15.6 1.9 

lRates computed by summing rates by age of mother for each 5-year age group and multi~lvin~ the result by 5. 

‘Zkat& computed by-relating births to mothers aged 45 years and over to female population aged 45-49 years. 

743-691 0-64-3 9 
---------

---------

---------

---------

---------

---------

1

2

3

4

5

6

processes, and the timing of births within the 

mother’s reproductive years. Age-specific rates 

show that fertility” ~ises rapidly to a maximum 

between the onset of puberty and ages 20-24, and 

then declines–~lowly to the end of the reproductive 

span, at about 50 years of age. 

Among all women in 1962, as in previous 

years, the most fertile 5-year-age group was 

20-24 years. About one out of every four women 

in these ages bore a child sometime during the 

year. For women aged 25-29 years, about one 

out of five gave birth. The concentration of births 

to young women is illustrated by the fact that 

almost 3 out of 4 maternities occurred to women 

under, age 30, and, about 9 out of 10 occqd .tII 

w-omen under 35. For older women, maternities 

are lower partly because of lower fecundity (biological childbearing potential); for younger 

women, lower fertility is associated with a small 

proportion married. While all women aged 15-19 

years ranked fourth in age-specific fertility, 

this age group ranked as the most fertile when 

marital status was taken into consideration. 

In 1962 almost half of the married women in 

20-24 

this age 

years 

group 

gave 

and 

birth 

about 

during 

a third 

the 

of 

year. 

those 

Shoivn 

aged 

1!$40 LLIILkJ 1945 1950 1955 1960
 196

below is the rank order of all women and mar­


ried women by age-specific fertility in the


United States for 1962.


Figure 3. Birth rates by” age of mother, 19!0-62, 

(Trend 1 ines for 1959-62 based on registered 1ive 

births; trend lines for 1940-59 on live births 

All Mavvied adjusted for under registrat ion,Logarithmic scale)’ 

women women 

15-19 years 4 

20-24 years 1 cent greater than for women intheseagesin 1940. 

25-29 years 2 At ages 35-39 years the rates in 1962 still ex30-34 years 3 ceed those for 1940 by almost 14 percent. For 

35-39 years 5 women aged 40-44 years there has been adecline 

40-44 years 6 of 5 percent during thisperiod, consistent withthe 

sharper declines that occurred among these 

women between 1920 and 1940. 

During the past 20 years there has been an Since 1957 there has been asustaineddecljne 

irregular upward movement in the rates for all’ in age-specific fertility among women in almost 

women under age 35, with a major interruption in every age ranging, for example, from over 15 

1945 during the Second World War (fig. 3). percent for those aged 15-19 to 7 percent for 

The increase over the two decades was largest women aged 40-44 years in 1962. Despite these 

at the younger ages and successively smaller for declines, birthrates among women who bearmost 

the older age groups. For example, the rate for of the children annually remain far above 1940 

women aged 20-24 years in 1962 is about 80 per- levels. 

10 
--------------------

--------------------

--------------------

--------------------

--------------------

--------------------

--------------------

--------------------

Birth rates by age of fathe~.—In the United 

States the traditional reproductive age begins at 

a later period for males than for females. Among 

males 15-19 years of age, there were 21 births 

per 1,000 in 1962 compared with 81 births per 

1,000 females in the same age group. Toward the 

end of the reproductive age, however, the rate for 

males was much higher than for females. Among 

males aged 40-44 years, the rate was 40 per 1,000 

compared with that of only 15 for ‘females in the 

same age group. As would be expected, the highest 

rates occur at a somewhat older age for males 

(25-29 years) than for females (20-24 years). 

With the movement toward younger age at 

childbearing between 1940 and the present, marked 

changes in the fertility pattern by age of father 

have occurred. Males aged 25-29 —-—.years have been ___ ______ the most fertile group f;r each year that data are 

available, but a change has occurred in the age 

group ranking second. In 1940 this position was 

held by the 30-34 year olds, whose rate was 113 

compared with that of 91 among males 20-2{ 

years old. BY 1$?50 the rates for &e two groups 

were equal (142). Early in the 1950’s the positions 

of the two groups were reverse~ in 1960 the rate 

. for the younger group was 202 compared with 154 

:for males 30-34 years of age. 

The percent change between 1950 and, 1962 

in age-specific birth rates showed that rates 

moved up for each group through 30-34 years and 

that the greatest increases occurred at the younger 

ages. 

The percent change in birth rates by age of 

father for 1950-62 is as follows: 

Pevcent 

Age of fathe~ change 

15-19 years +47.9 

20-24 years +37”.7 

25-29 years +22 .0 

30-34 years +6.1 

35-39 years -6.0 

40-44 years -11.3 

45-49 years -23.5 

.50-54 years -25.3 

The total fevtility rate. —Age-specific birth 

rates are summarized in table 4 in a measure 

called the total fertility rate. This rate represents 

essentially the same population as the general 

fertility” rate (females in the “childbearing ages), 

but the total fertility rate, as an unweighed average, takes into account the distribution of annual 

births among women of different ages; ;it therefore remains unaffected from year to’year by 

changes in the age composition of the women aged 

15-44 years when most of the childbearing occurs. 

Because ‘fertility va;fes” with the age of 

women, population changes within the childbearing 

ages can influence summary measures of fertility 

such as the general fertility rate in much the same 

way as changes in the ,population distribution outside the childbearing ages among children and the 

older population can affect the crude birth rate. 

Whereas the general fertility rate exciudes only 

the effects of changes in the ratio of women of 

reproductive age t’o the total population, the total 

fertility rate is independent of the age distribution within the reproductive period of life. An 

indication of the effects of changes in age composition of the population upon the trends of 

fertility measures is shown in figure 4, where the 

crude birth rate, the general fertility rate, and the 

total fertility rate are compared. These rates, 

expressed in terms of indexes (1940 = 100.0), are 

shown for the period 1940-62. 

we trend of the three rates was very similar 

. during the period from 1940 through 1948, indicating that the general rise in the bir~ rates 

during this period was not caused by a redistribution in the age distribution of women with~ the 

childbearing population or by a change in the re: 

lation of the childbearing population to me total 

population. After 1948 the crude birth rate fell far 

below the other rates, an indication of the diminishing size of the female population aged 15-44 

years, the small cohorts of women who were born 

during the 1930’s when birth rates were very low. 

At the same time, the increase in the Nation’s 

fertility after 1950 was more pronounced in the 

total fertility rate than h the general fertility rate, 

‘a consequence of the redistribution of women 

within the childbearing ages. By 1957 the general 

fertility rate had risen 54 percent above the prewar level, while the totiil fertility rate had risen 

64 percent. 

The decline in the birth rates since 1957, 

particularly between 1961 and 1962, is not due to 

any redistribution of population since the percentage decline for all iidices is a%out 15 percent. 

However, the relation of present Ievelsof fertility 
-------------------

--------------------

,,,.,.,. Total fertility rate ‘“or

0 LALLdiLL_LiuLA 

1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 

Figure !, Indexes’of the birth rate, the fertility rate, and the total fertility rate, 1940-62. 

(1940= 100) 

to the 1947 peak are affected strongly by changes 

in the age distribution since that time. In 1962 the 

crude birth rate was 16 percent below the figure 

for 1947. Yet if the ratio of the female childbearing population to the total population had not 

changed, the decrease would have been only 2 

percent. And if there had not been an unfavorable 

shift of women within the childbearing ages, the 

crude birth ratein 1962 wouldbe about 9 percent 

above thatof 1947. 

Peviod replacement vates:-The gYossvepvoductionvate is a measure of annual’fertility 

which, li.keth etotalfertilit yrate, isstandardized 

for the detailed age composition of the female 

population (table 5). It is derived by summing the 

birth rates byage of mother, restricted tofemale 

births only, yielding values that are about half as 

large as the total fertility rate. It is widely used 

as a summary measure of age-specific rates and 

as a replacement rate. In the latter case it is 

interpreted as the number of daughters that a 

hypothetical cohort of women entering the childbearing period together would have during their 

lives if (a) they were subject to a given schedule 

of age-specific fertility and if (b) none of the cohort were to die before the completion of the 

childbearing period. (By the same token, the total 

fertility rate can be interpreted as the total 

number of children, males and females, that this 

hypothetical cohort of women would bear passing 

through the childbearing ages.) Thus, a cohort of 

1,000 women would bear 1,695 daughters in their 

lifetime if they experienced the age-specific birth 

rates for 1962 and if no deaths occurred before 

the end of the reproductive span. 

The net veptioductz~n vate differs from the 

gross reproduction rate by taking into account the 

mortality conditions during the period. A net reTable 5. Intrinsic 

Year


1962 -------------------- 1961 -------------------- 19601 

1950 

l~irths adjusted 

rates, crude rates, annor;;roduction rates: united states, 1950 and 

(Notes to tables given an page VIII) 

Intrinsic rate


Natural
 increase Birth Death


Rates	 per 1,000 female


population


18.8 25.8 7.0 

20.5 27.1 

20.8 27.4 R 

13.7 22.6 8.9 

for underregistration.


Crude rate Reproduction


rate


Natural
 increase Birth Death Gross Net


Rates-per 1,000


population


12.9 22.4 9.5 1,695 1,633 

14.0 23,3 9.3 1,770 1,704 

14.2 23.7 9.5 1,783 1,715 

14.5 24.1 9.6 1,505 1,435 

12

------- --

production rate of 1,000 means that under the 

mortality and fertility schedules obtaining during 

a specified calendar year, a hypothetical cohort 

of 1,000 newly born girls would bear just enough 

daughters to replace themselves. Under this interpretation, 1,000 female infants subject to the 

fertility and mortality conditions in 1962 would 

have 1,633 daughters. 

At one time the net reproduction rate ,was 

widely used, not as a summary measure of 

fertility during a calendar year but as an index of 

the actual replacement rate of the population 

where, for example, a figure below 1,000 indicated that the population ultimately would not 

replace itself. In this sense the measure has been 

discredited because it does not take into account 

variable patterns of childspacing and other factors 

which are important in societies where family 

planning is effective. Where short-term changes 

in the timing of births occur, fluctuations in the 

period reproduction rates can be deceptively 

large. 6 Replacement rates for actual cohorts of 

women are discussed in the section Replacement 

Rates For Cohorts of Women. 

IntYinsic vital rates represent the annual 

births, deaths, and rates of natural increase in a 

hypothetical stable population that would result 

from the indefinite continuance of the age-specific 

birth and death rates in a particular calendar year, 

assuming no migration. Whereas the net reproduction rate is interpreted as the population replacement rate per generation, the intrinsic rate 

of natural increase shows the corresponding rate 

per year that would result ultimately from a 

continuation of the same schedule of fertility and 

mortality over a period of years. 

A comparison of crude and intrinsic rates for 

1962 shows that, other things being equal, the 

population distribution’ in that year was unfavorable to all crude rates, inflating the death rate 

from 7.0 to 9.5 per 1,000 population ~d deflating 

the crude birth rate and the crude rate of natural 

increase by 3.4 and 5.9, respectively. In other 

words, implicit in continuing age-specific fertility 

and mortality schedules of 1962 is a population 

with a stable age distribution favorable to a lower 

crude death rate, a higher birthrate, and a higher 

rate of annual growth than ih the actual population 

of 1962. 

Intrinsic rates, as measures of reproductivity 

of the population, are subject to the same limitations as the gross and net reproduction rates. 

For this reason, intrinsic measures are not 

measures of actual replacement but rather important theoretical tools for analysis of relations 

between vital rates and the age slncture of the 

population. 

Nurnbevs of births and bin% yaks by livebinfh ord;r. — Small decreases in the number of 

live births of almost all birth orders contributed 

to the overall decline in the number of births between 1961 and 1962. The only increases occurred 

among eighth and subsequent births. Over the 

years there has been a gradual shift in the composition of births by live-birth order. About half of 

all births were first and second children in 1962 

Table 6. Percent distribution of live births, by live-birth order: United States, 1950 

and 1960-62 

(Notes to tables given on page VIII)


I


I Live-birth order


Year 

Total Sixth Eighth 

births First Second Third Fourth Fifth and and 

seventh over 

I Percent distribution 

1962 ----------------- 100.0 26.8 24.1 18.8 12.3 

1961 ----------------- 100.0 26.5 24.2 19.1 12.4 H 2:; ::: 1960 ----------------- 100.0 26.4 24.8 19.3 12.4 

19501 ------- 100.0 31.4 30.2 17.4 8.6 ::: ::2 ::: 

l~irths a~j Usted for underregis tration. 

13 
compared with over 60 percent in 1950 (table 6). 

Births of fourth and higher orders now represent 

30 percent of the total compared with about 21 

percent a decade ago. 

Birth rates by live-birth order relate the 

number of births of a particular order, for example 

first births, to the total female population aged 

15-44 years. The trends of these rates resemble 

closely those for the ages at which large numbers 

of such births occur. Thus the changes for first 

and second births in figure 5 are like those for 

ages 15-19 and 20-24 years in figure 4, and the 

trend for the highest birth orders resembles 

most nearly that of women aged 40-44 years. 

The trend of the birthrate by live-birth order 

is characterized by a progressive spread of 

fluctuations from one birth order to another, that 

is, by a change in the lower birth orders to be 

reflected a year or so later in the higher orders. 

For example, the low point reached by first births 

during the midthirties was reached by the second 

and higher orders at progressively later dates. 

For fifth births a recovery in the birth rate was 

not apparent until 1943. The rate for first births 

attained a peak of 46.7 in 1947, dropped to 33.3 

in 1953, and has remained on a relative plateau 

since then. Second births followed a similar trend 

with a lag of about a year; and smaller fluctuations 

after World War II. For fourth and higher birth 

orders the trend since 1950 has been one of gradual 

increase. In 1960, the rate for fifth, sixth, and 

seventh births was about 40 percent higher than in 

1950 (table 7). For first and second births, the rate 

60 I 

I 

1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

I 

Figure 5.Birth rates by 1ive-birth order ,1940-62.


(Trend 1 ines for 1959-61 based on registered 1ive


births; trend 1 ines, for 191+0-59 based on 1 ive


births adjusted for underregi strati on. Logarithmic


scale)


Table 7. Birth rate indexes, by live-birth order for women aged 15-44 years: United 

States, 1950, 1957, and 1960-62 

(Notes to tables given on page VIII)


I


I Live-birth order 

Year
 Sixth Eighth
 Total First Second Third Fourth Fifth and and
 births


I


1962 ---------------- 95.0 96.8 92.5 

1961 ---------------- 99.3 100.0 97.3 

1960 ---------------- 100.0 100.0 100.0 

19571 104.0 108.0 108.2 

19501::===: 90.0 107.1 109.9 

lBirths adjusted for underregistrat+on.


seventh over


Index: 1960 = 100.0 ,


92.5 

98.2 

100:0 

104.8 

80.7 w 

14

-------------

had declinedslightly:
 Between1961‘and1962the Table 8. Birth rates, by first and second


ratesforallbirth Eventhehighly live-birth order and age of mother:
 ordersdeclined.
 United States, 1960 and 1962


stablerateforeighthbirthsandover droppedby


over2percentduringthisperiod. 

Conclusionsdravmfrom birthratesbylivebirthordermust be usedwithcaution becausethe

Live-birth order 

and ageof mother 1962 1960 Percent 

change 

or denominators,

putingtheseratesincludeallwomen aged15-44 

years.They arenotspecificas toage andthereFirst birth ‘ 1,000 female 

——

population 

(Notes to tables given on page VIII)


base populations, usedincom- I Rates per


foreincludewomen among whom theprobability 15-44 yearsI-- 30,1 3i.1 -3.2


ofhavinga childofa specified
 orderisverylow. 15-19 years----- 56.0 61.4 -8.8


Birth Yates by age ~fmothe~and live-birth 20-24 years----- 83.5 87.9 -5.0


25-29 years----- 24.8 26.6 -6.8
 ovder. — Birthratesbyageofmotherbylive-birth 30-34 years----- 7.5 8.6 -12.8 

order may be compared with corresponding 35-39 years----- -12.5


figuresfor earlieryears toassesstheeffect
of 40-44 years----- :$ M -12.5


thechangingagecomposition
ofthefemalepopu- Second birth


lationon theratesofspecified
 birthorders.For


example, therateforfirst births, taking
allgroups 15-44 years 1--

together,’
 was about3 percentlowerin1962than “i5-19years----~


in 1960;buttherateamong women aged 20-24 20-24 years-----

children 25-29 years----­ yearshavingfirst decreasedby5percent, 

and thatofwomen aged25-29yearsdecreasedby 35-39

30-34 

years

years----------m

5.3 6.3
 -15.9

almost 7 percent(table8).A similarsituation 40-44 years----- I 1.2 I 1.3 I -7.7 

appliestosecondbirths wherethedecline
between IRates computed by relating total


1960 and 1962forwomen ofallagesamountedto births, regardless of age of mother, to


7.5percent,whilethe age group35-39declined female population aged 15-44 years.


Table 9. Birth rates by age of mother and live-birth order: United States, 1962


(Notes to tables given on page VIII)


II


Age of mother


Total


Live-birth order fe:~:;:ty


10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49


years years years years years years years years2


Rates per 1,000 female population


Total------- 3,471.0 0.8 81.3 243:8	 191.3 108.7 52.6 14.8 0.9 — — — — 

First birth------- 880.3 56.0 83.5 24.8 7.5 .0.7 0.0 

Second birth------ 839.4 ::: 19.6 81.5 44.9 15.4 1.2 0.1 

Third birth------- Fourth birth------ Fifth birth-------

671.9 

441.9 

261.3 

0.0 

0.0 

4.6 

0.8 

0.1 

47.1 

20.4 

7.7 

:;.; 

19:3 

23.2 

21.5 

15.3 

1.9 

2.3 

2.0 );

0.1 

Sixth and seventh 

birth------------ 239.0 0.0 3.3 15.6 16.3 9.6 2.9 0.2 

Eighth birth and over 136.1 0.0 0.3 4.2 9.6 8.9 3.9 0.3 

lRates computed by summing rates by age of mother for each 5-year age group and


multiplying the result by 5.


2Rates computed by relating births to mothers aged 45 years and over to female popu­


lation aged 45-49 years.


15

almost 16 percent. These rates are also useful 

for expressing the “relative risk” of bearing 

children of a certain parity. For example, within 

the age group 20-24 years, the relative risk of 

bearing a fourth child in 1962 (20.4) was about 

half that of bearing a third child (47.1) (table 9). 

Age-pa~ity specific bivth rates. —Age-parity” 

specific birth rates or birth probabilities are 

shown in table 10 (see page’, 54) by single years 

from the beginning of 1940 to January 1, 1963. 

These rates are expressed in terms of the number of women actually “at risk” to give birth to 

children of a given order. ‘Thus, only women who 

have never borne a child are at risk to bear a 

first child, those who have borne a first child are 

at risk to bear a second, and so forth. “Parity” 

refers to the number of previous children born 

alive to a women. A woman who has had one child 

is a one-parity woman. . The advantages of these period rates over 

other measures have long been recognized, but it 

was not until “cohort fertility tables” were developed that rates specific for order of birth and 

parity of women could be computed for intercensal 

as well as census years (see section Cohort Rates). 

Because age-parity specific birth rates are expressed in terms of specific groups at risk, the 

rates are often referred to as “birth probabilities.” Thus, if 1,000 women aged 25-29 with 

two children at the beginning of the year (twoparity women) had a third child during the year, 

there would be a total of 1,000 third children and 

the “birth probability” would be 1,000 births per 

1,000 women, or unity. 

Schedules of age-parity specific rates show, 

for example, that in 1962 the chances that a woman 

with three children would have another baby were 

greater on the average than for a woman with two 

children. Furthermore this probability continued 

to increase (up to a point) with each successive 

birth. According to data in table 10 chances were 

175 out of 1,000 that two-parity women aged 25-

29 years at the beginning of 1962 would have a 

third child during the year. For the women in this 

age group with three children the probability was 

about the same; for the relatively small number 

of women in these ages with five children, the 

chances of having an additional child during the 

year were almost one in four. 

Age-parity specific birth rates are especially 

useful for measuring the changes infertility from 

one year to another and for analyzing their relation to changes in conditions influencing annual 

fertility, because they take into account the 

previous childbearing experience of the women 

of each reproductive age. In figure 6 the response of younge~ females of low parity to the 

Second World War and its aftermath is brought 

out very clearly. Generally, the four panels show 

an increase in birth probabilities for women of 

all ages since 1940, with the youngest women 

experiencing the greatest changes. For example,, 

one-parity women aged 20-24 had an almost one 

out of three chance of bearing an additional child 

in 1962; their chance in 1940 was about one out of 

five. For three-parity women (fig. 6) the outstanding characteristic of the trend line is its 

stability for women of all ages. Among threeparity women aged 35-39 years, the rate changed 

from 40 to 46 per 1,000 women during the period 

1940-62. The decline in fertility since 1960 that 

is apparent in most indexes of fertility is also 

reflected in age-parity specific rates; the levels 

of these rates, however, are still substantially 

above those for most of the postwar period. 

‘Projections of live bivths and bivth rates.— 

The future course of fertility in the United States 

will depend upon a number of factors including 

future migration, mortality, marriage, and childbearing patterns as well as the age and sex composition of the future population. While the future 

level of childbearing of the population cannot be 

predicted in the strict sense of the-word, projections of fertility can be made, based upon 

explicit assumptions about the future level ‘of 

factors cited above. Whether these projections 

will in fact approach the actual level of future 

fertility depends upon how closely the assumed 

economic and demographic factors are realized 

by the actual population. There is no known way 

in which to predict this in advance of the actual 

situation. 

The Bureau of the Census has prepared a 

new series of fertility projections, 9 the first 

major revision of such projections since 1958. 

The new series takes into account the 1960 census 

data on the age and sex composition of the population and for the first time utilizes projections 

of the cumulative fertility of birth cohorts of 

women (see section Cohort Rates). 

Four series of projections have been prepared, differing only with respect to the assump16 
--

---

�

�

���

�

FIRST BIRTHS TO ZERO-PARITY WOMEN THIRD BIRTHS TO TWO-PARITY WOMEN 

400-

““”~ 

—15-[9 -.- . . . . ...==... — 

t 1 ,---=.++ �. . . . . . ...--= 

200 -

�*..* �9*==m- . ...*. 200 — 20-24 ‘~+ -9---

4 +**- ~e~ 

20-24 %-S”Z---—-” .**+ 25-29 tifi~-ti 

100 *?+YV J [00 — � ,,,,,,sl s-11 ‘1-’ ‘ ““’’”’”~~~~.i..,, ,,,,, .,,,,,,,,,*.’’’’’’J8JJ,,3*,,,.3* 80 ~ 80 — 

— 30-34 ...

,.%,,, ~,,... �’ 30-34 

60 — .+,%,,,, ,k**’ 60 

1 , — ,..’ 

.* -,-J-.-,+ 

40 40 ,d’*’-”*l “%, *,, 

,@.*<5.3g 

1 

20t- + 

10


8 

40-44 

6 

3~ 3~ 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 19e 

SECOND BIRTHS TO ONE-PARITY WOMEN FOURTH BIRTHS TO THREE-PARITY WOMEN 

400 “ 400 I I 

%.....* ����������������� �������� ‘@24 �

4 k .+r””-’9Lm-m”-./- 1 4 t 1 

*--- t i 

200 ~e””%+ 2 *,pM 

-J 25-2’ 

,,,, ,,,s.M,,,.,,l..sll .,.1.11.11,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 

100 — ,“, ,,,,,,. ,,$,.**w**&m 

,,,.*llrJ~,,il,Jt,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,.* ,,,c*l.., I’’tJJ~,Jllllru,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 

,*--* 

,4 

80 ~,,. ,,,..’ 30-34 80 

,**8, 3“-34 

)-

60 ,H*-,-, ~,m.*** .* *-,-,- J9, -

-$. ,-, -,-1- ,-,-~~, *.X5-3 9 8+, 

40 .e’ -9-, -,4 40 

,’~35-39 

I00 k ! F,4’

,. 1

20 20 

10 [ 10 L 

/ �“ 

..-.. 

40-44 

/’’—’”-=” Y. 

1 

8 �*J””<-44 

“-—’-””-+4 —, 

6 

L 1 

4, 4 

3 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I 3 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1,, ,,1, ,,, 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1940 1945 1950 [955 1960 1965 

Figure 6. Birth probabilities by parity and exact age of mother, 19!0-63. 

(Births adjusted for underregistration and numbers of women adjusted for underenumeration and misstatements of age in censuses. Logarithmic scale)


743-691 0-64-4 17 
,,..+ .*,,...

�

�

,., 

tions about the number of children that will be born 

to cohorts of women at completion of their childbearing periods. Series A is based upon the assumption that the average number of children born 

per 1,000 women when they reach menopause will 

gradually move toward 3,350. Series B assumes 

that this figure will approach 3,100; Series C, 

2,775; and Series D, the lowest series, is based 

upon a projected cumulative birth rate of 2,450 

children per 1,000 women who reach age 50. 

The projections are based upon the explicit 

assumption that there will be no disastrous war, 

widespread epidemic, or serious economic depression. 

