Data from the

NATIONAL VITAL STATISTICSSYSTEM

Trends in Illegitimacy

UnitedStates-1940-1965

Describes the recent trends and differentials in illegitimacy, particularly for the period 1955-65. Presents estimates of illegitimacy

rates by color and age of mother. Discusses changes in the incidence of illegitimacy over time and variations in illegitimacy by

color, age of mother, Iive-birth order, and place of residence.

DHEW Publication No.’(HRA) 75-1013

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

Public Health Service

Series 21

Number 15

Health Resources Adm inlstratlon

National Center for Health Statistics

Rockville, Md. December 1974
Vital and Health Statistics-Series 21-No. 15

First issued in the public Health Service Publication Series No. 1000

February 1968

For do by the Superintendent of Docurncntiz U.& Wwmunent %Int!rq Offlco,Wrsbin@ou, D .C. 20102- ~1’~CQ 6G w!nts
NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS

THEODORED. WOOLSEY,DIRECTOR

PHILIP S. LAWRENCE, SC. D., Associate Director

OSWALD K. SAGEN, Ph. D., Assistant Director for Health Statistics Development

WALT R. SIMMONS, M. A., Assistant Director for Research and Scientific Development

ALICE M. WATERHOUSE, D. D., Medical Consultant

JAMES E, KELLY, D. D. S., Dental Advisor

LOUIS R. STOLCIS, M. A., Executive O//icer

DONALD GREEN, h/ornzatiwz O//ice7

DIVIS1ON OF VITAL STATISTICS

ROBE RT D. GROVE, Ph. D., Director

ROBERT A. ISRAEL, M.S., Chic{ Mortality Statistics Branch

ARTHUR A. CAMPBELL, Cbiej Natdity Statistics Branch

ROBERT D. GROVE, Ph. D., Acting CbieJ Registration Methods Branch

PATIENCE LAURIAT, M.A., Chit+ Marriage and Diuorce Statistics Branch

ARN E B. NELSON, Chief Vital Records Survey Branch

ALICE M. HETZEL, CbieJ Statistical Resources Section

Public Health Service Publication No. 1000-Series 21-No. 15

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 67-62372
CONTENTS

Page

Introduction ----------------------------------------------------------

Source of Data and MetiodoIo~-----------------------------------------

The Illegitimacy Rate --------------------------------------------------

Comparison of the United States with England and Wales ----------------

Premarital Conceptions Ending illegitimate Births --------------------

Illegitimacy Rates by Age and Color ----------------------------------

Live-Birth Order and Color -----------------------------------------

Geographic Variation -----------------------------------------------

Trends tiNumbers of ~egittiate Btiths --------------------------------

Illegitimate Births as a Proportion ofTotal Births- -----------------------

Analytical Problems Associated with the Illegitimacy Ratio -------------

Trends in the IUegitimacy Ratio by Color -----------------------------

Live-Birth Order and Color -----------------------------------------

AgeofMother and Live-Birth Order byColor --------------------------

Variation in Illegitimacy Ratios by Place of Residence ----- -------------

Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Residence --------------------------

Characteristics of Unwed Metiers ---------------------------------------

Factors Accounting for Color Differences in IUegitimacy ------------------

Factors Accounting for thekcreasing Illegitimacy Rate -------------------

Health Characteristics ------------------------------------------------

Birth Wei@t -------------------------------------------------------

Attendant at Btiti --------------------------------------------------

Differentials tithe Frequency of Fetal Deati --------------------------

Adoption and k@ttiation -------------------------------------------

Summaq -------------------------------------------------------------

References -----------------------------------------------------------

1

1

2

2

3

3

5

6

7

10

10

11

12

12

12

12

14

15

16

17

17

19

19

21

21

22

. . .

111
CONTENTS-Con.

Detailed Tables -------------------------------------------------------

Appendix I. Population Estimates ------------------------------------

Appendix H. Evaluation of Illegitimacy Statistics ------------------------

Inferential Method --------------------------------------------------

Appendix III. Estimates of Births by Color for the United States in1962 and

l963----------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix IV. Adjustment of Numbers of Illegitimate Births in theDistrictof

Columbia and South Dakota --------------------------------------------

District of Columbia ------------------------------------------------

South Dakota -------------------------------------------------------

Appendix V. Biases Due to Incomplete Reporting of Legitimacy Statusby

State of Residence ---------------------------------------------------

Appendix VI. Ranking of Reporting States According to Illegitimacy Rates

and Illegitimacy Ratios, 1960-----------------------------’------------

23

71

72

73

82

83

83

84

85

89
SYMBOLS

Data notavailable ----------------------- ---

Category nonapplicable ------------------ . . .

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

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

Figure doesnot meet standards of

reliability orprecision -----------------

*
IN THIS REPORT recent trends and differentials in ille~”timacy are

desc~ibed. Statistics on illegitimacy in the United States are dm”ved

from information required on the birth certificates of 34 States and the

District of Columbia. This analysis is based principally on the ille@”timacy rate (num bev of illegitimate births per 1,000 wnmam”ed women

15-44 years of age). TYends and differentials in the ille~”timacy vatio

(number of ille~”timate births pev 1,000 total live bi$nths) are also discussed, but the important shortcomings of this measure as an analytical

tool ave emphasized.

All of the measures indicate that the incidence of illegitimacy has increased oveY the past 25 years. The illegitimacy rate, for example, has

incveased from 7.1 in 1940 to 23.5 in 1965.

The difference in ille~.timacy between the white and the nonwhite population is wide. Although the measuves of illegitimacy huve always been

higher for the nonwhite than for the white popwi!ution, this differential

has been declining in recent yea?%.

Other important differentials in illegitimacy can be seen when the bivths

are classified by age of mother, live-birth order, and place of residence.

Socioeconomic statws is considered an important factor in accounting

for differentials in illegitimacy.

Finally illegitimate children swffw not only socially because of their

legal status bwt also with respect to their physical development at birth

and their subsequent health.

vi
TRENDS IN ILLEGITIMACY

Alice J. Clague and Stephanie J. Ventura, Division of Vital Statistics

INTRODUCTION

The steady increase in the annual number of

illegitimate births since 1940 has led to widespread public concern for the causes and consequences of illegitimacy in the United States. The

principal purpse of this report is to examine this

trend and describ some of the factors associated

with it.

The principal topics covered here are

(1) trends and differentials in the incidence of illegitimacy, (2) factors accounting for these trends

and differentials, and (3) differences in health between the legitimate and illegitimate newborn infants.

The basic data are presented in tables 1-26,

which follow the text. Most of the data shown in

the text are based on these tables. A number of

speci~ tabulations were prepared for 1964, the

most recent year for which detailed data were

available at the time this report was written.

The previous report on this subject was “Illegitimate Births: United States, 1938 -1957.”1 In addition to the information in that publication, further

detailed tables are shown in the annuaI report,

Vital Statistics of the United States, Vol. 1,

SOURCE OF DATA AND

METHODOLOGY

The source of data for this report is the certificate of live birth filed for each child born in

the United States. The birth certificates of 34

States and the District of Columbia include an item

asking for the legitimacy status of the child.

Over the years included in this study, the

number of States asking for the legitimacy status

of the child has declined. During the 1930’s almost

all States had the legitimacy item on their certificates. During the 1940’s, however, a concern

for the confidentiality of this item prompted a

number of States to remove it. Today most State

vital statistics offices take special care to insure

the confidentiality of a child’s legitimacy status.

The quality of illegitimacy statistics is affected by the completeness of birth regismation as

well as by the accuracy with which the legitimacy

item is completed. Some of the recent increase

in illegitimate births may be due to improvements

in the registration of births. However, improved

reporting could account for only a small part of

the observed increase.

No attempt has been made to evaluate the accuracy with which the legitimacy question is compIeted. It is impossible to say whether the accuracy has varied over time, yet it is probable that

variation in accuracy exists among different segments of the population.

It was noted above that only 34 States and the

District of Columbia currently report illegitimacy. Among the nonreporting States are New

York, California, and Massachusetts, together

accounting for 21 percent of all births in 1964. In

order to have national figures on illegitimacy,

estimates are prepared for the number of illegitimate births occurring in these and other nonreporting States. To obtain national estimates, all

States are grouped into nine geographic divisions.

l%e combined ratio of illegitimate births per 1,000

total live births for all reporting States in a single

1
geographic division is then applied to all the live

births occurring to residents of that division. This

yields an estimate of illegitimate live births for

the geographic division. This procedure is applied

separately to white and nonwhite births. The sum

of these estimates for the nine geographic divisions makes up the estimate for the United States.

This method assumes that the nonreporting

States in a given geographic division have the same

proportion of illegitimate births as the reporting

States in that division. The reliability of the estimates is therefore influenced by the proportion

of births to residents of the reporting States in

each geographic division. In some divisions this

proportion is small, particularly in the New England, Middle Atlantic, Mountain, and Pacific Divisions. Therefore an independent estimate was

made of the number of illegitimate births in the

nonreporting States in 1964 in order to evaluate

the usual estimation procedure. k general, the independent estimates of illegitimacy were remarkably consistent with the results obtained from the

customary estimation procedure. The method and

results of the evaluation are described in detail in

Appendix H.

The findings in this report are based largely

on the illegitimacy rate, which is the number of

illegitimate births per 1,000 unmarried women

aged 15-44 years. This rate is used to measure

the likelihood that an unmarried woman will give

birth.

.—. —— —.——.

Other analytical measures that are sometimes used in describing patterns of illegitimacy

will be discussed where appropriate. These include the illegitimacy ratio (the number of illegitimate births per 1,000 total births) and the total

illegitimacy rate (number of illegitimate births

per 1,000 total women aged 15-44 years).

THE ILLEGITIMACY RATE

Comparison of the United States With

England and Wales

Trends in the illegitimacy rate for the United

States are available for a relatively sho~rt period

of time, because all States were not included in

the birth-registration area until 1933 and estimates for the States not reporting illegitimacy

were not made until 1938. In England and Wales,

where the registration system is older, comparable data are available since 1850.2 The long historical trend shown in figure 1 for this country

gives some perspective to the picture presented

by the United States for the shorter period. It

suggests that illegitimacy may have been nearly

as high in the past as it is now. In any case, we

cannot assume that the currently high rates represent a phenomenon entirely without precedent

in Western society.

I

40

20

10

8

6

A [

UNITED STATES

\

ENGLAND AND WALES

1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I850 186o 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960

Figure 1. 11legitimacy rates: England and Wales, 1851-1962,2 and United States, 19W0-65.

(Semi logarithmic scale, Rates for the Un ited States are est imated)

2
In England and Wales, the illegitimacy rate

declined fairly steadily from 18.3 during 1851-60

to a low of 5.5 illegitimate births per 1,000 unmarried women in the early 1930’s. There was

relatively little change until the 1940’s. Then the

rate rose rapidly to 16.1 in 1945 and began to decline immediately after the war to a level of about

10 illegitimate births per 1,000 unmarried women

in 1950. After 1955, the rate began to increase

rapidly and steadily, as it had during the early

war years, until by 1962 it had reached a level of

18.9, almost the same as the rate observed during

the 1850’s.

‘The illegitimacy rate for the United States

increased steadily from 1940 to 1957 (from 7.1 to

21.0) in contrast to the rise and fall in the illegitimacy rate experienced in England and Wales during the last two decades. There has been little

change in rate during the period 1958-65: in some

years the rate increased, while in others it declined slightly. In 1965 the rate was 23.5. Figure

1 indicates that during the 1950’s the illegitimacy

rates for both countries increased at about the

same pace.

Premarital Conceptions Ending in Legitimate

Births

Not all conceptions occurring before marriage result in illegitimate births. In many cases

the couple marries before delivery and the child

is registered as legitimate. Some inferential data

on this pattern of behavior are presented in table

A. These data are based on a survey of marriage,

fertility, and childspacing conducted by the Bureau

of the Census in 1959.3 According to table A, the

proportion premaritally pregnant has risen for

white women married since 1945. For example,

among white women who first married during

1955-59, 16.0 percent had a first birth within 8

months of marriage. This proportion is twice as

great as the comparable proportion among white

women who first married during 1940-44. For

nonwhite women there has been an increase in the

proportion premaritally pregnant in every marriage cohort since 1900. It is clear therefore that

the proportion of legitimate births conceived before marriage has increased substantially.

Table A. Estimated percent of women married in specified years whose first

child was born within 8 months of marriage, by color: United StaEes

Marriage cohort and color Percent

I

Wbite women I

1955 -59-------------------------

1950 -54-------------------------

1945 -49-------------------------

1940 -44-------------------------

1935-39 ------- ------- ------- ----

:;;: -::-------------------------

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

1920~24-------------------------

1910 -19-------------------------

1900 -1909 -----------------------

Nonwhite women

1950 -59-------------------------

1940 -49-------------------------

1930 -39-------------------------

1920 -29-------------------------

i9io-19-------------------------

1900 -1909 -----------------------

16.0

11.9

10.3

41.3

29.4

25.5

21.8

20.7

11.8

NOTE: Figures based on data shown in

cables 16 and 17 in U.S. Bureau

Census.

of the

“MarriaEe, Fertility and Childspacing, August-1959, ” by W; Grabill and

R. Parke, Jr. , Current Population Rep

Series P-~0, No. 108, Washington,

. ● > July 1961.

Illegitimacy Rates by Age and Color

Illegitimacy rates for white and nonwhite

women are usually not published because of the

unreliability of ~pulation estimates by age, sex,

color, and marital status. Estimates of theppulation by these demographic characteristics are

available for the census years 1940 and 1950 and

for each of the intercensal years since 1957. Since

intercensal estimates of thenumbersofunmarried

women by age were obtained from a sample survey,

they fluctuate widely from year to year. Therefore

they were smoothed for the computation of illegitimacy rates. (See Appendix I for the method used in

the adjustment.)

There are large differences in the incidence

of illegitimacy between white and nonwhite women

3
as shown in figure2 andtableB. In1940theillegitimacyrate for nonwhitewomen was 35.6,

about10 times greaterthanthe rateof 3.6for

white women. During the 1940’sthe raterose

more rapidlyfornonwhitewomen thanforwhite.

By 1950theratefortheformerwas 71.2,andthat

forthelatterwas 6.1.Sincethentherisehas been

slightlymore rapidforwhitewomen. Althoughthe

nonwhiteratefor1950was about12timeshigher

thanthewhiterate,by 1965thiscolordifferential

(expressedas theratioofthenonwhitetothewhite

measure)had declinedtoslightlyover 8 timesas

high.In thatyear 9.8percentof theunmarried

nonwhitewomen and 1.2percentoftheunmarried

whitewomen had an illegitimatechild.Actually,

the illegitimacyrate for nonwhitewomen has

Table B. Estimated number of illegitimate births per 1,000 unmarried women 15-44, by

age and color of mother: United States, 1940, 1950, 1960, 1964, and 1965

[Refers only to births o..urring within the United States. Alaska and Hawaii includedbegirmiwg 1960. Figures for age of mother

not stated are distributed. See Appendix I for method of estimating populatio~

Age and color

15-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

15-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

15-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

Total

15-44 years2------------------------

years-------------------------------

years-------------------------------

years-------------------------------

years-------------------------------

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

~eZ; s------------------------------

White

15-44 yearsg------------------------

years-------------------------------

years-------------------------------

years-------------------------------

years-------------------------------

years-------------------------------

yearss------------------------------

Nonwhite

15-44 yearsg------------------------

years-------------------------------

years---------------------------.-.-

years-------------------------------

years-------------------------------

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

gz: 3 ------- ------- ------- ------- --

19651 I

19641 I19601 I1950 I1940

Rate per 1,000 unmarried women

in specified group

23.5

16.7

39.9

49.3

37.5

11.6

7.9

22.1

24.3

16.6

4.9

97.6

75.8

152.6

164.7

137.8

39.0

23.0

15.8

39.9

50.2

37.2

16.3

4.4

11.0

7.3

21.2

24.1

15.9

4.8

97.2

74.0

164.2

168.7

132.3

34.5

21.6

15.3

39.7

45.1

27.8

14.1

3.6

9.2

1!:!

18.2

10.8

3.9

98.3

76.5

166.5

171.8

104.0

35.6

14.1

12.6

21.3

19.9

13.3

7.2

2.0

6.1

1::;

8.7

5.9

M

71.2

68.5

105.4

94.2

63.5

3;.;

●

7.1

7.4

%;

H

1.2

3.6

3.3

N

2.5

A:;

35.6

42.5

46.1

32.5

23.4

1;.;

.

lBased on a 50-percent sample of births.

2Rates computed by relating total births, regardless of age of mother, to woman

15-440

3Rates computed by relating births to mothers aged 40 and over to women aged 40-44.

4
':l.8888888 ,~

1940 1950 1960 196!

YEAR

Fiqure 2. Estimated illegitimacy rates. by color:

United States, 19k, 1950, 1955-65~

(Semi logarithmic scale)

showna slight declinesince1960(l percentduring

the period 1960-65) whiletheratefor whitewomen

has increased 26 percent. Trends intheiUegitimacy rate for white and nonwhite unmarried

women are illustrated in figure 2.

The illegitimacy rates for each age and color

group indicate that the trend is generally the same

for women of the same age within each color group

except for the age groups 15-19 and 25-29 (fig. 3).

Nonwhite teenagers have been the only group to

show a sustained decline since 1957. Between 1957

and 1965, there was a net decline of 5.6 births per

1,000 in the illegitimacy rates for nonwhite women

aged 15-19. In contrast rates for white teenagers

showed an increase of 1.5 births per 1,000.

Although it is commonly believed that teenagers have the greatest risk of bearing an illegitimate child (over 40 percent of the illegitimate

children are born to mothers 15-19 years of age),

these women actually have the lowest illegitimacy

rates among women under 35 years of age (table

B). In general the illegitimacy rates for women

25 years of age and over have increased more

rapidly than those for younger women during the

period 1940-65.

Live-Birth Order and Color

By relating the number of first illegitimate

births to the population of unmarried women, it is

possible to determine the minimum number who

,.2001- Nonwh~e 25-29 ~

“,

&

3

Ea

g 100

-1

0 80

0>1●7-7

- Nonwhite 20-24+

~.~ti

,,,,.,Was#,! 118,,

f

J~*W,,,,,,,,,i,s

NonwhM 15-19

t ~~.

Nonwh!te 30-34

,0

/ White 25.29?

o 1/

o

‘2P””’’3 I ~_+uA---

1940 1950 1960 196!

YEAR

Figure 3. Estimated i 11 egi t imacy rates, by age

of mother and color: United States, [940, 1950,

1955-65.

(Semi logarithmic scale)

5
Table C. Estimated number of illegitimate births and illegitimacy rates, by live-birth

order and color: United States, 1947, 1955, 1960, and 1964

~Refers only to births occurring within the United States. Live-birth order refers tn number of children born alive to mother. Figures for live-birth order not stated are distributed. Due to rounding estimates to tbe nearest hundred, figuresbycolormaynot

-1 add to total<

Year and color

Total

19641 -.------------- .-------------

19601 ---------------- ------------ -

1955------------------------------

1947------------------------------

White

19641 -----------------------------

19601 -----------------------------

1955;-----------------------------

1947------------------------------

Nonwhite

19641 -----------------------------

1960’ -----------------------------

1955------------------------------

1947:-----------------------------

Live-birth order

,1 I

Second

Total First and

higher

II I

Number of illegitimate

275,700

224,300

183,300

131,900

114,300

82,500

64,200

60,500

161,300

141,800

119,200

71,500

births

147,500

1;; ,;;;

81:800

76,200

52,600

42,100

44,600

71,200

57,700

49,500

37,200

128,000

114,000

91,600

50,100

38,000

29,900

22,100

15,900

90,000

84,100

69,700

34,300

mr

Illegitimacy rates

23.0

21.6

19.3

12.1

11.O

R

---

97.2

98.3

87.2

---

12.3

10.6

9.7

7.5

7.4

5.9

5.2

---

42.9

40.0

36.2

---

10.8

11.0

::;

3.7

3.3

2.7

---

54.2

58.3

51.0

---

lBased on a 50-percent sample of births.

~Rates were not computed becauseno estimates of unmarried women bv color are available for 1947.

.

NOTES: Figures for 1947 and 1955 based on data shown in table H in National Office

of Vital Statistics, “Illegitimate Births? United States, 1938-57,” by J. Schachter

and M. McCarthy, Vital Statistics—Specxal Reports, vol. 47, N’o. 8, Public Health

Service, Washington, D.C. Sept. 1960.