On the basis of the Bureau of the Census 

assumptions for Series A, the general fertility 

rate would approach a high level by the mid-1970’s 

of almost 129 live births per 1,000 females aged 

15-44 years (fig. 7). A figure of about 120, similar 

to the 1957 peak in the fertility rate, would be 

reached under the fertility assumptions of Series 

B. Series C and D show a gradual decline in the 

number of children born as related to the size of 

the female childbearing population, with the 

general fertility approaching levels of 100 and 90, 

respectively, by “tie end of the projection period. 

The annual number of live births would increase steadily from the 1962 figure to about 4.6 

million in 1965 and to almost 7 million “by 1985 

under the projection schedule of Series A. Series 

B shows a more gradual increase reaching a 

maximum of about 6.3 million by 1985. Series C 

and D both show only modest increases by the 

mid- 1980’s, 5.5 million and 5 million births, 

respectively. 

Cohort Rates 

Cohort fertility :~tes, retrospective rather 

than annual measures of fertility, describe there- 130 

Series A productive history of a group of women up to a 

,,..*” “ “-, W.,,

._.� �,, specified age. Cohort rates in this report are 

120 �*,. B +.,similar in both concept and magnitude to the 

,,...*” 

Series e- cumulative rates computed from census data. They

“%*

\** 

.. 

are derived, essentially, by summing birth rates 

by age of mother for actual cohorts of women; in ~+~ SeriesC comparison, period gross and net reproduction

rates represent the fertility of hypothetical co­

/ A(:&\* horts of women who are assumed to” live from 

�m..-* �* SeriesD 

-O. + birth to death under the schedules of age-specific

** 

*, 

L L -L 

Orll II IT II II II IIIT 11111111 ;Illlllllfi 

fertility and mortality in a given calendar year. 

The cohort approach to fertility measurement 

may be compared with a similar approach in the 

measurement of mortality, the “generation” .or 

cohort life table. ‘l%e generation life table provides a “longitudinal” perspective in that it follows 

the mortality experience of a particular cohort, 

all persons born in the year, 1900 for example, 

from the moment of birth through consecutive 

ages in successive calendar years. The “current” 1950 1960 1970 1980 1991	 life table, by contrast, can be characterized as a 

cross -sectional summarization of the mortality 

experience of a hypothetical cohort which is 

assumed to be subject to the age-specific morFigure 7. Fertil ity rates, actual and projected, tality rates observed for an actual population 

1950-85. during a given calendar year. All period measures 

(Based on 1 ive births ::~:~ted for under registra- of fertility shown above in the section on Period 

Rates refer to the current year; only the cumulative 

18

1

birth rates that follow describe the actual fertility 

experience of cohorts of women as they pass 

through the childbearing ages. 

The cumulative rates in this report, based 

on the work of P. K. Whelpton, supplement the 

figures shown elsewhere.d Together, these two 

sources of cohort data provide an uninterrupted 

schedule of cumulative fertility through completion of childbearing by age 50 for birth cohorts 

of American women from 1876 through 1913 and” 

schedules of uncompleted cumulative fertility for 

the birth cohorts of 1914 through 1948; 

Detailed discussions of the assumptions underlying the cohort approach and of the methods 

used to derive the rates are presented in the publication cited in footnote 9’. 

Annual centyal birth ~ates.-Tables 11 and 12 

(see pages 56 and 57) show annual central birth 

rates by age of” mother and live-birth order for 

groups of women by single years of age as well as 

by 5-year-age groups. The rates for 5-yea.age 

groups are similar in both concept and magnitude 

to the rates shown in table 9. The systematic 

differences between figures in the two tables for 

1962 are due to minor adjustments in the annual 

central birth rates for underregistraticm of births, 

underenumeration of women in the censuses, and 

cohort size differences. A discussion of these 

adjustments appears on pages 12 and 13 of the 

report cited in footnote 9. 

An interesting and useful feature of tables 11 

and 12 is the reference in the first column to the 

year of birth of the women bearing children during 

the year in question. For example, in table 11 those 

women aged 20-24 years in 1962 were born in the 

years 1938-42 and hereinafter are referred to as 

the cohorts of 1938-42. In table 12, women aged 

20 in 1962 are described as the birth cohort of 

1942. 

The trend of the central birth rates by age of 

mother and live-birth order is discussed in the 

section Period Rates. 

Cumulative bi~th Yates. —The cumulative 

birth rates in table 13 (see page 61) are derived 

by adding the annual central birth rates in table 

12 of this report and those in tables of the special 

report on this subject for specified cohorts. For 

example, adding the annual central birthrates for 

the cohort of 1936 at age 14 in’ 1950, age 15 in 

1951, and so on up to age 26 in 1962 gives the 

cumulative birth rate for this cohort of women up 

to January 1, 1963, at which time the average age 

of these women is about 27. The figures in table 

14 (see page 62) are simple averages of the rates 

for single cohorts shown in table 13. 

A precise evaluation of the accu,racy of the 

cumulative rates is not possible, but”tests which 

have been made indicate that rates for all births 

are probably within a small percent of the true 

values. Rates for all births probably are slightly 

more accurate than ~ose for, births by order 

because positive errors for certain orders may, 

be offset by negative errors for ,others.l” 

Cumulative birth rates form the basis of.the -

cohort approach, which provides an accurate. and. 

convenient way of measuring the e~ent to’ w~ic~’ 

the women of a given generation are replacing.. 

themselves and contributing to population growth. 

4000 ,, COhl i OF: 

2J 

ij 3000 

J 

>
L


E


u 

J 

a 

z 

g 2000 

0
0
0
_.


a


w
L


tn
 III

+
 100a
 a
K


(


Figure 8. Cumulative birth rates for. al 1 births 

for selected groups of cohorts of al 1 women,, by 

exact age of mother, [920-63. 

(Births. adjusted for underregi strat ion and num­


bers of women adjusted for underenumerat ion and


misstatements of age in censuses)


19

-----------------

Size of completed families. —Figure 8 shows 

the rate at which groups of women cumulated 

children by specified ages in the years 1920 

through 1962. One of the most important trends 

shown is the large decline in completed family 

size, that is, the cumulative number of children 

born per 1,000 women who reached ages 50-54 

years (heavy line): The group of women born in 

the years 1876-80 (designated as the cohorts of 

1876-80) completed childbearing in 1930, when 

their average age was 50-54 years. These women 

had borne 3,636 children, or averaged about 3.6 

children each. By 1963 this figure had declined 

to about 2.3 children per women for the cohorts 

of 1909-13. In other words, there has been a drop 

of about 36 percent in the average size of the completed family over a period of 33 years. Information regarding cohorts of women before 1876 

is incomplete, but it has been estimated that there 

was an average of about eight births per woman 

who reached middle age during the late colonial 

period} 1 

An examination of the cumulative fertility of 

birth cohorts by live-birth onie~, that is, by the 

number of first, second, and third births and 

births of higher orders to women by the time they 

reached the indicated ages, shows clearly that the 

great decline in average family size (completed 

fertility by ages 50-54) for the past 33 years has 

been due almost entirely to thediminishing number 

of women having large families rather than to a 

decline in the proportion of women who marry or 

of couples who remain childless or have only one 

child (table 15). There were 827 first children born 

per 1,000 women in the cohorts 1876-80; this 

figure declined by only 5 percent to 785 for the 

most recent cohorts (1909-13) reaching the end 

of the childbearing period at the beginning of 1963. 

For second births the reduction was larger from 

675 to 573, or 15 percent; while at birth orders 

eighth and higher, there was a decline of over 70 

percent during this period. 

Table 15 shows in terms of the cumulative 

birth rate the extent to which the dwindling number 

of large families has contributed to the shrinkage 

in average completed family size from 3.6 in 1930 

(or 3,636 births per 1,000 women by age 50) to 2.3 

children in 1963. Of the decline in the cumulative 

birth rate for all orders during this period, 11 

percent can be accounted for in the reduction in 

the rate for first and second children from 1,502 

to 1,358, 30 percent because there were fewer third” 

or fourth children, and 59 percent because of the 

reduction in families of five children or more. 

Table 15. Cumulative birth rates, by live-birth order, for all women, by exact ages 

X&46~ars, in selected groups of cohorts from 1876-80 to 1909-13: United States, 

(Notes to tables given on page VIII) 

Live-birth order 

January 1 

Cohorts of each 

year Total 8th 

births 1st 2d 3d 4th 5th 6th 7th and 

over 

Rates per 1,000 female population aged 50-54 

years 

1909 -13------------------- 1963 2,283 785 573 346 208 127 107 

1908 -12------------------- 1962 2,273 781 566 343 207 128 :; % 109 

1907 -11------------------- 1961 2,269 778 560 340 208 130 85 57 112 

1906 -10------------------- 1960 2,273 777 556 339 209 132 58 115 

1901 -05------------------- 1955 2,421 789 567 362 234 153 1:; 141 

1896 -1900 1950 2,675 800 601 410 278 187 132 ;: 177 

1891 -95------------------- 1945 2,963 815 639 460 325 225 161 114 225 

1886 -90------------------- 1940 3,209 814 651 495 368 265 193 138 285 

1881 -85------------------- 1935 3,391 815 660 511 393 295 223 161 332 

1876 -80------------------- 1930 3,636 1827 675 538 &24 328 255 189 402

NOTE: Based on data in table 13. 

20 
--

A look at the cumulative fertility of cohorts 

who. have not yet reached menopause indicates a 

reversal in the declining proportion of women 

having births of low orders and an apparent continuation in the decrease in the cumulative birth 

rate for women having five children or more. A 

low of 754 in the cumulative first birthrate set by 

the cohorts of 1906-10 by ages 35-39 years was 

surpassed by the cohorts of 1916-20 when they 

were aged 30-34 years (fig. 9). For women aged 

30-34 years by the beginning of 1963 the cumulative 

first birth rate was 878 births per 1,000 women 

(see table 14). The low in the cumulative rate for 

second births was set by the cohorts of 1905-09 

(554), while the nadirs for third tind fourth births 

were experienced by the cohorts of 1906-10 and 

1908-12, respectively. 

IOoc ...........40.44 

— 3$-39 

S, As.. 

co 

z 

0 750 g 

-! 

a 

0. 

0 

a 

w 

J 

u 

z 

k! 500 

0 

0 

0 

c 

: 

m 250 : 

e 

0	 Jllll Ill 1111111llIIlllll!ll Il llllllllllllill L 

!920 1930 1940 1950 1960 

Figure 9. Cumulative birth rates for first births 

for selected groups of cohorts of al 1 women, by 

exact age of mother, 1920-63. 

(Births adjusted for underregi stration and numbers of women adjusted for under enumeration and 

misstatements of age in censuses) 

That a reversal in the downward trend of 

average completed family sizeis taking placeis 

clear from figure 8. While the cumulated number 

ofbirths to cohorts of women whohavecompleted 

childbearing (dashed line) hasdeclined, thecumulative fertility for younger groups’ofwomenhas 

shown marked increases in recent years. This ..—— means”- that by the time these younger women 

have>eached ages 50-54years,their averagesize 

of family will be considerably higher than the 2.3 

children for the cohorts of 1909-13 in1963. For 

example, the fertility ofwomen in the cohorts of 

1911-15 atages 35-39 (in 1950) was surpassedby 

the cumulativebirthr ateofw omen of1921-25at 

ages 30-34 years (in 1955). Fertility among the 

younger cohort at ages 30-34 years was already 

over 25 percent greater than that oftheolder cohortat the same ages. Because only 10t015 percent of all babies are born to women after ages 

35-39, it is likely that thecompleted fertility of 

the 1921-25 cohort will exceed that of many of the 

preceding groups. 

Increases in the marriage rate have contributed to the recent changes in the trends of 

cumulative fertility. Statistics based on registration data, however, do not permit a precise 

evaluation of these effects at this time. 

Changes in the distribution of women by numbev of child~en borne. —Table 16 shows the parity 

distribution of the female population for cohorts 

of women as of a specified calendar year. The word 

“parity” here refers to the number of live children 

borne by a women as of a particular time. Twoparity women, for example, are those who at the 

beginning of the specified year aIready have two 

children and who are therefore ——. “at risk” to have 

a third child during the year. The parity &tributions are shown as proportions of the total 

female population in the specified age groups; 

they are similar in meaning to those based on 

census counts of the number of children ever born. 

The figures in table 16 (see page 66) are derived 

directly from the cumulative birth rates shown 

in table 14 and represent the size differences 

between cumulative rates for “births of successive 

orders. Because of their derivation, this section 

will not lead to any new conclusions about the 

trend of future fertility or to new interpretations 

of past trends, It does permit analysis of cumulative childbearing from another perspective and 

therefore is a useful supplement to the discussion 

on cumulative birth rate. 

21

Figure 10 shows the percentage distribution of the female population by parity at 

ages 20-24 years forvarious cohorts . Itdescribes 

the impressive shift of women at ages 20-24 from 

the childless to the one- or two-child category in 

recent years. For the cohorts of 1896-1900 to 

1906-1910 the proportion of women who had not 

borne a child by ages 20-24 years was fairly stable 

at about 62 percent. It rose to more than 67 percent for the next two groups of cohorts shown and 

dropped steadily to 46 percent for the cohorts 

1936-40 in 1960. Since then it has risen again 

by about 2 percent. The general decline in this 

figure is attributed to the fact that more women 

are marrying and starting families at younger 

ages. 

COHORTS OF PARITY 

939-1943


936-1940


1931-1935


1926-1930


1921-1925


1916-1920


1911-1915


1906 -19!0 

1901-1905


1896-1900


0 25 50 75 100


PERCENT 

Figure 10, Percent distribution of all women, by 

parity, by exact ages 20-24 years for selected 

groups of cohorts. 

(Births adjusted for underregi strat ion and num­


bers of women adjusted for underenumerat ion and


misstatements of age in censuses)


The proportionof women atages20-24 years 

of first parity declined from about22 percent for 

the cohorts of 1896-1900 (by 1920) to just under 

20 percent by 1935. The figure rose toapeak of. 

26.5 percent for the cohorts of 1926-30and declined by about 2 percent since then (1950). ln 

recent years the relative numbers ofwomenaged 

20-24 having second andthird childrenhaverisen 

sharply; for example, theproportionoftwo-parity 

women has almost doubled since 1945,from9.6to 

17.2 percent. 

In comparison with fi~relO,figure llshows 

women at the other end ofthechildbearingperiod, 

40-44 years, at ages when family formation is 

virtually complete. Among successive cohorts of 

women reaching these ages there have been sig­ ,. 

COHORTS OF PARITY 

1919-1923


1916-1920


1911-1915


1906-1910


1901-1905


ia96-1900 

le9kla95 

1886-1890


1881-1885


le76-1880 

o	 25 50 75


PERCENT


Figure Il. Percent distribution of all women, by


parity, by exact ages 110-INIyears for selected


groups of cohorts.


(Based on births adjusted for under registration


and numbers of women adjusted for underenumera­


tion and misstatements of age in censuses)


22


100 
nificant shifts from higher to iower parities which 

perforce accompanied the much larger reduction 

in cumulative birth rate for higher than forlower 

birth orders. Reductions by over one-half have 

occurred in the proportion of women with six 

children or more from the cohorts of 1876 -80to 

those of 1919-23. There has been little change in 

the relative numbers of women with four children 

(about 8 to 12 percent), but for all lower birth 

orders there have been marked increases, with 

the greatest among two-parity women. For these 

women “the percentage at ages 40-44 years has 

almost doubled since 1920, from 13.9 for the cohorts 1876-80 to 25.8 for those of 1919-23. 

The recent increases in the cumulative birth 

rate for first births indicate that there will be less 

childlessness among the younger cohorts of women 

than among those who have already reached the 

end of the childbearing period. The percent childlessness rose from a low of about 18 percent for 

the cohorts of 1876-80 at ages 40-44 years to a 

high of 23 percent for the cohorts of 1906-10 by 

1950. During the past 13 years the figure declined 

to 12, and it is possible that among the younger 

cohorts this percent may drop to 10 percent or 

less. 

In summary, parity distributions, as well as 

cumulative birth rates, point to a smaller prevalence of childlessness in the general population, 

to a decline in the proportion of families with six 

children or more, and to an increasing concentration of families with two, three, or four children. 

Median”age ofwomen at birth ’ofchildvenfo~ 

cohorts ofwomenat completion —— ofchildbearing. — 

In the United States, the -medi~ age of childbearing, or median length of a generation, has 

tended to range between 26 and27 years for all 

women (table 17). For the group of cohorts who 

completed childbearing at the begiming of 1963, 

half their children were born by age 27.0 years, 

an increase of about 0.6 years over those women 

who reached ages 50-54 years by 1960. For the 

cohorts of 1891-95 the age was 26.8 years, and 

for earlier cohorts (1880-90) it is estimated that 

the average age of childbearing was about 27.8 

‘ years. This figure is an estimate based on the 

median ageofmothersatbirthofallchildren.
 for 

allwomen bornbetween1880 and 1889. The figure 

for all women is a weighted average of median 

ages for white and nonwhite women, derived from 

sample survey data.1,2- The median age of childbearing is related both to the cumulative birth 

rate at the completion of childbearing and to the 

timing of births, that is, whether women in a 

particular cohort tend to have chil&en at an 

earlier or later age. Thus, the relatively high 

median ages for the cohorts 1891-95 and 1909-13 

are associated with different average completed 

family_ sizes, 2.96 and 2.28 children, respectively. 

The high age for the latter group of cohorts is 

associated with a relative postponement of childbearing, while the former is related to a lager 

average number of children per family. The upward trend in the median age of mothers who have ., 

Table 17. Median age of childbearing, by live-birth order, for all women in selected 

groups of cohorts from 1896-1900 to 1909-13: United States, 1950-63 

January 1 

Cohorts of each 

year


1909 -13---- 1963 

1908 -12---- 1962 

1907 -11---- 1961 

1906 -10---- 1960 

1901 -05---- 1955 

1896 -1900-- 1950 

(Notes to table-s-given on page VIII)


Live-birth order


8th Total 1st 2d 3d 4th 5th 6th 7th and births over 

Median age of childbearing in years


26.98 22.91 26.25 

26.78 22.71 25.97 

26.57 22.51 25.67 

26.34 22.33 25.38 

25.79 22.00 24.56 

26.24 22.17 24.73 

28.34 29.62 30.88 32.19 33.51 

28.01 29.36 30.71 32.09 33.49 

27.69 29.09 30.52 31.99 33.48 

27.38 28.87 30.36 31.88 33.43 

26.47 28.21 29.91 31.56 33.23 

26.69 28.32 29.98 31.62 33.21 

J I I I I 

36.58


36.59


36.62


36.64


36.68


36.62


NOTE: Based on data in table 14.


23

----------

completed childbearing reflects largely the effects 

of the economic depression of the 1930’s and the 

trend toward a smaller completed family size. 

Associated with the recent reversal in the trend 

to smaller completed family size, evident since 

1961, and to the high cumulative birth rates at 

younger ages is a probable decline in the median 

age at which women give birth to their first and 

other children. Thus, if about 89 percent of the 

women in the cohorts of 1926-30 give birth to a 

first child, the median age at which they bear this 

child will be about 21.8 years, or about 1 year 

earlier on the average than the cohorts of 1909-13. 

Rep~oduction rates foY cohovts of women. — 

The gross and net reproduction rates described 

earlier in this report refer to hypothetical cohorts of women who are assumed to pass through 

the childbearing period subject to the age-specific 

fertility and mortality rates of a particular 

calendar year (see discussion of period replacement rates on page 12). The gross and net reproduction rates for actual cohorts in comparison 

can be computed directly from the cumulative 

birth rates for actual cohorts of women living 

over a period of years. The difference between 

the cohort figures and those based upon the assumed experience of a calendar year are similar 

theoretically to the relation between the current 

life table and the generation life table. 

The gross reproduction rate for an actual 

cohort of women represents the number of 

daughters a cohort of 1,000 female infants beginning life together would have during the course 

of their lives if none of the cohort were to die 

before the end of the childbearing period, about 

age 50. The net reproduction rate includes a 

factor for the mortality of the 1,000 female infants who would not survive through the reproduction period of life. For replacement in the 

next generation a group of female infants must 

produce an equal number of daughters in their 

lifetime; hence, a net reproduction rate of 1,000 

indicates that a generation of females has exactly 

replaced itself. 

For the cohorts of women born between 1876 

and 1890, the net reproduction rates were well 

above the figure required for replacement (table 

18). The cohorts of 1891-95 barely produced 

enough daughters to replace themselves; and all 

the later cohorts completing fertility before the 

end of 1962 fell below the 1,000 mark. The most 

Table 18. Estimated reproduction rates of 

all women in selected groups of cohorts 

from 1876-80 to 1909-13: United States 

(Notes to tables given on pa,ge VI’11~” -


Reproduction rates 

Net
 -=u= 

1909 -13------------ 1,109 899 

1906 -10------------ 1,104 882 

1901 -05------------ 1,176 917 

1896 -1900 1,300 994 

1891 -95------------ 1,440 1,090 

1886 -90------------ 1,559 1,162 

1881 -85------------ 1,648 1,216 

1876 -80------------ 1,767 1,284 

NOTE: Based on data in table 13. ‘ 

recent group of women to complete the childbearing period, the cohorts of 1909-13, had not 

produced enough daughters toreplacetheirgeneration, but it is clear that many of the younger 

cohorts are contributing substantially to population growth, with actual net reproduction rates 

well above 1,000. 

In terms of cumulative birthrates the younger 

cohorts of women do not need to produceas many 

daughters to replace themselves asdid the older 

groups because of the improvement of mortality 

conditions in the United States over the past 

hundred years. Thenumberofoffspringnecessary 

for replacement of a generation of 1,000 girls born 

in the period 1876-80 was about 2,800. 0nly30 

years later the figure had dropped by 200. The 

cohorts of 1909-13 produced 2,283 live births per 

1,000 females by thetime they completed childbearing, a number about 10 percent below therequired number for replacement, 2,540 perl,000 

women. However, several of the younger cohorts, 

even before they reached the end of the childbearing period, had surpassed this number, and 

will thus have acohortreproduction rateinexcess 

of 1,000. For example in 1963, when the cohorts 

of 1919-23 were40-44years ofage, thecumulative 

birth rate was over 2,700, andthecohorts of 1924-

28 had exceeded this figure by the time their 

average age was 35-39 years. It seems certain 

that almost all of the cohorts from 1918 through 

1935 will have had more than enough children to 

replace themselves. The cumulative fertility 

24

----

experience of younger cohorts is still too incomplete to determine their replacement. 

With continuing impr&ement in mortality 

conditions, the children required for the repro- , 

duction of a generation will continue to diminish.. 

At present levels of mortality, the figure is about 

2,100, almost 16 percent below the figure required 

by the group of female infants born 50 years ago. 

Reproduction rates for actual cohorts have 

been compared with those of hypothetical cohorts. 

The net reproduction rate for the cohorts of 1876-

80 is similar in magnitude to the period rate for 

1905-10, 1,284 compared with 1,336. The rates for 

the cohorts 1901-05 and 1906-10, 917 and 882, 

respectively, are a little smaller than the period 

figure for 1935-40 (978).13. 

Pwjections of cumulative bin$h yates.—Pro ­

jections of cumulative birth rates serve as the 

5000


4500


z 

Q 

~ 4000


3


a


o 

k 

2 3500


2


u Actual 

IL 

0 

0 

0. 3000 L 

LJo’\

2 ~’


2000


basis for the four series of population projections. 

prepared recently by the Bureau of the Census. g 

Series A assumes that cumulative birth rate by 

ages 50-54 wilI gradually move toward 3,350; 

Series B, 3,100; Series C, 2,775; and Series D, 

2,450 births per 1,,000 women. ‘These levels of 

completed fertility will be experienced by women 

born after 1951 who will not reach the end of their 

reproductive lives until about the year 2000. Series 

A shows a gradual increase in the average number 

of children per woman from about 2.3 (cohorts of 

1911-15) in 1965 to a maximum of about 3.5 during 

the period 1985-95, and then a gradual decline to 

the ultimate figure of 3.35 for this series (table 19 

and fig. 12). In series B the number increases 

from 2.3 to about 3.4 in. 1990 and then declines 

gradually to the assumed target figure of 3.1, which 

is not reached until after the year 2000. Cohorts 

5000


4500


4000


Series A 

3500
 e“ Series B 

Projected # .d. -n-n-,- 4 

/: +—>.—1 3000


0“ 2500 

2000


0 111111111 111111111 111111111 111111111 111111111 111111111 111111111 0 

1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 

Figure 12, Cumulative birth rates, actual and projected, for al 1 women, by exact ages 50-5L+ years, in 

groups of cohorts, [930-2000. 

(Births adjusted for underregi strat ion	 and numbers of women adjusted for underenumerat ion and mi ssta.te­


rnents of age in censuses)


25

--

�

�

Table 19. Projected cumulative birth rates for 

all women, by exact ages 50-54 years in selected groups of cohorts from 1911-15 to 

1946-50: United States, 1965-2000 

(Notes to tables given on page VIII) 

January 

1 Cohorts of each 

year 

1946-50-- 2000 

1941-45-- 1995 

1936-40-- 1990 

1931-35-- 1985 

1926-30-- 1980 

+;&-;:-- 1975 

1970 

1911-15-- 1965 

Series 

A B c D 

Rates per 1,000 female 

population 

3,442 3,211 2,803 2,666 

3,510 3,314 3,008 3,005 

3,532 3,374 3,238 3,238 

3,477 3,346 3,275 33275 

3,220 3,134 3,103 3,103 

2,872 2,868 2,857 2,857 

2,551 2,551 2,551 2,551 

2,316 2,316 2,316 2,316 

_H_L 

NOTE: Based on data in the U.S. Bureau of 

the Census, “Projections of the Population of 

the United States. bv Aszeand Sex. 1964-85.” 