Figures by birth order for 1960 based on data from unpublished tabulations, Natali.ty

Statistics, National Center for Health Statistics.

became mothers of an illegitimatechildforthe

firsttime in agiven year.(Someadditionalwomen

may have theirfirstillegitimatebirthsometime

afterthe birthofonemore legitimatechildren,but

it is impossibleto identifysuch women from information given on the birth certificate.) Table C

shows that in 1964 1.2 percent of the unmarried

women became mothers for the first time. The

proportions were 4.3 percent for nonwhitewomen

and0.7 percent for white women.

It appears that thewhite-nonwhite differential

has declined alittleover the past 10years dueto

an increased tendency of white women to have il6

legitimatechildrenof allorders. Figure 4indicates that there has been littleornochange in the

rate ofhigher order illegitimacy among nonwhite

women. Infact,mostoftheincreaseinillegitimacy

rates since 1955 for both color groups can be attributed to an increase in first illegitimate births.

Geographic Variation

Each State has its own laws and regulations

defining an illegitimate birth. In some States an

illegitimate birth is a child whose mother reports

that she isnot currently married. The birth cer-
80

(n

; 60 -

Nonwhite- higher birth order

i

Y

: 40 ,,i,,,,, !,,,,, t,tt,,,,,, tt''t't t', ''''' ''''t' l'''' '1'1''1' ''''' '`l'' ''''' 1''1'111'l'

1’

~ Nonwhite- first birth order

5

: 20 -

z

w

E

>

c1 lo- M

~ 8- White - firs? birth order

z

~ 6- 1

z

3 Illllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll1lllllllllillllllllllllllllllll

z 4– White- higher birth order

o

--

1

m

w

Q

2

g

1

1955 1960

K

1964

YEAR

Figure 4. Estimated illegitimacy rates, by livebirth order and color: United States.. 1955.1960. . .

and 196Y.

(Semi logarithmic scale)

tificates in a few of these States ask only “Is

mother married?” The childis consideredlegitimate if she is married. m other States, a birth

is classified as illegitimate if the child was conceived “out of wedlock” to an unmarried woman

or to a married woman by a man who was not her

husband. Every State assumes that a child born to

a widowed or divorced woman is legitimate if the

mother and her husband were living together at the

time of conception.

Since a high proportion of the illegitimate

births are to women who have never been married,

we can assume that any differences in the laws affect the legitimacy status of only a small proportion of all infants.

It is highly likely that the quality of reporting

varies from State to State and from one locale to

another within States. For example, it may be

easier for a woman to hide the fact that she is

not married if she lives in a large metropolitan

area than if she lives in a small town. Therefore

comparisons made between different geographic

locations should be made with caution. Small

differences may not mean a great deal.

Only in the census years is it pxssible to obtain estimates for each State of the number of unmarried women by age, estimates that are needed

to compute illegitimacy rates. In 1960 there were

24 illegitimate births per 1,000 unmarried women

aged 15-44 years in the reporting States; in other

words, 2.4 percent of the women’ ‘at risk” actually

had an illegitimate child.

The highest illegitimacy rates were found

primarily in the South Atlantic and in the East and

West South Central Divisions. Of the reporting

States, Alaska was the only State outside these

divisions with an illegitimacy rate above 25 per

1,000. The highest reported rates of-illegitimacy

were for Mississippi (64.3) and the District of

Columbia (60.0). South Carolina, Alabama, Florida, Alaska, Louisiana, and Delaware all had rates

between 40.0 and 50.0. (See table 3 for greater

detail.)

Most of the States with relatively low rates

of illegitimacy were in the New England or Midwestern areas.

The rates for white women were highest in

Hawaii (21 .5), West Virginia (16.4), and Delaware

(14.3) and lowest in Alabama (6.7), Mississippi

(6.0), and New Jersey (5.3). There was relatively

little correlation between rates for white and

nonwhite women. Nonwhite women in Delaware

(179.2), Florida (150.8), and Missouri (136.1) had

the highest rates while those in Michigan (72.5),

JVashington (62.4), and Hawaii (22.6) had the lowest.

TRENDS IN NUMBERS OF

ILLEGITIMATE BIRTHS

The number of illegitimate births estimated

for the entire United States has risen annually

since 1940 with only one exception. During the 25-

year period 1940-65, the estimated total more

than tripled, from 89,500 in 1940 to 291,200 in

1965 (table D).

In analyzing trends in numb&s of illegitimate

births, it is necessary to consider not only changes

in the “risk” that an unmarried woman will bear

an illegitimate child (as measured by the illegitimacy rate) but also changes in the size of the population “at risk” (unmarried women of reproductive age). The years between 1940 and 1965 can be

7
Table D. Estimated number of illegitimate births and ratio of illegitimate births to

total births, by color: United States, 1940-65

[Refers only to births occurring within the United States. Alaska included beginning 1959, and Hawaii, 1960. Due to rounding

estimates totbe nearest hund-red, figures by color may not add to totals]

Year

19651-------------------------------

19641-------------------------------

19631-------------------------------

19621-------------------------------

19611-------------------------------

19601-------------------------------

19591-------------------------------

19581-------------------------------

19571-------------------------------

19561-------------------------------

1955--------------------------------

19541

19531:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

19521-------------------------------

19511-------------------------------

1950--------------------------------

1949--------------------------------

1948--------------------------------

1947--------------------------------

1946--------------------------------

1945--------------------------------

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

1943--------------------------------

1942--------------------------------

1941--------------------------------

1940--------------------------------

Number , of ille~itimate

291,200

275,700

259,400

245,100

240,200

224,300

220,600

208,700

201,700

193,500

183,300

176,600

160,800

150,300

146,500

141,600

133,200

129,700

131,900

125,200

117,400

105,200

98,100

96,500

95,700

89,500

dividedintotwoperiodswithrespecttotrendsin

thesecomponentsas follows:

births123,700

114,300

104,600

94,700

91,100

82,500

79,600

74,600

70,800

67,500

64,200

62,700

56,600

54,100

52,600

53,500

53,500

54,800

60,500

61,400

56,400

49,600

42,800

42,000

41,900

40,300

167,500

161,300

154,900

150,400

149,100

141,800

141,100

134,100

130,900

126,000

119,200

113,900

104,200

96,200

93,900

88,100

79,700

74,900

71,500

63,800

60,900

55,600

55,400

54,500

53,800

49,200

Total White ~i;e

Illegithnacy

ratios per l,OCIO

live births

77.4

68.5

63.3

58.8

56.3

52.7

52.0

49.6

47.4

46.5

45.3

44.0

41.2

39.1

39.1

39.8

37.4

36.7

35.7

38.1

42.9

37.6

33.4

34.3

38.1

37.9

39.6

33.9

30.4

27.0

25.3

22.9

22.1

20.9

19.6

19.0

18.6

18.2

16.9

16.3

16.3

17.5

17.3

17.8

18.5

21.1

23.6

20.2

16.5

16.9

19.0

19,5

263.2

245.0

235.5

227.8

223.4

215.8

218.0

212.3

206.7

204.0

202.4

198.5

191.1

183.4

182.8

179.6

167.5

164.7

168.0

170.1

179.3

163.4

162.8

169.2

174.5

168.3

——

lBased on a 50-percent sample of births.

The changesinthesizeoftheunmarriedfePeriod

1940-57---

1958-65---

Trend in risk

of illegitimacy

up

Stable

Trend in

number of

unmarried

women 15-44

years of age

Down

up

male populationcan be explainedasfollows:

1.

2.

Althoughthe totalnumber of women increasedduringthe1940’sand 1950’s,an

increasingproportionofwomen married

intheseyears,causingthenumber ofunmarried women to decline(seetableE).

Duringthe 1940’sthe annualnumber of

birthsincreased;by 1958 thegirlsborn

in thoseyears began toreachage 15.In

8
Table E. Number and percent of unmarried women 15-44. bv color and age: United States.

1940, 1950, and-1966 ‘a

Color and age EEIz!TE

Number of

unmarried wornenl

in thousands

1960 1950 1940

Percent of

all women

who are unmarried

Total

12,523

5,439

2,870

1,461

1,016

888

849

11,142

4,863

2,599

1,298

892

759

730

1,381

576

271

163

124

129

119

15-44 years-------------------- 28.5 29.3 39.1

years--------------------------

years--------------------------

years----------------------.---

years--------------------------

years--------------------------

years--------------------------

White

10,289 10.017

15-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

15-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

15-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

4,434

2,021

1,050

814

830

868

8.779

5,555

1,686

765

688

761

834

8,802

4,868

1,422

618

559

631

704

1,486

687

264

147

129

130

130

84.3

30.5

13.8

11.3

11.9

14.1

27.7

83.3

34.4

16.7

13.8

14.5

16.9

28.9

88.4

48.7

25.9

19.6

18.5

19.4

15-44 years-------------------- 39.1

years--------------------------

years--------------------------

years--------------------------

years--------------------------

years--------------------------

years--------------------------

Nonwhite

3,907

1,781

911

711

715

753

1,238

84.3

29.5

12.8

10.4

11.1

13.3

34.8

83.9

34.4

16.3

13.5

14.1

16.3

32.4

89.3

49.7

25.9

19.3

17.8

18.5

15-44 years-------------------- 39.3

years--------------------------

years--------------------------

years---------------------.----

years-----------.--------------

years--------------------------

years--------------------------

527

240

138

104

115

115

84.2

37.8

;+;

18:3

21.0

79.4

:;.;

16:9

18.3

22.1

81.7

40.4

25.7

23.0

24.0

27.9

lPopulation enumerated as of April 1 for each year.

NOTES: Figures for 1960 based on data shown in table 176 in U.S. Bureau of the

Census, U.S. Census of Population, 1960, Detailed Characteristics, U.S. s~ry, )j’inal

Report, PC(l)-lD, Washington, U.S. Government Printing OttIce, “ 1963.

Figures for 1950 and 1940 based on data shown in table 102 in U.S. Bureau of the

Census, U.S. Census of Population,1950, Vol. II, Characteristics of Population, Pt. 1,

U.S. Summary, Ch. C., Washington, Uose Government printing Office, 1953.

each year thereafter,therehas beenan

increasingnumber ofwomen reachingthe

younger ages ofthereproductiveperiod.

Ithas alreadybeenshown thatthe’’risk”of

illegitimacy,asmeasuredbytheillegitimacyrate,

has leveledoffinthepast7years.Ifitisassumed

thatthe age-specificillegitimacyratescontinue

at their1965 levelsand thattheproportionsof

women unmarried by age for 1965 remain constant,thenitispossibletoprojectthenumberof

illegitimatebirthsthatwilloccurinfutureyears

ifonlythenunzbevofunmarriedwomen changes.

3. The decliningage atmarriageobservedin

the1940’sappearstohavereversedinthe

late1950’sandthe1960’s,therebyinflatingthenumber ofyoungwomenremaifing

unmarried.

9
500

In

z

1-

a

z

1

Hypothetical numbers, assuming that

illeqitimacyrates and proportions

‘unmarried, by oge, for1965 remain

constant. 4

0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I o

1940 [950 1960 [970 1980

YEAR

Figure 5. Estimated numbers of unmarried women 15-44 years of age and of illegitimate births, 19!0-65;

and hypothetical numbers of unmarried women and illegitimate births up to 1980: United States.

Figure 5 shows estimated numbers of unmarried women 15-44 years of ageandofillegitimate births for 1940-65 andhypotheticalnumbers

of women and illegitimate births up to 1980. The

projected figures, basedontheassumptions stated

above, indicate that the number of unmarried

women of reproductive age will increase from

an estimated 12,459,000 for 1965 to an estimated

16,173,000 for 1980. Even if theillegitimacyrates

remain constant attheir19651evels ,thenumberof

illegitimate births would increase from an estimated 291,200 in1965t0403,000by 1980 (fig. 5).

ILLEGITIMATE BIRTHS AS

A PROPORTION OF TOTAL BIRTHS

Analytical Problems Associated With the

Illegitimacy Ratio

The illegitimacy ratio (number of illegitimate births per 1,000 total births) is the measure

used when describing the proportion of all births

classified as illegitimate. It is useful in judging

the numerical impact of illegitimate babies on

services provided for the newbarn. This is an important function since the health of these infants is

more precarious and their needs for social, services greater.

However, the illegitimacy ratio has many

shortcomings as an analytical tool. When using

this measure, it is essential to remember that

two independent factors affect the numerator and

denominator. Illegitimate births (the numerator)

are affected by the size of the unmarried female

population and the rate of illegitimacy. The denominator (total number of live births) is primarily influenced by the factors that affect marital

fertility, including changes in spacing and completed family size and the proportion of women

who are married. If this changes, the ratio will

change, even if the numerator remains tie same.

For example, although the illegitimacy rate

has remained fairly stable during the 19601’s, the

number of unmarried women has been increasing and more illegitimate children are being born.

10
Simultaneously, there has been a general decline

in marital fertili~ associated with the delay of

births by married women. Therefore, there has

been a substantial rise in the illegitimacy ratio.

From 1959 to 1965, the illegitimacy ratio increased by 49 percent. The corresponding percentage increases among white and nonwhite

women were 79 and 21, respectively. Other measures of illegitimacy have changed as follows:

Number of illegitimate births ------ +32

I

+55 +19

Illegitimacy rate-- +7 +26 -3

Similarly contrasting impressions of the incidence of illegitimacy can be shown with respect

to age differentials. Table 9 indicates, for example, that the illegitimacy ratio has been highest at

the youngest ages—for example, in 1965 the ratios

per 1,000 live births were 785.3 for women under

15 years of age, 208.3 for those 15-19, and considerably lower for all women over 20. As shown

in table B, however, the illegitimacy rate has been

nigher at ages 20-24 and 25-29 than at ages 15-19.

Several factors contribute to the different

pictures presented by the illegitimacy rate and

ratio. Very few teenagers are married in comparison with older women. Therefore a smaller

propxtion of teenage girls are in a position to have

a legitimate child. The result is that even though

only a very small percent of the women aged 15-

19 years have an illegitimate chi~d (1.7 percent

in 1965), a much Iarger percent of all births to

teenage mothers are classified as illegitimate. In

contrast, a large proportion of women 20-24 years

of age are married and having legitimate children.

Therefore although the unmarried women of this

age have a higher risk of bearing an illegitimate

child than do those 15-19, they contribute only

a small proportion of all births to mothers aged

20-24.

Although the illegitimacy ratio is helpful in

indicating the proportion of infants requiring special services, its shortcomings impair its usefulness as an analytical measure.

: 200

iK

,m

u

>

i 100

; 80 -

+

~ 60 -

0

!. 40 - -(

K

.....

w

,,,.

a

,,..

,,.,

,,,.

●G,

; 20 -

●... .,, White ,,,,,8.

I

+,

,,,,,,.

a

‘‘ ‘%,,r, #“ “’!J!J1,,,lI,,,,,,,,,,O *,,,,,,,1-’

K

loLuukudJ

1940 1950 1960 1965

YEAR

Figure 6. Estimated illegitimacy ratios, by color:

Un i ted States, 1940-65.

(Semi logarithmic scale)

Trends in the Illegitimacy Ratio by Color

In 1940 the illegitimacy ratio was 37.9 per

1,000 total live births; that is, almost 4 percent

of the children born in that year were illegitimate.

By 1965 the ratio had risen to 77.4.

The illegitimacy ratio for white infants has

varied between 16 and 34 since 1940 (fig. 6). The

ratio began to increase in 1953 and has risen quite

rapidly through 1965.

For nonwhite infants the ratio has ranged between 163 and 263 per 1,000; it has been rising

steadily but slowly since 1948. In other words,

the proportion of babies born each year that are

illegitimate has been approximately 6 to 10 times

greater for the nonwhite than for the white population. Since the early 1950’s, the color differential

in the ratio has been diminishing, just as it has in

the illegitimacy rate. In both cases, the declining

differential is due to a more rapid increase in the

white than in the nonwhite measure.

Within the nonwhite population, the illegitimacy ratio for Negro births (270.9) was almut 2%

11
times as great as that for the other nonwhite races

(107 .8). Table 13 shows the variation in the ratio

among races for States.

Live-Birth Order and Color

The classification of illegitimate births by

live-birth order (table 11) indicates that the highest illegitimacy ratio in recent years has been for

first births: 136 illegitimate births per 1,000 in

1964, for example. In contrast, the illegitimacy

ratios for all higher order births ranged from 40

to 58 per 1,000.

For white births in 1964, the first birth illegitimacy ratio was 76 per 1,000 while the ratio for

all other birth orders was 20 or less. The comparable ratios for nonwhite births were 487 for

first births and between 163 and 276 for second

and higher births.

Age of Mother and Live-Birth Order

by Color

For the younger mothers, those under 20

years, the highest illegitimacy ratios have been

for first births, and the lowest for births of fifth

or higher order. This has been true for both white

and nonwhite births. Illegitimacy ratios classified

by age of mother and live-birth order are presented by color in table 12.

The highest illegitimacy ratios for babies

born to women over 20 have also been, with few

exceptions, for first births. However, the lowest

ratios for births to these women have been, in

many cases, for third and fourth births. In some

age groups, the ratio for fourth or fifth and higher

order births has been nearly the same as that

for first births. These relationships have been

similar within each color group.

Between 1955 and 1964, the illegitimacy ratio

increased most for first, second, and third births

to women over 25. For white births the illegitimacy

ratio rose most for births to older women, but

for nonwhite births there were declines in the ratio

for first births to mothers aged 30-40 and in the

ratio for third and fourth births to mothers over

30.

Variation in Illegitimacy Ratios by Place

of Residence

If the level of illegitimacy as measured by the

illegitimacy ratio is positively associated with the

illegitimacy level indicated by the rate in a given

State, we would expect the variation in illegitimacy

ratios by place of residence to be similar to the

variation in rates. Rank order correlation coefficients were computed for the relationship between

the illegitimacy ratios and rates in 29 reporting

States. There was a positive correlation of 0.95

between these measures of illegitimacy. For the

white and nonwhite groups separately, the coefficients of correlation were +0.73 and +0.76, respectively. Only a few States showed marked differences in their rankings. Detailed tables are

shown in Appendix VI. Trends in the illegitimacy

ratio for the States that have ever reported legitimacy since 1940 are shown in table 14.

Since the correlation between rates and ratios

is so great, it is not necessary to restate the variations by age of mother and color. Detailed data

are shown in table 15 for the reporting States.

Metropolitan and Nonmetropo[itan Residence

In order to compare the relative incidence

of illegitimacy between metropolitan and nonmetropcditan areas, the illegitimacy rates for

these two types of residence should be computed.

Since the necessary population estimates for unmarried women have not been available, however,

illegitimacy ratios have been used for the comparison.

In 1964 the illegitimacy ratio for women residing in metropolitan counties was 20 percent

higher than that for women residents of nonmetroPolitan counties —78.O per 1,000 total births compared with 65.0.

The difference by residence was 23 percent

for white births, but for nonwhite births there was

almost no difference (1 percent). Among white

births, those to mothers 15-19 years of age showed

the greatest residential variation— 119.7 for metropolitan births and 76.2 for nonmetropditan

births, a difference of 57 percent. Detailed ratios

are presented in table 17.

12
Data classifiedbymetropolitanand nonmetropolitancountyofresidenceare availablesince

1962.From 1962 to 1964,thegap betweenmetropolitanand nonmetropolitancountieswidened

slightlyduetothemore rapidriseoftheillegitimacy ratios in metropolitan counties.Most ofthe

35 reportingareasfollowedthepatternofhigher

ratiosinmetropolitancounties,as shown intable

18.However, therewere a few Stateswhere the

ratioswere higherin nonmetropolitancounties.

The illegitimacyratiois a very important

indicatorto a largecityor metropolitanarea

healthdepartmentoftheamountofspecialservices it willhave to provide.Table19 presents

Table F. Number and percent distribution

the proportion of births that were illegitimate in

150 standard metro@itan statistical areas in

1964. This proportion varied from a high of 20 percent in Memphis ,Tennessee, to a low of 1.3 percent in Provo-Orem, Utah. Among nonwhite births,

generally those in need of the most services, the

proportion of births classified as illegitimate was

as high as 50 percent, as in York, Pennsylvania.

The trends in the illegitimacy ratio for specified urban places indicates that the ratio has

been increasing in most places since 1955 (see

table 21).