Current Populatio; Re50r~s, Serie& P-25, N;. 

286 July 1964 These figures are comparable

wit~ those in t~ble 13. 

of women bearingchildrenunderthe assumedconditions of Series Canal Dboth reacha maxim~ 

average family of3.3 children per woman in1985 

(cohorts of 1931-35); cumulative birth rates in 

Iater years decrease rapidlytotheultimate levels 

assigned for the series—2.775 for Series C and 

2.450 forgeries D. 

NATALITY STATISTICS 

BY SELECITED CHARACTERISTICS 

Various characteristics of liveborn infants 

of especial interest from the health and genetic 

point ofview are discussed inthis section. Statistics are shown for the proportion of births that 

occurred in hospitals, the distributions of birth 

weight and period of gestation among live births, 

the sex ratio at birth, thenumberofplural births, 

and thefrequency ofbirthsbymonth ofoccurrence. 

Attendant at Birth 

In 1962, 97 births out ofeverylOO were delivered in hospitals orotherinstitutions compared 

with 88 per 100 in 1950 and 56 in 1940. This 

striking increase is believed tobe at least partly 

responsible for the substantial declines in infant 

and maternal mortality that alsotookplace during 

these years. The trendinhospitalobstetricalcare 

is characterized by a fairly rapid rise through 

the midforties and amore gradual increase since 

then (fig. 13). 

The proportion of white births deliveredin 

hospitals is now close to 100 percent, and this 

has been accomplished over a relatively short 

span of years. As recentlyas 19400nly three out 

of five white births occurred in hospitals. However, during the war yearsconsiderableprogress 

was made, and by 1948 the proportion had risen 

to 90 percent. It has continued to increase and 

since 1959 has remained at99 percent. 

With’s relatively low rate of hospital utilization for the nonwhite group, the potential for 

improvement was much greater. In 19400nly27 

percent of the nonwhite deliveries occurred in 

hospitals. By 1957 the percentage had tripled, 

increasing to 81 percent. By 1962 the proportion 

of nonwhite deliveries inhospitalswas 87percent. 

Births in hospitals have beenaccompanied by 

a marked decrease in births delivered by nonphysicians. Ninety percent of the nonwhite births 

were medically attended in 1962 compared with 

PERCENT 

100 

so — 

— 60 

,$.. . . ~.. 

..+’ — 40 — �,,.$$’ ,.. ,,,.. 

,*.,*89** 

— 20 — 

o 

1940 I 945 I 950 1955 1960 

Figure	 13. Percent of live births occurring in 

“hospitals, by color, 1940-62. 

26 
--------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------ --

--------------------------------------------------

---------------------------

----------------------------

----------------------------

-------------------------

----------------------

----------------------

----------------------------

Table 20. Percent distribution of nonwhite live births and urban and rural areas by.


attendant: United States, 1940, 1950, 1960, and 1962


(Notes to tables given on page” VIII).


Attendant


Area and year Physician Physician Midwife,


other


and not
 hos~tal h%~i%
 specified


Urban Percent distribution


1962------ 93.9 2.0 4:1 

l96O------------------7------------------------------- 92.9 4.5 

1950 78.2 1::: 11.5 

1940 51.4 29.4 19.2 

Rural


1962------ 70.9 4.2 24.9 

1960-------------------------------------------------- 67.0 27.5 

1950 30.0 12:? 50.2 

l94o-----_--------------------------------------------, 8.6 20.2 71.1 

only 72 percent in 1950 and 51 percent in1940. 

For the white group the proportion of births 

attended by physicians has been nearly 100percent for anumber ofyears. 

The nonwhite infants born without medical 

attendants (lOpercent of thetotalnonwhite births) 

are found mainly in the rural areas. The figures 

in table 20 show that although a rapid rate ofdecline occurred between 1940 and 1962, one in 

four nonwhite births in rural areas was stillnonmedically attended. 

Furthermore, the rural areas where midwifery is prominent are confined mainly to the 

States in the South. The percents ofmidwife deliveries for nonwhite live births for selected 

Southern Statesin 1962 are: 

. . 

Peycent 

Alabama 38.7 

Arkansas----------:---------------- 28.4 

Florida 13.4 

Georgia 23.0 

For some States , nonwhite babies attendedby 

midwives were notlimited to births among rural 

residents. In Mississippi and Alabama, the two 

States where the highest percent of nonwhite 

deliveries are attended by midwives, 23 percent 

and26 percent, respectively, of thesebirthswere 

to urban residents. 

The only area outside the South where the 

proportion of midwife deliveries appears to be 

sizable among the nonwhite population is in the 

State of Alaska, where 13 percent of the nonwhite births in 1962 were delivered by midwives 

(and 8.4 percent were delivered by attendants 

other than midwives orphysicians orbyattendants 

not specified). 

Plural Births 

The first report onpluralbirths forthebirthregistration area appearedin the 1917 volume of 

Bi~th Statistics, prepared by the Bureau of the 

Census. This was thethirdannualreport onbirths; 

figures on multiple births for the years 1915-17 

were includedin the volume. From the first year 

Mississippi 42.6 D of collection of data, asystemwase stablished 

Nortigaroltia 13.8 whereby certificates on plural deliveries were 

South Carolina 25.9 checked outas completelyas possible. Inthecase 

Virginia 14.9 oftwins born alive, for example, bothcertificates 

27 
--------

--

------

--------

--------

--------

--------

--------

--------

------

were paired. Where one member of a set was 

missing, a copy of the live-birth certificate was 

sent to the State of origin with the request that it 

be matched with a certificate of fetal death. This 

procedure was later changed so that live birth and 

fetal death certificates were matched in the 

National Office of Vital Statistics. 

In 1959 the process of matching certificates 

of plural births was discontinued and the tabulations indicated only the number of live births in 

plural deliveries. Without the matching procedure 

neither the actual number of twins and other 

multiparous births nor the number of those born 

alive or born dead in sets could be determined. 

As a result, detailed information on plural births 

in the United States has not been available since 

1958. In the discussion below, frequencies and 

ratios refer to live births in plural deliveries only. 

Of the 4,167,362 live births in 1962,4,086,056 

were from single deliveries and 81,306, or 2.0 

percent, were plural births. Most of these, 80,180, 

or 98.6 percent, were live births in twin deliveries, 

and the remaining 1,126 births were in triplet or 

other plural deliveries. Plural birth frequencies 

by white and nonwhite mothers for the Nation as 

a whole in 1962 cannot be compared with earlier 

years because data for New Jersey by color or 

race were not available. 

The ratios of plural births per 1,000 live 

births by color forthe United States for 1958-62 

indicate a continuing decline as shown below: 

Total White Nonwhite 

1962 -------------- 19.5 118.5 125.0 

1961 -------------- 20.2 19.0 26.6 

1960 --------------” 20.4 19.3 26.3 

1959 -------------- 20.6 19.5 27.0 

1958 -------------- 20.6 19.5 27.0 

Ratios by color exclude New Jersey. 

Among the States, the ratio ranged fromalow 

of 14.0 in Wyoming toahighof22.2 in Mississippi 

and New Hampshire. The geographic variationsin 

the ratio are partly duetodifferences in the racial 

composition of the population. Orientals have the 

lowest twinning rate, the white race the next 

lowest, and Negroes the highest. 

The median weight for births from plural 

deliveries (2,420 grams) is 880 grams less than 

for births from single deliveries. This size 

difference is due to the generally earlier termination of pregnancies involving multiple births and 

the less favorable nutritional environment of .—.. plural births during the gestation “-~eriod. ”The 

differences in birth weight between single live 

births and births in plural deliveries for 1962 are 

shown in table 21. 

As can be observed, the proportion of immature babies in plural deliveries is much greater 

than in deliveries consisting of a single child. 

More than half, 55.1 percent, fall into the immature 

category, that is, 2.500 grams or less, compared 

with only 7.1 percent in the case of single live 

births. 

The relative frequency of multiple births 

increases with age. of mother up to ages 35-39 

years. The chances of plural births are almost 

2% times as great at ages 35-39 than at 15-19 

years. This situation holds for both the white and 

nonwhite groups, except that differences by age 

among the nonwhites are even greater. Plural 

birth ratios by age of mother and color for the 

Table 21. Percent distribution of single 

and plural live births, by birth weight: 

United States, 1962 

(Notes to tables given on page VIII) 

Birth weight in 

grams 

Total 

2,500 or less 

1,000 or less 

1,oo1-1,500--------

1,501 -2,000 

2,001 -2,500 

2,501 -3,000 

3,001 -3,500 

3,501 -4,000 

4,001 -4,500 

4,501-5,000--------, 

5,001 or more 

Live births 

==1== 

Percent distribution 

100.0 100.0 

7.1 55.1 

0.5 4.8 

0.5 5.7 

14.7 

::; 29.9 

19.0 28.6 

38.7 13.6 

26.6 2.5 

7.2 0.2 

0.0 

::; 0.0 

28 

1 
-----

-------

-------

-------

-------

-------

------- --

--

--

--

United Stytes for 1962 are as follows: 

Total White Nonwhite 

15-44 years 19.5 118.5 125.1 

15;19 years 12.1 11.2 15.2 

20~24 years 16.4 15.4 21.7 

25-29 years 20.9 19.7 28.2 

30-34 years 25.8 24.5 34.1 

35-39 years 29.2 27.6 38.2 

40-44,years 23.2 22.8 26.5 

lRaUOS by c.dorexclude New Jersey.


Because of the considerable possibility of 

sampling error in the case of rareevents, details 

on quadruplet and quintuplet births in1962 were 

not prepared. 

Trend in the Sex Ratio at Birth 

The discoveryof the regular male surplusin 

live births was made by John Graunt(1662), the 

Englishman who was among the first to make 

statistical use of vital records. This phenomenon 

has since raised many questions of a biological 

or sociological nature. 

The sex ratio for live births declined from 

1,050 males per 1,000 females in 1961 to 1,048 in 

1962. This ratio for the nonwhite births moved up 

a little-from 1,023 in 1961 to 1,024 in 1962, while 

the ratio for white births dropped from 1,055 to 

1,052. There has been a decline in the sex ratio 

of white births from a high of 1,063 in 1946 to 

1,052 in 1962. In contrast, the rates for nonwhite 

births fluctuated somewhat erratically between 

1,011 and 1,028 during the same time span. 

Variations in the sex ratio at birth have been 

noted among births to mothers in different age 

groups and to births of different orders (see 

table 22). A higher sex ratio has been associated 

with younger parents and/or lower birth orders. 

The sex ratio of live white births by age of 

mother or live-birth order (shown for selected 

years above) indicates that in general the sex 

ratio dropped with an increase in birth order or 

age of mother. This relationship, however, usually 

743-6!31O -64- 5


-L


Table 22. Males Per 1,000 females for 

white live birth;, by- age of mother and 

live-birth order: United States, 1946, 

1950, 1960, and 1962 

(Notes to tables given on page VIII)


Age of mother 

and 1ivebirth order EE!EEEE


Age of mother Males per 1,000 females 

.15-19 years 1,059 

20-24 years 1,054 

25-29 years-- 1,049 

30-34 years-- 1,050 

35-39 years 1,050 

40-44 years 1,047 

Live-birth 

order 

First birth-- 1,059 

Second birth- 1,053 

Third birth-F- 1,051 

ourth birth- 1,049 

Fifth birth-- 1,045 

Sixth birth 

and over---- 1,038 

1,061 1,067 

1,057 1,059 

1,054 1,062 

1,052 1,055 

1,043 1,045 

1,046 1,043 

1,062 1,068 

1,053 1,061 

1>053 1,051 

1,052 1,044 

1,049 1,046 

1,045 1>040 

did not hold true foracrossclassificationof 

1,058 

1>063 

1,061 

1,055 

1,047 

1,044 

1,069 

1,060 

1,052 

1,052 

1,035 

1,041 

any 

single birth order with any 5-year age-of-mother 

group. 

Birth .Wjeight 

A great majority of the children born in 1962 

(92 percent) weighed more than 2,500 grams. 

Births of the remaining 8. Opercent (2,500 grams 

or less) were immature according to the birth 

weight criterion. Although this group constitutes 

a small portion of total births, it poses a special 

health problem since a large number of neonatal 

deaths (infants dying within 28 days of birth) are 

those of immature babies. 

The peak concentration of births was between 

3,001 and 3,500 grams. Nearly two-fifths of the 

births in 1962 were at these weights. The median 

weight for all children was 3’,290 grams. 

Nonwhite babies weighed 180 grams less at 

birth on the average than white babies. The percent of nonwhite infants weighing 2,500 grams or 

less was 13.1 compared with 7.0 for white infants. 

At the other end of the weight scale (4,501 grams 

29 
---------------------

---------------------

---------------------

---------------------

---------------------

or more) the proportions for the white and nonwhite groups were 1.6 and 1.2 percent. 

TYend in biyth- weight distribution. - National 

birth-weight statistics became available in 1950 

when an item on birth weight was added to the livebirth certificate for virtually all States. The proportion of total liveborn infants of immature 

weights has gradually increased since that time. 

This rise in the relative number of immature 

births is practically all due to the changing weight 

among nonwhite births. As seen below, the percent 

change in immaturity in the United States for the 

years 1950-62 among white infants over the years 

has been fairly stable, moving from 7.2 percent 

in 1950 to a low of 6.8 and rising again to 7.0 

in 1962; among the nonwhite births this proportion 

has risen from 10.4 in 1950 to 13.1 in 1962. (Data 

for Massachusetts and Connecticut for 1950-55 

and for Massachusetts for 1956 are excluded.) 

Total White Nonwhite 

1962 ---------------- 8.0 7.0 13.1 

1961 ---------------- 7.8 6.9 13.0 

1960 ---------------- 7.7 6.8 12.8 

1959 ---------------- 7.7 6.8 12.9 

1958 ---------------- 7.7 6.8 12.9 

1957 ---------------- 7.6 6.8 12.5 

1956 ---------------- 7.6 6.8 12.1 

1955 ---------------- 7.7 6.9 11.8 

1954 ---------------- 7.5 6.9 11.4 

1953 ---------------- 7.7 7.1 11.4 

1952 ---------------- 7.7 7.1 11.2 

1951 ---------------- 7.6 7.1 10.8 

1950 ---------------- 7.6 7.2 10.4 

The increasein the percentimmature amongtotal 

live births from 7.6t08.0 between 1950 and1962 

appears to be small; however, if the percent 

immature in 1962 had been 7.6 rather than 8.0 

this would represent about17,000fewerimmature 

births than actually occurred. Since the neonatal 

death rate is high among these infants of low 

weights, the relative increase in immature births 

has implications for neonatal mortality. 

The increasing immaturity among the nonwhite births was related to thegradualshiftin the 

birth-weight distribution toward the lighter intervals. The median birth weight presented belowby 

color shows a drop since 1950. This measure re ­

mained practically unchanged among white births 

during the same period. Most of the characteristics by which birth weight has been tabulated 

over the years indicate that the average weight 

of the nonwhite newborn babies has been decreasing. 

White Nonwhite 

1962 3,320 3,140 

1960 3,340 3,150 

1957 3,330 3,170 

1955 3,330 3,190 

1950 3,320 3,250 

Bivth weightby age ofmothev.—Two important factors affecting birth weight which varies 

between white and nonwhite births in various 

geographic areas and overtime are ageofmother 

and birth order of live births. The relationship 

between immaturity and age of mother iscurvilinear, with highest immaturity among birthsto 

younger and older mothers and the lowest among 

mothers aged 25-29 years of age. Thus a change 

in the timing of births and in the family-size 

pattern might affect the reIative number ofimmature births. Since 1950, for example,therehas 

been amovement toward earlier age at marriage 

and childbearing. Also, the birth order composition of live births has changed, the proportion 

of first and second births to total births is 

smaller at the present time. 

Between 1950 and 1962” the changes in the 

proportion of immature white infants by age of 

mother were small and inconsistent, while for 

nonwhite infants there has been an overall rise 

in immaturity for each age-of-mother group 

(table 23). 

Variations in the incidence of immaturity with 

age of mother are also related to differences in 

birth order composition within a specified age 

group. A higher incidence of immaturity occurs 

among births of high orders to young mothers as 

well as among births of low orders to older 

mothers. Birth weights aremore favorable among 

births where the age ofmotheris highly correlated with birth order. The relatively low immaturity among nonwhite infants to mothers aged 

40-44 years shown in table 23, for example, is 

due to the very highpercentage of births of high 

orders in this age group. During the period1950-

62 between 75 and 79 percent of the nonwhite live 

births to mothers 40-44 years old have been of 

30 
-------------

-------------

--------------------------

------- -------------- -----

--------------------------

--------------------------

--------------------------

--------------------------

--------------------------

--------------------------

--------------------------

--------------------------

--------------------------

--------------------------

fifth or higher birth orders compared “with about 

47 to 54 percent for white mothers of the same age. 

‘Changes in the composition of live births by 

age of mother and live-birth order over the past 

decade probably had only a minor effect on the 

increasing proportion of immature births because 

of compensating factors which took place simultaneously. In some cases, for example, younger 

age at childbearing would probably have resulted 

in an increased proportion of immature babies. 

An increase in births of higher orders to mothers 

over 25 years of age might have resulted in a decrease in the proportion of immature births. 

Binfh weigh( by geographic ayea. —The rise 

in immaturity” among nonwhite births between 1950 

and 1962 occurred in almost all the States. The 

change was greatest in the South where the incidence of immaturity was very low in 1950. The 

percent of nonwhite infants born at low weights 

has also increased in the other geographic regions 

where the relative number of immature births was 

already at a high level in 1950. The proportion of 

white immature births by State was more stable 

during this period. 

There are certain uniformities in geographic 

variations of birth weight which have been obs~rved over the years. Among white infants, births 

in the Mountain States (8.4 percent in 1962) have 

consistently had the highest incidence of immaturity. The area of low immaturity among white 

births has been the West North Central States 

(6.2 percent in 1962). 

The highest proportion of immature nonwhite births were usually observed in the Middle 

Atlantic States; the percent immature was as high 

as 15.’3 in 1962. The areas with relatively few 

immature births are the Mountain (11. 2 percent 

in 1962) and Pacific (11.0 percent in 1962) 

Divisions where a large percentage of nonwhite, babies are of races other than Negro. 

The birth-weight 

Jndian liv= births in 

weight of Indians was 

births and contrasted 

birth weight of the . . .. . 

distribution tabulated for 

1962 showed that the birth 

similar to that of white live 

with the lower average 

nonwhite births (table 24). . .. . According to the 1950 data the birth weight of 

infants to rural residents was heavier on the 

average than that of infants to urban residents as 

shown below, and a smaller number of immature 

babies were born to rural residents (table 25). 

Total White Nonwhite; 

Urban 3,290 3,300 3,190 

Rural 3,380 3,370 3,410 

Table 23. Immature live births, as percent of total live births in each group, by age


of mother and color: United States


(Notes ‘to tables given on page VIII)


Age of mother and color 1962 1960 1957 1955 19501 

White Percent of total live births in each group 

15-19 years


20-24 years


25-29 years


30-34 years


35-39 years


40-44 years


Nonwhite


15-19 years


20-24 years


25-29 years


30-34 years


35-39 years


40-44 years


8.3 8.3 8.2 8.3 8.0 

6.7 6.5 6.5 6.8 6.9 

6.3 6.5 6.5 

;:: ::; 7.0 

7.7 7.3 ;:; H 7.5 

7.9 7.8 7.8 8.0 7.5 

16.0 15.9 15.2 14.6 12.0 

12.8 12.6 12.4 11.7 9.6 

11.6 11.5 11.5 10.8 8.4 

12.2 11.9 11.1 10.7 

12.7 11.8 11.5 10.6 N 

11.6 11.0 9.9 10.9 8.9 

lData are for births which occurred during the first 3 months and exclude Massachusetts. 

31

----------------------------------------

--------------------------------

----------------------------------

----------------------------------

----------------------------------

--------------------------------

Table 24. Percent distribution of live births, by birth weight and specified race: 

United States, 1962 

(Notes to tables given on page VIII) 

Birth weight White Nonwhite Indianl 

I I I 

I Percent distribution 

Total 100.0 I 100.0 I 100.0 

2,500 grams or less 13.1 7.9 

2,501-3,000 grams 1;:: 25.7 18.6 

3,001-3,500 grams 38.3 37.2 37.8 

3,501-4,000 grams 27.6 18.5 26.4 

4,001-grams or more 9.2 5.6 9.3 

lIncludes Aleuts and Eskimos.


This urban-rural difference in birth weight has The urban-rural differential in”birth weight 

persisted to the present, Thepercentofimmature is not confined to any geographic region but is 

live births for urban and rural areas bycolor for found generally inall the States among bothwhite 

selected years is presentedin table 25. The 1950 and nonwhite births. Since immaturityis higher 

definitions’of urban and rural areas differ from among urban births, it follows that theproportion 

those for 1960}4’15 of immature births for an area is related to the 

proportion of urban or rural births in an area. 

The high proportion ofimmaturityfound amongthe 

nonwhite births in the Middle Atlantic States (15.3 

percentin 1962) is related tothe fact that almost 

95 percent of nonwhite births intbis divisionwere 

to urban residents. 

Table 25. Immature live births, as percent 

of total live births in each group, by The proportion of urban births among the 

color:United States and urban and rural white population of the United States remained 

areas, 1950, 1953, 1955, 1960-62 about 61 percent between 1950 and 1962. Among 

I 

(Notes to tables given on page VIII) the nonwhite population the proportion of urban 

births increased from 58 to 70 percent during 

White Nonwhite the same period. Furthermore, the proportion of 

Year I I I white births to residents ofthe large metropolitan 

Urban Rural Urban Rural centers (places with populations of 250,000 or 

more) actually decreased alittle between1950and 

1961 (the last year for which data by population Percent 

births 

of 

in 

total live 

each group size place were tabulated), while there wasanincrease in the percent of births among nonwhite 

1962---------

1961---------

1960---------

7.2 

7.1 

7.0 

6.7 

H 

13.9 11.3 

13.9 11.0 

13.7 10.8 

residents in these large urban centers—from 

about 29 to 40 percent ofthe totalnonwhite births. 

1955--------- 7.1 :.: 12.7 9.7 When immaturity for births to residents of the 

1953---------

1950 I -------- 7.2 

7.3 6:5 

12.3 9.5 

11.2 7.8 

various population-size places is compared, itis 

seen that immaturity increased generally with 

1Data are for births which occurred increase in size of place of residence (table 26). 

during the first 3 months and exclude The increasing urban migration among nonMassachusetts. white persons to the larger urban centers of the 

32 
--------------------------------

---------------------------------

----------------------------------

-----------------------------------

United States had an unfavorable effect on birth Period of Gestation


weight since the incidence of immaturity in these•

large metropolitan centers is exceptionally high Data on length of gestation corroborate birth•

among nonwhite infants. It is difficult, however, weight data in differentiating levels of physical•

to delineate the factors which could account for development at birth. For purposes of classifi-•

the differential birth weight between urban and cation, an infant born at gestation of less than•

rural births. 37 weeks is referred to as “premature,” and an•

Othey. factom; wlated to biyth weight. —Two infant weighing 2,500 grams or less is referred 

other factors can be mentioned which may have a to as “immature.” 

bearing on the rise in immaturity among the non- Both gestation period and birth weight must 

white live births. The first of these is the effect of be considered in evaluating the maturity of newdifferent child-spacing” intervals-on birth \weight. born infants because of the wide range in the duIndirect evidence of the relationship between child ration of gestation within a specific weight interval 

spacing and birth weight is the large number of as well as the variation in weight within a gesta- 

\immature births of relatively high orders among tion interval. 

young mothers. Although data on gestation for most States 

Second, there is a large difference in im- have been available since 1950, trend comparisons 

maturity between legitimate and illegitimate are unreliable because of variations in reporting. 

births; increases of immaturity may be associ- In 1950 the percent of premature infants was•

ated with the considerable increase in the illegiti- at a high level due to the heaping of gestations•

macy ratio (illegitimate live births per 1,000 total at 36 weeks. This reporting bias resulted from the•

live births ) for both white and nonwhite births. conversion of gestations of 9“months to 36 weeks•

Between 1950 and 1962 the ratio for white births Since 1950 the proportion of infants with reported•

increased from 18 to 28, and for nonwhite births, gestations of 36 weeks has decreased considerably.•

from 180 to 230. The percents of legitimate and•

illegitimate immature live births by color for•

1955 are as follows: White Nonwhite


1962 ----------------------- 2.7 5.0


1960 ----------------------- 2.9 5.2


White Nonwhite 1958 ----------------------- 3.2 5.7


1956 ----------------------- 3.6 6.7


Legitimate --------------- 6.6 11.0 1951 ----------------------- 5.9 10.0


IIIegitimate -------------- 11.2 - 13.7 1950 ----------------------- 7.0 11.5


Table 26. immature live births, as percent of total live births in each group, by color 

and size of place: United States, 1960 and 1961 

(Notes to tables given on page VIII)


1961 1960 

Size of place 

White Nonwhite White Nonwhi.t e 

Percent of total live births in 

each group 

250,000 or more -------------------------------- 7.6 14.3 7.5 14.3 

100,000 -250,000 7.3 13.8 7.2 13.2 

50,000 -100,000 ;.; 14.0 6.9 13.5 

25,000 -50,,000 13.1 6:7 13.5 

10,000 -25,000 -------------------------=-------- 6:6 13.1 6.6 12.8 

2,500 -10,000 6.8 12.1 6.6 11.9 

Under 2,500------------------------------------ 6.5 11.0 6.5 10.8 

33 
----------- -------------- ----------

---------- ------------- ---------

---------- -------------

----------

At the same time, the‘36-week-gestation-


categoryincreasingly
includedmore immature


infants. In 1950 only-14percentoftheinfants
at


36-week gestations
were immature;by 1962this


proportionhad risen to 34 percent.Sincethe


majorityof prematureinfantsfallintothe 36-


week category, thedecreaseinthisgestation
 age


,iscloselyrelatedtothedecreaseintheproportion


of prematurebirthssince1950as shown below.