For those people in the health professions who

must provide immediate care to a mother and her

of ille~itimate live births, by age of

mother; total of 35 reporting State;, 1955 and 1964 - - -

@efers IXIlyti illegitimate births occurring within the reporting area<o residents of mea. Figure.for age of mother not stated

are distributed]

Year and age of mother

Under

15-19

Under

20-24

25-29

:;-;;

19641

Total------------------------

15 years---------------------

years------------------------

20 years---------------------

years------------------------

years------------------------

years------------------------

years------------------------

40 yea%s and over ------------------

Under

15-19

Under

20-24

25-29

:;-:;

Total------------------------

15 years---------------------

%a~ars ---------------------

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

years------------------------

years------------------------

years------------------------

vears------------------------

40 yeah and over------------------

Total White Nonwhite

Number of illegitimate

live births

195.068

4,426

80,420

84,846

60,858

:;,;;:

7; 890

2,544

145,615

3,253

56,421

59,674

43,654

21,644

12,304

6,436

1,903

lBased on a 50-percent sample of births.

r

73,692

924

29,600

30,524

26,010

9,036

4,276

2,796

1,050

45,064

L

681

17,166

17,847

1;,;.5;

3:621

2,066

678

121,376

————

3,502

50,820

54,322

34,848

16,218

9,400

5,094

1,494

100,551

2,572

39,255

41,827

29,001

15,445

8,683

4,370

1,225

Percent distribution

100.0 II 100.0

4;:; 4;:;

43.5 41.4

31.2 35.3

12.9 12.3

5.8

i:: 3.8

1.3 1.4

T

100.0 100.0

3::; 3:::

41.0 39.6

30.0 32.5

14.9 13.8

::: :::

1.3 1.5

100.0

4::;

44.8

28.7

13.4

::;

1.2

100.0

3;::

41.6

28.8

15.4

::5

1.2

NOTE: Figures for 1955 based on data shown i.ntable J in National Office of Vital

Statistics, “Illegitimate Births, United States, 1938-57,” by J. Schachter and M.

McCarthy, Vital Statistics-Special Reports, Vol. 47, No. 8, Public Health Service,

Washington, D.C., Sept. 1960.

13
child, there is little reassurance in knowing that

the risk of having an illegitimate child has remained fairly constant in the past several years.

Even if there is no increase in the illegitimacy

rates, there will probably be larger and larger

numbers of mothers and illegitimate children to

care for i,n the years to come, simply because the

number of young unmarried women is rising rapidly.

CHARACTERISTICS OF UNWED

MOTHERS

According to data from the areas reporting

legitimacy status (34 States and the District of

Columbia as listed in table 7), 44’ percent of the

unmarried mothers giving birth in 1964 were

under 20 years of age (table F). A slightly larger

Table G. Number and percent distribution

proportion of the nonwhite unmarried mothers

(45 percent) than of the white unmarried mothers

(41 percent) were under 20. An additional 31

percent of all the unwed mothers in 1964 were

20-24 years of age. The proportion of unwed

mothers in this age group was somewhat higher

for white women (35 percent) than for nonwhite

women (29 percent).

More than half (52 percent) of the unmarried

mothers who had a child in 1964 reported that

this was their first child; 17 percent, their second;

and 10 percent, their third (table G). The corresponding proportions differ substantially between

the two color groups. For example, 66 percent

of the white unwed mothers but only 44 percent

of the nonwhite unwed mothers reported that the

baby was their first.

of illejzitimate live births, by color and

birth o~der: total of 35 reporting S~ates, 1955 and 1964- -

~?efers only to illegitimate births occurring within ihe reporting area to residents of area. Live-birth order refers to number of

chi Irlren born alive to mother. Figures for live-birth order not stated are distributed]

II , 1

Year and birth order

19641

Total ---------------------

First child ---------------------

Second child --------------------

Third child ---------------------

Fourth child --------------------

Fifth child and over ------------

1955

Total ---------------------

First child ---------------------

Second child --------------------

Third child ---------------------

Fourth child --------------------

Fifth child and over ------------

Total white Nonwhite

Number of

illegitimate births

195,068

101,557

33,362

19,040

12,868

28,241

145,615

71,504

28,164

15,977

10,578

19,392

29,570

7,188

;,&

2:934

121>376

;;,:;;

13:546

9,116

22,841

100,551

41,934

20,976

12,532

8,651

16,458

Percent distribution

100.0

52.1

17.1

9.8

1::2

100.0

49.1

19.3

11.0

1:::

LOO. O

65.9

14.3

7.5

5.1

7.3

100.0

65.6

16.0

7.6

4.3

6.5

100.0

43.7

18.8

11.2

J:;

100.0

41.7

20.9

12.5

1:::

Based on a 50-percent sample of births.

NOTE: Figures f~r 1955 based on data shown in table J in National Office of Vital

Statistics, “Illegitimate Births, United States, 1938-57,” by J. Schachter and M.

McCarthy, Vital Statistics-Special Reports, vol. 47, No. 8, Public Health Service,

Washington, D.C., Sept. 1960.

14
Between 1955 and 1964, these distributions

have changed only slightly. The proportion of

unwed mothers giving birth in 1964 who indicated

that this was their first child increased by a

small amount over the corresponding proportion

in 1955. This was due primarily to an increase

in the percentage of first births among nonwhite

mothers.

As would be expected, the proportion of first

births declined with each older age group of unmarried mothers (table 7). In 1964, 80 percent of

the births among unwed mothers under 20 were

first births. The corresponding proportion for

mothers 20-24 was 45 percent. For the age group

25-29 years, the percentage declined to 16 percent.

Within each maternal age group, first illegitimate births accounted for a greater proportion of

all illegitimate births for white than for nonwhite

mothers. Among unwed mothers under 20 years of

age, 92 percent of the births to white mothers

and 73 percent of the births to nonwhite mothers

were first born. The relative difference by color

was greatest for unmarried mothers at ages

20-24: the percentages of first births were 64

and 31 for white and nonwhite, respectively.

FACTORS ACCOUNTING FOR COLOR

DIFFERENCES IN ILLEGITIMACY

The differentials in illegitimacy between

white and nonwhite women are great. This is

reflected by all the measures used in this report.

Measure for 1964

I llegithacy

rate ------------

First birth illegitimacy rate---

Illegitimacy

ratio -----------

White

——

11.0

7.4

33.9

Non- Ratio of

white nonwhite

to white

L

97.2 8.8

42.9 5.8

245.0 7.2

This section presents some hypotheses that

have been suggested to account for these differentials.

First of all it may be that differences in the

timing of marriage after discovery of conception

account for an important part of the differences

in illegitimacy rates between white and nonwhite

women. William Pratt 4 found support for this

hypothesis in a study conducted in Detroit.

This research was conducted to see whether the

rise in illegitimate births and the decline in the

age at marriage in recent years might both reflect different adjustments to the same underlying trend—rising premarital conceptions.

The sample for his study was drawn from

about 20,000 first marriages occurring in Detroit

in 1960 (women over 45 years of age were excluded). One in eight white newlyweds and one

in two nonwhite newlyweds were included in the

sample. Information was collected by mail questionnaires.

One of his findings is that white couples are

more apt to marry soon after the discovery of

conception, while nonwhite couples may wait until

after the birth of one or more children before

marrying. He further states that

“The dramatic difference between white and

nonwhite illegitimate births is as much or

more a function of fewer marital resolutions

before the birth of the child as it is a function

of higher illegitimate conceptions.

“I suggest we are in fact witnessing a different

cultural pattern in family formation and

growth in the nonwhite population, which,

if far from universal, is nonetheless sufficiently widespread to merit special study . . . .

Overall, it seems to me that far more attention needs to be given to the patterns of

family formation and growth in the nonwhite

population before firm conclusions as to

illegitimacy trends, differentials and their

implications can be made.”

A second factor that might help to account

for the higher nonwhite illegitimacy rate is less

frequent induced abortion among Negro women.

No reliable estimates have been made of the

frequency with which induced abortion occurs,

but there has been much discussion of this in

recent years because of the health threat it

poses. The only research available on this subject was conducted by AIfred Kinsey, s and his

findings were reported to a conference on abortion

sponsored by the Planned Parenthood Federation

of America, Inc. He attributed his finding of less

frequent induced abortion among Negroes to

sociological differences.

15
There is considerable evidence that socioeconomic composition is an important factor contributing to the white-nonwhite clifferential in

illegitimacy. It is likely that if it were possible

to control for social class, much of the difference

between these two groups would disappear.

Finally, some people have ascribed the differences between white and nonwhite rates of illegitimacy to values and the access to the means of

realizing these values in behavior. These values

include attitudes toward extramarital intercourse,

“forced” marriage, induced abortion, and having

an illegitimate child. The variables relating to

access include knowledge and availability y of

contraception, the degree of difficulty in obtaining

an induced abortion, and the financial ability to

establish a family.

Each of these two types of variables differ

for different segments of the population as defined

by age, socioeconomic status, place of residence,

religion, race, and so forth. But it is also possible

that two groups with similar values have different

degrees of access to the means of realizing

their values, and thus differing rates of illegitimacy. It would require extremely careful and

thorough research to link these variables.

FACTORS ACCOUNTING FOR THE

INCREASING ILLEGITIMACY RATE

One factor that may help to account for the

rising illegitimacy rates is a decline in the incidence of induced abortion. Alfred Kinsey,5 in the

research discussed earlier, found that for women

born during the 40-year period 1890-1930, there

was no change in the incidence of premarital

pregnancy, but there was a rise in the frequency

with which these women ended a pregnancy by

abortion. Among ever-married women, he found

the lowest rates of abortion among the generation

born before 1890. The frequency of abortion rose

among women born during the next two decades

and then decreased for women born between 1910

and 1929. In his sample he found that between 88

and 95 percent of the premarital pregnancies

were ended by induced abortion.

In addition, he noted that the percentage

of girls who are having premarital intercourse

has increased considerably during the first half

of the 20th centuq. If a higher percentage of

girls are having premarital intercourse and if

it is more difficult to obtain an a?mrtion, then the

number of women having an illegitimate child

would increase unless more marry before giving

birth. Unfortunately, there is virtually no information available on levels or trends in illegal

abortion, and therefore it is not possible to

support or refute this hypothesis.

Another factor that may help to account for

the rise in illegitimacy is the reduction of sterility

associated with venereal disease. This cannot be

demonstrated with certainty, but it appears to be

a tenable hypothesis, particularly for the nonwhite

population. We do know that among nonwhite

married women, the prevalence of childlessness

was once quite high. Among ever-married nonwhite women 50-54 years of age enumerated in

the 1960 Census, for example, 28 percent reported

that they had never had any children. The proportion was much lower for younger women

(14 percent for ever-married nonwhite women 25-

29 years of age). It seems likely that this trend

toward fewer childless women represents an

increase in fecundity, probably due to the reduced

prevalence of venereal disease. 6 If there has been

an increase in the fecundity of the nonwhite population, it would affect the unmarried population

as well as the married and raise the likelihood

that premarital intercourse would lead to pregnancy and childbirth.

Such a trend may also have affected illegitimacy rates among certain segments of the

white population, particularly the poor and less

educated who generally have had less access to

adequate medical care.

Again, it should be emphasized that these

suggestions are speculative. We have no research

findings directly linking an increase in fecundity

with an increase in illegitimacy. But in an area

in which speculation is much more common than

research, the hypothesis of increased fecundity

appears to have somewhat more merit than other

inadequately supported speculations.

Another factor that may account for the large

increase in the illegitimacy rate among nonwhite

16
women during the 1940’s is the large-scale migration from southern farms into large cities in

many parts of the country. The dissolution of

families, crowded living conditions, and generally

unfavorable social and economic conditions may

have led to greater promiscuity.

William Goode 7 had hypothesized that there

tends to be more illegitimacy among groups of

the population that have not been completely

assimilated; therefore some association between

rates of migration and illegitimacy would be

expected. In order to get some indication of the

effect of migration on illegitimacy, the proportion

of migrants into each standard metropolitan

statistical area (SMSA) was obtained for the

white and nonwhite population between 1955 and

1960. This was correlated with illegitimacy ratios

observed in 1964.

For the nonwhite population there was a

negative correlation of 0.41 between illegitimacy

and migration; for the white population there

was a positive correlation of 0.28. Neither of

these can be considered meaningful. Clearly

more refined measures are needed to test this

hypothesis.

None of the factors discussed here can satisfactorily explain the rise in illegitimacy. It is

clear, therefore, that more careful and definitive

research is needed.

HEALTH CHARACTERISTICS

Illegitimate children are not only stigmatized

socially by their legal status but they also suffer

handicaps with respect to their physical development at birth and their subsequent health. This

has been demonstrated by studies conducted in

New York City 8 and can be shown in two health

related characteristics that are reported uniformly on the birth certificates of all States: the

birth weight of the child and the attendant at

birth and place of delivery.

In the study of matched live birth and infant

death records conducted in New York City over

a period of years, it was revealed that unmarried

mothers received less prenatal care and had more

complications of pregnancy than married mothers.

There was a higher rate of prematurity among

the illegitimate children than among legitimate

births and their risk of death was considerably

higher. For 1963 births, the infant death ratios

(deaths under 1 year of age per 1,000 live births)

were as follows:

Birth Weight

Various studies have shown that unmarried

pregtiant women are slower to accept prenatal

care and in general receive poorer prenatal care

than do married pregnant women. This is reflected

in the birth weight of their offspring. The median

weight of legitimate infants born in 1964 was 3,310

grams; it was only 3,110 grams for illegitimate

infants.

The percentage of babies born weighing less

than 2,501 grams (5?f lbs.)-i.e., those defined

as immature-is a good index of future health

because of the high morbidity and mortality in

this low birth weight group. By this criterion

14.6 percent of the illegitimate infants born in

1964 were immature as compared with 7.7 percent of the legitimate babies. The differences by

color are striking: more nonwhite Iegit imate

babies (13.0 percent) were immature than were

white illegitimate ones (11.3 percent), but the

gap between legitimate and illegitimate births

was wider for white infants. In other words, nonwhite infants had a high rate of immaturity regardless of their legitimacy status, whereas legitimacy

made a substantial difference for white infants

(6.8 percent of legitimate babies and 11.3 percent

of illegitimate babies were immature). See table

H for detailed data.

In general, the higher the birth order, the

higher the average weight of the child. Fewer

second and higher order births were immature

(8.0 percent) than were first births (8.5 percent).

This was true regardless of legitimacy and color

with one exception. Among white illegitimate

births, 13.2 percent of the second and higher

order births were immature but only 10.4 percent of the first births. This difference may reflect a difference in socioeconomic environment

17
Table H. Percent of live births immature and median birthweight, by legitimacy status,

live-birth order, and color: total of 35 reporting States, 1955 and 1964

EJYplaceof residence. Refers only to births occurring within the reporting area to residerksof area. Live-birth order refers h

the number of children born alive t,o mother. Figures for legitimacy status not stated or not reported are included in legitimate

births. Figures for birth weight not stated are distributed proportionately., The median is the value which divides a distribution

into two equal parts; one-half the values being less than the median and one-half being more]

Live-birth order

and color

Total live births---

White -----

Nonwhite--

First child ---------------

White -----

Nonwhite--

Second child and over-----

White -----

Nonwhite--

Birth orde~ not stated----

White -----

Nonwhite--

Total live births---

White -----

Nonwhite--

First child ---------------

White -----

Nonwhite--

Second child and over-----

White -----

Nonwhite--

Birth order not stated----

White -----

Nonwhite--

19641

+l’’’ti8.2

7.0

13.9

8.5

7.3

15.5

8.0

1::;

14.4

14.7

13.6

1955

Total Legiti- Illegitimate mate

Percent immature (2,500 grams or less)

7.7

1!::

7.7

7.1

14.2

7.6

1;:;

14.7

14.8

14.5

-11- 3,300 3,310

3,330 3,340

3,130 3,160

3,250 3,270

3,280 3,290

3,040 3,070

3,320 3,330

3,360 3,360

3,160 3,170

3,210 3,210

3,230 3,230

3,160 3,160

14.6

11.3

16.5

13.8

10.4

16.9

15.5

13.2

16.3

11.9

13.9

11.1

7.5

6.7

11.6

8.0

1<::

:::

11.0

9.5

8.3

12.0

7.2

1!:?)

;:?)

12.9

:::

10.6

8.9

8.2

11.0

Median weight in grams2

3,110

3,200

3,050

3,100

3,200

3,000

3,130

3,220

3,100

3,210

3,370

3,170

-11- 3,320 3,330

3,340 3,340

3,200 3,220

3,250 3,260

3,270 3,280

3,080 3,100

3,350 3,350

3,370 3,370

3,230 3,240

3,280 3,290

3,300 3,310

3,210 3,250

13.0

.—

11.2

13.7

12.8

10.7

14.3

13.1

1.2.2

13.4

13.k

10.3

14.0

3,150

3,210

3,130

3,120

3,190

3,060

3,190

3,240

3,180

3,140

3,200

3,120

IBased on a 50-percent sample of births.

$2.Computed to the nearest 10 grams on basis of exack conversion of interval limits

from po&ds and ounces.

NOTE: Figures for 1955 based on data shown in table 9 in National Office of Vital

Statistics, “Illegitimate Births, United States, 1938-57,” by J. Schachter and M.

McCarthy, Vital ...__ Statistics

Washington, D.C., Sept. #@a’ ‘ePorts’ ’01”47’ ‘0” 8’ ‘b’ic ‘ea’th ‘ervice’

18
and medical care between mothers of first

illegitimate births and mothers who had second

and higher order illegitimate births.

Attendant at Birth

Fewer illegitimate than legitimate children

were born in hospitals and more were delivered

by midwives in both 1964 and 1955; but the

situation had improved since the earlier date.

In 1964, 97.7 percent of the legitimate children

and 89.1 percent of the illegitimate children

were delivered in hospitals as contrasted with

94.1 and 74.9 percent, respectively, in 1955.

In some areas, usually where most babies

are born in hospitals, there were very small

differences between legitimate and illegitimate

children. For example, in the District of Columbia 98.8 percent of the legitimate and 98.3 percent

of the illegitimate children were born in hospitals. In Alabama however, 89.2 percent of

legitimate children and only 56.4 percent of

illegitimate children were born in a hospital.

Midwives deliver large numbers of children

in the Southern States. Among children born in

1964 to residents of Alabama, for example, 8.7

percent of the legitimate and 36.8 percent of

the illegitimate births were delivered by midwives. Mississippi and South Carolina had similarly large proportions of both legitimate and

illegitimate children delivered by midwives, as

shown in table J. The proportions of deliveries

attended by midwives among all children born to

residents of the 35 reporting States in 1964

were 1.5 percent for the legitimate and 7.7

percent for the illegitimate births.

Differentials in the Frequency of

Fetal Death

Another indicator of the differences in prenataI care received by married and unmarried

pregnant women is the relative frequency of

fetal death. Any termination of pregnancy other

than a live birth is defined by the World Health

Organization as a fetal death. Fetal deaths

Table J. Percent of deliveries conducted by midwives, by legitimacy status and color:

total of 35 reporting States and each of 13 Southern States, 1964

[By placeof residence. Refers only to illegitimate births occurring within reporting area to residents of the area. Based cm a 50-

percent sample. Figures for legitimacy not stated or not reported are included in legitimate births]

Area

Total for 35 reporting States ------

Alabama -------- -------- -------- --------- --

Delaware -------- -------- -------- -------- -

District of Columbia ---------------------

Florida -------- -------- -------- -------- --

Kentucky --------------------------- ------

Lou is iana ---------------- ----------------

Mississippi --.----- ---------------- ------

North Carolina ---------------------------

South Carolina ---------------- -----------

Tennessee -------- ------------------------

Texas .------- -------- -------- -------- ----

Virginia -------- -------- ---------------- -

West Virginia -------- -------- -------- ----

Legitimate

Total

1.5

White

0.4

Nonwhite

8.2

28.8

1.1

9.;

::;

37.1

::.;

7:2

7.0

9.8

1.1

Illegitimate

Total

7.7

36.8

1.3

9.;

W

43.7

10.3

20.5

$::

12.1

0.9

White

0.8

Nonwhite

11.8

40.9

1.8

13.6

;::

46.2

12.5

23.0

1:::

16.8

1.2

19
Table K. Fetal death ratios, by legitimacy status and color: total of 34 reporting

States, 1955-64

[By place of residence. Data refer only tQ fetal deaths for which th: period of gestation was given as 20 weeks or more or was -–

not statedJ

Year

Total

19642-------------------------------------------------

19632--------------------------------------------------

19622---.----------------------------------------------

;;%;3--------------------------------------------------

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

1959----------------------------------------------------

1958---------------------------------------------------

1957--------------------------------------------------

1956.---------------------------------------------------

19552”--------------------------------------------------

White

19642---------------------------------------------------

19632Y4-------------------------------------------------

19622Y4-------------------------------------------------

;;::3--------------------------------------------------

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

1959--------------------------------------------------

1958----------------------------------------------------

1957---------------------------------------------------

1956.---------------------------------------------------

19552--------------------------------------------------

Nonwhite

19642-------------------------------------------------

1963%4------------------------------------------------

19622,4------------------------------------.-------------

1961s--------------------------------------------------

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

1959---------------------------------------------------

1958-----------------------..---------------------------

1957---------------------------------------------------

1956--------------------------------------------------

19552--------------------------------------------------

1Includes legitimacy not stated.