White Nonwhite 

1962--------------------- 6.1 11.3


1960--------------------- 6.3 11.5


1958--------------------- 6.5 11.8


1956--------------------- 6.7 11.9


1951--------------------- 9,(3 14.4


1950---------------------10.3 15.8


Anotherseriousdeficiency
in thegestation


data,however,is thesubstantial
 overstatement


at 40 weeks.Thisbiasprobablyresultsfrom the


factthatthe gestationperiodis notcarefully


observed,so thenewborn infantof normalsize 

or developmentis assumed to have a “normal” 

gestationperiodof40 weeks.Sucherrorsinre-


portingare reducedinareaswhere thegestation


dataare derivedfrom theitemon thelive-birth


Table 28. Premature live births, as per-


cent of total live births, by color:


United States and selected areas, 1962


(Notes to tables given on page VIII) 

I I 

Area I

White Nonwhite


! 1 

Percentof total


live births


United States 6.1 11.3 

California 15.2 

Baltimore City 1;:: 25.3 

District of Columbia---- 11.5 19.9 

New York City----------- 9.5 19.5 

NOTE: By place of residence for Cali­


fornia and the District of Columbia and


by place of occurrence for Baltimore City


and New York City.


Table 27. Percent distribution of live births, by Period of gestation and color: United


States and selected ~r~as, 1962 -


(Notes to tables given on page VIII) 

Period of gestation


Color and area 43 

Total U;pr 28-31 32-35 36 37-39 40 41-42 weeks 

weeks weeks weeks weeks weeks weeks and weeks over 

White Percent distribution


United States 100.0 0.5 0.7 2.7 16.5 68.0 

California 100.0 0.7 0.8 3.0 38.5 25.0 2;:: 

Baltimore City 

District of Columbia---

100.0 

100.0 

0.8 

0.9 

1.2 3.5 

3.9 

39.1 

34.7 

22.9 

26.1 

22.2 

21.2 

New York City---------- 100.0 0.5 H 3.3 40.4 23.9 21.0 

Nonwhite


United States 100.0 1.6 15.3 68.1


California 100.0 ;:: R 43.1 20.2 12:: ;:;


Baltimore City--------- 100.0 3.1 ::; 5.6 41.6 16.0 13.0 4.0


District of Columbia--- 100.0 2.2 2.7 5.4 40.5 18.8 15.0 5.7


New York City 100.0 2.2 2.7 5.2 41.2 18.4 15.5 5.4


NOTE: By place of residence for California and the District of Columbia and by place


of occurrence for Baltimore City and New York City.


34

----------

--------------------

-------- ------------ ------------------------------

------------------------------------

certificate requesting thedateofthelastnormal A comparisonof thepercentdisti-ibution
 of 

menstrualperiod (hereafter calledLMP data). livebirthsin 1962 by lengthofgestationforthe


Areas usingthiswordingof the item are Cali- UnitedStatesand theareaswhere LMP dataare


fornia, BaltimoreCity,District ofColumbia,and available
suggeststhemagnitudeofthedistortion


New York City. ,jn theconventional gestation data(table
27).These


Table 29. Immature live	births, as percent of total live births in each group, by color


and period of gestation: United States


(Notes to tables .given on page VIII)


White I Nonwhite 

Period of gestation 

United States California United States California 

I Percent of total live births in each group 

20-27 weeks---------------- 96.6 89.8 94.4 85.6 

28-31 weeks---------------- 90.9 80.3 87.9 70.8 

32-35 weeks---------------- 68.3 46.5 64.6 43.4 

36 weeks------------------- 33.4 21.3 34.2 23.1 

37-39 weeks---------------- 9.3 5.1 13.6 

40 weeks------------------- 2.6 1.8 ;:: 

41-42 weeks---------------- 1.5 1.5 ::: 2.9 

43 weeks and over 2.1 2.1 5.0 3.7 

NOTE: By place of residence.


Table 30. Percent distribution of live births, by sex, color, and period of gestation:


California and New York City, 1962


.(Notes to tables given on page VIII)


White Negro


Area and period of gestation


Male Female Male Female


California I Percent distribution 

Total----------------


New York City
 I I 

Total 100.0 I 100.0 100.0


~ 

Under 37 weeks------------------------ - 17.6 15.9 

37-39 weeks------------------------ 3;:: 3%: 42.1 42.2 

40 weeks and over 51.4 54.8 40.2 41.9 1 100.0 ‘: 

Under 37 weeks--------------------------------- 20.6 19.1


37-39 weeks------------------------------------ 4?:: 3;:$ 41.7 40.6


40 weeks and over------------------------------ 48.7 51.6 37.6 40.4


NOTE: By place of residence for California and by place of occurrence for,New York


City.


35”’

figures show a much higher incidence of prematurity in LMP data. Further, there is a much 

wider discrepancy in prematurity between white 

and nonwhite infants in the LMP data (table 28). 

By bivtlz weight. — When the period of gestation is crossclassified by birth weight, immaturity 

in LMP data is greatly below immaturity in conventional gestation data based on length of pregnancy in completed weeks. This leads one to believe that the reporting of the conventional gestation data is greatly influenced by the size and 

weight of the infant. The figures in table 29 indicate that immaturity is lower by a wide margin 

in the LMP data (California, for example) for 

practically each gestation interval. 

At the same time, when prematurity is examined for birth-weight intervals, the difference in 

the incidence of prematurity is not large between 

LMP and regular gestation data in the lighterweight intervals. In the optimum-weight intervals, 

however, about twice as many premature births 

are found in the LMP data. 

30 

z 

g 

~ 

-1 

2 

L 

: 25 

0 

0 

0-

— 

E 

w 

L 

m 

u 

% 

K 

20 

0 

By sex of child. — Although male infants weigh 

more at birth on the average than female infants, 

the gestation period for male infants averaged 

somewhat less. LMP data indicate that’ the slight 

sex differential in length of gestation is consistent 

among the geographic areas and for the various 

races. Table 30 presents the percent distribution 

of live births by period of gestation and sex for 

California and New York City. 

Seasonality of Births 

Figure 14 shows crude birth rates by month 

unadjusted and adjusted for seasonal variation for 

the past decade. The comparison between the 

adjusted and unadjusted rates shows that most of 

the monthly fluctuations in the crude birth rates 

are due to a fairly consistent seasonal pattern. 

The removal of tfi.e seasonal pattern, using an 

adaptation of the standard ratio to moving average 

method, 16 facilitates observations of any trend 

movement in measures of fertility. The residual 

— 

—	 Based on registered births 

mmmmmn Adjusted for seasonal variation 

1952 1953 1954 !955 1956 1957 [958 1959 1960 1961 1962 

Figure 14, Birth rates, unadjusted and adjusted for seasonal variation, 1952-52. 

(Rates on an annual basis per I,000 estimated population for specified month) 

36 
movements in “tie trend represent random variation as well as the fertility response m underlying nonseasonal changes in specific factors. 

The following discussion of seasonal variations in live births is made in terms of monthly 

indexes standardized to a monthly average of 100. 

The use of monthly indexes rather than seasonal 

indexes introduces little error for comparative 

purposes. 

The existence of a seasonal pattern in births 

and, birth rates by month in the United States has 

long been recognized. Over. the years the basic 

shape of the plotted seasonal bimodal curve remains the same in spite of minor shifts in the 

intensity and months of the high and low periods. 

A comparison of the trend in seasonal birth 

patterns over the past few decades can be made 

in figure 15, with the 1939 monthly indexes representing prewar (World War II) patterns, the 

1950 indexes representing the characteristic pattern of the early 1950’s, and 1962 representing 

the current pattern. 

In the 1930’s the minor peak in February and 

March was more prominent than in recent years 

and the deepest trough occurred at the end of the 

year. In the monthly pattern following World War 

II (early 1950’s) there was a great accentuation 

of the spring trough, a rise in the major peak in 

August and September, and a diminishing of the 

minor February peak and December trough. 

As in” previous years, in 1962 there was a 

major peak in August and September, a minor 

peak in February and March, and troughs in 

January and May. The deep and sharp April 

trough of the early 1950’s now appears to be 

smoothing out. Instead, the deepest part of the 

trough occurs in May, while the April births have 

risen and June births decreased. 

Seasonal pattevn by color. —The peak month of 

birth is September for the white group and August 

for the nonwhite, and the major trough for both 

groups coincides in May. The secondary dip for 

white births occurs in January compared with a 

secondary low in November among nonwhite births. 

The seasonal pattern among nonwhite births 

showed greater magnitudes in the major peak and 

trough. The major peak was 10 percent higher than 

average compared with 7 percent for white births; 

the trou”gh in May deviated as much as 10 Percent 

INDEX 

‘“~ 

., ~ 

MONTH OF OCCURRENCE 

Figure 15. Monthly indexes of live births, [939,


1950, and 1962.


(Ratio of	 monthly daily average to that of the


calendar year taken as 100]


from the monthly average for nonwhite births compared with 4 percent for white births. 

Since 1950 the spring trough decreased in 

amplitude for both white and nonwhite births, but 

changes in the major peak were slight. In 1950 the 

April-May trough for white births was 11 percent 

below average and for nonwhite births, 15 percent. 

Geoqaphic va~iations.—3ince the season: 

ality of births varies among different geographic 

regions, it is interesting to note the contributions 

of each region to the total pattern for the country 

as a whole. In figure 16 the variations in seasonal 

patterns by color for the four regions for 1962 can 

be observed. 

Geographic area rather than race seems to 

be the more important factor in determining the 

seasonaliW of births. The pattern of births between 

the two color groups usually has more similarity 

within a geographic division than the pattern for 

a particular color group among different geographic divisions. An exception is found in the 

Northeast Region, In these States, the nonwhite 

pattern resembles more closely the pattern of the 

South than the pattern for the white births in the 

area. 

37

----------------------------------------

----------------------------------------

----------------------------------------

----------------------------------------

----------------------------------------

----------------------------------------

115 WEST 

White —

“’rzii-l Nonwhite ... . .. . . . ..

‘7F:=1“5F-TRAL7110 “°F____i 105 

100 

95 

‘“v ’01 .5 kM—uuLd 85 Luu_uum 135bmJMM—d 85 I I I I I I I II I 

J FM AM J J AS O NO J FMAM J J A s OND J F M A M J J A S OND J F M AM J J ASOND 

MONTH OF OCCURRENCE 

Figure 16. Monthly indexes of live births, by color and geographic region, 19620


(Ratio of monthly daily average to that of the calendar year taken as 100)


In 1950the seasonal pattern ofbirthsbycolor of-mother groups.The monthly indexes,however, .—.— within a geographic area was more homogeneous were higher for older mothers-during the winter 

than at present. In the South the patterns for the months, while the indexes for younger mothers 

two groups were identicalin 1950. were slightlyhigherfromAprilthroughSeptember 

Vavi@ions by age ofmothev and live-bi~th (table 31). 

oyder. —There was a similarity in the seasonal When age was held constant for birth order, 

pattern of births among each of the 5-year age- there were also slight variations in the monthly 

Table 31. Ratio of quarterly births, by age of mother to average quarterly births: 

United States, 1962 

(Notes to tables given on page VIII) 

Age of mother 1st 

quarter 

2d 

quarter 

3d 

quarter 

4th 

quarter 

Ratio: quarterly average = 100.0 

15-19 years 

20-24 years 

25-29 years 

30-34 years 

35-39 years 

40-44 years 

98.8 96.6 107.4 97.3 

96.8 96.0 106.8 100.4 

99.0 ;:.; 105.1 100.7 

99.8 104.2 101.2 

101.5 93:2 104.8 100.5 

102.7 92.3 103.4 101.6 

38

.

indexes. For example, among first births to women 

20-24 years old, the January trough was deeper 

than the spring trough, while for births of third 

or higher orders the spring trough was deeper with 

practically no dip in December or January. 

It is interesting to speculate on whether shifts 

in the composition of births by age of mother and 

live-birth order resulted in minor changes in 

seasonal birth pattern over time. 

Seasonal pattenzs in other countries.- The 

pattern of births by month for other countries 

affords a contrast with the seasonal pattern of 

births in the United States. The amplitude and 

timing of the annual birth curve varies considerably from country to country. 

For England and Wales the peak month of 

births occurred in March with a minor peak in 

September and the annual low point usually in 

November. In Japan the sharp peak month of 

births was January with a comparatively small 

INDEX€

I20€

2..€

.:€

...-€

-..€

-..€

$.€

..€

-.+€ 110 t€-.<€

England and Wales 

100 —€

—€ :€:€

: ~-€ =.€

$, .$’€

.-- :€

9b *._ .:--€

$..>-€

e€

—€

80 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 

JFMAMJJAS ONO 

MONTH OF OCCURRENCE€

Figure 17, Monthly indexes of 1 ive births: England


and Wales, 1962, and Japan, 1961,


(Ratio of monthly daily average to that of the


calendar year taken as 100)


peak in September and the low month in June (fig. 

17). 

The deviations from the average monthly 

index are much greater for Japan; in 1961 the 

January peak was 19 percent above average and 

the low in June was 12 percent below. In England 

and Wales the high and low months deviated 9 

percent and 6 percent, respectively, from the 

average (1962); in the United States comparable 

figures were 8 percent above and 5 percent below 

average. 

‘BIRTHS BY COLOR, RACE, 

RESIDENCE, AND LEGITIMCY 

The following discussion deals with the differential fertility between the white and nonwhite 

population in the United States in terms of the 

various measures of fertility introduced earlier 

in this report. This is followed by an analysis of 

the fertility of specified races for 1960, made on 

the basis of population characteristics of nonwhite races released by the Bureau of Census. 17 

Fertility by State and geographic division is 

discussed in terms of birth frequencies and crude 

birth rates for 1962. Additional geographic analysis is presented showing urban and rural and 

metropolitan and nonmetropolitan differentials in 

fertility. The topic illegitimacy in the United 

States concludes this section: 

‘Fertility by Color 

Fertility rates for the white and nonwhite 

populations of the United States have followed, 

generally, parallel paths since the Second World 

War (fig. 18). Since 1950 the general fertility 

rate for white females has increased by about 5 

percent, from 102.3 to 107.5 live births per 

1,000 females aged 15-44 years, compared with 

an increase of slightly more than 8 percent, from 

137.3 to 148.7, for the nonwhite women in these 

ages. Since 1960 both white and nonwhite women 

have experienced declines in fertility of 5 percent and 3 percent, respectively. 

The difference in fertility between white and 

nonwhite women is manifest for every age group, 

with the most striking differences for the youngest 

and oldest 5-year age groups (table 32). Fertility 

39


.’, .€

“.€
is almost 10 times higher for nonwhite mothers 

aged 10-14 years, and about 2 times higher for 

those aged 45-49 years. The least difference 

between the two groups occurs among women 

aged 25-29 years, where the nonwhite age: 

160 

150 

I40 + 

\ 

‘~1 \ 

I30 

\ 

Nanwhlte 

\ 

I 20 \ 

\ 

\ 

110 — 

\ 

I00 -

90 

80 

70 

specific fwtility vate” is about 16 percent higherthan the rate for white women. About one out of 

every five women in these ages bore a child in 1962. 

Among white mothers, births of lower orders 

(first, second, and third) accounted for 72 percent_ 

/v 160 

1, 

/ 

\ 150 

]’~ ‘ 

7 

I40 /4 

/ 130 

I 

/ 

1 

I 

I 

120 

[10 

100 

90 

80 

70 

0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I o 

1920 1930 I940 1950 1960 1970 

Figure 18. Fertil ity rates by color, 1920-62. 

(Trend 1 ine for 1920-59 based on ,registered live births adjusted for under registration; trend line for 

1959-62 based on registered live births)’ 

40 
-----------------

-----

-----

---------------

------------

Table 32. ~ Birth rates, by age of mother, color, and live-birth order: United States, 1962


(Notes to tables given on page VIII) 

Age of mother 

Total 

Color and live-birth order f~a~yy 

10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 

years years years years years years years yearss 

Rates per 1,000 female population 

White 3,345.4 — 0.4 73.2 238.0 187.4 — — 105.0 50.2 I 14.1 — — — — 0.8 _ 

First birth----------------- 877.0 0.4 52.7 86.0 25.4 7.5 2.8 0.7 0.0 

Second birth---------------- 842.4 0,0 16.8 82.7 46.8 3.5.7 5.3 1.2 0.1 

Third birth----------------- 669.7 0.0 3.3 44.9 50.6 24.1 9.1’ 2.0 0.1 

Fourth birth---------------- 428.0 0.4 17.2 33.7 22.1 9.7 2.4 0.1 

Fifth birth----------------- 239.4 0.1 5.4 17.4 15.1 7.8 2.0 0.1 

Sixth and seventh birth 197.7 0.0 1.7 11.5 14.3 9.1 2.8 0.2 

Eighth birth and over------- 90.3 0.0 0.1 2.1 6.1 6.5 3.1 0.3 

Nonwhite---------k---- 4,391.7 — 3.9 144.6 — 285.7 216.8 — 132.2 — 72.0 — 21.7 — — 1.5 _ 

First birth----------------- 891.5 3.7 83.7 63.4 .18.2 6.3 2.4 0.6 0.0 

Second birth---------------- 803.1 0.2 41.5 73.3 28.9 11.2 4.6 0.9 0.0 

Third birth----------------- 682.2 0.0 14.8 64.7 34.6 14.6 6.4 1.3 0.1 

Fourth birth---------------- 545,4 0.0 3.7 43.9 36.3 16.3 7.L 1.7 0.1 

Fifth birth----------------- 425.6 0.7 24.4 33.9 16.7 7.5 1.8 0.1 

Sixth and seventh birth 550.3 0.1 14.5 45.4 31.6 14.6 3.7 0.2 

Eighth birth and over------- 492.4 0.0 1.6 19.4 35.6 29.3 11.6 1.0 

\ lRates are computed by summingrates @ age of mother for each 5-year age group and multiplying the results by 5.


~Rates are computed by relating births to mothers aged 45 years and over to female population


aged 45-49 years.


Table 33. Median age of mother, by live-birth order and color: United States, 1962


(Notes to tables given on page VIII) 

I 

I Live-birth order 

Color Sixth Eighth 

Total First Second Third Fourth Fifth and and 

seventh over 

I Median age of mother in years


White 25.2 21.6 23.8 26.8 28.9 30.7 32.6 35.9 

Nonwhite 24.6 19.5 22.2 23.9 25.7 27.5 29.5 33.9 

NOTE: Medians computed from distributions of live births by 5-year age groups of


mothers.


41


. 
--------- ------

of the white births in 1962, while only 56 percent 

of the births to nonwhite mothers in 1962 were of 

these orders. Among nonwhite women fifth and 

higher birth orders totaled almost a third of all 

nonwhite births; this is twice the proportion for 

white women. In other words nonwhite women are 

bearing proportionately more children in the 

higher birth-order groups than white women. 

The age of the mother at the birth of her 

children was also lower on the average for nonwhite than for white women in 1962 (table 33). 

There has been, however, a trend toward a 

convergence in the median age of childbearing for 

the two groups. The difference in the median age 

of white and nonwhite mothers at first births was 

3.1 years in 1950 compared with 2.1 in 1962, a 

reduction of a full year; for second births the 

difference diminished by 1.7 years during this 

period; for third births by 1 year; and for fourth 

and higher birth orders, the difference in median 

age of childbearing between white and nonwhite 

women had decreased by 1.6 years. 

The sharp drop in the fertility of the population 

between 1961 and 1962 can be seen clearly in terms 

of the total fevtility Yate, which declined by over 

3 percent for both white and nonwhite women 

(table 34). As an index of comparative fertility, 

this rate shows that if no deaths occurred among 

1,000 women subject to the nonwhite age-specific 

fertility schedule, each would bear 4.4 children; 

under the schedule of the white population, they 

would bear about 3.3 children per woman (table 32). 

A comparison of the net reproduction Yate 

with the gvoss reproduction rate affords an indication of the relative loss in fertility sustained 

by the childbearing population of women through 

mortality. In 1962 the gross and net reproduction 

rates for the “white females were 1,630 and 1,577 

and for the nonwhite, 2,170 and 2,033, respectively. 18 me fact that the difference between these 

two rates is greater for the nonwhite women than 

for the white is an indication of the greater agespecific mortality sustained by the nonwhite 

female population. For hypothetical cohorts of 

women subject to the age-specific fertility and 

mortality conditions of 1962, the relative loss in 

fertility would be almost twice as great for the 

nonwhite as for the white— 6.3 percent for the 

nonwhite women and 3.3 percent for the white. 

42 

Table 34. Indexes of the total fertility ~ rate, by color: United States, 1950 and 

1960-62 

(Notes to tables given on page VIII)


I Year 

White 94.7 99.1 100.0 84.3 

ITonwhite 97.1 100.,2 100.0 86.9 

1Births adjusted for underregistration. 

Fertility by Specified Race for 1960 

A wide range of crude birthrates by specified 

race were published in Vital Statistics of the 

United States 1960, but these rates were difficult 

to compare owing partly to the differing age and 

sex compositions of the populations “under consideration. Detailed information on the population 

composition fkom the 1960 census permitted 

standardization of the crude birth rates and 

general fertility rates by race for 1960 (table 35). 

Standardization permits comparisons of the rates 

undistorted by differences in age composition 

among the racial groups. 

The rates by specified race are standardized 

by the “indirect method, ” using age-specific 

fertility rates for the total population as the 

standard. Since over 80 percent of all births in. 

1960 were to white mothers, the fertility of the 

white population closely approximates that of the 

total in 1960. In fact, standardization has little 

effect on the fertility of the white population, increasing the crude birth rate from 22.7 to 22.9 

live births per 1,000 population and increasing the 

general fertility rate from 113.2 to 113.9 live 

births per 1,000 females aged 15-44 years. 

‘The fertility of the nonwhite population is 

most heavily influenced by the rate of childbearing 

in the Negro population, which in 1960 contributed 

over 90 percent of the 657,106 births to this group. 

Standardization of rates for the Negro population 

did not diminish the similarity of its fertility to 

that of the total nonwhite population. Fertility in 

,,. 

A.. 
-----------------

--------------

-------------

------------

----------

-----------

Table 35. Age-adj”usted and unadjusted birth rates and fertility rates, by specified race: United States, 1960 

(Notes to tables given on page VIII) 

Age-adjustedl Unadjusted 

Race 

Birth rate Fertility rate Birth rate Fertility rate 

Rates per Rates per 

Rates per 

1,000 

1,000 women 

aged 15-44 

Rates per 

1,000 

1,000 women 

aged 15-44 

population years population years 

Total----------k 23.7 118.0 “23,7 118.0 

White 22.9 113.9 22.7 H;.: 

Nonwhite 29.6 147.4 32.1 

Negro 29.8 148.3 31.9 153:5 

Indi,an 37.6 187.4 40.3 207.3 

Japanese 19.8 98.7 28.0 101.6 

Chinese 23.9 i18.9 24.6 127.3 

a 

lStandardized bv the indirect method,ushz age-specific fertility rates for the total -. population, 1960, as the standard. “ -

the nonwhite group was highest among theAmeri~ In each of12 States represent~glarge popucan Indians, with a standardized fertility rate of lation concentrations, over 100,000 babies were 

187.4 births per 1,000 females aged 15-44 years, born during 1962 (table 36). ’The total numberof 

over 26 percent higher than the fertility of Negro births for these States was 2,414,8000r almost 

women, who ranked second. Fertility of the 60 percent of all the births in the United States. 

Chinese women ranked third, differing very little These States in order of decreasing number of 

from that of the total population, regardless of births are California, New York, Texas, Illinois, 

race. The fertility rate for the Japanese popu- Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, New Jersey, 

lation was the lowest recorded for any racial Florida, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and 

group in the United States, with rates about haIf Indiana. By way of contrast, only eight States 

as high as those for the AmericanIndianand over totaled over 100,000 births in 1950. The States in 

13 percent below theratesforthe whitepopulation. order of increasing number of births are New 

York, California, Pennsylvania, Texas, Illinois, 

Ohio, Michigan, and North Carolina. The change 

Fertility by States and Geographic Divisions, in the relative standing of these States is associated with migration andshiftsinpopulation comBetween 1961 and 1962, the crude birthrate position during this 13-year period. 

declined in all States but two, Arkansas and In terms of the crude birth rates, thehighest 

Nevada. The rate for Arkansas rose from 22.7 were in Alaska (31.1), New Mexico (28.6), Utah 

live births per 1,000 population to23.0 and that (27.1), Louisiana (26.5), and Mississippi (26.2) 

for Nevada from 25.5 t025.8.1n the same period and the lowest in Oregon (19.8), Pennsylvania 

the number of births declined in all States except (19.9), New York (20.4), West Virginia (21.0), and 

nine. Oklahoma (21.0). 

.. 

43 
--------

----------------

------------

---------

---------

-------------

---------

---------

-------------------

--------------------

----------------------

--------------

--------------------

--------------

---------------

----------------

-----------------

---------------

-----------------------

--------------------

-------------------

-------------------

------------------

------------------

-----------------------

-------------------

---------------

---------------

-------------------

---------------------

-------------------

-------------------

-------

-------------------

--------------

-------------

-------------

--------------------

--------------------

-------------------

------------------

--------------------

-------------

-------------------

------------------

-------------------

----------------------

--------------------

----------------------

--------------------

-------------------

-----------------

--------------------

-----------------------

---------------------

-----------------

---------------------

-----------------

---------------------

---------------------

Table 36. Live births and birth rates: United States, each division and State, 1962


(Notestotables
 enonpageVII1)


Division and State Live 

births 

Rates per 

1,000 

population 

Division and State Live 

births 

Rates per

1,000 

population 

UNITED STATES 4,167,362 22.4 Geographic Division—Con. 

Geographic Division South Atlantic 

bew England 232,292 21.8 Delaware 11,370 24.2 

Middle Atlantic 712,218 20.3 Maryland 76,102 23.8 

East North Central 834,462 22.5 District of Columbia 20,082 25.6 

West North Central 355,53? 22.7 Virginia 96,530 23.1 

South Atlantic 623,594 23.0 West Virginia 37,274 21.0 

East South Central 288,206 23.4 North Carolina 109,672 23.2 

West South Central 427,870 24.1 South Carolina 58,144 23.9 ‘ 

Mountain 186,850 24.9 Georgia 99,196 24.2 

Pacific 506,340 22.2 Florida 115,224 21.1 ; 

New England East South Central 

Maine 22>936 23.0 Kentucky 69,826 22.7 

New Hampshire 14,034 22.2 Tennessee 80>974 22.3 

Vermont 9,240 23.7 Alabama 78,514 23.4 

Massachusetts 112,168 21.7 Mississippi---, 58>892 26.2 

Rhode Island 18,372 21.2 West South Central 

Connecticut 55,542 21.4 Arkansas 41,976 23.0 

Middle Atlantic Louisiana 88,100 26.5 

New York------------------- 354,152 20.4 Oklahoma 51,294 21.0 

New Jersey 131,714 21.1 Texas 246,500 24.4 

Pennsylvania 226,352 19.9 Mountain 

East North Central Montana 16>864 23.8 

Ohio 217,664 21.6 Idaho 16,398 23.5 

Indiana 108,648 23.0 Wyoming 8,022 22.0 

Illinois 230,878 22.8 Colorado 43,642 22.9 

Michigan 182,948 22.9 New Mexico 29,222 28.6 

Wisconsin 94,324 23.1 Arizona 37,864 25.1 

West North Central Utah 26,198 27.1 

Minnesota 84,770 24.4 Nevada i,640 25.8 

Iowa 60,990 22.0 Pacific 

Missouri 94,228 21.7 Washington 64,824 21.6 

North Dakota 15,786 24.6 Oregon 36,996 19,8 

South Dakota 17,172 23.8 California 378,880 22.3 

Nebraska 33,950 22’.9 Alaska 7,652 31.1 

Kansas 48,634 21.9 Hawaii L7,988 26.0 

NOTE: By place of residence.


44 
------------

---------------

----------------

While differences in rates among the States 

are still sizable, they are diminishing. In 1940, 

the coefficient of variation with regard to State 

rates was 20.7 percent compared with 9.3 percent 

for 1962. (The coefficient of variation is the ratio 

of the standard deviation for the series to the 

arithmetic mean for the same series expressed 

as a percent.) This change has resulted, in part, 

from the marked increases since 1940 in areas 

with low rates. 

For geographic divisions, birth rates were 

generally lowest in the Middle Atlantic Division 

and highest in the Mountain Division. There was, 

however, considerable variation among States 

within divisions. 

Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan 

and Urban and Rural Areas 

Most births in the United States today are to 

residents of metropolitan areas. In 1962 there 

were 2,659,444 births (64 percent of the total) to 

residents of metropolitan counties, those counties 

which are included in standard metropolitan 

statistical areas (metropolitan State economic 

areas for New England). About the same proportion of white and nonwhite births occurred in 

these areas; approximately two-thirds of both 

white and nonwhite births were to residents of 

metropolitan areas. 

A total of 2,610,032 live births, or 63 percent, 

were to residents of areas classified by the Division of Vital Statistics as urban in 1962. The 

vital statistics definition differed from that used 

by the Bureau of the Census in the 1960 Census 

of Population. 19 The difference in the percent. 

distribution of the population of the United States 

in 1960 according to the definitions used by the 

Division of Vital Statistics (DVS) and the Bureau 

of the Census is as follows: 

Census D VS 

Total 100.0 100.0 

Urban 69.9 61.1 

Rural 30.1 38.9 

“Illegitimate Births 

Qwdification.s of the data.—lke data on illegitimacy for the United States as a whole are based 

on information on live birth records in those States 

that require reporting of this item. In 1962, 34 

States and the District of Columbia were included 

in the reporting area. Among the reporting States, 

New Jersey did not require reporting by color, so 

all references to illegitimate births by color exclude data for this State. 

Estimates of the nurhber of illegitimate births 

for the nonreporting States are computed on the 

basis of geographic divisions. The method used 

assumes that the ratio of illegitimate births to 

live births is the same for all the States in the 

same division of the United States. This method 

is least satisfactory for those divisions in which 

few States report legitimacy on the birth record. 

The legitimacy item on State certificates and 

on the Standard Certificate of Live Birth is included in a confidential portion of the certificate, 

and the principle of confidentiality is enjoined 

upon those few who have access to the document. 

The States and the National Vital Statistics Division refer to the item for statistical purposes 

only and the figures produced by the Division constitute the only source of national data on illegitimacy. Without these figures the approximate 

dimension of illegitimacy would not be known. 

The figures on illegitimacy maybe called into 

question because of several factors such as misstatements on birth certificates to conceal illegitimacy and the extent of nonregistration of 

illegitimate births. The figures on the whole, 

however, may be taken as a representative 

minimum, and the actual number of illegitimate 

births may be said to exceed the stated figures 

for any year. 

The number of illegitimate bi~ths. —There 

were an estimated 245,100 illegitimate live births 

in the United States in 1962, representing an 

increase of 4,900 births, or 2 percent, over the 

figure for 1961. Between 1960 and 1961 there 

was an increase of 7 percent, with 15,900 more 

illegitimate births in 1961. The illegitimate live 

births in 1962 represented 6 percent of alI births 

compared with 5 percent in 1960, 4 percent in 

45 
-----

-----

-----

-----

-----

-----

-----

-----

-----

-----

-----

-----

-----

-----

-----

-----

-----

-----

-----

-----

-----

-----

-----

..

1950, and somewhat less than 4 percent in 1940. 

While the total number of live births in the country 

continued to decline, the number of reported illegitimate births continued to increase (table 37). 

This increase in the number of illegitimate 

births continues a trend that has been apparent 

since the first reporting of illegitimacy in the 

birth-registration area in 1917. In that year 20 

out of every thousand liveborn babies were born 

out of wedlock. In 1950 the figure was 40; 1960, 

5% and in 1962, 59. 

The annual number of illegitimate births increased from an estimated 89,500 in 1940 to over 

224,00020 years later. A considerable rise in the 

frequency of illegitimate births occurred during 

World War H and postwar years. In the decade 

1941-50 the total number of reported illegitimate 

births was 1,174,500; in the following decade, 

1951-60, there were an estimated 1,866,300 illegitimate live births, an increase of almost 59 percent. The significance of the growth of illegitimacy 

may be gauged by the fact that since the end of 

World War II, or between 1946 and 1962, the annual 

number of illegitimate births doubled, increasing 

by 96 percent. 

The illegitimacy rate. —The illegitimacy rate 

is the number of illegitimate births per 1,000 unmarried women 15-44 years of age. In 1940 this 

rate was 7.1; by 1950 it had doubled and by 1960 

Table 37. Estimated illegitimatelive births illegitimacy
 rates and ratios: United States, 1~40-62


Year


1962


1961


1960


1959


1958


1957


1956


1955


1954


1953


1952


1951


1950


1949


1948


1947


1946


1945


1944


1943


1942


1941


1940


(Note, to cable, given on page VIII) , 

Illegitimate Illegitimacy I

Illegitimacy
 live births rate ratio


Rates per 1,000


unmarried female Ratios per 1?000
 Number population aged total live b~rths
 15-44 years


245.1 21.5 58.8 240.2 22.6 56.3 224.3 21.8 52.7 22o.6 22.1 52.0 208.7 21.0 49.6 201.7 20.9 47.4 193.5 20.2 46.5 183.3 19.3, 45.3 176.6 18.3 4/+.0 160.8 17.0 41.2 150.3 15.6 39.1 146.5 15.1 39.1 141.6 14<1 39.8 133.2 13.3 37.4 129.7 12.5 36.7 131.9 12.1 35.7 125.2 

117.4 10.9 

10.1 38.1 

42.9 105.2 9.0 37.6 98.1 33.4 96.5 ::; 34.3 95.7 38.1 89.5 ;:! 37.9 

tripled (table 37). In 1962 the rate was 21.5 illegitimate births per 1,000 unmarried women of 

reproductive age. Changes in this rate may be 

accounted for in terms of two principal factors: 

the size of the unmarried female population of 

reproductive age and the number of births out of 

wedlock. Between 1961 and 1962 an increase in’the 

number of unmarried females in the population 

aged 15-44 years, particularly in the younger ages, 

drove the illegitimacy rate down despite an increase in the number of illegitimate births. The 

rapid growth of the young unmarried female population is the result of the large number of births 

during and immediately after the Second World 

War; for example, girls aged 15 and 19 in 1962 

were born in 1947 and 1943, respectively, 2 peak 

years for births,, in this country. 

~ “,”,.”,1. 

550 1-

L L

r 1 

0 \ 0 

a 

k’ 

Sweden 

r 

a 

a -A -——_ -Hungary 

U.S,A,_-.. -.-. -.z .....-.z--’
 50 ....................................... Canada 

--_- __-_ ----N OrWu Y----------NOrWuY 

.lap.a” 

o [ ( I I I I I I 

1953 ’54 ’55 ’56 ’57 ’58 ’59 ’60 ’61 ’62 

Figure 19, Illegitimacy ratios for selected coun­


tries, 1953-62,


46

--- --- --- --- --- ---

The illegitimacy Yatio.—The illegitimacy 

ratio, the number of illegitimate live births per 

1,000 total live births, has risen steadily since the 

early 1950’s in the United States (table 37). After 

the high of 42.9 in 1945, the ratio declined for 2 

years, then rose to over 40 in 1953, 50 in 1959, 

and to .58.8 illegitimate live births per 1,000 total 

births in 1962. 

The illegitimacy ratio is useful for international comparisons particularly where the data 

on births may be more accurate than the data on 

population by age and sex. Illegitimacy ratios for 

the United States and selected countries for the 

years 1953-62 are shown in figure 19. For the 

United States illegitimacy ratios are below those 

of many European countries and all Latin American countries. 

Illegitimacy by age of motlzev. —In 1962,41 

percent of the mothers having illegitimate children 

were 19 years of age or younger, and almost 

three-fourths were under 25 years of age. 

In terms of 5-year age-of-mother groups, 

most illegitimate births were to mothers aged 

15-19 years, with the next highest number born 

to mothers aged 20-24 years. An estimated 

99,500 illegitimate babies, 40.6 percent of the 

total, were born to mothers under 20 years of age 

in 1962. 

Over the period 1952-62 the illegitimacy rates 

for women 25-29 years of age doubled (tab~e 38). 

There was an impressive increase for those aged 

30 years and over. The general trend of increasing 

age-specific illegitimacy rates reversed between 

1961 and 1962, with decreases among the youngest 

Table 38. Estimated illegitimacy rates, by age of mother :“ United states, 1940-62 

(Notes to tables given on page VIII)


. .


Age of mother 

Year 

15-44 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 

years + years years years years years yearsg 

Rates per 1,000 unmarried female population 

1962 ----- 21.5 14.9 41.8 46.4 27.0 13.5 3.4 

1961 ----- 22.6 16.0 41.2 44.8 28.9 15.1 3.8 

1960 ----- 21.8 15.7 40.3 42.0 27.5 13.9 3.6 

1959 ----- 22.1 

1958 ----- 21.0 15.4 37.3 37.8 27.6 13.2 

1957 ----- 20.9 15.6 36.5 37.6 26.1 12.7 ::: 1956 ----- 20.2 15.7 36.3 36.0 25.3 10.2 

1955 -----

1954-----

19.3 

18.3 

15.0 

14.6 

33.7 32.1 22.2 

30.0 32.0 19.2 

10.7 

10.3 

;:; 

2.5 

1953 ----- 17.0 13.8 28.5 27.6 17.9 8.9 2.4 

1952 ----- 15.6 13.3 25.6 23.1 15.9 8.0 

1951----- 15.1 13.1 23.2 24.4 14.0 ::: 1950 ----- 14.1 12.6 21.3 19.9 13.3 2.0 

1949 ----- 13.3 12.0 21.0 18.0 11.5 1.9 

1948 ----- 12.5 11.4 19.8 16.4 10.0 5.8 1.6 

1947 ----- 12.1 11.0 18.9 15.7 9.2 1.8 

1946 ----- 10.9 9.5 17.3 15.6 7.3 ::: 1945 ----- 10.1 15.3 12:1 4.1 ?:: 

1944 ----- ::; 13.1 10.1 ;:; 4.0 1.3 

1943 ----- ::: 8.4 11.4 8.8 6.7 3.8 1.3 

1942----- 8.0 8.2 11.0 8.4 3.8 1.2 

1941----- 7.8 8.0 10.5 7.8 ::: 1.4 

1940 ----- 7.1 7.4 9.5 7.2 5.1 1.2 

lRates computed by relating total births, regardless of age of mother, to unmarried 

female population aged 15-44 years. 2Rates computed by relating births to mothers aged 40 years and over to unmarried 

female population aged 40-44 years. 

47 
---------------

---------------

---------------

---------------

---------------

---------------

--- ----

Table 39. Indexes of the illegitimacy rate by age of mother: United States, 1952 and 

1960-62 

(Notes to tables given on page VIII) 

Age of mother 1952 1960 1961 1962 

Total-15-44 years---- 71.6 

15-19 years 85.4 

20-24 years 63.5 

25-29 years 55.0 

30-34 years 

35-39 years 

57.8 

57.6 

40-44 years 50.0 

‘r 

and oldest age groups (table 39).Therewere slight 

increases among women aged 20-29 years. 

A question frequently asked is: Is the proportion of teenage unwed mothers increasing? 

Figure 20 shows the percentage distribution of 

unwed mothers by age. There was an abrupt 

decline in the.proportion of teenage mothers folPERcENT 

‘“~ 

25-29 years 

~4/ -

> -—-

10 

,,,,,,,,,,,, . . . ..mu*19'' ''.'' '``"' '`''" ''''i'...,l,,,,,,,, 30-34 years ,,,,,,,,,,.,,.,,,,,,, . ..@@’s” 155-39 years 11 

t I 

Figure 20, Percent distribution of unwed mothers, 

by age, 19~0-62. 

Index: 1960 = 100.0 

100.0 103.7 I 98.6, I 

100.0 101.9 94.9 

100.0 102.2 103.7 

100.0 106.7 110.5 

100.0 105.1 98.2 

100.0 108.6 97.1 

100.0 105.6 94.4 

lowing World War II. In 1948 the proportion of 

teenage unwed mothers was 42.8 percent. This 

proportion declined to 39.7 percentin 1955, after 

which there was a6-yearincrease to41.0 percent 

in 1961. In 1962 the proportion dropped to40,6 

percent. The percentage changes have been small 

and the slight upward trend since 1955 has not 

continued. It is possible that the proportion of 

illegitimate births to teenage mothers may increase in the next few years. one of the factors 

in such a development wouldbetheincreasein the 

proportion of teenagers in the totalpopulation. 

The proportion of mothers aged 20-24 years 

has increased since 1957, when 30 percent were 

of this ,age; in 1962 the proportion was 31.5 

percent. The proportion of mothers forages 25-

29 has declined since 1955 and for ages 30-34 

since 1958. It has been relatively stable for ages 

35-39 since k949. 

Ille@imatebivths bycolov.—l%e increasein 

the number of illegitimate births has been substantial for boththewhiteandnonwhitepopulations 

since 1940 (fig. 21). Between 1940 and 1962 white 

illegitimate births increased from 40,300 to 

93,500, or 132percent, whilenonwhiteillegitimate 

births increasedby 200 percent from 49,200 to 

147,500. The small decrease in the number of 

nonwhite illegitimate births between 1961 and 

1962 is due to the absence of data by color for 

New Jersey rather than to any absolute decrease 

in the incidence of illegitimacy. Because of this 

problem, no valid comparisons can be made between frequencies of births bycolor between1962 

and prior years. 

48 
THOUSANOS


2501 I


1942 1945 19s0 1955 1960 ’62


Fiqure 21. Estimated illegitimate live births by 

color, 19~2-62. 

(Data by color do not include New Jersey for


1962 because that State did not require reporting


of this item)


A more accurate indication of the annual 

change in illegitimacy by color is shown by the 

illegitimacy ratio, which expresses the nuti’er 

of illegitimate births in every 1,000 live births 

(table 40). The trend of the white and nonwhite 

ratios was similar to that of the total population. 

The nonwhite figure reached ahighpointin 1945 

(179.3) and following thewardeclined toalowof 

164.7 in 1948. Thereafter the nonwhite ratio 

steadily increased. In 1952 the total illegitimacy” 

ratio was 39.1; by 1962 it rose to58.8. The rise 

was paralleled by both white andnonwhitegroups. 

The estimated illegitimacy ratio for the white 

group in 1952 was16.3; in1962it was27.5. The 

corresponding ratio for the nonwhite group rose 

from 183.4 in 1952 to 229.9 in 1962. 

Almost half of all births out of wedIock in 

1962 were first births, those for white unwed 

mothers constituting 63 percent of all white 

births; for nonwhite mothers first births represented about 40 percent of all nonwhite illegitimate 

births (table 41). Nonwhite mothers had proportionally more illegitimate births of second and 

higher orders than did white mothers. While over 

three-fourths of the white births were first and 

second children, the figure was about 59 percent 

for the nonwhite. 

Illegitimate births” by State by color.—ln 1962, 

34 States and the District of Columbia reported 

the legitimacy status of live births. The ratios of 

illegitimate births per 1,000 total live births were 

highest for the District of Columbia (217.8), 

Mississippi (143.8), and South Carolina (123.5). -

For the white births the highest ratios were 

reported for the District of Columbia (69.9), West 

Virginia (56.6), Hawaii (37.4), and Oregon (35.3) 

and the lowest for Mississippi (14.5), Utah (16.0), 

Alabama (16.5), and Alaska (17 .1). For the nonwhite births the highest ratios were reported for 

Delaware (326.6), Tennessee (316.4), West Virginia (304.5), and Missouri (291.2) and the lowest 

for Utah (53.5), Hawaii (66.0), and Maine (87.6).20 

Adequatdcomparisons between States in terms 

of illegitimacy ratios cannot properly be made for 

several reasons. These include the lack of uniformity in the definition of legitimacy, differences 

in birth registration completeness between illegitimate and legitimate births, and differences 

in the marital status and age composition of the 

population. 

49

------

-----

------

-----

Table 40. Estimated illegitimate live births and illegitimacy ratios, by color:


United States, 1940-62


(Notes to tables given on page VIII)


Year


1962----------------------


1961----------------------


1960----------------------


1959----------------------


1958----------------------


1957----------------------


1956----------------------


1955----------------------


1954----------------------


1953----------------------


1952----------------------


1951----------------------


1950----------------------


1949----------------------


1948----------------------


1947----------------------


1946----------------------


1945----------------------


1944----------------------


1943----------------------


1942----------------------


1941----------------------


1940----------------------


. 

White Nonwhite White Nonwhite


Illegitimate live Ratios per 1,000 total


births in thousands live births


93.5 147.5 27.5 229.9 

91.1 149.1 25.3 223.4 

82.5 141.8 22.9 215.8 

79.6 141.1 22.1 218.0 

74.6 134.1 20.9 212.3 

70.8 130.9 19.6 206.7 

67.5 126.0 19.0 204.0 

64.2 119.2 18.6 202.4 

62.7 113.9 18.2 198.5 

56.6 104.2 16.9 191.1 

54.1 96.2 16.3 183.4 

52.6 93.9 16.3 182.8 

53.5 88.1 17.5” 179.6 

53.5 79.7 17.3 167.5 

54.8 74.9 17,8 164,7 

60.5 71.5 18,5 168.0 

61.4 63.8 21.1 170.1 

56.4 60.9 23.6 179.3 

49.6 55.6 20.2 163.4 

42.8 55.4 16.5 162.8 

42.0 54.5 16.9 169.2 

41.9 53.8 19.0 174.5 

40.3 49.2 19.5 168.3 

Table 41. Percent distribution of live births, by live-birth order, coior, and legiti­


macy status: United States and 35 reporting States, 1962


(Notes to tables given on page VIII) 

I 

Color and Live-birth order 

legitimacy 

status Total 

births First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh a:;g:;:r 

White Percent distribution 

Total 100.0 27.2 24.6 19.3 12.6 7.2 3.9 2.2 3.0 

Legitimate 100.0 26.2 24.9 19.6 12.8 7.3. 4.0 2.2 3.0


Illegitimate--- 100.0 62.6 15.5 8.2 5.2 3.2 2.1 1.2 1.7


Nonwhite
 —


Total 100.0 21.6 18.1 15.1 12,0 9.4 7.2 5.2 11.4


Legitimate 100.0 15.8 17.8 16.1 13.2 10.4 5.8 13.0


Illegitimate--- 100.0 39.6 18.9 11.8 8.3 6.4 i:; 3.4 6.4


50

--------

--------

--------

----------

---

------

------

------

------

------

.-

BIRTHS IN PUERTO RICO AND 

“THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 

in 1962, 76,596 live births were registered 

in Puerto Rico and 1,375 in the Virgin Islands. 

For Puerto Rico the figure represented a slight 

increase over the number for 1961 but was almost 

10,000 less than the figure for 1950. For the 

Virgin Islands, in contrast, the number of live 

births in 1962 was the highest on record. Live 

births and birth rates for Puerto Rico and the 

NUMBER BIRTHS PER 

IN THOUSANDS 1,000 POPULATION 

‘oo~ 

Figure 22. Live” births and birth rates, Puerto


Rico, 1943-62.


~. 

Virgin Islands for selected years are as follows:-

Pue~to Rico Viygin Islands 

Number Rate Number Rate 

1962 76,596 31.2 1,375 38.5 

1961 ----:--- 75,418 31.3 1,193 33.8 

1960 -------- 76,314 32.5 1,180 36.8 

1955 -----,--- 77,830 34.6 913 33.1 

1950 86,038 38.9 894 33.5 

1945 86,680 41.9 984 37.4 

The crude birth rate for Puerto Rico has 

shown a steady decline since 1947 when the rate 

was 42.2 live births per 1,000 population (fig. 22). 

Emigration was a major factor in the decline; most 

people leaving Puerto Rico were of reproductive 

age. In 1962 the rate dropped by over 25 percent “ 

to 31.2. During this period the rate for the Virgin 

Islands fluctuated sharply between about 32 and 

38 births per 1,000 population, reflecting probably 

the effects of migration on the small population 

of the island rather than any important changes in 

age-specific fertility rates. In 1962 the estimated 

population of the Virgin Islands was 35,700; for 

Puerto Rico it was 2,458,000. The percent distributions of births by age of mother for the 

United States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands 

,for 1962 are as follows: 

United PueYto Vivgin -

Age of mother States Rico Islands 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Under 15 years 0.2 0.1 0.1 

15-19 years 14.4 16.7 20.2 

20-24 years 34.7 34.3 31.3 

25-29 years ~5.1 22.6 24.6 

30-34 years 15.3 13.4 14.5 

35-39 years 8.0 9.2 6.5 

40 years and over- 2.3 3.8 2.8 

,,A 

“Distributions of births by age of mother show 

a greater concentration of maternities among 

young women aged 15-19 years in the Virgin 

Islands than in either Puerto Rico or the United 

States. In all three geographic areas the l~gest 

., 

5T

-------------

-----

-----

----------

numbers of births were to women aged 20-24 

years. Additional statistics on Puerto Rico and 

the Virgin Islands on live births by month, attendant at birth, live-birth order, birth weight, 

color and sex of child, age of father, and by 

municipio and specified urban place are shown in 

Section 3, Volume I of Vital Statistics of the United 

States, 1962. 