EmzEmz

Ratio per 1,000 live births

15.5

15.3

15.3

15.9

15.8

15.8

16.4

16.3,

16.6

17.2,

13.2

13.1

13.3

13.8

13.8

13.7

14.2

14.3

14.5

15.0

26.6

26.3

25.8

26.8

26.2

26.7

27.3

26.7

27.4

28.6

14.7

14.5

14.6

15.3

15.1

15.2

15.7

15.7

16.1

16.6

13.0

12.9

;:.:

13:6

13.6

14.0

14.1

14.3

14.8

25.7

25.0

25.0

26.5

25.2

26.2

26.7

26.1

27.3

28.2

25.9

26.5

26.1

25.4

27.4

26.0

27;5

27.0

26.8

28.9

20.9

20.4

22.1

21.5

22.9

21.5

24.2

23.2

24;7

26.0

29.0

30.3

28.2

27:5

29.6

28.3

29.1

28.7

27.8

30.2

zData on fetal deaths by legitimacy status are not available for Rhode Island in

1955 and Virginia for 1962-64.

3 since the revi5ed Certificate of fetal death for Virginia introduced during 1961

did not contain a question on legitimacy status,the count of illegiti~te fetal deaths

for this State is understated.

4Figures by color exclude data for residents of New Jersey.

NOTE: Figures for 1955-64 based on data shown in National Center for Health Statistics, Vital Statistics of the United States, Vol. II, Washington, U.S. Government

Printing Office.

20
include, for vital statistics purposes, stillbirths

and miscarriages as well as induced alxmtions.

Statistics from vital records include registered

fetal deaths occurring after 20 weeks of gestation. The fetal death ratio (fetal deaths per

1,000 live births) has been 50 percent higher

for illegitimate pregnancies than for’ legitimate

among white women. For pregnancies to nonwhite women, the corresponding difference has

been about 10 percent (fig. 7).

In 1964, 2 percent of the pregnancies to

unmarried white women and 3 percent of the

pregnancies to unmarried nonwhite women ended

in a fetal death after 20 weeks of gestation.

There has been very little change in these percentages during the past 10 years (table K).

Adoption and Legitimation

Illegitimate children begin life with more

precarious health than do other children. In

addition, illegitimate babies have social handicaps. Under what conditions do children with

these disadvantages grow to maturity?

There are several possibilities: a child may

be adopted, either by relatives or by unrelated

persons, thus becoming a member of a socially

recognized family; his parents may marry and

“legitimize” the chil@ he may not survive infancy or he may survive with unchanged legal

status and be raised by his mother or another

person or be put in an institution.

Attempts have been made in a few States

to determine how many illegitimate children are

adopted or legitimized. For example, Minnesota

found that of the 1,527 illegitimate children born

in 1952 in that State, 53 percent were adopted

and 11 percent were legitimized by the age of

10.9 Robert W. Hiller of the Minnesota Department of Health obtained these figures by examining

the birth certificates that had been replaced by

revised certificates. Hiller suggests that a more

complete study would also take into account

welfare records and death certificates.

The “replaced” certificates, representing legitimation, constitute a readily available source

of data for additional information on the circumstances under which an illegitimate child is

~aised. Research based on these records should

be encouraged.

Nonwhite legitimate

20 -

White illegitimate

IlJlIllldlf1lIlllll1IllllflIlIlIlh,,lIIillllliliIlrtllltlll1J1ill,,i,llllllll

White+logitimote

1:,~

1964

YEAR

Figure 7. Fetal death ratios, by lea itimacy status

and color: total of 34 reporting S;ates, _1955-64

(Semi logarithmic scale)

SUMMARY

Statistics on illegitimacy in the United States

are based on information required on the birth

certificates of 34 States and the District of Columbia. Although the number of States requiring that

legitimacy status be reported has declined since

the late 1930’s, it is possible that the registration

of illegitimate births in the States requiring it

has improved over the past 25 years.

Trends and differentials in the incidence of

illegitimacy are described in this report. The

analysis is based principality on the illegitimacy

rate (number of illegitimate births per 1,000

unmarried women 15-44 years of age); this

measure is useful because it reIates illegitimate

births to the population at risk. Trends and

differentials in the ratio of illegitimate births

to total births are also described, but the important shortcomings of this measure as an analytical

tool are emphasized.

21
All of the measures indicate that the prevalence of illegitimacy has increased over the past

25 years but that there have been several distinct

periods in this quarter century. The illegitimacy

rate, for example, nearly doubled from 1940

(7.1) to 1950 (14.1). The rate continued to rise

rapidly until 1957 (21 .0), and since then the increase has slowed down considerably. By 1965

the rate was 23.5, or only 12 percent higher than

in 1957.

The differences in illegitimacy between the

white and nonwhite population are wide. Although

the measures of illegitimacy have always been

higher for the nonwhite than for the white population, this differential has been declining in recent years. For example, in 1950 the illegitimacy

rate for nonwhite women was 71.2, or nearly

12 times greater than the rate of 6.1 for white

women. By 1965 this differential had declined

to slightly over 8: the rates were 11.6 and

97.6 for white and nonwhite women, respectively.

Other important differentials in illegitimacy

can k seen when the births are classified by age

of mother, live-birth order, and place of residence. Socioeconomic status is considered an

important factor in accounting for differentials

in illegitimacy. Among the lower status groups,

for example, there may be less use of contraception, less availability of abortion, and less likelihood that a woman will marry after she becomes

pregnant.

Finally, illegitimate children suffer not only

socially, because of their legal status, but also

with respect to their physical development at

birth and their subsequent health. The different

circumstances under which these children can

grow up have been discussed.

The inability to account satisfactorily for the

increasing prevalence of illegitimacy or for

the differentials in illegitimacy demonstrates

clearly the need for more research.

REFERENCES

lNational office of Vital Statistics: Illegitimate births,

United States, 1938-57, By J. Schachter and M. McCarthy.

Vital Statistics-Special Reports, Vol. 47, No. 8. Public

Health Service. Washington, D. C., Sept. 1960.

2

Hartley, S. M.: The amazing rise of illegitimacy in Great

Britain. Social Forces 44(4): 533-545, June 1966.

3U.S. Bureau of the Census: Marriage, fertility and cbildspacing, Aug. 1959, by W. Grabill and R. Parke, Jr. Crmrsnt

Pop. Repon%, Series P-20, No. 108. Wash., D. C., July 1961.

%ratt, W.: Premarital Pregnancy in a Metmpotitan Cornmmity. (paper presented at the 1965 meeting of the Population Association of America)

5.Klnsey, A.: Illegal abortion in the United States, in R. W.

Rob erts, cd., The Unwed Mother. New York. Harper and Row,

1966. pp. 196-198.

6For additional evidence on this point, see Kiser, C. V.,

Fertility trends and differentials among nonwhites in the

United States. Miibank Mera.Fund (@art. 36(2): 190-196. Apr.

1958.

7

Goode, W. J.: Illegitimacy, anomie, and cultural penetration. The American Sociological Review XXVI:9 10-925. Dec.

1961.

8Pakter, J., M.D., and Nelson, F.: Tbe unmarried mother

and her child: the problems and the challenges. I?Ze@”timacy.

New York. National Council on Illegitimacy, 1965.

9Minnesota Department of Health: A Study of Illegitimate

Birth Certi@ates, by R. W. Hiller. A copy of a brief summary

of this unpublished study is on file in the Natality Statistics

Branch, Divieion of Vital Statistics, National Center for Health

Statistics.

10Washington State Department of Health: Adoptions Among

Children Born in the State of Washington in 1956. A copy of

this unpublished report is on file in the Natality Statistics

Branch, Division of Vital Statistics, National Center for Health

Statistics.

llU,S. Bureau of the Census: &ffent Poprdation ‘eporte)

Series P-20, Nos. 81, 87, 96, 105, 114, 122, 135, and 144.

Washington, D.C.
DETAILED TABLES

Table 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

Estimated illegitimacy rates, by age of mother: United Statea, 1940-65----------

Eatimsted illegitimacy rates,by age of mother and color: United Statea, 1955-65-

Number of illegitimate births and illegitimacy rates, by color: 35 reporting

Statea, 1960--------------------------------------------------------------------

Estimated number of illegitimate live births, by age of mother and color: United

States, l94O-65-----------------------------------------------------------------

Eatimsted number of illegitimate live births, by color and live-birth order:

United States, l964-------------------------------------------------------------

Number of illegitimate live births, by live-birth order and color: 35 reporting

States, l964--------------------------------------------------------------------

Number of illegitimate births, by age of mother, color, and live-birth order:

total of 35 reporting States, 1955 and 1964------------------------------------

;;;~maad number and ratio of illegitimate live births, by color: United Statea,

------------------------------”---------------------.--------------------

Estimated illegitimacy ratios,by age of mother and color: United States,1955-65-

Illegitimacy ratios, by age of mother and color: total of 32 reporting States,

l955-64-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Illegitimsc ratios,by live-birth order and color:

%

total of 32 reporting States,

1955 and 19 9-64----------------------------------------------------------------

Illegitimacy ratios, by age of mother, color, and live-birth order: total of 35

reporting States, 1955 and l964-------------------------------------------------

Number of illegitimate births and illegitimacy ratios, by race: each of 35 reporting States, l964------------------------------------------------------------

Ratio of illegitimate live births to total live births, by division, State, and

color: 1940, 1950, l955-64------------------------------------------------------

Illegitimacy ratios, by age of mother and color: each of 35 reporting States,

l964----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number of illegitimate births for metropolitan and nonmetropolitan counties, by

color and age of mother (excluding New Jersey): 1962-64-------------------------

Illegitimacy ratios for metropolitan and nonmetropolitan counties, by color and

age of mother (excluding New Jersey): 1962-64-----------------------------------

Number of illegitimate births and illegitimacy ratios for metropolitan and nonmetropolitan counties, by color: 35 reporting States, 1964---— -----------------

Number of illegitimate births and illegitimacy ratios, by color: 150 standard

metropolitan statistical areas of the United States, 1964-----------------------

Illegitimacy ratios, by age of mother and color: standard =tropolitan statistical areas in the reporting States with one million or more population in 1960:

l964----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page

25

26

27

28

30

31

34

35

36

37

38

39

41

42

45

48

49

50

53

56

23
DETAILED TABLES-Con.

Page

Table 21. Number of illegitimate birtha and illegitimacy ratios, by color for specified

urban places common to 1955, 1963, and 1964------------------------------------- 58

22. Percent distribution of live births, by live-birth order according to legitimacy

status and color: total of 35 reporting States, 1964---------------------------- 63

23. Number of live births, by birth weight, color, legitimacy status, and live-birth

order: total of 35 reporting States, 1964--------------------------------------- 64

24. Median birth weight and percent immature,by color,live-birth order, and legitimacy status: total of 35 reporting States, 1964--------------------------------- 65

25. Number of live births, by legitimacy statua, attendant, and color: each of 35

reporting States, l964---------------------------------------------------------- 66

26. Percent distribution of legitimate and illegitimate births, by attendant and

color: each of 35 reporting States, 1964---------------------------------------- 68

24
Table 1. Estimated illegitimacy rates,l by age of mother: United States, 1940-65

[Refers only to births occurring within the United States. Alaska included beginning 1959, and Hawaii, 1960. Rates areillegitimate live births

perl,OOOunmarried femaIes unspecified age group. Figures forage ofmother notstated aredistributedJ

Year

19654---------------------------------------

19644---------------------------------------

19634---------------------------------------

19624----------------.----------------------

19614---------------------------------------

19604---------------------------------------

19544

19534:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

;;;;:---------------------------------------

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

1950----------------------------------------

1949----------------------------------------

1948----------------------------------------

1947----------------------------------------

1946----------------------------------------

1945----------------------------------------

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

;;;:----------------------------------------

---------------------------.------------

1941----------------------------------------

1940----------------------------------------

J- All

ages 15-19

15-44 years

yearsz

23.5

23.0

22.5

21.9

22.7

21.6

21.9

21.2

21.0

20.4

19.3

18.7

16.9

15.8

15.1

14.1

13.3

12.5

12.1

10.9

10.1

::!

8.0

7.7

7.1

16.7

15.8

15.2

14.8

15.9

15.3

15.5

15.3

15.8

15.6

15.1

14.9

13.9

13.5

13.2

12.6

12.0

11.4

1;.;

9:5

8.8

8.4

%;

7.4

Age

20-24

years

of mother

1

25-29 30-34 35-39

years years years

Illegitimacy rates

39.9

39.9

40.3

40.9

41.7

39.7

40.2

38.2

37.3

36.4

33.5

31.4

28.0

25.4

23.2

21.3

21.0

19.8

18.9

17.3

15.3

13.1

11.4

1:.:

9:5

49.3

50.2

49.0

46.7

46.5

45.1

44.1

40.5

36.8

35.6

33.5

31.0

27.6

24.8

22.8

19.9

18.0

16.4

15.7

15.6

12.1

10.1

8.8

8.4

7.8

7.2

37.5

37.2

33.2

29.7

28.3

27.8

28.1

27.5

26.8

24.6

22.0

20.4

17.3

15.7

14.6

13.3

11.4

10.0

9.2

7.3

7.1

::;

6.3

6.0

5.1

17.4

16.3

16.1

15.6

15.4

14.1

14.1

13.3

12.1

11.1

10.5

10.3

9.0

;.;

7:2

6.8

5.8

N

4.1

4.0

3.8

3.8

3.7

3.4

40-44

years3

4.5

4.4

4.3

4.0

H

3.3

3.2

;::

2.7

2.5

M

N

1.9

M

M

M

1.2

1.4

1.2

lThe illegitimacy rates shown in this table for the years 1951-65 differ from those published

in various issues of Vital Statistics of the United States. The rates shown here are based on a

smoothed series of population estmates for unmarried women, by color and age (described in

Appendix I), which were not available when the rates previously published were computed.

2Rates computed by relating total illegitimate births regardless of age of mother to unmarried

women aged 15-44 years.

‘Rates computed by relating illegitimate births to mothers aged 40 and over to unmarried

women aged 40-44 years.

4Based on a 50-percent sample of births.

25
Table 2. Estimated illegitimacy rates, by age of mother and color: United States, 1955-65

[Refers only to births occumingwithinthe UnitedStates. Alaska incIuded beginning 1959, and Hawaii, 1960. Rates areillegitimats live births

per1,000 unmarried women in specified group. Figures forage ofmother notstated are distributed. See.4ppendix I forprocedure for estimating

unmarried female populations by age and colo~

Color and year

White

19653-----------------------------------------------

19643-------------------.-----------------.---------

;;%;;------------------------------------------.----

----------------------------------.------------

19613-----------------------------------------------

l96O3-----------------------------------------------

l9593-----------------------------------------------

l9583-----------------------------------------------

19573-----------------------------------------------

l9563-----------------------------------------------

l955------------------------------------------------

Nonwhite

1965s-----------------------------------------------

19643--------------------------.--------------------

;;:;;-----------------------------------------------

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

;;%;;-----------------------------------------------

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

19593-------------.---------------------------------

19583-----------------------------------------------

19573-----------------------------------------------

19563----------.------------------------------------

l955------------------------------------------------

Age of mother

All

l%

years1

15-19

years

20-24 25-29

years years

30-34

years

35-44

years2

11.6

11.0

10.5

1%:

9.2

9.2

8.8

8.6

8.3

7.9

97.6

97.2

97.1

97.5

100.8

98,3

100.8

97.8

95.3

92.1

87.2

.

Illegitimacy rates

7.9

7.3

:::

7.0

6.6

6.5

6.3

6.4

6.2

6.0

75.8

74.0

73.8

74.1

77.6

76.5

80.8

80.4

81.4

79.6

77.6

22.1

21.2

20.8

20,0

19.7

18.2

18.3

17.3

16.6

16.3

15.0

152.6

164.2

161.8

163.6

169.6

166.5

167.8

153.2

147.7

143.5

133.0

24.3

24.1

22.0

19.8

19.4

18.2

17.6

15.8

14.6

14.0

13.3

164.7

168.7

171.5

172.7

172.7

171.8

168.0

161.2

142.6

132.7

125.2

16.6

15.9

14.2

12.6

11.3

10.8

10.7

10.8

10.5

9.2

8.6

137.8

132.3

124.3

115.2

112.0

104.0

106.5

110.5

115.1

113.7

100.9

‘2:

4.6

4.3

4..2

3.9

3.6

3.4

3.0

3.0

2.8

39.0

34.5

34.4

35.5

37.4

35.6

34.9

32.5

30.3

27.0

25.3

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

2Rates computed by relating births to mothers aged 35 and over to women aged 35-44 years.

3B~sed on a so-percent sample Of births.

26
Table 3. Number of illegitimate births and illegitimacy rates, sy color: 35 reporting States,1960

[1))plscr(,~rt.-,dm<, li[>f’(w [Inlj ((I Ill{yit!matc h!r[h - u(, currln~, N !thln [hi, ri, por[tng :m.:t (u ro.ldl,n[- or III(, ,r(w %1-*WI Y

C>n:1 .“J1. !XW(V t

.:, l)~p l,. I!:,(P. ]~w 1

:,(!(.( ,I,,,,,:tr, ,,.([ ,,<,,!!, s,, ,:,. ( I III .,w.,r,,,, t .T,,,,,,

Area

Total, 35 States ------------------------

Alabama---------------------------------------

Alaska ----------------------------------------

Delaware--------------------------------------

District of Columbia--------------------------

Florida---------------------------------------

Hawaii----------------------------------------

Illinois--------------------------------------

Indiana---------------------------------------

Iowa------------------------------------------

Kansas----------------------------------------

Kentucky--------------------------------------

Louisiana-------------------------------------

Maine!----------------------------------------

Michigan--------------------------------------

Minnesota-------------------------------------

Mississippi-----------------------------------

Missouri--------------------------------------

Nev?da’---------------------------------------

New Jersey------------------------------------

North Carolina--------------------------------

North Dakota’---------------------------------

Ohio------------------------------------------

Oregon----------------------------------------

Pennsylvania----------------------------------

Rhode Island’---------------------------------

South Carolina--------------------------------

South Dakota----------------------------------

Tennessee-------------------------------------

Texas-----------------------------------------

LJtahl-----------------------------------------

Virginia--------------------------------------

Washington------------------------------------

Nest Virginia---------------------------------

W,.sconsin-------------------------------------

Wyomingl ---------- ----------------------------

Total l.Jhite

;{011-

white

Illegitimate births

163,632

8,718

362

1,024

4,072

10,962

g(j~

14>262

4,546

1,438

1,340

3,636

8,1~tj

630

7,328

2,486

8,~~4

5,632

266

4,784

9,912

420

10,092

1,184

10>100

582

7,~~6

55.2

7,130

12,830

410

7,552

1,866

2,346

2,506

195

55,234

804

64

282

346

2,310

200

4,269

2,720

1,278

820

,2,(3~o

990

620

3,766

2,138

384

1,798

1~~

1,658

1,694

344

5,098

1,008

4,942

402

706

262

1,752

4,954

352

1,812

1>5~~

1,788

1,856

152

108,398

7,914

298

742

3,726

8,652

702

10,002

1,826

150

520

1,616

7,136

10

3,562

348

7,830

3,834

144

3,126

8,218

4,9;:

176

5,158

180

6,520

290

5,378

7,876

58

5,7$0

344

558

650

34

Illegitimacy rates

24.0

44.4

43.4

43.0

60.0

43.8

2z.3

24.9

18.4

10.1

13.0

21.3

43.1

11.8

16.7

12.7

64.3

24.z

18.8

13.7

35.5

1~.4

18.6

13.1

14.3

11.1

48,1

16.2

33.1

25.0

8.0

3’).9

13.0

20.2

11.3

3.3

9.6

1::;

14.3

9.6

12.0

21.5

8.6

11,9

9.1

8,4

13.0

8.7

---

9,7

11.1

6.0

8.8

---

;:?

---

10.5

11.5

7.7

---

8.3

8.2

10.1

11.5

---

10.6

11.1

16.4

8.6

---

101,8

!.04,0

94.9

179.2

LL6.7

150.8

~~.6

132.8

96.2

77.0

83.6

106.2

95.0

---

72.5

117.8

1~3.~

136.1

---

81.3

89.4

---

88.8

72.8

79.0

---

99.5

1~4.7

128.()

94.8

---

97.2

62.4

79.1

103.1

---

JIllegitimacy rates by color cannot be computed bec:lu..Eunmarried female population figures by

color are not available.

27
Table 4. Estimated number of illegitimate live births, by age of mother and color: United States, 1940-65

[Refers onlytibirths ocwrr,ngwth,n the Untibad Stntes. Alasknincluded beginning 19598nd H:w.d, lQ80. Duetim.nding estimms tithe nearest h.ndmd, fignres bycolormnynot.ddti

b3tdsJ

Age of mother

All Under

15 15-19 15 16 17 1s 19 20-24 25-29 30-34

ages

years

years years years years years years years years years

Color and year

15-39 40+ .

,ears years

* Number of illegitimate live births

19651------------------

19641------------------

19631------------------

19621-----------------

19611------------------

19601------------------

19591------------------

19581------------------

19571------------------

19561------------------

1955-------------------

19541------------------

19531------------------

1952’------------------

~9511 ------------------

1950 -------------------

1949 -------------------

194s -------------------

1947 -------------------

1946 -------------------

1945-------------------

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

1943 -------------------

1942 -------------------

1941 -------------------

1940 -------------------

W*

19651 ------------------

19641 ------------------

19631 ------------------

1962 ------------------

19611 ------------------

1960’ -------------------

19591 ------------------

19581 ----------------- .

19571 ------------------

19561 ------------------

1955-------------------

19541 ------------------

19531-----------------.

19521 ------------------

19511 ------------------

1950 -------------------

1949 -------------------

1948 -------------------

1947 -------------------

1946 -------------------

1945-------------------

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

1943 -------------------

1942-------------------

1941 -------------------

1940-------------------

1,200

1,300

),700

),100

3,000

3,700

3, Soo

3,400

3,200

7,500

7,200

---

---

..-

---

-..

---

---

---

3,300

3,200

3,300

3,000

2,700

2,6oo

2,500

2,400

2,200

1,900

1,800

21,200 28,400

20,200 27,200

18,600 21,700

15,500 20,600

15,500 20,500

15,100 19,900

15,200 19,100

13,900 17,800

13,900 17,300

13,200 16,200

11,900 15,700

2,700

5,800

4,900

3,600

4,600

1,800

0,900

9,700

9,000

8,400

7,200

33

28,700

26,900

25,800

24,700

23,500

21,600

20,600

19,600

18,100

17,500

17,100

500

!91,200

!75, 700

!59,400

!45 ,100

!40, 200

!24, 300

!20 ,600

!08 ,700

!01, 700

.93,500

.83,300

L76,600

L60 ,800

L50,300

146,500

141,600

133,200

129,700

L31 , 90C

L25,20C

6,100

5,800

5,400

5,100

5,200

4,600

4>600

4,400

4,600

4,200

3,900

3,900

3,400

3,200

3,200

3,200

3,100

3,000

2,900

2>300

2,500

2,300

2,400

2,300

2,200

2,100

1,400

1,400

1,300

1,300

1,400

1,200

1,200

1,200

1,100

1,000

900

800

800

700

600

700

700

700

700

600

600

500

600

500

500

500

23,200

11,400

01,800

94,400

93,200

87>100

S4,500

79,400

76,400

72>800

68,900

67,200

61,500

58,700

57,400

56,000

53,300

52,500

52,900

49,000

49,200

45,500

44,000

43,200

43,100

40,500

50,700

45,200

40,700

36,700

36,100

32,800

30,900

28,500

26,900

25,200

23,700

23,200

20,700

19,600

19,700

19,900

19,200

20,500

21,600

20,300

20,300

18,600

16,600

16, 30C

16, 50C

16, 00C

L9,600

L9,500

19,S00

L9,8do

L9,800

18,900

19,000

18,700

L8,200

17,000

1.6,100

15,500

13,400

12,400

11,900

10,800

9,700

8,800

8,700

7,800

7,100

6,400

6,100

5,900

5,800

5,200

7,200

6,800

7,000

7,000

6,600

6,000

5,900

6,100

6,000

5,400

5,400

5,200

4,700

4,300

4,200

4,200

4, 10C

3, 70C

4, Ooc

3,80C

3,30C

2,90C

2,60C

2,60C

2,50C

2, 20(

.1,400

,1,100

.0,900

.1,100

.1,100

.0>600

.0,500

9,900

9,400

8,800

8,300

7,900

7,000

6,500

6,200

6,000

5,600

4,900

4,8010

4,400

4,000

3,700

3,500

3,400

3,300

3,000

4,500

4,400

4,200

4,100

4,100

3, 90C

3,700

3, 50C

3,100

3,20C

3,00C

3, CIOc

2,60C

2,60C

2, 30C

2,30C

2, 30C

2, 10C

2,00C

2,00(

1, 70C

1,50(

1, 50C

1,40C

1,30(

1,30[

)0, 700 ,700

!7,900

12,600

17,400

14,000

)8,000

;7,300

;2,800

;0,500

i8, 800

i5, 700

;3,300

t8 ,800

}5,500

}3,900

+3, 100

iO, 300

iO, 800

i3,100

i3,200

39,300

33,700

29, s00

Z9 ,500

29,200

27,200

!3 ,400

!0,600

36,800

32,300

29,900

26,700

Z6 ,200

24,100

22,700

22,200

21,000

20,600

19,000

18,500

17,300

17,800

17>700

19,000

22,300

24,800

22,6oO

19,000

15,500

15,300

15,200

14,700

)6,800

%6,400

35,400

34,000

33,700

32,100

32,000

30,800

19,800

19,400

18,000

26,600

24,500

22,400

22,000

20,900

L9 , 5N

L8 ,200

L8 ,100

L7,000

L4 ,100

L2,400

L1>300

L1 ,200

10>900

L0,500

14,900

L4 ,300

13,000

11,900

11,600

10,700

10,500

10,000

9,800

9,500

9,100

8,900

8,200

7,700

7,800

7,900

8,300

8,200

9,100

9,300

7,500

6,500

5,500

5,400

5,300

5,200

,600

,500

,300

,200

,000

,800

,700

,800

,500

,400

,200

,100

,600

,900

,700

,600

,400

,500

33,600

30,900

30,700

29,200

28,700

27,200

26,600

---

---

---I~-..

---

-..

---

---

7,100

6,900

6,800

5,100

5>200

5,100

5,100

4,400

4,300

3,900

3,600

30,600

28,000

28,300

27,400

26,100

25 )0

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

14,000

L2,600

L2,000

L1,1OO

10,400

9,000

8,500

8,000

7,100

7, Ooc

V, 80C

---

---

---

---

---

---

...

...

11,100

L1 ,500

8,300

7,700

7,600

7,400

6,800

6,300

6,000

5,600

5,200

—

-..

---

---

---

---

---

---

.-.

,300 ..-

---

---

L17,400

L05 ,200

98,100

96,500

95,700

89,500

L23,700

114,300

104,600

94,700

91,100

82,500

79,600

74,600

70,800

67,500

64,200

62,700

56,600

54,100

52,600

53,500

53,500

54,800

60,500

61,400

56,400

49,600

42,800

42,000

41,900

40,300

eample.

,200

,100

,100

,000 --.

---

---

.5,200

.1,000

.0,400

9,800

.0,300

8,800

8,000

7,300

7,300

6,900

6,300

,200

,000

,600

,600

,500

,400

,400

,,300

,100

,,100

,200

.,100

,,000

10,200 13,000

11,600

10,800

10,900

11,100

10,900

11,400

.,000

800

700

9,100

8,800

8,900

8,700

8,800

9,100

800

700

700

600

700

600

500

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

...

---

---

---

---

-..

---

---

---

---

...

---

---

..-

---

..-

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

500

500

500

500

500

lBased cm a 50-percent

28
Table 4. Estimated number of illegitimate live births,by age of mother and color: United States, 1940-65—cou.

rR.fms..lY . ~~,lh,.c.umingwi~inth euni~Shtes. 41B,kai.cludti bczinning1959andUt~aii,196Q.D.e~mundingestim*@sti~h0ncaresthundt4, fismsbymlormnynotaddti

Color and year

Nonwhite

19651-- ---------------

19641.-----------------

1963*------------------

19621------------------

19611------------------

19601------------------~

19591------------------

19581------------------

19571------------------

19561------------------

1955-------------------

19541------------------

19531------------------

19521------------------

19511------------------

1950-------------------

1949-------------------

1948-------------------

1947-------------------

1946-------------------

1945-------------------

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

1943-------------------

1942-------------------

~941--.--..--..-.----..

1940-------------------

lot+

Age of mother

All Under

15 15-19 15 16 17

ages

years

years years years years

167,300

161,300

L54,900

150,400

149>100

141,800

141,100

134,100

130,900

126,000

119,200

113>900

104,200

96,200

93,900

88,100

79,700

74,900

71,500

63,800

60,900

55,600

55,400

54,500

53,800

49,200

4,600

4,400

4,200

3,900

3,800

3,500

3,400

3,300

3,500

3,200

3,000

3,100

2,700

2,600

2,600

2,500

2,4oo

2,300

2,200

1,800

1,900

1,800

1,s00

1,700

1,700

1,600

72,400

66,200

61,000

57,600

57,100

54,300

53,600

50,900

49,600

47>600

45,300

44,000

40,800

39,000

37,700

36,100

33,600

32,100

31,300

28,700

28,900

26,900

27,300

26,9oo

26,600

24,500

18 19 20-24 25-29 I

30-34 35-39 40+

years years years years years gears years

Number of illegitimate live births

8,900

8,100

7,500

7,100

6,400

6,100

6,300

6,000

6,000

5,600

5,400

---

---

---

---

---

---

.-.

---

14,100

13,300

11,800

10,400

10,300

10,000

10,100

9,400

9,600

9,300

,3,400

21,800

21,800

20,300

19,900

18,500

7,600

.-.

---

---

..-

---

---

---

---

17,200

15,800

13,400

12,900

12,900

12,600

12,300

11,500

11,200

10,700

---

.-.

..-

---

. ..

---

---

17,500 14,700

14,800 14>300

14,500 13,800

13,800 13,500

14>400 13,100

13,100 12,600

12,900 12>100

12,400. 11,600

11,700 11,000

11,600 10,400

10,9OOI 10,300

~

19,000

17,200

17,400

16,200

15,200

14,500

--- ---

--- ---

I

--- ---

..- ---

--- ---

I

--- ---

--- ---

I

--- ---

47,300

47,300

45,800

45,000

44>100

41,300

41,100

38,600

37,800

36,600

34,700

32,700

29,900

27,000

26,600

25>300

22,600

21,800

20,800

18,400

16,700

14,700

14,300

14,100

13,900

12,500

21,900 12,400

22>100 12,700

22,300 12,800

22,100 12,900

22,100 13,100

21,300 12,900

21,500 13,100

20,800 12,600

20,100 12,200

19,900 11,600

18>900 10,700

17,700 10,300

16,300 8,700

14,700 8,000

14,200 7,700

13,000 6,600

11,200 5,600

10,100 5,000

9,000 4,700

7,700 4,000

6,600 3,800

5,900 3,500

5,800 3,500

5,800 3,300

5,600 3,300

5,300 2,900

6,900

6,700

6,700

7,100

7,000

6,700

6,700

6,300

6,300

5,600

5,300

4,900

4,400

3,900

4,000

3,600

3,300

2,800

2,s00

2,500

2,300

2,200

2,100

2,000

2,000

1,700

2,000

1,900

2,000

1,800

1,900

1,700

1,700

1,600

1,600

1,500

L,400

1,200

1,300

900

1,200

1,000

900

800

800

700

700

600

600

600

700

600

‘Based cm a 50-percent sample.

29
Table 5. Estimated number of illegitimate live births, by color and live-birth order: United

States,1964

LRefers only to births occ.rr,ng within t.be IJnited States. Based ona50-percent sapple. D.etoro.nding estimates tothenearest hundred, figures by color may not add tm totals. Live-birth order refers to number of children born alive tomothe~

Live-birth order

Total ---------------------------------------------------------

First child---------------------------------------------------------

Second child--------------------------------------------------------

Third child ---------------------------------------------------------

Fourth child --------------------------------------------------------

Fifth child and over------------------------------------------------

Not stated----------------------------------------------------------

~e

Number of illegitimate

275,700

live birth:

147,100

47,200

26,400

17,600

36,700

500

114,300

76

16

;

.

000

100

300

600

/,900

300

161,300

71,100

31,100

18,100

12.000

28;800

200
Table 6. Number of illegitimate live birthq by live-birthorder and color: 35 reportins States,

1964

[BYplaceof residence. Refers only to illegitimate births occurring within the reporting area to r+idents of area. Based orr a W-percent sample.

Live-birth order refers tonurnbe rofchildren born alive to mother. Figures for birth order notstated are distributed]

Area and color

35 reporting States---------------------

White---------------------------------

Nonwhite------------------------------

Alabama---------------------------------------

White---------------------------------------

Nonwhite------------------------------------

Alaska----------------------------------------

White---------------------------------------

Nonwhite------------------------------------

Delaware--------------------------------------

White---------------------------------------

Nonwhite------------------------------------

District of Columbia--------------------------

White---------------------------------------

Nonwhite------------------------------------

Florida---------------------------------------

White---------------------------------------

Nonwhite------------------------------------

Hawaii----------------------------------------

White---------------------------------------

Nonwhite------------------------------------

Illinois--------------------------------------

White---------------------------------------

Nonwhite------------------------------------

Indiana---------------------------------------

White---------------------------------------

Nonwhite------------------------------------

Iowa------------------------------------------

White---------------------------------------

Nonwhite------------------------------------

Kansas----------------------------------------

White---------------------------------------

Nonwhite------------------------------------

Kentucky--------------------------------------

White---------------------------------------

Nonwhite------------------------------------

Louisiana-------------------------------------

White---------------------------------------

Nonwhite------------------------------------

Maine-----------------------------------------

White---------------------------------------

Nonwhite------------------------------------

Michigan--------------------------------------

White---------------------------------------

Nonwhite------------------------------------

Minnesota-------------------------------------

White---------------------------------------

Nonwhite------------------------------------

Live-birth order

Total 1 2 3 4 5+

Number of illegitimatelive births

195,068

73,692

121,376

9,162

950

8,212

420

116

304

l,;;~

878

4,648

412

4,236

12,384

3,346

9,038

1,138

314

824

1;,:;:

11;430

5,772

3,554

2,218

1,862

1,636

226

1,864

1,210

654

;,;;:

1;770

9,524

1,094

8,430

876

856

20

9,800

5,330

4,470

3,570

3,100

470

101,557

48,544

53,013

4,25C

744

3,506

247

1%

538

196

342

2,264

264

2,000

5,884

2,250

3,634

622

200

422

8,212

3,804

4,408

3,217

2,219

998

1,176

1,076

100

1,116

866

250

2,073

1,359

714

4,058

748

3,310

518

510

8

6,422

3,880

2,542

2,240

2,070

170

33,362

10,502

22,860

1,586

114

1,472

59

::

2:;

176

853

68

785

2,179

482

1,697

166

1%

2,796

806

1,990

1,005

561

444

260

220

40

236

122

114

742

:::

1,619

164

1,455

116

114

2

1,548

644

904

522

430

92

19,04C

5,494

13,546

89C

8%

32

3;

156

1;:

462

4::

1,264

274

990

116

;2

1,;3:

1,396

489

267

222

166

140

26

160

U

417

197

220

1,095

1,01?

88

8;

696

312

384

260

202

58

12,86t

3,752

9,11(

64(,

6;;

?:

2E

104

::

324

2;:

822

170

652

74

;:

1,202

270

932

366

212

154

102

E

130

2;

319

155

164

749

7:;

48

44

4

424

208

216

222

174

48

28.241

5,400

22,841

1,7;;

1,760

44

4;

1;;

144

745

7:8

2,235

170

2,065

160

l%

3,064

360

2,704

695

295

400

158

122

36

222

1::

589

253

336

2,003

64

1,939

106

102

4

710

286

424

326

224

102

31
Table 6. Number of illegitimatelive births,by live-birthorder and color: 35 reporting States,

1964-Con.

[Byplaceofresidence. Refers onIy to illegitimate births occurring within tbereporting areato residents of area. Basedonaso-pementsrmrple

Live-birth order refers ton.mber ofchildren born alive to mother. Figures for birth order notstated are distributed]

Area and color

Miss;;~iPPi-----------------------------------

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

Nonwhite------------------------------------

Mi~sso;~i--------------------------------------

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

Nonwhite------------------------------------

Nevada----------------------------------------

White---------------------------------------

Nonwhite------------------------------------

Nmm;:eey --------- ---------------------------

--.----- -----.-- -------- -------- -------

Nonwhite----------------------------.------

North Carolina--------------------------------

White---------------------------------------

Nonwhite------------------------------------

No~rttakota----------------------------------

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

Nonwhite------------------------------------

Ohio------------------------------------------

White-----------------------------------.---

Nonwhite------------------------------------

Oregon----------------------------------------

White---------------------------------------

Nonwhite------------------------------------

Penni&nia ----------------------------------

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

Nonwhite------------------------------------

Rh~t$eland -----------------------------------

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

Nonwhite------------------------------------

So$uttarolina--------------------------------

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

Nonwhite------------------------------------

South Dakota----------------------------------

White---------------------------------------

Nonwhite------------------------------------

Tennessee -----.--- ----------------------------

White---------------------------------------

Nonwhite------------------------------------

Texas -----------------------------------------

White---------------------------------------

Nonwhite------------------------------------

Utah------------------------------------------

White---------------------------------------

Nonwhite------------------------------------

Live-birth order

Total 1 2 3 4 5+

Number of illegitimatelive births

8,690

494

8,196

6,430

2,306

4,124

526

302

224

7,096

2,850

4,246

10,874

1,988

8,886

506

41E

88

12,78C

6,79C

5,99(

1,69C

1,492

19[

12,96(

6,22:

6,74~

64(

49[

142

7,26(

80t

6,45t

796

444

352

8,040

2,002

6 038

14

6

8

906

578

328

46C

436

24

3,729

376

3,353

3,014

1,478

1,536

272

188

84

4,210

2,013

2,197

5,911

1,372

4,539

362

326

36

7,185

4,429

2,756

1,072

978

94

7,464

4,227

3,237

344

290

54

3,523

526

2,997

464

340

124

3,356

1,170

2,186

7,647

3,895

3,752

302

290

12

1

2

1

263

355

908

145

304

,841

i%’

12

2,077

1,005

1,072

238

198

40

2,347

920

1,427

108

;:

1,367

146

1,221

122

46

76

1,438

322

1,116

2,554

1,025

1,529

68

62

6

9;~

899

664

218

446

54

::

675

210

465

998

110

888

;:

2

1,268

526

742

110

90

20

1,;;;

759

66

52

14

820

7%

58

24

34

828

162

666

1,;;$

929

32

30

2

624

6;;

488

134

354

42

18

24

381

108

273

636

5:;

::

8

784

348

436

106

92

14

771

269

502

52

34

18

453

4;!

50

12

38

698

136

562

973

374

599

22

20

2

1,758

1,7::

1,178

150

1,028

58

22

36

567

164

403

1,184

114

1070

1

42

12

30

466

482

984

164

134

30

1,174

355

819

::

22

1,103

1,0%

102

22

80

1,720

212

1,508

2,228

709

1,519

36

34

2

32
Table 6. Number of illegitimatelive births,by live-birthorder and color: 35 reporting States,

1964-Con.

[By place of residence. Refers ordy to illegitimate births occurring within the reporting area to residents of area. Based on a .5&percent sample.