Illegitimate Births 

There were 18,484 illegitimate births in 

Puerto Rico in 1962 and 615 in the Virgin Islands. 

Puerto Rico’s illegitimacy ratio was 241.3 illegitimate births per 1,000 total live births compared with 63.0 for the United States. About onethird of the teenage mothers had children out of 

wedlock, and in every 5-year age group 20 years 

and over approximately one-fourth were illegitimate. 

The Virgin I,slands data show an even higher 

incidence of illegitimacy. Almost two-thirds of 

all births to teenagers were illegitimate, and 

between one-third and one-half of all births to 

older women by 5-year age groups were illegitimate. The illegitimacy ratio for the Virgin 

Islands was 447.3 illegitimate births per 1,000 

live births. 

Caution should be used in comparing the 

illegitimacy ratios of Puerto Rico and the Virgin 

Islands with that of the United States because of 

the differentials which exist in culture,, attitudes, 

and family patterns. In Puerto Rico, for example, 

75.7 percent of all births in 1962 were to legally 

married mothers, and 20.1 percent were to 

mothers living with the fathers in consensual 

union. Only 4.1 percent of the births were to 

mothers who were not legally married and not 

living in consensual union. 

Percent 

Numbev of of total 

Legal status ofpavents live biyths live bi~tlk 

Total 

Legally married 

Not married, living 

together as man 

and wife -----------

Not married, not 

living together 

Not stated 

76,596 100.0 

58,008 7.5.7 

15,366 20.1 

3,120 4.1 

102 0.1 

Further, illegitimacy in Puerto Rico has decreased in the last two decades. The proportion 

of total live births that is illegitimate declined 

from 34.8 percent in 1944 to 24.3 percent in 1962, 

according to data published by the Puerto Rico 

Department of Health. 21 

52 
REFERENCES


lNariQn~ ~ffi~e of Vital Statistics: Vital Statistics 0/ the united 

States, 19J0, Volume I. Washington. U.S. ,Gvvemment Printing Office, 1954. pp. 2-19. . 

2Shapir0, S.:, Development of birth regisrmrion and birrb statistics in the United States. Population Studies IV(I}86- 111, June 

1950:, 

3Wilbur, C. L.: The Federal Registration Service oj the United 

States: Its Development, Problems, and De/ect=.S~,Bureau of the 

census. Washington. U.S. ,@vemment Printing Office, 1916. P- J8.. 

%arionrtl Office of Vital Statistics: Fertility tables fnr birth cohorts of American .~.men, part 1, by P. K. ,~elpton snd A. ,A...Campbell. ,VitaI Statistics-Special Reports. Vol. .51, No. .1.. W=hwton. 

U.:. ,Gvvemment Printing Office, 1960. . -. 

5Lunde, A., Ortrneyer, C.,. and Huyck, E.:, Marriages, births, and 

population gro&h. HeaIth, Education, and Welfnre Irrdicators, Mach 

1963. pp. xvii-xxx. 

6united Nations: population and Vital Statistics ReP@. Series 

A, VOL ,~, No. 4. New York, 1963. , 

7Report ~{ ~be MinistT Of HeuItb for the Year 1962, Pafl’~ On 

the state of public health, 1962. London. ,Her Majesty’s Stationery 

Office, 1963. , 

8Stolnitz, G. J.,. md Ryder, N. ,B.:, Recent discussion of the net 

repmductian rste. .PoprJa~iOn l~dex 15(2} 114-128, Apr- >949.. . 

9u.$ Bureau nf the Census: projections of the pnpularirm of the 

United S;ates by age and sex to 1985- ,Cument pOPuratiOn Reports. 

Series P-25, No. 279, Feb. 4, 1964 (advace fig~es). 

10see pp. 123.125 in reference 4., 

llGrabill, W. ,H.,, Kiser, C. .V->.and Wbelpton, P. K.: The Fertility 

o/ AVerican Women. New York. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958. p.j. 

o 

12u-:- BUeau of&e Census: Msrriage, fertility, andchfi’dspacin~ 

August 1959, by W. ,H. ,Grabill snd R. ,P. ,Psrke, Jr. current Population Reports, Series P-20, No. .108, 1961. ,=blee 7 and 8.. 

l%.S. Bureau of rhe Census: Differential Fertility, 1940 and1910: 

standardized Fertility Rates and Reproduction Rates, Wash@on. 

u.:. ,Govemmenr Prinring Office, 1944. ?able 7., 

I~ational office nf vit~ Statitics: Vital Statistics O/ the united 

States, 19-50, Volume I. Washington. U.S. ,@venrment Printing Office, 

1954. ,ch. 2. 

15Nariond’ Vi=l Statistics Ditiision: Vital Statistics O/ the United 

States, 1960. Volume 1..,Washingtnir. .U.5. .Gcmernment Printing Office, 1962. sec. 5.. 

16Naunn~ BWeaII of Economic. Research, Inc.: Electronic computers ~d business iridiiatols, by J. Sbiskin. ,Occasional paper 57. , 

New York, 1957. . 

17U-5. ~Ueau of the cen.us: U.S. Census Of population: 1960. 

Subject Reports. Nonwhite Population by Rats. Final Reporr PC(*)­

IC. .Washingtnn. ,U.5. .Gnvernment printing Office, 1961-. 

18NariQa~ Vi=l Srati=tics Division: Vital Statistics Of the United 

States, 1962, Volume I. ,Washington. ,U.$. Government Printing Office, 1964. ,sec. 1, table I-4. 

191bid., sec. 4, pp. ,46 and 4-7. ,


201bid.; sec. 1, table 1-24. ,


21Divi=~on nf Demographic Registry and Vital .%atitics: Ann~al


Vital Statist ics Report, 1962. Department of Health- ,Puerrn Ricn. 

p. 15., 

00 
-----------------------------------------

---------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

----------------------------------------- -----------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

--------------------------------- -----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

Table 10. Birth probabilities, by parity and exact age of mother: United States, .1940-62


(Notes to tables given cm page Wl) 

Parity


Exact age of mother at beginning of year
 .Seven
 Zero One TWO Three Four Five six and


15-19 years I 1962-----------------------------------------


1961


1960--------------,


1959


1958


1957


1956


1955


1954-----------------------------------------


1953


1952-----------------------------------------


1951


1950


1949


1948


1947


1946


1945


1944-----------------------------------------


1943-----------------------------------------


1942-----------------------------------------


1941-----------------------------------------


1940


20-24 years
 I 1962


1961


1960


1959


1958


1957


1956


1955


1954


1953--------------------------:--------------
 1952


1951


1950


1949


1948


1947


1946


1945------------’


1944


1943


1942


1941


1940


25-29 years


1962


1961


1960


1959


1958


1957


1956


1955


1954


1953


1952


1951


1950-------:
 1949


1948


1947


1946


1945


1944-----------------------------------------


1943


1942


1941


1940


over


Rates per 1,000 female population


. . . . . . ..: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,.. . .,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . { 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-. 

330 385 40s 

338 390 446 

350 406 444 

340 398 465 

344 392 424 

348 414 449 

343 404 460 

347 394 462 

351 402 518 

355 382 * 

355 393 9<


35s 397
 *


354 403
 *


369 455
 *


340 410
 *


318 395
 *


320 381
 *


312 377
 *


;:; 442
 *


476
 *


358 464
 *


362 489
 *


373 506
 *


200 246 285 

209 25s 300 

208 258 303 

213 262 310 

213 260 309 

217 267 318 

218 273 325 

221 275 320 

230 282 329 

227 285 327 

227 282 320 

223 2S5 323 

213 274 322 

212 273 321 

207 263 305 

208 256 294 

214 264 294 

212 264 293 

225 278 311 

230 279 312 

215 268 299 

217 279 311 

215 276 308 

54 ‘ 
----------------------------------------

----------------------------------------

----------------------------------------

----------------------------------------

---------------------------------------- ----------------------

----------------------------------------

----------------------------------------

----------------------------------------

----------------------------------------

----------------------------------------

----------------------------------------

----------------------------------------

----------------------------------------

----------------------------------------

----------------------------------------

----------------------------------------

----------------------------------------

----------------------------------------

----------------------------------------

----------------------------------------

----------------------------------------

----------------------------------------

----------------------------------------

----------------------------------------

----------------------------------------

----------------------------------------

----------------------------------------

----------------------------------------

Table 10. Birth probabilities, by parity and exact age of mother: United States, 1940-62—Con.


(Notes b tables given
0.pageVIII)


Parity


Exact age of mother at beginning of year Seven 

Zero One ‘IWO Three Four Five six and 

over 

30-34 years Rates per 1,000 female population


1962----------------------------------------

1961----------------------------------------

117 

121 

90 

95 1:: 115 

121 185 

198 

1960 120 95 105 124 201 

1959 120 98 108 129 210 

1958 120 110 129 211 

1957---------------------------------------- 123 1:? 112 135 219 

1956----------------------------------------, 

1955----------------------------------------

122 

121 

100 112 

112 

136 

135 219 

217 

1954---------------------------------------- 125 1:: 113 136 217 

1953 121 98 110 133 213 

1952---------------------------------------- 122 97 109 131 211 

1951---------------------------------------- 118 91 102 125 

1950 114 87 98 120 % 

1949-----------------: 111 85 96 119 210 

1948 111 86 119 202 

1947---------------------------------------- 119 91 1:: 125 206 

1946 115 91 105 129 210 

1945---------------------------------------- 1:: 87 103 131 217 

1%4---------------------------------------- 85 105 133 220 

1943---------------------------------------- 83 104 133 218 

1942---------------------------------------- % 121 203 

1941 76 % :; 117 198 

1940 72 65 87 115 200 

35-39 years


1962---------------------------------------- 35 62 110 181 

1961---------------------------------------- % 38 % 67 119 193 

1960 40 52 68 120 195 

1959 41 % 54 ;; 125 200 

1958---------------------------------------- 43 42 124 196 

1957---------------------------------------- 44 44 % 127 207 

1956 45 45 58 % 130 207 

1955---------------------------------------- 46 :: 75 127 208 

1954---------------------------------------- 46 % 75 129 212 

1953 46 45 58 73 123 209 

1952---------------------------------------- 46 44 56 118 215 

1951---------------------------------------- 44 42 54 & 119 215 

1950---------------------------------------- 44 41 52 66 119 215 

1949 44 41 52 66 119 220 

1948 45 42 54 67 118 211 

1947---------------------------------------- 48 45 57 71 122 216 

1946---------------------------------------- 47 45 56 71 125 220 

1945----------------------------------------

1944----------------------------------------

:; 43 

39 

56 

53 ; 126 

124 

227 

222 

1943---------------------------------------- 37 50 119 219 

1942---------------------------------------- :: 31 43 59 110 208 

1941---------------------------------------- 28 29 41 57 111 207 

1940 27 28 40 58 109 209 

40-44 years


1962---------------------------------------- 7 12 27


;;%:---------------------------------------- 7 8 14 21 31 39 

1959 9 14 21 31 41 

1958 : 9 14 21 41 

1957 8 15 21 :; 41 

1956 8 1: 15 22 31 40 

1955 8 10 15 23 31 38 

1954---------------------------------------- 8 10 15 22 32 39 

1953---------------------------------------- 8 15 21 30 38 

1952---------------------------------------- 8 1: 14 20 36 

1951---------------------------------------- 8 14 ;: 35 

1950 8 : 1? :: 27 34 

1949 8 8 12 18 

1948 8 9 1: 18 ;; % 

1947 8 9 14 19 27 35 

1946 7 9 1? 19 27 34 

1945---------------------------------------- 7 1: 18 29 35 

1944---------------------------------------- 6 ; 12 17 27 34 

1943---------------------------------------- 6 11 16 26 32 

1942---------------------------------------- 5 ; lC 15 23 30 

1941---------------------------------------- 5 6 lC 24 30 

1940 5 6 lC ;2 23 31 

7 : 13 % 29 ::


— 

55 . . 
-------------

--------------------------------

--------------------------------

--------------------------------

--------------------------------

--------------------------------

Table 11. Annual central birth rates for all women, by live-birth order, by current age, in groups of cohorts from 1914-18


to 1943-47: United States, 1~58-62


[ohsto@.bI&”given
 onpageVIII)


Live-birth order


Cohort and current age Calenda]


year Total Eighth


births First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh and


over


Current ages-15-19 Rates per 1,000 female population 

1943-47-------------------------------- 1962 83.I 57.E 20.4 4.8 0.: . . . . . . . . . . . 

1942-46-------------------------------- 1961 88.’ 61.1 21.5 5.2 0.s . . . . . . . . . . . 

1941-45-------------------------------- 1960 90.’ 62.C 22.5 5.4 1.C . . . . . . . . . . . 

1940-44-------------------------------- 1959 93.: 63.8 23.0 5.5 0.9 . . . . . . . . . . . 

1939-43-------------------------------- 1958 94.( 64.7 23.2 5.2 0.9 ..! . . . . . . . . . 

Current ages-20-24


1938-42-------------------” 1962 243.: 81.6 81.0 47.6 21.0 8.1 2.7 0.8 0.3 

1937-41-------------------------------- 1961 253.( 85.0 84.7 49.5 21.s 8.1 2.7 0.8 0.3 

1936-40-------------------------------- 1960 257.( 86.3 87.2 50.2 21.4 8.1 2.7 0.8 0.3 

1935-39-------------------------------- 1959 252.: 86.0 86.9 48.1 20.4 7.6 2.6 0.8 0.3 

1934-38 1958 252.( 88.2 86.4 46.9 19.6 7.: 2.4 0.7 0.3 

Current ages-25-29 

1933-37-------------------------------- 1962’ 191.: 24.5 44.5 48.5 34.0 19.5 10.5 5.3 .4.4 

1932-36-------------------------------- 1961 196.: 25.5 46.6 50.2 34.5 19.6 10.5 5,3 4.3 

1931-35-------------------------------- 1960 196.[ 26.5 48.5 50.7 33.7 18.5 10.0 5.0 3.9 

1930-34-------------------------------- 1959 197.! 27.8 50.3 50.6 33.1 17.9 9.5 4.9 3.8 

1929-33-------------------------------- 1958 195.( 29.3 51.5 49.4 31.1 16.8 8.9 4.5 3.5 

Current ages-30-34 

1928-32-------------------------------- 1962 107.: 7.4 15.1 22.8 21.1 15.1 9.9 6.3 9.6 

1927-31-------------------------------- 1961 112.i 8.0 16.5 24.6 22.3 15.2 9.4 6.3 9.4 

1926-30-------------------------------- 1960 112.: 8.6 17.4 25.1 22.1 14.8 9.4 6.0 8.9 

1925-29-------------------------------- 1959 114.! 9.2 18.6 26.4 22.3 14.5 9.2 5.8 8.5 

1924-28 1958 114.“: 9.6 19.8 27.3 22.0 13.7 8.6 5.5 7.8 

Current ages-35-39 

1923-27-------------------------------- 1962 53.1 2.8 5.3 8.8 9.4 7.8 5.7 4.1 9.2


1922-26 1961 56.2 3.0 6.0 9.7 10.0 8.2 5.9 4.2 9.2


1921-25-------------------------------- 1960 56.6 3.2 6.3 10.0 10.4 8.1 5.7 4.0 8.9


1920-24-------------------------------- 1959 58,2 3.5 6.8 10.7 10.6 8.1 5.7 4.0 8,.9


1919-23-------------------------------- 1958 58.1 3.7 7.4 11.2 10.6 7.8 5.4 3.8 8.4


Current ages-40-44


1918-22-------------------------------- 1962 14.9 0.6 1.2 1.9 2.3 2.0 1.6 1.3 4.0


1917-21-------------------------------- 1961 15.5 0.7 1.3 2.0 2.4 2.1 1.7 1.3 4.0


1916-20-------------------------------- 1960 15.5 0.8 1.3 2.1 2.4 z.i 1.7 1.2 ,3.9


1915-19 1959 15.1 0.8 1.3 2.1 2.3 2.0 1.6 1.2 3.8


1914-18 1958 15.0 0.8 1.4 2.,1 2.3 2.0 1.5 1.2 3.7


NGTE: These rates are simple av~ages of the rates for single cohorts in table 12. For comparable data for the years 1917


to 1957, see table 1, “Fertility Tables for Birth Cohorts of American Women, Part 1,” by Pascal K. Whelpton and Arthur A.
 Campbell, National Office of Vital Statistics, Vital Statistics—Special Reports, Vol. 51, No. 1, 1960.


56 
-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-----------

-----------

----------------- ------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

Table 12. Annua1 central birth rates for all women, by live-birth order& ~y current age, in each cohort from 1909 to 1948:
 United States, 1958-62


tes to hblesgivenOhpageVIII)


Live-birth ardsr


;alendar Cohort and current age: year rotal Eighth 

First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh and
 >irths Ovsz


Rates per 1,000 female population


* * * 14 years 1962 4.2 4.2 ... .. . .. . .. . 

&94J 

14 years 1961 ... .. . .. . . .. 15 years 1962 1::! 1::: 1.: o.; o.: ... . .. ... ... 

14 years 1960” *
 .. . . .. ... ... 15 y~~s------------------------------- 1961 12:; 1::2 o.; 0.: .. . . .. ... ... 16 years 1962 37.7 32.1 H 0.5 0.0 .. . . . . .. . ... 

14 years	 1959 * .. . . . . ... ... 

1961 38.9 33.2 H 15 years 1960 $; 1::?
 :.; 0.: . .. . . . . .. ... 16 years 0.0 .. . .. . .. . ...
 17 years 1962 73.5 56.4 14.8 2:1 0.2 .. . . . . ... ...


years ---------- :------- — 1958 4.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . years------------------—----------- years------------------— 1959 

1960 

1%! 

38.6 

13.3 

33.1 1.; o.; 

0.5 

0.: 

0.0 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . years — 1961 76.2 58.8 1::: 2.2 :.; . . . . . . . . . . . . years 1962 123.0 83.3 31.6 7.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 

years 1958 13.9 12.6 1.2 0.1 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . years 1959 38.3 33.1 0.4 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . years 1960 75.5 58.3 1::: :.: . . . . . . . . . . . . years 1961 123.2 84.1 31.4 H . . . . . . . . . . . . years 1962 173.8 106.8 49.5 14.4 3:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 

gJ4Q 

years 1958 39.8 34.3 0.4 0.0 .. . .. . ... .. . years 1959 79.1 61.4 1::; 2.1 0.2 .. . . . . .. . ... years 1960 129.9 88.0 33.8 .. . . .. ... .. . y~--------------------------------- 1961 190.1 116.0 54.3 J:! ::; . .. . . . ... ... years 1962 219.8 110.0 73..8 27.1 7.7 2.6 0.4 0.1 0.1 

years 1958 83.4 64.6 16.4 2.2 ;.: ... .,. . . . .. . years ------------------------------- 1959 136.7 92.7 35.5 ... ... . . . .. . years--------------------—--------- 1960 195.6 117.4 57.4 1;:: 3:5 ... ... . . . .. . years 1961 231.9 114.3 76.1 29.7 2.6 0.5 0.1 0.0 

years 1962 247.1 98.6 87.2 41.5 1::2 4.1 1.0 0.2 0.1 

&94Q 

years 1958 137.7 93.7 35.7 1.1 ... ... ... ... years 1959 197.3 118.6 57.9 1;:: 3.5 ... ... ... .. . y~a~-------------------------------- 1960 235.2 114.2 78.5 30.7 :.; 0.1 0.1 

years 1961 254.3 100.9 89.7 42.8 1::: ::2 0.2 0.1 

years 1962 253.9 82.4 87.9 51.8 21.4 7.7 2:1 0.5 0.1 

19 years 1958 195.4 118.5 57.5 16.1 3.3 ... ... ... . . . 20 

21 y~--------------------------------- 1960 256.8 102.4 ::.: 43.3 1::; ::2 0.9 0.2 0.1 

22 years 

23 years 

1961 

1962 

26o.8 

252.8 85.6 

65.8 83;5 

52.1 

58.4 

22.0 

28.2 1;:: ::; 0.5 

1.1 ::i 

20 years------------------------—-----

21 years 

22 years 

23 years 

1958 

1959 

1960 

1961 

230.4 

253,5 

266.4 

264.0 

115.2 

102.3 

87.7 

69.6 

76.6 

90.7 

93.7 

87.7 

27.9 

41.4 

53.5 

60.4 

12.! 

21.5 

29.1 

::; 

11:: 

0.4 

0.9 

::! 

0.1 

0.2 

0,5 

1.2 

0.1 

0.1 

0.2 

0.4 

24 years 1962 242.5 51.2 74.5 59.3 33.2 15.2 2.1 0.9 

years 1959 234.7 114.2 79.7 29.5 0.5 0.1 0.0 

g3J 

21 years 1958 251.4 103.7 ;3.; 39.9 13.8 3.8 0.8 0.2 0.1 

22 years------------------------------- 1959 257.7 86.0 50.0 20.5 0.5 0.2 

years 1960 268.1 71.6 90:3 60.4 28.8 1::: ::; 1.1 0.4 

E years 1961 254.1 54.6 79.1 62.5 33.9 15.1 5.9 2.1 0.9 

25 years-----------------------------— 1962 226.1 39.2 63.8 57.7 34.7 17.7 8.2 3.2 1.6 

57 
-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

----------

-------------------------- -------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

‘l’able
12. Annual central birth rates for all wc


Cohort and current age Calendaz


years


22 years------------------------------- 1958 

23 years------------------------------- 1959 

24 years 1960 

25 years 1961 

26 ~ears---------------------------:--- 1962 

years----------------------:-------- 1958 

;: years 1959 25 years 1960 

26 years ------------------------------- 1961 

27 years ------------------------------- 1962 

24 years 1958 

25 years------------------------------- 1959 

26 years 1960 

years 1961 

H years 1962 

25 years----------------------------,--- 1958 

26 years ------------------------------- 1959 27 years 1960 

28 years 1961 

29 years 1962 

26 years 1958 

27 years 1959 

years 1960 

H years 1961 

30 years 1962 

27 years 1958 

years 1959 

;: years 1960 

30 years 1961 

31 years ?-------------------- 1962 

&93Q 

28 years----, 1958 

29 years 1959 

30 years 1960 

31 years 1961 

32 years 1962 

29 years 1958 

30 years 1959 

31 years 1960 

32 years 1961 

33 years 1962 

y2Q 

30 years------------------------------- 1958 

31 years 1959 

32 years------------------------------- 1960 

33 years------------------------------- 1961 

34 years 1962 

31 years 1958 

32 years ,1959 

33 years------------------------------- 1960 

34 years------------------------------- 1961 

35 years 1962 

n, by live-birth order, by current sge, in esch cohort from 1909 to 1948:


ed States, 1958-62—COn.


,tes~ tsbles
 given .“ page VIII) 

Live-birth order


, rotal Eighth 

>irths First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh and


over


Rates per 1,000 female population 

262.C 264.! 90. ( 

71.: 

92.8 50.2 19.9 

90.4 58.7 27.4 1!:: i:: 0.4 

1.1 259.2 55. [ 82,4 62. S 33.7 15.2 6.2 233.C 40.: 66.3 59.2 35.5 18.2 8.2 ::; 

209,6 29.. ; 53.1 54.2 36.0 19.3 9.9 4.6 

190.8 

264.2 74. ( 90.8 57.5 26.5 10.4 3.7 253.2 55. t 81.8 60.9 32.0 14.0 5.8 H 234.4 41.2 69.0 60.2 34.6 16.9 

214.7 30.: 55.3 55.8 36.1 19.6 N ::: 22. < 43.3 48.7 34,9 20.4 11.0 5.5


252.3 58.2 82.5 59.1 30.3 14.0 5.5 1.9 0.8
 236.1 43.: 70.1 59.9 34.1 16.5


216.9 31.8 57.2 56.3 36.3 18.7 ;:: N H
 196.3 23.4 45.2 50.6 35.9 20.4 10.9 4.2
 173.8 17.: 34.4 43.8 33.6 20.6 11.7 ::: 6.0 ]


234.4 

218.9 45.1 

33.4 

71.7 

60.3 

57.8 

55.8 

32.4 

35.2 

16.0 

18.2 ;:: ::! k: 196.9 24.7 46.9 51.5 34.8 19.3 10.4 4.0 180.0 18.4 37.0 45.9 34.0 20.7 11.9 n 5.8 155.6 13.5 28.1 38.0 30.6 19.4 11.9 6.8 7.3 

212.2 34.8 60.2 g:.: 32.2 16.8 8.3 3.8 194.9 25.8 48.3 33.5 18.2 5,0 177.5 19.4 38.4 45:6 32.9 19.0 1?:: 

159.4 14.6 29.4 39.6 31.2 19.2 11.6 M 135.9 10.7 21.8 31.6 27.2 18.3 11.2 6.9 

192.7 27.4 50.1 49.6 31.4 16.9 ;.: 3.3 178.0 20.6 39.9 45.9 32.1 18.5 1::: 5.0 158.2 15.2 31.2 39.8 30.1 18.4 11.1 6.1 142.5 11.8 24.3 33.9 28.2 18.1 11.2 ‘::; 8.3 118.4 8.6 17.7 26.6 23.7 16,1 10.5 6.5 8.7 

177.6 21.8 41.5 45.6 30.9 17.5 10.0 4.8 161.9 16.1 33.1 40.9 30.4 18.0 10.8 H 6.3 145.4 12.9 25.5 34.5 28.2 17.9 11.2 6.9 8.3 125.9 9.5 19.2 28.6 25.5 16.7 10.7 6.8 108.9 7,2 14.8 22.4 21,3 15.7 10.3 6.8 18:; 

158.3 17.4 34.2 ;:.: 28.7 16.6 5.6 147.4 13.6 27.5 28.3 17.2 1); 6.5 122,9 9.8 20.2 28:9 24.3 15.8 6.1 111.0 15.7 23.9 22.3 15.4 10:0 6.4 92.0 ;:; 11.6 18.1 18.0 13.4 9.1 5.8 

146.2 14.2 28.7 36.8 27.2 16.2 9.8 7.L 124.7 10,6 20.9 30.1 24.5 15.6 9.5 ::; 111.5 16.7 24.7 22.1 15.0 9.6 6.1 ;:; 97.4 H 12.8 19.8 19.1 13.9 9.3 6.2 10.2 81.6 4.8 9.6 15.3 15.5 11.9 8.4 5.7 10.4 

122.6 10.9 :.: 30.6 23.6 14.1 8.7 5.3 6.9 112.8 8.7 25.9 22.1 14,5 9.5 8.6 95.9 6.4 ’13:3 20.1 19.2 13.2 ‘::: 9.3 84.1 10.3 16.6 16.3 12.0 n 5.7 71.3 ::i 7.7 13.0 13.3 10.6 7.5 5.1 1::: 

58 
-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

----------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

Table 12. Annual central birth rates for all women, by live-birth ordsr, by current age, in each cohort from 1909 to 1948:
 United States, 1958-62—Ccm.