Live-birth order refers h number of children barn alive to mother. Figures for birth order not s~bd am dis~hu~dl

Area and color

vi~----------------------------------------

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

Nonwhite------------------------------------

Washington------------------------------------

White---------------------------------------

Nonwhite------------------------------------

West Virginia---------------------------------

white---------------------------------------

Nonwhite------------------------------------

Wi~~ein -------------------------------------

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

Nonwhite------------------------------------

wy~gg ---------------------------------------

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

Nonwhite------------------------------------

Live-birth order

Total 1 2 3 4 5+

Number of illegitimatelive births

8,684

2,466

6,218

2,906

2,442

2,486

1,980

506

3,606

2,686

920

270

218

52

;,;;;

2;681

1,906

1,686

220

1,355

1,144

211

2,185

1,819

366

152

136

16

1,501

348

1,153

376

278

98

370

298

72

541

367

174

36

30

6

961

230

731

206

162

44

214

172

42

290

188

102

R

8

636

156

480

176

138

38

182

132

50

184

ml)

24

18

6

1, ;::

1,173

242

1:;

365

234

131

406

212

194

34

::

33
Table 7. Number of illegitimatebirths, by age of mother, color, and live-birthorder: total of

35 reporting States, 1955 and 1964

[BYplace of residence. Includes only illegitimate births occurring within the reporting area ta residents of area. L,ve-birth order refers to number of children born alive to mother. Figures for age of mother not stated are distributed]

Age of mother

,, 1 1 I I 1 I

All

ages

Under

15 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40+

vears years years years years years years

Color and live-birthorder

Total, 19641 Number of illegitimatebirths

All birth orders----------- 195,068

101,420

33,320

19,018

12,854

28,204

252

73,692

4,426

4,236

178

8

;

924

10.420 50,858

27,548

14,182

9,362

5,470

4,232

64

26,010

!5.254 13,676 7,890 2,544

210

176

238

230

1,682

8

1,050

152

120

154

132

486

6

1,494

58

2:

98

1.,196

2

1,903

L72

165

189

203

1,166

8

678

125

69

89

86

307

2

1,225

47

1%

117

859

6

——

i3,656

L3,072

2,940

556

94

102

~9,6013

4,064

3,840

4,092

3,930

9,296

32

9,036

2,640

1,802

1,552

1,366

1,670

6

L6,218

1,114

1,274

1,592

1,770

7,898

28

4,276

728

636

698

676

1,528

10

9,400

592

;:;

898

5,002

14

2,796

408

326

386

448

1,222

6

5,094

First child----------------------

Second child---------------------

Third child----------------------

Fourth child---------------------

Fifth child and over-------------

Not stated-----------------------

White

All birth ordera-----------

48,492

10,492

5,490

3,750

5,396

72

121,376

52,928

22,828

13,528

9,104

22,808

18C

145,615

—

71,121

28,032

15,91:

10,541

19,32$

67i

45,06~

29,461

7,16!

3,43!

1,92;

2,92:

156

100,551

918

6

3,502

3,318

172

8

i

3,253

3,090

133

5

2;

681

Z7,074

2,234

246

30

16

50,820

1:, ;;;

2;454

1,098

490

28

34,848

First child----------------------

Second child---------------------

Third child----------------------

Fourth child---------------------

Fifth child and over-------------

Not stated-----------------------

Nonwhite

All birth orders-----------

36,582

10,838

2,694

526

%

56,421

10,976

8,814

6,908

4,372

3,7::

43,654

1,424

2,038

2,540

2,564

7,626

26

21,644

386

638

894

1,094

6,370

18

12,304

184

272

400

450

3,780

8

6,436

First child----------------------

Second child---------------------

Third child----------------------

Fourth child---------------------

Fifth child and over-------------

Not stated-----------------------

Total, 1955

All birth ordera-----------

18,253

11,385

7,1.85

3,874

2,805

152

14.653

4,055

3,921

3,796

32505

6,294

73

6,199

2,256

l,46t

1,04C

69?

722

2C

15,44:

1,795

2,45:

2,75E

2,812

5,572

5:

1,685

1,639

1,730

L,735

5,488

27

3,621

977

700

588

412

937

7

8,683

708

939

1,142

1,323

4,551

20

732

657

787

754

3,485

21

Q&f

451

29E

3lC

26L

73t

;

4.37(

First child----------------------

Second child---------------------

Third child----------------------

Fourth child---------------------

Fifth child and over-------------

Not stated-----------------------

White

All birth orders-----------

$3,134

10,132

2,223

470

3;:

17,166

15,553

1,351

160

26

7:

39,255

First child----------------------

Second child---------------------

Third child----------------------

Fourth child---------------------

Fifth child and over-------------

Not stated-----------------------

Nonwhite

All birth orders-----------

671

6

1

i

2,572

9,428

3,273

1,247

441

220

44

29,001

8,825

8,112

5,938

3,433

2>585

108

First child----------------------

Second child---------------------

Third child----------------------

Fourth child---------------------

Fifth child and over-------------

Not stated-----------------------

41,66(

20,86;

12,48(

8,691

16,40~

521

2,419

127

4

22

27,581

8,781

2,063

444

88

298

281

355

47;

49(

2,7’45

1[

lBased on a 50-percent sample of births.
Table 8. Estimated number and ratio Of illegitimatelive births, by color: United States, 1955-64

[Refersmly to births occurring within the United St.tes. Due to rounding estimates to the nermest hundred figures by color may not add to tot.;~

Year

19651-----------------------------------------

19641-----------------------------------------

19631-----------------------------------------

19621-----------------------------------------

19611-----------------------------------------

1960’1-----------------------------------------

19591-----------------------------------------

;;;$.----.---------------.--------------------

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

19561-----------------------------------------

1955------------------------------------------

Total II White

I

Nonwhite

II 1

Number of illegitimate

live births

291,200

275,700

259,400

245.100

183;300

123,700

114,300

104,600

94,700

91,100

82,500

79,600

74,600

70,800

67.500

64;200

II

167,500

161,300

154,900

150,400

149,100

141,800

141,100

134,100

130,900

126,000

119,200

Total White ~&e

11 1

Ratio per 1,000

live births

263.2

245.0

235.5

227.8

223.4

215.8

218.0

212.3

206.7

204.0

202.4

lBased on a 50-percent sample of births.

35
Table 9. Estimated illegitimacyratios, by age of mother and color: United States, 1955-65

Color and year

Total

19651----------

19641----------

19631----------

19621----------

19611--.-------

1960L----------

19591----------

19581----------

,lg571----------

19561----------

1955-----------

White

19651----------

19641----------

19631----------

19621----------

19611----------

19601----------

19591----------

19581----------

19571----------

19561----------

1955-----------

Nonwhite

19651----------

19641----------

19631----.-----

19621----------

19611----------

19601----------

19591----------

19581----------

19571----------

19561----------

1955-----------

~efers only b birtbs occurring witbin the Umtsd %atas. Alaska included beginning 1959 and Hawaii, 196~”

I

Under All 15

ages

years

77.4

68.5

63.3

58.8

56.3

52.7

52.0

49.6

47.4

46.5

45.3

39.6

33.9

30.4

27.0

25.3

22.9

22.1

20.9

19.6

19.0

18.6

263.2

245.0

235.5

227.8

223.4

215.8

218.0

212.3

206.7

204.0

202.4

785.3

742.1

711.1

694.8

696.9

678.5

678.9

661.9

660.9

660.8

662.9

572.8

523.2

487.4

480.1

498.6

475.4

466.6

453.2

415.4

425.9

421.3

864.0

856.0

852.4

842.0

816.5

822.4

808.8

825.C

811.7

798.4

800.t

1

15-19 15

years years

208.3

190.2

173.6

157.3

154.9

148.4

148.0

143.3

138.9

139.9

142.3

114.3

101.7

89.9

78.2

76.5

71.6

69.4

65.9

62.7

62.6

63.6

492.0

468.3

455.6

439.3

439.2

421.5

426.5

419.0

409,1

404.8

406.6

563.6

529.9

501.8

469.5

465.9

443.9

437.2

426.2

426.1

421.6

427.7

321.6

300.3

294.9

256.2

260.1

238.7

224.2

215.0

208.6

200.1

204.7

781.5

759.1

740.1

724.3

716.4

700.7

701.6

702.1

689.5

675.2

671.8

Age of mother

16 17 18 19 20-24 25-29 30-34

years years years years years years years

Ratios per 1,000 live births

374.1

349..2

315.4

306.1

291.8

281.3

275.3

269.1

268.1

268.1

265.1

201.1

184.3

171.9

152.1

145.6

140.2

134.7

125.2

123.5

119.1

120.9

659.7

651.8

607.5

607.8

592.2

577.8

582.4

569.4

563.7

564.0

549.1

257.5

232.4

216.4

204.6

194.4

182.4

186.4

177.3

173.7

173.2

178.4

141.0

132.9

112.8

103.5

96.1

89.9

88.5

83.6

80.3

80.1

80.1

545.2

517.2

502.3

490.9

489.1

469.3

479.7

459.9

449.0

453.2

455.3

175.5

160.6

152.7

138.2

136.1

129.2

126.9

123.5

120.0

120.9

124.4

104.4

88.7

81.4

72.4

71.3

65.7

61.3

57.7

58.0

57.6

58.2

429.4

404.5

409.4

390.6

396.5

376.2

377.2

375.8

360.5

357.7

363.1

132.9

117.5

106.3

96.2

96.7

91.6

90.1

87.9

81.8

84.3

87.2

80.5

67.8

59.8

51.8

51.5

46.2

45.0

43.4

38.8

41.0

42.3

349.4

331.5

326.8

316.9

319.5

306.2

306(2

301.9

288.7

282.8

292.8

67.8

61.1

56.8

53.6

51.2

47.7

47.9

45.9

44.4

44.4

43.7

38.4

33.1

29.7

26.2

24.2

21.9

21.8

20.6

19.5

19.6

19.3

229.9

220.4

213.9

212.5

209.4

199.6

202.3

194.2

190.5

189.7

189.4

39.8

36.1

34.6

32.5

31.2

29.4

29.1

27.8

26.1

26.0

25.0

18.8

16.5

14.8

13.3

12.5

11.4

11.1

10.4

9.9

9.6

9.3

162.8

155.0

151.2

147.2

143.5

141.3

143.4

141.6

135.9

136.0

133.4

37.0

33.3

32.4

31,0

29.2

27.5

27.1

26.3

24.9

23.4

22.3

16.1

13.7

13.5

12.9

11.4

10.2

9.8

9.9

9,5

8.5

8.5

149.0

140.7

138.3

134.6

132.0

129.9

133.4

130.9

125.6

123.4

119.9

35-39

years

40.3

35.8

33.8

33.’2

31.’2

29.5

28.9

27.6

25.7

24.8

24.0

19.0

16.9

15.4

14.5

13.6

12.7

11.9

11.3’

9.8

10.4

10.0

148.8

136.2

133.8

136.6

129.9

127.7

130.1

127.1

127.6

116.7

117.1

40+

years

42.9

39.0

37.3

34.2

32.2

31.0

29.5

28.8

29.1

26.4

25,9

22.2

20.7

19.0

17.1

16.6

15.8

13.5

13.7

14.6

13.5

12.5

140.1

125.2

134.6

120.7

126.7

116.8

124.4

119.7

117.4

111.6

108.6

lBased on a 50-percent sample Of births.

36
Table 10. Illegitimacyratios, by age of mother and color: total of 32 reporting States, 1955-64

[Byplace of residence. Refers only to illegitimate births occurring in the rqxxting ar- to residents of the area. Figures include data for the 32

Sta,tes wbicb continuously reported legitimacy stetus from 1955 b 1964. TheseStstesare Alabama, Delaware, District of Columbia, FIorida,

Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigen, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, North

Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texee, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia,Wisconsin,andWyoming]

Color and year

Total

1964:----------------------------------

196+ ----------------------------------

19621----------------------------------

19611----------------------------------

19601----------------------------------

19591----------------------------------

19581-.--------------------------------

19571----------------------------------

19561---------------------------- -------

1955.---------------------------.------

White

19641--------------------------------

19631,--------------------------------

:;%;;----------------------------------

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

19601----------------------------------

19591----------------------------------

19581----------------------------------

19571--.-------------------------------

19561----------------------------------

1955-----------------------------------

Nonwhite

19641----------------------------------

19631---------.--s---------------------

19621--------------------------------

19611----------------------------------

19601----------------------------------

:;;:;......----------------------------

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

1957!----------------------------------

19561--------------------------------

1955---------------------------------

Age of mother

All

ages

.

73.7

68.2

64.0

61.3

57.8

56.5

53.9

51.8

51.0

49.8

33.5

30.3

27.2

25.3

23.3

22.3

21.1

19.8

19.4

19.0

270.1

257.1

249.8

244.9

235.5

231.8

223.8

218.3

214.8

212.7

1-Under

15

years

770.1

741.2

728.0

721.6

706.4

690.0

688.4

679.6

676.9

682.1

497.7

450.8

459.5

470.0

453.9

442.3

433.8

420.3

394.5

421.6

899.4

883.9

880.0

860.4

848.7

827.8

847.3

833.1

831.7

821.7

25-29

years

I I

t

30-34 35-39 40’Iyears years years

Ratio per 1,000 live births

199.3

182.2

166.9

163.8

157.8

155.5

150,5

W:. ;

150:7

97.9

87.6

77.2

74.3

70.7

67.8

64.6

61.5

62.2

63.1

501.5

484.1

470.5

469.4

449.8

446.6

437.2

428.1

421.8

422.7

63.8

59.3

56.6

54.2

50.8

50.5

48.4

47.3

47.3

46.7

32.3

29.1

25.9

24.0

21.9

21.4

20.3

19.2

19.6

19.2

239.8

230.0

230.8

226.4

214.9

212.9

202.6

200.1

196.8

196.4

38.8

37.2

35.5

34.1

32.3

31.9

30.1

28.4

28.4

27.3

16.2

14.8

13.4

12.4

11.5

11.0

10.5

9.8

9.7

9.4

171.7

166.2

162.9

158.8

155.2

152.5

147.7

141.2

142.1

138.1

36.8

35.8

34.5

32.5

30.9

30.1

28.8

27.1

25.8

24.4

13.7

13.7

13.0

11.6

10.4

9.8

10.0

9.4

8.5

8.6

156.2

152.6

148.7

146.4

143.2

142.0

136.3

130.0

129.6

123.9

39.4

37.3

37.0

34.7

32.7

31.7

30.1

28.4

26.9

26.3

16.7

15.5

14.4

13.6

12.9

12.1

11.5

10.0

10.4

10.2

151.8

147.9

149.6

142.8

140.2

138.0

132.9

132.1

120.4

120.9

42.2

40.8

36.8

35.7

33.8

32.1

31.2

31.4

28.7

28.5

21.0

19.3

17.8

16.3

15.8

14.1

13.9

14.8

13.1

12.2

141.6

148.1

132.4

135.3

128.5

129.6

125.5

123.1

114.7

119.6

lBased on a 50-percent sample of births.
Table 11. Illegitimacyratios, by live-birthorder and color: total of 32 reporting States, 1955

and 1959-64

[By place of residence. Refers only to illegitimate births occurring within the report.i,]g area to residents of the area. Live-birth order refers to

number of children born alive to mother. Figures for birth order not stated are distributed]

Color and year

Total

:;%:; --- ------------ - ------------------------------- -

l962;11111111;11;;11111;111:1111;1;;111;11111;1;1111;

ml; ------------------------------------------------

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

19591------.-----------------------------------------

l955-------------------------------------------------

White

19641-----------------------------------------------

19631--- - - - -- - - ---- - - - ----- - ---- - - ---- ------- - - ----- -

19621- - - ------ - -- - --- - - - ---- - -- - - ----------------- - --

19611------------------------------------------------

19601-----..---..----------------------.-------------

;;;;1-------------------------------------------------

--.-------.-----.------.--..---------------------

Nonwhite

19641-------.------------------.---------------------

19631----------------------.-------------..----------

19621-------------------------------.---.------------

19611

I96Ol::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

;;::1 ------------ -------- -------- --------- -------- ---

-------” -------- --------- -------- -------- --------

Live-birthorder

II I t }

rotal 1 2 3 4 5+

Ratio per 1,000 live births

73.7

68.2

64.0

61.3

57.8

56.5

49.8

33.5

30.3

27.2

25.3

23.3

22.3

19.0

270.1

257.1

?.49.8

244.9

235.5

231.8

212.7

135.6

125.9

m;;

106:6

103.2

89.6

76.0

70.0

62.7

59.7

55.9

52.9

44.0

487.4

470.0

460.7

455.4

437.7

431.1

395.1

53.5

49..9

48.3

48.1

‘42.8

bil.9

36.6

19.5

17.6

17.1

15.2

13.8

13.4

11.0

275.6

267.8

264.2

264.0

250.3

246.5

229.0

40.4

37.5

36.5

35.0

32.6

31.8

28.2

13.5

12.6

11.6

10.6

9.4

9.2

7.3

208.5

198.6

198.8

198.2

188.1

181.7

170.2

41.3

38.8

37.1

36.4

34.0

34.3

31.5

14.4

12.5

11.2

10.8

9.1

8.9

7.3

181.4

176.2

173.6

171.0

166.6

166.3

149.2

58.3

56.3

55.5

52.3

51.5

50.8

42.5

15.6

15.2

13.8

12.5

12.2

11.1

9.8

162.5

158.2

157.3

149.4

146.0

143.3

115.9

l~a~ed on a 50-Percent sample of births.

38
Table 12. Illegitimacy ratios, by age of mother, color, and live-birth order: total of 35 reporting States, 1955 and 1964

[Byplace of residence. Includes only illegitimate births occurring within the reporting area tA residents of the area. Live-birth order refers to

number of children born alive to mother. Figures for age of mother and live-birth order not steted are distributed. Figures in parentheses

based on fewer than 200 illegitimate births]

Age of mother

All Under

15 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40+

ages

years

years years years years years years

Color and live-birth order

Total, 19641 Ratio per 1,000 live births

All birth orders---------- 72.6

134.5

52.5

39.6

40.4

57.0

33.2

75.4

19.2

13.3

14.1

15.4

261.6

775.4

780.3

(684.6

*

507.1

200.1 63.4 38.1 35.5 38.1 40.8

First child---------------------

Second child--------------------

Third child---------------------

Fourth child--------------------

Fifth child and over------------

222.5

146.5

137.7

139.1

(126.9

80.0

44.3

53.3

72.6

97.3

48.[

25.C

24.(

33*L

65.5

16.C

47.6

26.1

20.4

23.2

50.1

L3.3

62.8

32.7

25.0

25.0

44.8

16.3

88.8

W:.:)

26:4

42.1

20.4

White

All birth orders---------- 98.8 32.1

First child---------------------

Second child--------------------

Third child---------------------

Fourth child--------------------

Fifth child and over------------

511.7

*

901.2

912.6

(735.:]

685.0

120.5

36.5

21.1

(18.1

53.5

19.1

17.2

20.7

21.7

35.C

12.E

10.:

13.4

17.c

164.1

34.9

14.4

;:;

13.2

148.8

49.0

19.8

13.5

13.7

14.3

144.9

(71.6)

(34.5)

(23.4)

(;:.;)

.

136.1

Nonwhite

All bi,rth orders ---------- 496.0

593.9

385.5

277.8

224.2

(181.1

232.9

First child---------------------

Second child--------------------

Third child---------------------

Fourth child--------------------

Fifth child and over------------

474.5

263.5

198.6

173.8

L57.7

50.2

316.1

227.5

211.5

195.2

178.9

(244.7)

(131.1

(140.2 1

( :;:.:)

.

28.3

[%:]

(;:.:)

30:7

12.0

(34.7)

(11.5)

(10.4)

(;:.:)

.

116.0

(129.8)

(183 .9)

(160.8

(158.8 1

104.Q

39

184.7

160.6

162.3

159.6

163.9

27.4

150.6

139.0

133.8

144.3

153.0

24.4

——

36.2

16.4

14.1

19.1

38.2

8.3

(168.8

149.1

142.5

139.0

144.6

26.4

42.8

19.4

16.7

17.9

33.8

9.9

29.1

9.5

7.0

;:!

120.7

173.1

143.3

154.1

139.5

108.4

Total,. 1955

All birth orders---------- 153.4 47.2

First child---------------------

Second child--------------------

Third child---------------------

Fourth child--------------------

Fifth child and over------------

89.7

36.8

28.5

32.0

43.3

18.6

692.6

(560.;)

422.2

168.2

118.0

54.2

36.3

43.8

56.6

74.3

31.6

17.7

19.3

30.3

50.7

9.1

117:3

137.7

(144.9:

White

All birth orders ---------- 62.5

76.8

22.8

(15.7’

(19.8

*’

18.9

First child---------------------

Second child--------------------

Third child---------------------

Fourth child--------------------

Fifth child and over------------

42.8

10.7

7.1

k:

212.4

430.4

*

*

820.2

832.8

(663.:)

19.1

7.1

5.8

M

137.9

180.0

158.3

147.5

143.2

116.5

23.1

7.5

5.1

$:;

123.8

169.8

135.7

135.3

142.1

L1O.6

Nonwhite

All birth orders---------- 421.3 195.9

First child---------------------

Second child--------------------

Third child---------------------

Fourth child--------------------

Fifth child and over------------

395.2

228.6

170.0

148.1

114.8

507.5

327.9

234.5

210.7

(196.0:

274.9

208.5

175.8

149.9

130.6

lBased on a 50-percent sample of births.
Table 12. Illegitimacy ratios, by age of mother color and live-birthorder: total of 35 reporting states, 1953 and 1~64-Con.

[By place of residence. Includes only illegitimate birtbs occurring within the reporting area to residents of the area. Live-birth order refers to

number of ch]ldren hnrn alive to mother. Figures for age of mother and live-birth order not stated are distributed. Figures in parentheses

based on fewer than 200 illegitimate births] -

Color and live-birthorder

Total -

All birth orders----------

First child---------------------

Second child--------------------

Third child---------------------

Fourth child--------------------

Fifth child and over------------

White

All birth orders----------

First child--------------------

Second child--------------------

Third child---------------------

Fourth child--------------------

Fifth child and over------------

Nonwhite

All birth orders,----------

First child---------------------

Second child--------------------

Third child---------------------

Fourth child--------------------

Fifth child and over------------

Age of mother

All Under

15 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40+

ages years years years years years years years

percent change 1955 to 1964

44.6

49.9

42.7

38.9

26.3

31.6

78.5

76.2

79.4

87.3

98.6

60.4

23.2

20.1

15.3

16.8

17.4

37.4

13.2

12.7

(22.f)

20.1

18.9

*

9*9

T

30.4” 34.3

32.3 ;;.;

24.2

17.4 21:7

(-M) ::::

T

58.1 69.8

56.9 73.1

60.1 60.5

(34.4) 79.2

(:8.5) 1;;.$

●

17●C! 15.0

17.6

.18.5 2:::

(x)’ W

39.1

54.4

41.2

27.5

10.2

30.0

75.8

83.2

80.3

77.6

86.1

85.3

19.0

2.6

1.5

10.0

11.5

40.7

45.5

31.5

59.1

44.7

21.5

31.2

60.2

51.1

92.0

92.2

92.2

43.5

20.2

-11.3

2.4

-1.1

s;:;

44.3

46.7

68.6

49*7

39.7

32.5

64.6

68.4

1;;.;

101:5

50.5

20.0

(-:.;

-7:5

-0.4

33.4

44.2

-—

)

(105.1

(77.2

(61.0

20.5

37*1

70.0 .—

:;::.;

1

(125:0

(66.01

51.0

17.3

(%:;

(-12.8)

(-;;.;)

.

-—

u)
Table 13. Number of illegitimatebirths and illegitimacyratios, by race: each of 35 reporting

States, 1964

[Byplaceof residence. Refers only to illegitimate births occurring within the reporting erea to reeidente of area. Based on a W1-percentsmnpk

Figures in parentheses based on fewer thsn 200 illegitimate birtb~

Area

Total, 35 Statea-------

Alabama----------------------

Alaska-----------------------

Delaware---------------------

District of Columbia---------

Florida----------------------

Hawaii-----------------------

Illinois---------------------

Indiana----------------------

Iowa-------------------------

Kansas-----------------------

Kentucky---------------------

Louisiana--------------------

Maine------------------------

Michigan---------------------

Minnesota--------------------

Mississippi------------------

Missouri---------------------

Nevada-----------------------

New Jersey-------------------

North Carolina---------------

North Dakota-----------------

Ohio-------------------------

Oregon-----------------------

Pennsylvania-----------------

Rhode Island-----------------

South Carolina---------------

South Dakota-----------------

Tennessee--------------------

Texas------------------------

Utah-------------------------

Virginia---------------------

Washington-------------------

West Virginia----------------

Wisconsin--------------------

Wyoming----------------------

Other

Total White Negro nonwhite

Number of illegitimatebirths

195,068

9,162

420

1,194

4,648

12,384

1,138

17,096

5,772

1,862

1,864

4,140

9,524

876

9,800

3,570

8,690

6,430

526

7,096

10,874

506

12,780

1,690

12,966

640

7,266

796

8,040

14,906

460

8,684

2,906

2,486

3,606

270

73,692

950

116

316

412

3,346

314

5,666

3,554

1,636

1,210

2,370

1,094

856

5,330

3,100

494

2,306

302

2,850

1,988

418

6,790

1,492

6,222

498

808

444

2,002

6,578

436

2,466

2,444

1,980

2,686

218

118,512

8,210

12

874

4,232

9,022

22

11,386

2,214

224

632

1,768

8,424

6

4,444

218

8,176

4,122

198

4>238

8,662

2

5>962

152

6,494

142

6,456

6

6>036

8,320

16

6,218

276

506

826

16

2,864

2

292

4

4

16

802

44

4

2

22

2

6

14

26

252

20

2

26

8

224

86

28

46

250

2

346

2

8

8

186

94

36

~

Ratio per 1,000 live births

72.6

120.1

57.7

104.3

239.7

108.6

65.5

76.9

54.4

33.6

43.0

60.9

110.6

41.2

55.8

46.4

153.4

72.6

52.4

53.7

102.5

35.0

60.9

50.4

59.3

35.5

127.8

51.0

100.1

63.7

19.2

89.6

50.9

69.7

40.6

37.3

33.2

19.6

(23.4

34.8

82.2

40.1

‘57.4

30.7

36.5

30.0

30.1

38.1

21.1

40.8

34.3

41.3

19.0

30.5

34.4

25.5

27.3

30.3

36.2

46.2

32.1

28.8

24.3

31.4

31.9

33.5

18.7

33.7

45.5

58.1

31.5

31.6

270.9

295.6

*

371.3

295.8

296.6

(62.5

308.9

260.9

256.9

219.7

310.0

247.4

*

227.2

284.6

267.8

319.7

(217.6

210.3

271.8

*

271.0

(252.5

268.5

(202.9,

273.7

*

344.7

222.8

*

263.2

155.8

326.9

276.6

*

107.8

*

141.3

*

*

*

69.4

(44.3)

*

*

(88.7)

*

*

114.8

(75.1)

257.7

*

*

74.3

*

155.3

(143.3)

(121.7)

(71.0)

256.7

*

246.1

*

*

*

(112.2)

(146.9)

(168.2)

41
Table 14. Ratio of illegitimate live births to total live births,by division, State, and color: 1940, 1950,

1955-64

[Byplaceofres,dance. ReFers only to illegitimate broths occ.mng w~t,hin the report,ng area to residents of area]

Division> State,

and color

New Englan$

Maine -------------------

White -----------------

Nonwhite --------------

Vermont -----------------

White -----------------

Nonwhite --------------

llhode Island ------------

White -----------------

Nonwhite --------------

Connecticut -------------

mite -----------------

Nonwhite --------------

Middle Atlantic

New Jersey --------------

White -----------------

Nonwhite--------------

Pennsylvania------------

White-----------------

Nonwhite--------------

East North Central

Ohio--------------------

White-----------------

Nonwhite--------------

Indiana-----------------

White-----------------

Nonwhite--------------

Illinois----------------

White-----------------

Nonwhite--------------

Mic+&n ----------------

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

Nonwhite--------------

Wisconsinz--------------

White~----------------

Nonwhite~-------------

West North Central

Minnesota---------------

White-----------------

Nonwhite--------------

Ima--------------------

White-----------------

Nonwhite--------------

Missouri----------------

White-----------------

Nonwhite--------------

North Dakota------------

White-----------------

Nonwhite--------------

19641

41.2

40.8

70.9

---

---

---

35.5

28.8

193.5

---

---

---

53.7

25.5

209.6

59.3

32.1

268.0

60.9

36.2

269.4

54.4

36.5

?58.3

76.9

30.7

301.9

55.8

34.3

!24.6

40.6

31.5

?53.7

46.4,

41,3

!69.5

33.6

30.0

!30.6

72.6

30.5

117.0

35.0

30.3

.29.8

+

35.2

35.0

56.3

---

---

---

32.8

26.1

180.7

---

---

---

49.3

20.7

221.4

54.2

30.5

241.5

54.3

32.1

240.8

g.:

233:5

70.8

28.4

279.0

49.8

30.5

205.3

36.4

27.5

238.8

38.2

33.8

Z43.8

29.5

26.8

L82.5

68.8

27.7

)20.9

27.9

22.8

.37.3

35.2

34.(

87.C

---

---

---

27.5

21.4

186.1

---

---

---

44.C

18.4

197.6

50.1

26.7

232.7

50.3

29.4

124.7

44.0

29.3

211.5

68.1

25.5

279.9

$:.:

185:9

29.6

23.0

184.9

34.5

29.7

275.7

27.2

23.7

227.7

62.6

25.1

291.2

29.8

24.1

151.4

19611 19601 19591 19581 19571

31.:

;:::

--,

---

---

33.:

26.!

.94.1

---

---

---

40.[

18.2

.80.4

46.6

24.E

.28.6

48.C

27.2

24.3

43.1

27.5

17.3

65.4

23.6

76.2

42.3

25.0

81,8

23.5

18.2

52.6

29.5

25.8

23.0

26.2

23.0

12.5

57.9

22.4

83.1

26.3

20.6

58.8

Patio per 1,000 live births

27.1

27.1

32.2

---

.-.

---

31.6

22.8

241.9

---

---

---

36.1

14.4

3-77.5

41.8

22.9

202.7

43.7

24.7

206.3

;:.;

194:5

59.7

21.2

261.6

37.5

21.7

165.3

25.2

19.4

L63.7

28.4

24.9

!12.7

22.4

20.2

.61.0

57.5

21.3

?85.4

25.3

21.5

.21.8

28.;

28.;

7~.L

---

---

---

32.(

25.(

200.:

---

---

---

34.3

13.6

170.9

42.2

22.3

214.2

43.5

24.0

205.9

35.6

22.2

184.1

58.6

19.0

266.7

34.7

19.5

157.6

23.7

18.9

L47.6

25.5

22.0

217.2

22.2

19.6

189.0

54.4

19.7

?70.5

24.0

18.3

.75.9

29.(

28.;

610~

--,

---

---

32.(

25.(

215.:

---

---

---

31.:

12.:

159.4

40.1

21.$

201:6

40.5

21.9

200.3

35.5

22.6

181.3

53.4

19.0

240.1

34.1

18.7

156.4

20.3

15.8

134.3

24.3

21.5

184.8

20.7

18.7

L65.5

51.3

19.0

257.1

17.9

14.6

116.5

29.:

28.,

104.:

--,

---

---

28.:

22.(

192.1

---

---

---

29.i

12.:

152.(

37.1

19.:

198.(

37.7

20.:

L87.7

31,:

20.C

L65.C

50.~

17.8

235.1

32.9

18.C

L48.5

20.C

15.9

L28.2

23.2

19.8

?20.2

18.9

17.1

.55.2

50.3

16.9

!72.5

19.4

15.6

.31.6

31.;

31.:

66.;

--.

---

---

21.$

17.2

156.4

---

---

---

27.9

12.5

146.1

37.6

20.1

199,0

35.6

20.1

L74.5

30.2

19.3

L61.4

49.9

18.4

236.0

32.1

17.4

L46.2

19.6

15.3

140.1

23.1

19.7

218.7

18.0

16.3

163.9

45.9

16.5

247.3

19.2

16.0

.29.9

31.2

30.$

72.t

---

---

---

19.[

15.Z

144.[

---

---

---

25.5

11.6

140.1

37.3

20.0

206.4

34.8

19.9

173.7

29.4

18.9

162.5

48.3

17.9

234.9

30.4

17.1

L39.O

17.7

14.6

L16.2

21.8

18.7

209.0

18.9

17.2

L55.2

45.9

17.3

z50.6

18.1

14.7

L42.2

28.9

28.7

101.7

21.9

21.7

---

24.1

20.4

165.0

---

---

---

23.6

12.3

128,8

34.6

19.8

207.7

27.9

17.6

146.8

24.0

16.5

152.5

36.8

16.4

211.1

28.4

18.0

136.8

17.8

15.4

145.5

21.5

18.8

215.5

16.5

15.4

L23.O

35.8

15.3

226.3

20.7

17.1

L58.1

1940

30.1

29.8

33.3

32.0

32.0

24.2

21.5

38.2

18.2

16.1

98.7

25.8

15.5

47.0

33.8

24.3

91.2

22.3

16.1

32.4

L7.8

L4.1

20.2

26.4

L8.1

57.7

23.0

L8.7

20.8

L9.6

L8.2

34.2

21.6

10.0

38.9

L6.1

L5.5

t2.9

10.0

12.2

18.1

11.6

.8.9

)3.0

See footnotes at end of table.

42
Table 14. Ratio of illegitimatelive births to total live births,by division, State, and color: 1940, 1950,

1955-64—Con.

-

[3y place of residence. Refers only to illegitimate births occurring within the reporting area to residents of area]

Division, State,

and color

West North Centra&-Con,

South Dakota~----------

White’3,.--------------

Nonwhite~------------

Kansas-----------------

White----------------

Nonwhite-------------

South Atlantic

Delaware---------------

White----------------

Nonwhite-------------

District of Columbia---

White----------------

Nonwhite-------------

Virginia---------------

White----------------

Nonwhite-------------

West Virginia----------

white----------------

Nonwhite-------------

North Carolina---------

White----------------

Nonwhite-------------

South Carolina---------

White----------------

Nonwhite-------------

Georgia----------------

White----------------

Nonwhite-------------

Florida----------------

white----------------

Nonwhite-------------

East South Central

Ke;m&;~y---------------

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

Nonwhite-------------

Tennessee--------------

White----------------

Nonwhite-------------

Alabama----------------

white----------------

Nonwhite-------------

Elisss;ippi------------

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

Nonwhite-------------

West South Central

Arkansas---------------

White----------------

Nonwhite-------------

See footnotes at end

—

19641

51.0

31.4

235.9

$;.:

209:3

104.3

34.8

372.0

239.7

82.2

294.5

88.4

32.1

261.5

69.7

58.1

320.7

1:;.:

266:8

127.8

24.3

273.5

---

---

---

1]:.:

295:5

60.9

38.1

308.1

100.1

31.9

343.7

120.1

19.6

295.4

153.4

19.0

267.1

---

---

---

of table.

19631

u

25.4

37.1

25.2

198.2

91.6

34.0

318.2

238.7

72.1

285.9

84.3

29.7

252.6

69.6

56.0

342.8

99.5

26.9

258.5

129.7

24.2

280.5

---

---

---

102.8

37.4

285.1

56.7

35.0

287.7

96.8

32.0

328.8

1;;.$

282:1

147.9,

15.6

264.0

---

---

---

19621

30.6

18.2

176.8

30.8

20.5

178.9

89.7

31.4

326.2

217.8

69.9

278.4

83.5

29.4

252.5

68.6

56.6

304.5

95.9

23.9

254.1

123.5

20.2

270.7

---

---

---

97.2

31.2

281.7

53.7

32.5

278.0

94.9

31.8

316.4

111.8

16.5

272.5

143.8

14.5

256.9

---

---

---

19611

32.2

18.4

195.3

28.8

19.1

169.1

88.7

29.8

323.5

207.3

65.8

268.4

;:.;

244:2

66.7

53.4

321.2

90.3

23.1

237.7

128.5

22.7

274.2

---

---

---

95.7

29.4

281.1

53.4

31.0

291.5

91.9

30.3

308.3

111.6

16.7

271.2

138.9

13.5

246.0

---

---

---

19601 19591 19581 19571 19561

?atio per 1,000 live births

31.3

16.1

216.1

26.4

17.3

152.2

88.4

29.9

347.7

204.9

55.8

272.4

79.1

25.3

241.0

59.4

47.6

292.1

90.3

22.5

238.1

120.8

20.4

258.4

---

---

---

94.9

27.4

277.1

50.4

30.6

258.6

86.9

27.4

295.9

107.8

15.8

263.6

138.9

14.2

244.3

---

---

---

27.C

14.8

192.2

26.3

16.8

155.2

79.8

23.2

327.5

196.1

60.2

262.3

77.7

24.0

234.0

61.9

49.8

280.3

90.2

23.4

231.0

124.2

20.9

262.9

---

---

---

93.6

25.3

273.9

48.5

29.1

249.1

85.7

28.9

283.3

109.7

16.0

263.9

134.1

12.8

238.0

---

----

---

23.1

11.7

179.1

23.2

13.9

153.2

80.9

23.9

335.5

192.3

53.8

263.7

75.7

23.2

229.6

56.6

46.7

240.3

89.8

21.1

232.2

119.4

19.4

253.3

101.7

17.4

253.3

92.1

23.9

270.1

49.3

29.0

261.8

80.6

27.3

278.1

105.8

13.7

259.9

126.0

12.2

220.5

---

---

---

31.9

18.5

237.6

22.3

14.5

136.7

70.9

18.2

324.C

188.1

58.8

265.3

75.3

22.2

227.9

55.s

45.2

231.7

91.8

20.8

232.6

116.5

18.8

245.2

97.1

15.8

243.5

87.7

22.5

257.6

43.6

26.2

229.9

76.5

25.1

258.6

L04.3

14.2

250.0

L28.1

11.1

221.1

---

---

---

20.C

12.$

141.i

21.:

13.4

152.7

71.5

17.6

334.~

177.:

45.6

265.1

75.4

23.C

226.1

58.6

48.7

231.5

90.1

22.0

227.7

114.2

18.5

236.4

98.2

14.7

246.4

88.9

21.3

260.8

41.8

24.8

219.7

75.2

25.1

255.0

107.2

14.0

255.0

123.7

11.2

212.3

---

---

---

21.4

13.3

179.3

20.4

13.9

135.8

69.4

18.6

323.1

165.8

43.3

266.9

72.1

22.1

216.5

54.9

44.8

219.3

88.2

21.8

221.6

112.9

17.4

233.6

95.0

15.1

237.4

87.6

21.5

256.6

41.9

25.4

223.0

72.6

23.8

254.1

106.2

13.2

251.6

123.8

10.3

211.7

---

---

---

19.5

12.2

162.3

18.5

12.6

140.4

77.3

24.0

318.4

113.8

31.7

218.2

67.2

22.2

194.8

48.2

$;.;

.

81.3

24.0

92.3

94.6

20.6

79.9

79.8

13.4

188.1

74.6

17.8

230.8

33.6

21.5

190.7

58.3

21.8

205.8

90.3

12.9

207.7

103.9

17H

---

---

---

16.2

12.3

77.0

15.9

11.5

132.5

74.0

29.3

304.7

82.0

23.8

216.2

75.5

27.5

197.8

49.1

44.2

138.2

81.0

27.2

194.5

109.8

25.6

195.4

76.9

15.2

171.2

63.7

17.3

175.0

28.3

20.7

170.9

46.5

20.2

192.1

85.1

17.0

195.5

89.7

11.9

150.9

40.5

13.3

126.6

43
Table 14. Ratio of illegitimate live births to total live births. bv division. State. and color: 1940, 1950,

1955-64—Con. ‘ -

[Byplaceofms,dmme.Refersomlytnillegitimate birthsoccumingwithinthereportingmeEItoresidentsofarea]

Division, State,

and color

West South Central—Con.