(Notes tatnbles
 given on page W!) 

Live-bixth order


;alend%
 Cohort and current age year Eig$h
 ‘eta1 First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh
 ,irths over


&92fJ Rates per 1,000 female population 

32 years------------------------------- 1958 113.9 9.3 19.2 26.8 22.3 13.9 8.7 5.6 8.1


33 years------------------------------- 1959 99.2 7.1 14.6 21.4 19.6 13.2 8.5 5.6 9.2


34 years 1960 85.9 11.2 17.5 16.6 12.1 8.0 5.3


35 years 1961 76.4 ::2 9.0 14.3 14.3 11.2 1:::


36 years------------------------------- 1962 62.0 3.3 6.5 10.6 11.1 9.2 $: :;: 10.1


~ 

33 years------------------------------- 1958 100.1 15.6 22.9 19.5 13.0 8.1 5.2 8.3


34 years------------------------------- 1959 88,.2 z:: 12.2 18.6 17.0 12.1 7.8 5.3 9.2


35 years------------------------------- 1960 76.9 4.7 9.5 14.8 15.0 10.9 

36 y~~rs 1961 65.5 3.7 11.7 12.0 9.4 ::: u 1::: 

37 ~~~r~------------------------------- 1962 51.8 2.5 i’:i 8.3 9.4 7.8 5.7 4.0 9.0

34 years--------------: 1958 89.3 6.3 13.1 19.5 ~;.: 11.5 7.5 5.1 8.8 

35 years 1959 78.2 5.1 10.0 15.7 10.8 4.9 9.5 

36 years 1960 65.7 3.9 12.0 1;:: 9.4 ::: 9.6 

37 years 1961 54.7 2.8 u 8.3 5.9 $; 9.1 

38 years 1962 44.4 2.2 4.1 ::; 7:5 6.5 4.7 8.9 

35 years 1958 78.5 10.8 16.7 15.0 10.4 7.0 4.5 8.8 

36 years 1959 66.9 ;:: 8.1 l;.~ 12.5 9.4 6.5 4.5 

37 y~~=~------------------------------- 1960 55.1 6.0 10.0 5.8 4.0 ;:? 

38 years 1961 47.2 2:4 4.7 7:4 8.0 H 5.1 3.8 8.9 

39 y~~rs 1962 35.3 1.7 3.0 5.2 5.7 5.0 3.9 3.0 7.8 

years 1958 67.2 4.5 13.3 12.6 9.1 6.2 :.; 

years 1959 56.8 3.3 ::2 1;.: 10.3 8.2 5.7 y~---------------------------------- 1960 47.7 2.6 4.7 8.5 6.7 4.9 3:6


years 1961 :;.; 1.8 3.5 5:7 6.1 5.4 4.2 2.9


years 1962 1.2 2.4 3.8 4.4 3.8 3.0 2.3


y2J 

years 1958 57.5 3.7 10.8 10.5 3.7 8.4 y~---------------------------------- 1959 49.1 2.7 H 8.2 8.7 ;:: .?: 3.6 8.9 

years ------------------------------- 1960 37.8 2.0 3.6 6.2 4.0 3.0 7.8 

years 1961 28.9 2.6 i:? 4.7 ::: 3.1 2.4 6.6 

years 1962 19.0 ::$ 1.6 2.5 3.1 2.6 2.1 1.6 4.7 

years 1958 51.0 3.0 5.9 .8.9 8.7 6.~ 5.0 3.6 

years------------------------------- 1959 ::.; 2.3 4.1 6.6 4.1 3.0 

years 1960 1.5 2.6 ::: 4.9 H 3.2 2.4 

years ------------------------------- 1961 :8:: 1.7 2.7 3.3 2.E 2.3 

years ------------------------------- 1962 i:: 1.1 1.7 2.1 1.$ 1.6 i:: 

years 1958 37.6 2.2 4.2 4.5 3.7 2.8 

years 1959 29.1 1.6 2.7 ::: ::: 3.~ 3.0 2.2 ::: y~ars 1960 20.0 1.8 2.7 3.2 2.: 2.1 1.6 4.8 

years 1961 1:.~ H 2.0 1.$ ;:; 3.9 

years 1962 0.4 l!:: M 1.1 1.1 ::2 2.7 

&91Q 

40 years 1958 28.6 1.7 3.0 $: 4.6 3.5 2.8 2.2


41 years 1959 19.5 1.7 3.1 2.t 2.0 1.6 i::
 42 years 1960 14.0 ::+ 3.9 ;:; 1:8 1.9 1.$ 

M ;:; 43 years 1961 8.7 0.3 2.7

44 years ------------------------------- 1962 4.5 0.2 o.~ H M ;:; 0.5 0.4 1.5 .,,.:, 

41 years------------------------------- 1958 19.0 1.s 2.8 3.0 2.: 1.9 1.4 4.5


42 y~~rs 1959 14.0 ;:; 1.2 2.1 1.[ 3.8


43 years 1960 0.4 0.7 i:! ::: !$:; :.:


44 years 1961 ::: 0.2 0.2 0.5 M ;:; 0.5 0.4


45 years 1962 2.5 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.: 0.: 0.2 0.2 0:9


“59 

\ 
-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

--------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

Table 12. Annua1 central birth rates for a11	women, by live-birth order, by current age, in each cohort from 1909 to 1948:
 United States, 1958-62—Con.


(Notes” totables gi;en
onpig.VIII)


Live-bkth order


Cohort and current age ;alendar


year !otal Eighth
 First Seccind Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh and
 )irths
 over


Rates >er 1,000 female pOpulatiOn 

42 years 

43 years 44 years 

1958 

1959 

1960 

13.7 

8.6 

4.7 

0.7 

0.4 

0.2 

1.7 2.0 1.8 1.4 

1.1 0.9 

;:: ::; 0.6 0.5 ;:$ 

0.4 

3.8 

2.6 

45 years------------------------------- 1961 2.7 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 ::2 46 years------------------------------- 1962 1.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 ::? ::; 0.1 0.4 

43 years 1958 8.6 0.4 0.7 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.7 :.: 44 years 1959 5.0 0.3 0.4 ;:: 0.6 0.5 0.4 45 years 1960 2.4 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 H 0.2 0.2 0:9 46 years 1961 0.1 :.: 0,1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 47 years 1962 ::: 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 

,—1914


44 years 195s 4.9 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 45 years 1959 2.7 0.1 ::; 0.4 0.3 0.2 ::; 46 years 1960 1.2 ;.: 0.1 !:? 0.1 0.1 ::? 0.1 0.5 47 years 1961 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3. 0.0 0,2 48 years------------------------------- 1962 0.1 0:0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,1 3 

45 years-------------------------------

46 years------------------------------- 1958 

1959 2.6 

8:: 0.,2 0.3 

0.1 

0.3 

0.1 0.3 ::? 9.2 

0.1 ::; 47 years------------------------------- 1960 ::; 0.0 ::: 0.0 0.1 ::; 0.0 0.2 48 years------------------------------- 1961 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ::A 0.1 49 years 1962 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 

46 years 1958 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 47 years------------------------------- 1959 ;:: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 ::i 0.1 0.0 0.2 48 years------------------------------- 1960 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.1 49 years 1961 0.1 0.0 0.O 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0,1 

47 years 1958 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3
 48 years------------------------------- 1959 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1
 49 years 1960 0.1 0.0 ::: 0.0 ::: H %8 0,1


48 years------------------------------- 1958 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 49 years------------------------------- 1959 U 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ::: ::: 0.0 0.1 

49 years 1958 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 

NOTE: For comparable data for the years 1917 to 1957,see table 3,Vital Statistics—Special Reports, Vol 51, No. 1, 1960.
 Method of computation is discussed in the publication.


60 

/ 
-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

--------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------

---------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

-------------------------------

--------------------------

Table 13. Cumulative birth rates for all women. bv live-birthorder. bv exact a!ze.in EZOUDS of cohortsfrom 1905-09to 194~-48:United States,195%63 - “ - -

iotas to @.bles,#V’an on ~,~e VIII) 

Live-birth order
 J;n~fry
 Cohort and exact age Eighth
 each year IJtal First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh and
 ]irths
 over


Exact ages-15-19 Rates per 1,000 fmale population


1944-48------------------------------- 1963 93.2 73.9 16.3 2.7 0.3 .. . ... ... .. . 

1943-47------------------------------- 1962 94.4 75.2 16.3 2.6 0.3 . .. ... ... . .. 

1942-46 1961 96.8 77.1 16.8 2.6 0.3 . .. . .. ... ... 

1941-45 1960 101.0 80.5 17.5 2.7 0.3 .. . . .. ... ... 

1940-44------------------------------- 1959 104.2 83.3 17.9 2.7 0.3 . . . . .. ... .. . 

Exact ages-20-24


1939-43------------------------------- 1963 956.7 522.5 279.1 107.5 34.4 9.8 2.6 0.6 0.2


1938-42------------------------------- 1962 974.8 533.4 285.0’ 108.7 34.5 9.7 2.6 0.6 0.3


1937-41------------------------------- 1961 976.0 537.1 285.4 107.1 33.6 9.4 2.5 0.6 0.3


1936-40------------------------------- 1960 968.6 537.8 282.3 103.8 32.3 9.1 2.4 0.6 0.3


1935-39 1959 959.1 536.7 277.8 101.3 31.3 8.8 2.3 0.6 0.3


Exact agea-25-29


1927-31--------------------------------


1934-38----: 1963 ,140:8 826.6 642.9 368.6 175.0 75.9 31.8 12.6 7.4 

1933-37------------------------------:1962 ,126.4 826.3 641.0 363.7 171.1 73.8 30.9 12.3 7.3 

1932-36 1961 ,088.9 821.1 632.9 352.9 164.0 70.1 29.4 11.7 6.8 

1931-35 1960 ,035.4 811.3 618.9 338.8 155.2 66.3 27.6 11.0 6.3 

1930-34-------------------------------1959 ,979.8 801.2 603.9 323.9 146.3 62.4 25.9 10.3 5.9 

Exact ages-30-34 

1929-33---------------------------:---1963 ,714.1 877.8 754.7 503.8 281.9 145.2 75.1 38.5 37.1 

1928-32------------------------------- 1962 ,646.3 870.3 741.4 487.2 268.5 137.1 70.7 36.4 34.7 

1961 ,573.7 863.4 727.8 468.8 253.7 128.2 66.0 33.8 32.0 

1926-30------------------------------- 1960 ,507.5 859.9 715.2 450.5 239.5 119.8 61.5 31.4 29.7


1925-29------------------------------- L959 ,434.6 855.4 700.6 430.3 224.0 111.2 56.8 29.1 27.2


Exact ages-35-39


1924-28 1963 ,808.8 882.7 749.1 503.5 294.2 162.8 92.3 53.3 70.9


1923-27------------------------------- 1962 ,748.8 880.0 739.7 487.9 281.f+ 154.4 87.5 50.6 67.3


1922-26 1961 697.2 881.0 731.3 473.7 269.4 146.8 83.0 47.9 64.1


1921-25-------------------------------1960 ,645.6 880.3 722.1 459.2 257.9 139.7 79.1 45.8 61.5


1920-24-------------------------------1959 ,602.0 880.2 713.3 446.0 248.0 134.0 76.1 44.2 60.2


Exact ages-40-44


1919-23------------------------------- 1963 ,739.4, 885.1 720.9 46;.2 270.8 155.0 92.8 57.0 94.6


1918-22------------------------------- 1962 ,671.8 874.7 703.8 447.5 260.4 149.0 89.2 55.0 92.2


1917-21-----------1 1961 ,594.2 859.4 684.3 430.2 249.3 142.6 85.5 53.1 89.8


1916-20------------------------------- 1960 ,515.3 8,42.4 663.6 412.9 238.5 136.6 82.2 51.3 87.8


1915-19---J 1959 ,426.6 822.3 640.0 ‘394.0 226.8 130.2 78.7 49.3 85.3


Exact ages-45-49


1914-18 1963 ,401.9I 810.9 625.0 384.6 223.9 130.8 80.7 51.2 94.8 

1913-17 1962 363.2 804.7 612.L 373.2 217.7 128.4 80.1 51.0 96.0 

1912-16-------------------------------1961 335.3 800.0 600.8 364.5 213.5 126.9 80.2 51.4 98.0 

1911-15 1960 315.1 795.3 591.3 357.8 210.5 126.5 80.9 52.2 100.6 

1910-14----: 1959 302.2 791.1 583.2 352.6 209.3 126.9 82.0 53.3 103.8 

Exact ages-50-54 

1909-13------------------------------- 1963 282.8 784.8 573.2 346.4 207.6 127.2 82.7 54.3 106.6 

1908-12------------------------------- 1962 273.0 780.8 566.2 342.7 207.2 128.0 83.9 55.4 108.8 

1907-11------------------------------- 1961 268.8 777.9 560.3 339.9 207.5 129.6 85.4 56.5 111.7 

1906-10------------------------------- 1960 273.0 777.2 555.9 338.7 209.3 131.8 87.4 57.9 114.8 

1905-09----’-------------------—------ 1959 288.1 779.3 554.3 339.4 212.0 134.8 90.0 59.8 118.5 

NOTE: These rates are simple averagesof the rates for single cohorts in table 14. For comparable data for the years
 1917 to 1958, see table 2, Vital Statistics—SpecialReports, Vol. 51, No. L, 1960.


61 
.

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

Table 14. Cumulative birth rates for all women, by live-birth order, by exact age, in each ,cohortfrom 1909 to,1948:


IlnitedStates, 1959-63


(Notes totables given
onpageVIII)


Live-birth order
 January
 Cohort and exact age 1 of


each year Total EiShth


births First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh and


over


Rates per 1,000 female population


15 years 1963 4.2 4.2 3 f< * .. . ... ... .. . 

15 years 1962 4.C ... .. . ... ... 16 years --------------------------:-. 1963 12:? 14.6 1.: 0.; 0.: ... ... . .. ... 

years 1961 4.9 $ ... .. . ... ... years 1962 19.6 1$? 0.; 0.: .. . .,. ... ,.. years 1963 57;3 50.2 ::: 0.6 0.0 ... .. . ... ... 

15 years 

16 years 

17 years 

18 years 

1960 

1961 

1962 

1963 

1$:: 

58.2 

131.7 

4.8 

17.9 

51.1 

107.5 

1.! 

2!:; 

0.: 

0.6 

2.7 

o.;

0.0 

0.2 

. . . . . . . . . . . . 

. . . . . . . . . . . . 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 

years 1959 4.6 4.6 . . . . . . I . . . . . . years 1960 19.3 17.9 1.: 0.; 0.; . . . . . . . . . . . . years 1961 57.9 51.0 0,6 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . years 

years 

1962 

1963 134.1 

257.1 109.8 

193.1 Zti 

52.5 ;:: 0.2 

1.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

yeara 1959 18.7 17.4 1.2 0.1 0.0 .. . ... .. . ... years 1960 57.0 50.5 0,5 0.0 . .. ... .. . ‘.. . years 1961 132.5 108.8 2::; 0.2 .. . ... ... . . . years 1962 255.7 192.9 52+3 n ... ,.. .. . . . . yeara 1963 429.5 299.7 101.8 23.7 M ... ... ... . . . 

17 years 1959 60.2 53.3 0.5 ... ... ... . .. 18 years 1960 139.3 114.7 2::: ::2 ... ... ... .. . 19 years ----------------------------- 1961 269.2 202.7 55.6 ::Z 1.3 ... ... .. . ,,. 20 years 1962 k59.3 318.7 109.9 26.0 -.. ... ... . .. 21 years 1963 679.1 428.7 181.7 53.1 l$Z 2.6 0.4 0.1 0.1 

18 years 1959 147.8 121.9 22.9 0.2 ... ... ... . .. ij years 1960 284.5 214.6 58.4 1::: ... ... ,.. . .. . 20 jears----------------------------- 1961 480.1 332.0 115.8 27.6 $:; ... ...” ... .,. 21 years 1962 ,712.0 y:. ; 191.9 57.3 13.3 0.5 0.1 0.0 22 years 1963 959.1 279.1 98.8 27.7 ::? 1.5 0.3 0.1 

~ 

19 years----------------------------- 1959 289.5 219.1 59.0 10.0 ... ... ... ... 20 years----------------------------- 1960 486.8 337.7 116.9 27.3 i:$ ... ... ... ... 21 years----------------------------- 1961 722.0 451.9 195.4 58.0 13.4 0.5 0.1 0.1 22 yeara----------------------------- 1962 976.3 552.8 285.1 100.8 28.7 ::; 1.5 0.3 0.2 23 years----------------------------- 1963 1,230.2 635.2 373.0 152.6 50.1 14.6 3.6 0.8 0.3 

~ 

20 years----------------------------- 1959 480.9 336.2 114.4 25.8 :.. ... ... . . . 21 years----------------------------- 1960 715.6 450.4 194.1 55.3 1::? 2.5 0.5 0.1 0.0 22 years-----------------------------

23 yeara 1961 

1962 972,4 

1,233.2 552.8 

638.4 285.3 

376.3 98.6 

150.7 27.4 

$;.; 6.5 

13.8 ::; 0.3 

0.8 8:$ 24 years 1963 1,486.0 704.2 459.8 209.1 25.2 1.9 0.7 

21 years 

22 years 1959 

1960 709.0 

962.5 451.2 

553.5 189.6 

280.3 53.2 

94.6 1149 

26.0 2.5 0.4 0.1 

0.3 0,1 

0.2 23 years 1961 1,228.9 641.2 374.0 148.1 47:5 1::2 u 0.8 24 years----------------------------- 1962 1,492.9 710.8 461.7 208.5 76.6 25.0 ::i 25 years 1963 L,735.4 762.0 536.2 267.8 109.8 40.2 1::: ::; 1.7 

22 years 1959 950.4 550.2 274,2 92.6 25.5 6,2 0“.3 0,2 23 years 

24 years ,L960 

1961 L,208.1 

L,476.2 636.2 

707.8 366.0 

456,3 142.6 

203.0 46.0 

74.8 13.0 

24.6 u 0.8 0,4 

0.8 25 years----------------------------- 1962 L,730.3 762.4 535.4 265.5 108.7 39.7 1;:: ::: 26 yeara 1963 L,956,4 801.6 599.2 323.2 143.4 57.4 21.1 7.2 - ::< 

62 
-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

----------------------------

----------------------------

----------------------------

Table 14. Cumulative
 birth rates for all women, by live-birth order, by exact age, in each cohort from 1909 to 1948:
 United States, 1959-63—Con.


(Notas latables
 .&en..pageVIIl)


Live-birth order


Cohort and exact age
 Eighth
 3econd Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh and


over


&931J Rates par 1,000 female population 

23 years 1959 1,205.0 639.5 363.8 140.6 44.5 12.6 3.1 0.6 0.3 24 years----------------------------- 1960 1,469.5 711.0 454.2 199.3 71.9 23.6 1.7 0.8 25 years 1961 1,728.7 766.8 536.6 262.2 105.6 38.8 1::; 3.8 26 years----------------------------- 1962 1,961.7 807.3 602.9 321.5 141.1 57.0 21.4 ~~:; H 27 yeara----------------------------- 1963 2,171.3 837.0 656.0 375.7 177.1 76.3 31.3 6.2


J93Q 

24 yeara----------------------------- 1959 1,450.3 707.3 446.8 194.2 69.9 22.8 25 years----------------------------- 1960 1,703.5 763.1 528.6 255.1 101.9 36.8 1;:; $! 26 years----------------------------- 1961 1,937.9 804.3 597.6 315.3 136.5 53.7 20.3 27 years----------------------------- 1962 2,152.6 835.1 652.9 371.1 172.6 73.3 30.2 1;:; 28 yeara---------; 1963 2,343.4 858.0 696.2 419.8 207.5 93.7 41.2 17.0 

J93J 

25 years----------------------------- 1959 1,674.6 758.7 519.8 245.9 97.3 35.7 12.1 3.6 1.5 26 years----------------------------- 1960 1,910.7 802.0 589.9 305.8 131.4 52.2 19.7 3.0 27 years----------------------------- 1961 2,127.6 833.8 647.1 362.1 167.7 70.9 29.3 1::: 5.7 !28years------------------------------ 1962 2>323.9 857.2 692.3 412.7 203.6 91.3 40.2 16.7 29 years----------------------------- 1963 2,497.7 874.5 726.7 456.5 237.2 111.9 51.9 23.1 1::; 

26 years----------------------------- 1,867.7 792.9 577.5 294.3 125.5 49.6 18.5 3.1 27 years----------------------------- 2,086.6 826.3 637.8 350.1 160.7 67.8 27.6 1$:: 5.7 28 years 2,283.5 851.0 6S4.7 401.6 195.5 87.1 38.0 15.9 29 years----------------------------- 2,463.5 869.4 721.7 447.5 229.5 107.8 49.9 22.2 1;:; 30 years----------------------------- 2,619.1 882.9 749.8 485.5 260.1 127.2 61.8 29.0 22.8 

&9Y& 

27 years----------------------------- 1959 1,994.4 804.4 611.6 327.2 148.4 62.8 25.3 5.0 28 years 1960 2,189.3 830.2 659.9 377.8 181.9 81.0 35.1 1;:; 1961 2,366.8 849.6 698.3 423.4 214.8 100.0 46.1 20.8 1::: % g%----------------------------- 1962 2,526.2 864.2 727.7 463.0 246.0 119.2 57.7 27.6 20.8 31 years----------------------------- 1963 2,662.1 874.9 749.5 494.6 273.2 137.5 68.9 34.5 29.0 

28 years----------------------------- 1959 2,109.2 814.2 63S.3 359.5 168.0 75.1 32.9 13.6
 29 yeara 1960 2,287.2 834.8 678.2 405.4 200.1 93.6 43.3 19.2 1;::
 30 years----------------------------- 1961 2,445.4 850.0 709.4 445.2 230.2 112.0 54.4 25.5 18.7
 31 years 1962 2,587.9 861.8 733.7 479.1 258.4 130.1 65.6 32.2 27.0
 32 years 1963 2,706.3 870.4 751.4 505.7 282.1 146.2 76.1 3s.7 35.7


29 years---------------------------- 1959 2,252.7 835.8 :::.: 392.7 192.1 88.6 :.; 18.1 12.1 30 yeara---------------------------- 1960 2,414.6 851.9 433.6 222.5 106.6 24.4 18.4 31 yeara 1961 2,560.0 864.8 731:1 468.1 250.7 124.5 62:8 31.3 26.7 32 years---------------------------- 1962 2,685.9 874.3 750.3 496.7 276.2 141.2 73.5 38.1 35.6 33 years---------------------------- 1963 2,794.8 881.5 765.1 519.1 297.5 156.9 83.8 44.9 46.0 

30 years---------------------------- 1959 2,315.3 842.7 682.8 407.1 203.6 96.6 45.4 20.7 16.4
 31 years---------------------------- 1960 2,462.7 856.3 710.3 443.1 231.9 113.8 56.1 27.2 24.0
 32 years 1961 2,585.6 866.1 730.5 472.0 256.2 129.6 65.8 33.3 32.1
 33 years---------------------------- 1962 2,696.6 873.8 746.2 495.9 278.5 145.0 75.8 39.7 41.7
 34 years---------------------------- 1963 2,788.6 879.5 757.8 514.0 296.5 158.4 84.9 45.5 52.0


31 years---------------------------- 1959 2,402.2 852.3 698.9 426.9 217.8 105.7 52.6 26.4 21.6
 32 years---------------------------- 1960 2,526.9 862.9 719.8 457.0 242.3 121.3 62.1 32.2 29.3
 33 years---------------------------- 1961 2,638.4 871.1 736.5 481.7 ;:;.: 136.3 71.7 38.3 38.4
 34 years---------------------------- 1962 2,735.8 877.2 749.3 501.5 150.2 81.0 44.5 48.6
 35 years---------------------------- 1963 2,817.4 882.0 758.9 516.8 299:0 162.1 89.4 50.2 59.0


32 ,years 1959 2,430.8 850.1 700.6 431.1 225.5 111.0 57.1 29.1 26.3
 33 years---------------------------- 1960 2,543.6 858.8 718.2 457.0 247.6 125.5 66.6 35.0 34.9
 34 years---------------------------- 1961 2,639.5 865.2 731.5 477.1 266.8 138.7 75.2 40.8 44.2
 3S years---------------------------- 1962 2,723.6 870.3 741.8 493.7 283.1 150.7 83.4 ::.: 54.1
 36 yeara---------------------------- 1963 2,794.9 874.4 749.5 506.7 296.4 161.3 90.9 64.1


63 
-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

Table 14. Cumulative birth rates for all wcxnen,by live-birth order, by exact age, in each cohort from 1909 to 1948:
 United States. 1959-63—Con.


(Nceas to tables&en.. pageVIII)


Live-birth order


Cohort and exact age


~ 

33 years-----------------------------
 34 years-----------------------------


35 years-----------------------------


36 years-----------------------------


37 years----------------------------­


~


3L years-----------------------------


35 years
 36 years-----------------------------


37 years


38 years----------------------------­


~


35 years-----------------------------


36 years
 37 years


38 years


39 years


~


36 years


37 years


38 years
 39 years


40 years----------------------------­


~


37 years


38 years---------------?------------­


39 years
 40 years-----------------------------


41 years


~


38 years


39 years


40 years


41 years


42 years----------------------------­


~


39 years


40 years


41 years-----------------------------
 42 years


43 years


~


40 years-----------------------------


41 years
 42 years


43 years-----------------------------
 44 years----------------------------­


~


41 years-----------------------------


42 years-----------------------------


43 years-----------------------------


44 years-----------------------------
 45 years


~


42 years-----------------------------


43 years


44 years-----------------------------


45 years
 46 years-----------------------------


Total Eighth 

births IIFirst Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh and 

over 

Rates per 1,000 female populaticm 

1959 

1960 2,490.6 

2,589.8 862.5 

869.6 707.6 440.6 233.4 118.7 62,5 722.2 462.0 253.0 131.9 71.0 

32.8 

38.4 32.5 

$:.: 1961 2,675.7 875.2 733.4 479.5 269.6 144.0 79.0 43.7 1962 

1963 2,752.1 

2,814.1 

879.6 

882.9 742.4 493.8 283.9 155.2 86.6 748.9 504.4 295.0 164.4 93.2 

;:.; 61:6 

71.7 

1959 2,534.o 869.5 713.L 445.7 239.5 124.0 66.6 36.3 39.3
 1960 2,622.2 875.5 725.3 464.3 256.5 ~~$.; 74.4 41.6 48.5
 1961 2,699.1 ::!.; 734.8 479.1 271.5 81.7 46.6 58.2
 1962 2,764.6 741.9 490.8 283.5 156:4 88.5 51.4 68..2
 1963 2,816.4 886:4 747.0 499.1 292.9 164.2 94.2 55.4 77.2


1959 2,557.8 874.0 713.9 446.6 242.9 127.0 ;5.; 38.6
 1960 2,636.o 879.1 723.9 462.3 257.9 137.8 43,5
 1961 2,701.7 883.0 731.5 474.3 ;;:.: 147.2 83:1 47.9
 1962 2>756.4 885.8 737.1 483.5 155.5 89.0 51.9
 1963 2,800.8 888.0 741.2 490.4 287:5 162.0 93.7 55.5


1959 2,578.0 870.6 716.3 448.2 246.1 130.L 72.6 41.8 52.3 1960 2,644.9 874.8 724.4 460.9 258.6 139.5 79.1 46.3 61.3 1961 2,700.0 877.8 730.4 470.5 268.6 147.5 84.9 50.3 70.0 1962 2,747.2 880.2 735.1 477.9 276.6 154.4. 90.0 54.1 78.9 1963 2,782.5 88L.9 738.1. 483.1 282.3 159.4 93.9 57.1 86..7 

1959 2,605.4 882.9 715.4 447.0 248.4 133.6 75.7 43.5 58.9
 1960 2,662.2 886.2 721.8 457.3 258.7 141.8 81.4 4X.4 67.6
 1961 2,709.9 888.8 726.5 465.1 267.2 148.5 86.3 51.0 76.5
 1962 2,747.4 890.6 730.0 470.8 273.3 153.9 90.5 53.9 84-4
 1963 2,774.9 891.8 732.4 474.6 277.7 157..7 93.5 56.2 91.0


1959 2,613.7 883.4 709.7 442.9 249.1 136.7 78.8 46.7 66.4 1960 2,662.8 886.L 714.9 451.1 257.8 143.5 83.8 50.3 75..3 1961 

1962 2,700.6 

2,729.5 888.1 

889.5 718.5 

721.1 457.0 

461.1 

264.0 

268.7 

148.8 

L52.8 

;3.; 53.3 

55.7 

83.1 

89.7 1963 2,748.5 890.3 722.7 463.6 271.8 155.4 93:0 57.3 94.4 

1959 2,655.0 889.9 711.3 445.1 253.3 142.6 84.1 50.6 78.1
 1960 2,695.2 892.2 715.4 451.6 259.9 148.0 88.2 53.6 ;3..
j
 1961 2,724.9 893.7 718.0 455.9 264.8 152.1 91.4 56.0
 1962 2,745.6 894.7 719.7 458.6 268.1 154.9 93.7 57.8 98:1
 1963 2,760.2 895.3 720.8 460.3 270.2 156.8 95.3 59..1 102.4


1959 2,559.7 862.7 684.6 424.7 241.2 135.9 80.7 49.6 80.3 1960 2,588.8 864.3 687.3 429.1 245.9 139.8 83.7 51.8 86.9 1961 

1962 2,608.8 

2,622.9 865.3 

866.0 689.1 

690.1 431.8 

433.7 249.L 251.1 

142.6 

144.5 

85.8 

87.3 

53.4 

54.6 91,7 

95.6 1963 2,631.3 866.4 690.7 434.6 252.2 145.6 88.2 55.3 98’.3 

1959 2,470.9 830.4 654.4 407.7 234.8 133.0 79.0 49.6 82.0
 1960 2,490.4 831.5 656.1 410.5 237.9 135.6 81.0 51.2 86.6
 1961 2,504.4 832.2 657.2 412.3 239.8 137.5 82.6 52.3 90,.5
 1962 2,513.1 832.5 657.9 413.3 241.0 138.7 83.5 53.0 93.2
 1963 2,517.6 832.7 658.2 413.8 241.6 139.2 84.0 53.4 94.7


1959 

1960 2,410.4 

2,424.4 816.8 

817.5 636.7 

637.9 391.3 

393.1 

225.6 

227.7 

129.3 

131.1 77.5 

79.0 

48.8 

49.9 

84.4 

88.2 1961 2,433.2 817.9 638.6 394.2 228.9 132.2 80.0 50.5 90.9 1962 2,438.0 818.1 638.9 394.7 229.5 132.9 80.5 50.9 92.5 1963 2,440.5 818.2 639.1 395.0 229.8 133.2 80.7 51.1 93.4 

I 
-------------

--------------

---------

-----------

-------

--------------

--------------------------

----------

-----

------------------

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

--------------------------

--------------------

Table 14. Cumulative birth rates for all women, by live-birth order, by exact age, in each cohort from 1909 to 1948:
 United States. 2359-63-Con.


(Notes to tables ff,en
0.page VIII)

Live-birth order


January


Cohort and sxact age 1 of Eighth
 each year Total First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh and
 births
 over


~ Rates per 1,000 female ,population 

43 years-------------— 1959 2,369:4 806.1 620.6 379.2 220.0 127.5 78.4 49.1 88.5


44 years-------——--------------—--- 1960 2,378.0 806.5 621.3 ;::.; 221.2 128.6 79.3 49.8 91.1


45 years---—-—---—— 1961 2,382.7 806.7 621.6 221.9 129.2 79.8 $;.: 92.6


46 years-----------——---— ------- 1962 2,385.4 806.8 621.8 381:0 222.2 129.5 80.1 93.5


47 years-----—---------------------- 1963 2,386.5 806.8 621.9 381.1 222.4 129.6 80.2 50:6 93.9


~


44 years-------— -—----------------- 1959 2>322.0 795.4 603.6 367.1 212.3 125.1 77.7 49.6 91.2 

:: Yee;------—--------— 1960 2,327.0 795.7 604-0 :;; .; 222.9 125.7 78.2 50.0 92..8 --—---------—-— 1961 2,329.4 795.8 604.1 223.2 226.0 78.4 50.2 93-7 

47 years—-----——-----—---—-—--- 1962 2,330.6 795.9 604.2 368:1 223.3 126.2 78.5 50.3 94.1 

48 years----——-—------— 1963 2,331.1 795.9 604.2 368.2 213.3 126.3 78.6 50.3 94.3 

~ 

45 years-------------— 1959 2,329.6 :::.: 601.5 ::$.: 212.1 125.3 79.5 50.4 95.8


46 years--—-------—--— ------—---- 1960 2,332.3 601.7 212-5 125.6 79.8 50.6 96.7


47 years----------------------------- 1961 2,333.5 800:9 601.S 364:7 212.6 225.7 79.9 50.7 97.2


48 years-— 1962 2,333.9 800.9 601.8 364.7 212.6 125.8 80.0 50.7 97.4


49 years----------------------------- 1963 2,334.0 800.9 601-8 364.7 212.6 225.8 80.0 50.7 97.5


~ ““


46 years-------------—-— 1959 2,326.2 801.6 593.9 357.3 210.7 22.7.2 81.4 52.2 101.9 

47 years----------- ——------— 1960 2,327.5 801.7 594.0 357.4 210.8 127.4 81.5 52.3 102.4 

48 years--—---—-------—----—----- 1961 2,328.0 801.7 594.0 357.4 210.9 127.5 81.5 52.4 102.6 

49 years---------------—------------ 1962 2,328.1 801.7 594.0 357.4 210.9 227.5 81.5 52.4 102.7 

.50 years-------------—---—-----—-- 1963 2,1328.2 801.7 594.0 357.4 2L0.9 127.5 81.5 52.4 102.8 

47 years—-------— 1959 2,302.5 794.9 582.6 351.7 208.7 126.2 81.5 53.4 103.5 

48 years-----—----------- —--------- 1960 2,303.0 794.9 582.6 351.7 208.8 126.3 81.6 53.4 103.7 

49 years---------------------------- 1961 2,303.1 794.9 582.6 351.7 208.8 126.3 81.6 53.4 103’.8 

50 years-------—----— -—----------- 1962 2,303.2 794.9 582.6 351.7 208.8 126.3 81.6 53.4 103.9 

ylJ 

48 years-------------———---—----- 1959 2,285.1 783.4 574.0 347.6 207.4 127.3 83.3 54.8 107.3


49 years 1960 2,285.2 783.4 574.0 347.6 207.4 127.3 83.3 54.8 107.4


50 years 1961 2,285.3 783.4 574.0 347.6 207.4 127.3 83.3 54.8 107.5


~ 

49 years-— 1959 2,267.9 774.9 563.9 342.3 207.8 128.7 84.2 55.5 110.6


50 years------——--------------—--- 1960 2,26S.0 774.9 563.9 342.3 207.8 128.7 84.2 55.5 110.7


J90Q 

50 years--—--— 1959 2,229.7 769.0 551.7 332.8 203.1 1.26.4 83.1 55.4 108.2


NOTE: For comparable data for the years 1917 to 1958,see table 4,Vital Statistics—Special Reports, Vol. 51, No. 1, 1960.


Method of computation is discussed in the publication.


65 
---------------

---------------

---------------

---------------

---------------

---------------

---------------

-------------

---------------

---------------

-------------

Table 16. Percent distribution of all women, by parity, by exact age, in selected sroups of cohorts from 1876-80 to 1944-48:


United”States, 1920-63


(Notas to tables give.
m pageVIII) — 

Parity 

Iamlary 1 

Cohort and exact age of each Seven year Total Zero One Two Three Four Five six and 

over 

Exact ages-15-19


1944-48---------------


1943-47---------------


1942-46


1941-45


1936-40---------------


1931-35


1926-30---------------


1921-25


1916-20---------------


1911-15---------------


1906-10---------------


1901-05


Exact ages-20-24


1939-43---------------


1938-42---------------


1937-41---------------


1936-40---------------


1931-35---------------


1926-30---------------


1921-25


1916-20---------------


1911-15---------------


L906-10---------------


1901-05


1896-1900


Exact ages-25-29


1934-38


2.933
 -37---------------


1932-36---------------


1931-35


1926-30---------------


1921-25---------------


1916-20---------------


1911-15---------------


1906-10---------------


1901-05---------------


1896-1900


1891-95---------------


Percent distribution


1963 100.0 92.6 5.8 1.4 0.2 

1962 100.0 92.5 5.9 1.4 0.2 

1961 100.0 92.3 6.1 1.4 0.2 

1960 100.0 92.0 6.3 1.5 0.2 

1955 100.0 92.1 6.4 1.3 0.2 

1950 100.0 92.9 5.7 1.2 0.2 

1945 100.0 94.9 4.3 0.7 0.1 

1940 100.0 94.9 4.4 0.6 0.1 

1935 100.0 95.4 4.1 0.5 0.1 .-

1930 100.0 94.7 4.6 0.6 0.1 

1925 100.0 94.5 4.8 0.6 0.1 

1920 100.0 95.2 4.2 0.5 0.1 

I 

1963 100.0 47.7 24.3 17.2 7.3 2.5 0.7 0.2 0.1 

1962 100.0 46.7 24.8 17.6 7.4 2.5 0.7 0.2 0.1 

1961 100.0 46.3 25.2 17.8 7.3 2.4 0.7 0.2 0.1 

1960 100.0 46.2 25.5 17.8 7.2 2.3 0.7 0.2 0.1 

1955 100.0 50.4 25.4 15.9 5.9 1.8 0.5 0.1 0.0 

1950 100.0 55.7 26.5 12.7 3.7 1.0 0.3 0.1 

1945 100.0 63.2 22.7 9.6 3.2 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 

1940 100.0 67.2 20.7 8.5 2.6 0.7 0.2 0.1 

1935 100.0 67.9 19.8 8.4 2.8 0.8 0.2 0.1 0,0 

1930 100.0 63.5 22.1 9.8 3.3 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 

1925 100.0 61.0 23.2 10.5 3.7 1.2 0.2 0.’1 0.1 

1920 100.0 62.7 21.7 10.1 3.8 1.4 0.2 0.0 0,1 

I 

1963 100.0 17.3 18.4 27.4 19.4 9.9 4.4 1.9 1.3 

1962 100.0 17.4 18.5 27.7 19.3 9.7 4.3 1.9 1.2 

1961 100.0 17.9 18.8 28.0 18.9 9.4 4.1 L.7 1.2 

1960 100.0 18,9 19.2 28.0 18.3 8.9 3,9 1.7 1.1 

1955 loo.o~ 24.3 23.2 27.4 14.5 6.3 2.6 1.1 0.6 

1950 100.OI 28.4 29.4 24.5 10.4 4.2 1.8 0.8 0.5 

1945 100.0 37.8 28.o 19.1 8.4 3.9 1,7 0.8 0.3 

1940 100.0 43.7 26.2 16.2 7.4 3.7 1.7 0.7 0.4 

1935 100.0 41.5 25.6 16.7 8.3 4.4 2.0 0.9 0.6 

1930 100.0 36.3 26.2 18.1 9.8 5.5 2.5 1.1 0.1 

1925 100.0 34.8 25,3 18.5 10,5 6.1 2.8 1.2 0.8 

1920 100.0 35.1 23.3 18.5 11,4 6.6 3.0 1.2 0.9 

66 
---------------

---------------

---------------

---------------

---------------

---------------

-------------

---------------

---------------

Table 16. Percent distribution of all women, by parity, by exact age, in selected groups of cohorts from 1876-80 to 1944-48: United States, 1920-63—Con. 

(Nabs b tables given onpageWCC)

Parity 

anuary 1 

Cohort and exact age of each Seven 

Exact ages-30-34 

L929-33---------------

L928-32---------------

1927-31---------------

1926-30---------------

1921-25 

1916-20---------------

1911-15---------------

1906-10---------------

1901-05---------------

18Q6-1900-------------

1891-95---------------

1886-90---------------

Exact ages-35-39 

1924-28---------------

1923 -27---------------

1922-26 

1921-25---------------

1916-20---------------

-15---------------

1906-10---------------

1901-05---------------

1896-1900-------------

1891-95 

1886-90---------------

1881-85 

Exact ages-40-44 

1919-23---------------€

1918-22---------------€

1917-21---------------€

1916-20---------------€

1911-15€

1906-10---------------€

1901-05€

1896-1900€

1891-95€

1886-90---------------€

1881-85€

1876-80---------------€

year Total zero One Two Three FGUS Five six	 and 

over 

Percent distribution 

1963 100.0 12.2 12.3 25.1 22.2 13.7 7.0 3.7 3.8 

1962 100.0 13.0 12.9 25.4 21.9 13.1 6.6 3.4 3.7 

1961 100.0 13.7 13.6 25.9 21.5 12.5 6.2 3.2 3.4 

1960 100.0 14.0 14.5 26!5 21.1 12.0 S.8 3.0 3.1 

1955 100.0 15.7 19.8 29.0 18.2 8.9 4.1 2.1 2.2 

1950 100.0 22.0 23.6 26-4 14.1 6.8 3.3 1.8 2.0 

1945 100.0 28.7 25.2 22.2 11.2 5.8 3.1 1.8 2.0 

1940 100.0 30.2 25.1 20.1 10.6 6.1 3.4 2.2 2.3 

1935 100.0 26.7 24.2 20.2 11.8 7.3 4.2 2.8 2.8 

1930 100.0 24.5 22.0 19.9 12.9 8.6 5.1 3.3 3.7 

1925 100.0 23.3 20.2 19.3 13.6 9.6 5.9 3.7 4.4 

1920 100.0 24.1 19.1 17.6 13.3 10.1 6.7 4.3 4.8 

1963 100.0 11.7 13.4 24.6 20.9 13.1 7.1 3.9 5.3 

1962 100.0 12.0 14.0 25.2 20.6 12.7 6.7 3.7 5.1 

1961 100.0 11.9 15.0 25.8 20.4 12.2 6.4 3.5 4.8 

1960 100.0 12.0 15.8 26.3 20.1 11.8 6.1 3.3 4.6 

1955 100.0 17.1 19.1 26.1 17.2 9.3 4.7 2.6 3.9 

1950 100.0 22.4 21.7 23.9 14.1 7.6 4.0 2.5 3.8 

1945 100.0 24.7 23.2 21.7 12.3 7.1 4.0 2.7 4.3 

1940 100.0 22.9 22.8 20.6 12.5 7.9 4.6 3.3 5.4 

1935 100.0 21.2 20.3 19.5 13.3 9.1 5-5 4.0 7.1 

1930 100.0 19.7 18.2 18.4 13.9 10.1 6.4 4.7 8.6 

1925 100.0 20.0 17.0 16.3 L3.2 10.5 7.3 5.5 10.2 

1920 100.0 20.0 16.3 15.7 12.5 10.2 7.5 6.2 11.6 

1963 100.0 11.5 16.4 25.8 19.2 11.6 6.2 3.6 5.7 

1962 100.0 12.5 17.1 25.6 18.7 11.2 6.0 3.4 5.5 

1961 100.0 14.1 17.5 25.4 18.1 10.7 5.7 3.2 5.3 

1960 100.0 15.8 17.9 25.1 17.4 10.2 5.4 3.1 5.1 

1955 100.0 20.7 20.5 23.5 14.7 8.3 4.5 2.8 5.0 

1950 100.0 22.6 22.2 21.8 12.9 7.7 4.4 2.9 5.5 

1945 100.C 21.4 22.3 20.5 12.7 8.1 4.8 3.5 6.7 

1940 100.C 20.2 19.9 19.2 13.3 9.1 5.5 4.1 8.7 

1935 100.C 18.7 17.7 17.9 13.6 10.1 6.4 4.8 10.8 

1930 100.C 18.8 16.4 15.7 12.8 10.4 7.2 5.6 13.1 

1925 100.C 18.7 15.6 15.0 11.9 9.9 7.3 6.2 15.4 

1920 100.C 17.6 15.3 13.9 11.5 9.8 7.5 6.7 17.7 

NOTE: The percent distributions are based upon the cumulative rates in table 13. 

67 

U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE :19640-743-691 

1911
REPORTS FROM THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS 

Public Health Service Publication No. 1000 

Series 1. Program and collection procedures 

No. 1. 

No. 2. 

Series 2. 

No. 1. 

No. 2. 

No. 3. 

No. 4. 

Series 3. 

No. 1. 

No. 2. 

Series 4. 

Series 10. 

No. 1. 

No. 2. 

No. 3. 

No. 4. 

No. 5. 

No. 6. 

No. ‘7. 

No. 8. 

No. 9. 

No. 10. 

No. 11. 

No. 12. 

Ssries 11. 

No. 1. 

No. 2. 

No. 3. 

No. 4. 

No. 5. 

No. 6. 

Series 12. 

Series 20. 

Series 21. 

No. 1. 

Series 22. 

Series 23. 

Origin, Program, and Operation of the U.S. National Health Survey. S5 cents. 

Health Survey Procedure: Concepts, Questionnaire Development, and Definitions in the Hsslth Interview Survey. 45 cents” 

Data evaluation and methods research 

Comparison of Two-Vision Testing Devices. 30 cents. 

hfeasurement of PersonaI HeaIth Expenditures. 45 cents. 

The One-Hour Oral Glucose Tolerance Test. 30 cents. 

Comparison of Two Methods of Constructing Abridged Life Tables. 15 cents. 

Analytical studies 

The Change in Mortality Trend in the United States. 35 cents. 

Recent hfortality Trends in Chile. 30 cents. 

Documents and committee reports 

No reports tn date. 

Dats From the Health Interview Survey 

Acute Conditions. Incidence and Associated Disability, -. United Ststes, Julv 1961-June 1962. 40 cents. 

Family Income in Relation to Selected Health Character sties, United States. 40 cents.


Length of Convalescence After Surgery, United States, JuIy 1960-June 1961. 35 cents.


Disability Days, United States, July 1961-June 196$2. 40 cents.


Current Estimates Frem the Health Interview Survey, United States, July 1962-June 1963. 35 cents.


Impairments Due to Injury, by Class and Type of Accident, United States, July 1959-June 1961. 25 cents.


Disability Among Persons in the Labor Force, by Employment Status, United States, July 1961-June 1962. 40 cents.


Types of Injuries, Incidence and Associated Disability, United Statss, July 1957-June 1961. 35 cents.


Medical Care, Health Status, and Family Income, United States. 55 cents.


Acute Conditions, Incidence mrd Associated Disability, United States, July 1962-June 1963. 45 cents.


Health Insurance Coverage, United States, JrIly 1962-June 1963.


Bed Disability Among the ChrrmicalIy Limited, United States, July 1957-June 1961.


Data From the Health Examination Survey


Cycle I of the Health Examination Survey: Ssrnple snd Response, United States, 1960-1962. 30 cents.


Glucose Tolerance of Adults, United States, 1960-1962. 25 cents.


Binocular Vkual Acuity of Adults, United States, 1960-1962. 25 cents.


Blood Pressure of Adults, by Age and Sex, United States, 1960-1962. 35 cents.


Blood Pressure of Adults, by Race and Region, United States, 1960-1962. 25 cents.


Heart Disease in Adults, United States, 1960-1962.


Data Frnm the Health Records Survey


No reports to date.


Data on mortality


No reporte to date.


Data on natality


h’atality Statistics Analysis, United States, 1962.


Data on marriage and divorce


No reports to date.


Data from the progrsm of sample surveys related to vital records


No reports to date.


Catalog Card 

U.S. National Center for Health Staiisfics. 

Natality statistics analysis, United States, 196!2. An analytical study of fertility 

trends in terms of period and cohort measures. Also a discussion of characteristics of 

live births including plurality, seasonaI variation, period of gestation, weight at birth, 

sex ratio, attendant at birtb, and legitimacy. \Yashington, U.S. Department of Health, 

Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, 1964. 

67 p. diagcs., cables. 27 cm. (Its VitaI and health statistics, Series 21, no. 1) 

U.S. Public Health Service. Publication no. 1000, Series 21, no. 1 

1. U.S. - Scadscics, Vital. 2. Fertility, bunmn. 3. Infants (rrewbom) 

L Tide (Secies: US. PubIic Health Service. Publication no. 1000, Series 21, no. 1) 

CataloSed by Department of HecM, Education, and Welfare Library. 

I 

I !