Louisiana ---------------

White -----------------

Nonwhite--------------

Oklahoma ----------------

White -----------------

Nonwhite --------------

Texas -------------------

White -----------------

Nonwhite --------------

Mountain

Montana -----------------

White -----------------

Nonwhite --------------

Idaho -------------------

White -----------------

Nonwhite --------------

Wy&m~-----------------

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

Nonwhite--------------

Colorado----------------

White-----------------

Nonwhite--------------

New Mexico --------------

White -----------------

Nonwhite=-------------

Arizona -----------------

White -----------------

Nonwhite --------------

Utah --------------------

White -----------------

Nonwhite --------------

Nevada ------------------

White -----------------

Nonwhite ---------------

Pacific

Washington --------------

White -----------------

Nonwhite --------------

Oregon ------------------

White -----------------

Nonwhite --------------

Alaska ------------------

White -----------------

Nonwhite --------------

Hawaii ------------------

White -----------------

Nonwhite --------------

19641

110.6

21.1

246.1

---

---

---

63.7 33.5

221.4

---

---

---

---

---

37.3

31.6

158.5

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

19.2

18.7

40.0

52.4

34.4

177.8

50.9

45.5

134.7

50.4

46.2

158.4

57.7

23.4

131.1

65.5

57.4

69.2

19631

102.5

21.6

226.0

---

---

---

58.4

29.5

221.2

---

---

---

---

29.9

24.0

178.1

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

17.2

15.7

71.9

49.5

31.1

195.9

43.4

38.0

123.8

46.9

43.2

150.8

48.5

14.6

119.1

66.5

54.6

71.8

19621 19611 19601 19591 19581 19571 19561

Ratio per 1,000 live births

98.5

20.3

219.1

---

---

---

56.0

26.6

222.7

---

---

---

---

---

---

24.9

21.0

125.0

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

16.9

16.0

53.5

43.3

26.6

164.1

36.6

32.0

112.7

39.4

35.3

153.0

49.1

17.1

114.7

57.3

37.4

66.0

95.3

18.C

214.8

---

---

---

54.5

24.9

221.0

---

---

---

---

---

---

20.3

17.2

104.6

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

16.2

14.9

71.0

38.3

20.3

170.4

33.4

28.8

105.8

38.7

35.3

136.4

44.7

11.4

113.2

59.3

36.9

69.2

90.1

17.9

204.4

---

---

---

51.5

23.3

213.5

---

---

---

---

---

---

23.0

19.1

118.1

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

15.6

13.7

104.3

36.6

19.3

152.5

28,6

24.7

96.4

30.8

27.2

131.7

47.9

12.3

126.3

52.4

37.6

59.0

89.1

15.2

203.7

---

---

---

48.8

22.6

200.7

28.3

18.6

164.1

---

---

---

18.3

16.3

80.0

---

----

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

15.8

14.4

72.8

34.3

21.1

127.3

26.3

23.0

82.7

32.5~

28.7

146.5

51.5

15.1

119.3

---

---

---

84.0

14.0

194.3

---

---

---

46.8

20.9

196.2

28.0

17.0

196.2

---

---

---

18.9

15.5

114.3

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

12.7

11.2

85.3

27.4

16.5

102.8

27.0

23.3

94.7

28.9

25.0

170.1

---

---

---

---

---

---

82.1

13.1

190.4

---

---

---

44.2

18.4

194.3

23.9

15.4

151.9

---

---

---

21.2

19.0

75.0

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

11.9

11.3

41.8

30.4

20.7

110.2

25.6

22.2

88.6

25.4

22.1

142.3

---

---

---

---

---

---

81.6

13.1

186.4

---

---

---

43.2

18.5

190.1

23.5

15.1

159.2

---

---

---

19.1

16.5

101.6

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

11.1

7;::

25.0

15.7

101.7

21.3

18.1

81.7

24.2

21.1

139.7

---

---

---

---

---

---

1

1955 1950

80.9

13.3

183.6

---

---

---

41.4

17.4

188.2

23.3

1501

156.5

---

---

---

17.3

14.4

105.8

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

9.2

5%:

28.5

17.4

115.8

21.2

17.9

“89.3

22.8

19.7

128.6

---

---

---

---

---

---

78.8

12.4

175.1

---

---

33.7

14.6

156.0

20.8

13.7

145.4

---

---

---

12.5

10.2

88.9

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

9.6

3;:;

22.9

31.9

127.1

17.4

14.9

85.9

17.4

15.3

124.5

---

---

---

---

---

---

1940

82.8

17*4

175.6

31.3

16.9

157.2

29.7

16.2

124.4

18.4

14.6

80.4

;;;

31.6

---

---

---

23.4

22.4

94.5

36.2

33.7

118.3

27.7

24.6

47.6

7.0

4;:;

13.1

10::!

17.1

15.0

91.8

13.7

12.7

76.9

---

---

---

---

---

---

lBa5ed on a so-percent sample of births.

2Figures for lgbl exclude a significant but Unknown number of

as legitimate.

illegititite births erroneously classified

3Figures for 1963 exclude an unknown number of illegitimate births becaukteof erroneous filing of a substitute record which did not include the item on legitimacy status.
Table 15. Illegitimacyratios, by age of mother and color: eae~ Of 35 reporting States, 1964

[BYplaceof midmce. Includes C@ illegitimate births occurring withinthe reporting area to msidmtsof area. Bawd m a 50-p?rcent smpld]

Area and color

Total---------------------------

White-------------------------

Nonwhite----------------------

Alabama-------------------------------

White-------------------------------

Nonwhite----------------------------

Alaska--------------------------------

White--------------------.------.---

Nonwhite----------------------------

Delaware------------------------------

White-------------------------------

Nonwhite----------------------------

Di&;gt of Columbia------------------

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

Nonwhite----------------------------

Florida-----------------------------

Nhite-------------------------------

Nonwhite----------------------------

Hawaii--------------------------------

White-------------------------------

Nonwhite----------------------------

IllJm~ ------------------------------

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

Nonwhite----------------------------

In~%$-------------------------------

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

NomMte ----------------------------

Iowa--------------------------------

White-------------------------------

Nonwhite----------------------------

Kansas ---------------------------- ----

White --------------------------- ----

Nonwhite----------------------------

Kenmn:y ------------------ ------------

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

Nonwhite----------------------------

Lou$u;na -----------------------------

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

Nonwhite----------------------------

Maine-------------------------------

White-------------------------------

Nonwhite-------------------------..-

ltkll;:~------------------------------

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

Nonwhite------------------------.---

All

ages

72.6

33.2

261.6

1;;.;

295:4

57.7

23.4

131.1

104.3

34.8

372.0

2:;.;

294:5

108.6

40.1

295.5

65.5

57.4

69.2

76.9

30.7

301.9

::.:

258:3

33.6

30.0

230.6

43.0

30.1

209.3

60.9

38.1

308.1

L1O.6

21.1

246.1

41.2

::.;

.

55.8

34.3

224,6

Age of mother

Under

15 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40+

years

years years years years years years

Ratio per 1,000 total live births

775.4

507.1

901.2

755.1

333.3

825.4

1,000.0

1,000.0

846.2

1,000.0

833.3

859.4

444.4

927.3

745● 2

471.7

838.7

1,000.0

1,000.0

1,000.0

883.2

522.7

976.5

747.0

577.8

947.4

812.5

769.2

1,000.0

678.6

;::.;

.

642.0

395.3

921.1

796.9

444.4

854.5

500.0

461.5

1,000.0

910.6

750.0

977.0

200.1

98.8

496.0

2;:.;

529:5

196.9

105.9

381.0

305.3

121.0

604.3

479.1

119.2

568.5

2;;.:

518:1

210.2

145.8

238.5

224.2

109*O

514.8

144.0

98.7

503.1

110.1

97.7

486.2

119.1

90.1

414.7

125.8

78.9

511.2

232.7

55.1

419.7

109.1

lgg.:

.

204.9

130.8

517.9

63.4

-

32.1

232.9

94.4

17.9

260.3

58.0

23.8

153.6

86.9

32.3

309.6

1;;.:

241:6

89.2

39.1

250.5

59.0

53.1

62.6

67.0

31.3

261.8

45.3

31.5

234.3

31.6

30.0

143.8

36.8

26.5

187.9

53.4

35.6

277.2

101.0

22.3

236.9

37.5

36.7

100.0

50.2

33.1

211.8

38.1

16.0

164.1

69.2

19;::

31.3

8?:;

55.0

19.8

248.9

1;:.;

174:0

64.3

21.2

194.6

43.8

41.8

44.6

44.5

14.2

220.7

26.9

17.9

144.1

;:.;

147:8

21.5

14.1

130.7

36.4

22.2

209.1

67.1

17::;

20.5

20.0

47.6

22.0

13.8

101.6

35.5

13.3

148.8

77.2

5.4

189.7

25.6

67.;

44.8

23;:;

1;:.:

182:1

62.3

18.2

184.8

31.6

33.2

31.1

43.0

10.8

217.2

28.3”

17.6

140.8

11.6

14::;

1;.;

111:1

33.2

16.9

213.5

70.0

16;:?

21.5

21.2

45.5

19.1

;$;

.

38.1

16.3

144.9

84.3

18;:~

38.5

11.0

76.9

49.9

19.9

200.0

188.1

93.2

222.5

72.6

22.8

211.9

41.9

50.4

40.0

;:.;

219:6

30.7

19.0

144.1

17.8

15.2

193.5

26.2

16.0

146.6

39.7

29.8

139.7

69.1

12.3

147.3

21.0

21.2

17.1

10.1

70.6

40.8

20.4

136.1

72.3

11.1

133.6

23.8

48.;

96.8

29.7

391.3

195.7

102.0

229.6

80.3

33.1

209.8

11.4

15.;

42.8

20.0

178.4

30.7

25.6

87.0

16.8

14.2

200.0

19.5

12;:2

37.1

26.4

162.2

62.8

11.8

L23.5

38.6

38.8

20.5

14.5

63.2

4s
Table 15. Illegitimacy ratios, by age of mother and color: each of 35 reporting States,1964—Con.

[Byplace ofr.ssldence. Incl.des onlyillegitima~ births occurring Within thereporting area presidents ofarea. Based ona50-percent sample]

Area and color

Minnesota -----------------------------

White -------------------------------

Nonwhite ----------------------------

lli~~;~ippi ---------------------------

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

Nonwhite -------- --------------------

Missouri ------------------------------

White -------------------------------

Nonwhite -----------.----------------

Nevada --------------------------------

White -------------------------------

Nonwhite----------------------------

Nmm::sey ----------------------------

-----.-- ----------- --------- ---

Nonwhite----------------------------

No$rttarolina ------------------------

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

Nonwhite ----------------------------

North Dakota--------------------------

White -------------------------------

Nonwhite ----------------------------

Ohio----------------------------------

White -------------------------------

Nonwhite----------------------------

Oregon--------------------------------

White -------------------------------

Nowhite-----------------------------

Pennsylvania--------------------------

White -------------------------------

Nonwhite----------------------------

Rhod;t~sland--------------------------

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

Nonwhite----------------------------

South Carolina ------------------------

White -------------------------------

Nonwhite ----------------------------

Sout~t~akota--------------------------

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

Nonwhite----------------------------

Tennessee -----------------------------

White -------------------------------

Nonwhite ----------------------------

Texas ---------------------------------

White -------------------------------

Nonwhite----------------------------

~

Age of mother

All Under

15 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40+

ages years

years years years years years years

Ratio per 1,000 total live births

46.4

41.3

269.5

153.4

19.0

267.1

72.6

30.5

317.0

52.4

34.4

177.8

53.7

25.5

209.6

102.5

27.3

266.8

35.0

30,3

129.8

60.9

36.2

269.4

50.4

46.2

158.4

59.3

32.1

268.0

35.5

28.8

193.5

127.8

24.3

273.5

51.0

31.4

235.9

100.1

31.9

343,7

63.7

33.5

221.4

947.4

937.5

1,000.0

783.8

529.4

816.8

804.1

485.7

983.9

714.3

500.0

800.0

W;. ;

937:5

841.6

333.3

963.2

1,000.0

1,000.0

874.2

.696.4

970.9

666.7

636.4

1,000.0

843.1

553.2

971.7

800.0

750.0

1,000.0

681.0

250.0

818.2

833.3

800.0

1,000.0

709.2

295.5

896.9

592.L

383.2

846.7

185.8

170.9

488.5

319.6

52.5

494.0

178.3

85.3

528.9

115.8

85.8

326.7

220.3

123.9

453.1

254.0

65.3

539● 4

146.2

136.9

306.1

190.8

119.5

548.7

142.0

129.6

384.6

213.0

117.7

55003

134.2

107.7

442.9

286.8

56.8

520.4

152.7

119.6

405.2

1::.;

548:9

143.6

76.2

404.9

49.7

45.4

232.3

133.0

17.1

259.6

61.6

28.5

290.4

43.3

27.2

,161.0

56.0

27.2

2@2.8

79.8

26.1

220.0

28.6

24.6

120.4

53.8

34.4

238.1

44.4

40.9

144.8

57.2

34.6

240.7

30,4

25.3

158.7

103.2

22.8

245.3

49.8

30.5

258.5

83.4

30.9

302.0

55.5

30.5

198.1

22.4

18.5

218.9

87.9

17!::

41,0

14.4

221.0

37.7

22.1

141.0

“25,1

12.4

112.0

42.0

12.4

123.6

17.1

15.1

58.1

32.5

18.2

172.6

22.0

20.4

66.7

30.1

16.3

161.3

19.2

15.9

103.4

63,6

10.3

149.9

27.2

11.1

185.8

68.4

17,9

270.5

34.5

17.4

138.2

15.1

12.3

159.7

8;.;

134:4

41.0

12.4

203.0

29.4

19.5

96.4

1:.;

92:5

41.9

10,3

112.9

11.1

112:;

28.5

15.8

138.7

24.0

23.0

47.1

22.2

11.6

120.9

19.4

14.4

160.0

62.9

11.9

130.5

24.3

13::?

;;.;

257:7

35.9

19.6

122.8

19.4

16.6

211.5

75.8

2.7

115.3

45.9

15.3

223.8

35.9

25.9

111.1

17.4

8%;

48.2

11.2

110.8

7.5

14;:;

26.8

15.0

132.6

17.4

15.1

68.2

22.5

14.2

103.7

21.0

19.3

71.4

73.6

11.2

139.5

20.1

18;:!’

67.6

29.7

184.0

39.4

22.8

127.8

13.6

1.2.9

76.9

88.1

L2;::

40*2

1.9.7

L67.7

44.9

1,3.2

230.8

19.7

11.8

85.7

58.8

30.7

98.4

40.3

24.4

189.7

15.2

15.7

-

25.9

18.3

102.4

29.0

29.7

-

72.5

14.4

13009

26.9

19:::

69.2

21.7

203.8

46.2

24.1

147.5

46
Table 15. Illegitimacyratios,by age of mother and color: each of 35 reporting States,1964—Con.

[Byplace of residence. Includes only illegitimate births occumirrg within the reporting area to residents of area. fksed on a 50-percent sample]

Area and color

Utah---------------------------------

White-------------------------------

Nonwhite----------------------------

Virginia-----------------------------

White-------------------------------

Nonwhite----------------------------

Washington----------------------------

White-------------------------------

Nonwhite----------------------------

West Virginia-------------------------

White-------------------------------

Nonwhite----------------------------

Wisconsin-----------------------------

White-------------------------------

Nonwhite----------------------------

Wyoming-------------------------------

White-------------------------------

Nonwhite----------------------------

Age of mother

All Under

15 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40+

ages

years

years years years years years years

Ratio per 1,000 total live births

19.2

18.7

40.0

88.4

32.1

261.5

50.9

45.5

134.7

69.7

58.1

320.7

40.6

31.5

253.7

37.3

31.6

158.5

500.0

500.0

711.8

319.1

861.8

913.0

875.0

1,000.0

678.6

625.0

1,000.0

920.0

909● 1

928.6

500.0

500.0

70.2

69.5

95.2

211.7

78.4

467.3

151.1

138.2

332.1

152.8

129.6

598.7

175.2

147.2

508.1

95.9

87.1

258.1

18.0

17.2

54.9

73.5

32.3

220.9

44.7

39.9

132.3

60.7

51.3

302.9

40.2

32.8

231.0

30.9

25.9

160.0

;:;

12.7

47.8

15.8

164.6

22.0

19.4

65.4

42.5

34.4

242.2

20.0

14.6

164.4

23.5

17.7

133.3

8.2

7.2

38.5

46.2

13.2

158.2

20.8

17.6

60.5

40.1

27.5

264.0

17.7

10.3

211.9

15.2

13.7

41.7

7.6

7.8

59.5

22.5

172.0

26.0

21.7

84.0

51.2

43.9

180.6

15.3

11.3

119● 2

22.9

25;:;

3.3

3.4

65.6

29.1

153.3

45.1

44.6

51.3

53.6

57.9

16.8

11.4

170.2

12.8

13.2

47
Table 16. Number of illeglcl~ce births for metropolitan and nonmetropolitan counties, by color and age of mother (ex.

eluding Naw Jersey): 1962-64

[Byplace ofrewdence. Based .na50.percenL sample. Ye fcrsonly tiblrths occuming within tiereporting are.sti residenti of thearea. Metxo@itan counties include all

counties that are In stnndad metropolitan statistical areas (metiopohtan StateeconomicareasfmNewEngland).Ncmmetmpcditam countiesincludeall.athercounties.Fig.

uresfmageofmothernotsiatedaradlstr]buted]

Color and

age of mother

Total

All agea--

Under 15 years--

15-19 years-----

20-24 years-----

25-29 years-----

30-34 yeara-----

35-39 yeara-----

40+ years-------

White

All ages--

Under 15 years--

15-19 years-----

20-24 yeara-----

25-29 years-----

30-34 yeara-----

35-39 years-----

40+ years-------

Nonwhite

All ages--

Under 15 years--

15-19 years-----

20-24 yeara-----

25-29 yeara-----

30-34 years-----

35-39 years-----

40+ yeara-------

1964 1963 1962

Metro- nome troTotal

Metrc.- NonmetroPOLitan politan TotalMetro- NOnmetrOpolitan politan Total politan

counties counties

politan

counties counties countiea counties

Number of live births

187,972

4,236

77,534

58,432

24,340

13,274

7,676

2,480

70.842

884

28,452

25,022

8,640

4,134

2,694

1,016

117,130

3,352

49,082

33,410

15,700

9,140

4,982

1,464

117,830

2,648

47,632

37,124

15,712

8,496

4,732

1,486

44.284

494

17,410

15,866

5,498

2,704

1,666

646

73,546

2,154

30,222

21,258

10,214

5,792

3,066

840

70,142 176,900

1,588 3,900

29,902 70,862

21,308 54,944

8,628 23,774

4,778 13,486

2,944 7,488

994 2,446

T

26,558 65,410

390 782

11,042 25,866

9,156 22,868

3,142 8,036

1,430 4>312

1,028 2,586

370 960

43,584 111,490

1,198 3,118

18,860 44,996

12,152 32,076

5>486 15,738

3,348 9,174

1,916 4,902

624 1,486

109,774

2,474

42,484

34,858

15>324

8,708

4,516

1,410

40.494

482

15,536

14,532

5,060

2,736

1,590

558

69,280

1,992

26,948

20,326

10,264

5,972

2,926

852

67,126

1,426

28,378

20,086

8,450

4,778

2,972

1,036

24,916

300

10,330

8,336

2,976

1,576

996

402

42,210

1,126

18,048

11,750

5,474

3,202

1,976

634

170,330

3,796

66,720

52,600

23,358

13,754

7,822

2,280

60,214

864

23,734

20,362

7,460

4,354

2,524

916

110,116

2>932

42,986

32,238

15,898

9,400

5,298

1,364

104,586

2,302

39,696

32,584

15,104

8,888

4,758

1,254

36,574

502

14,020

12,470

4,702

2,826

1,544

510

68.012

1,800

25,676

20,114

10,402

6,062

3,214

744

65.744

1,494

27,024

20,016

8,254

4,866

3,064

1,026

23,640

362

9,714

7,892

2,758

1,528

980

406

42,104

1>132

17,310

12,124

5,496

3,338

2,084

620
Table 17. Illegitimacy ratios for metropolitan and nonmetropolitan ccmnties, by color and age of mother (excluding

NW Jersey): 1962-64

[By place ofmsidence.Based cm a50-peTcent smnple.Refers only to hirthsoccurnng within thersprting sreata residents of the area. Metropolitan counties include all counties

that are in standard metropolitan st&stical areas (metr.aplitan Stataeconomicaroas for New E@=.nd). Nonmetropolitan counties include all other counties. Figures for

age of motlmr not stated are distributed]

Color and

age of mother

Under

15-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

Total

All ages--

15 years--

years-----

years-----

years-----

years-----

years-----

40+ years-------

a>

All ages--

Under 15 years--

15-19 years-----

20-24 years-----

25-29 years-----

30-34 years-----

35-39 yaars-----

40t years-------

-Nonwhite

All ages--

Under 15 years--

15-19 years-----

20-24 years-----

25-29 year.v-----

30-34 years-----

35-39 years-----

40+ yeara-------

1964 1963 1962

Total Metro - Nonme troTotal Metro - Nonmetro- Metro- Nmunetropolitan politan POlitan politan Total politan politan

counties counties counties counties counties counties

Ratio per 1,000 live births

770.7 822.4

199.4 231.9

63.7 69.9

38.8 41.4

36.7 38.7

39.4 40.7

41.9 44.9

499.4 546.5

98.0 119.7

32.3 36.0

16.2 ::.;

13.7

16.7 17:3

21.0 23.6

T

263.9

899.6

(+97.7

234.4

166.7

151.4

147.6

137.7

266.0

IT

65.9 68.1 72.5

697.7 741.7 806.9

163.0 182.3 207.8

55.3 59.3 65.2

35.0 37.2 39.6

33.7 35.8 37.s

37.5 37.2 37.5

38.2 40.8 42.3

--LL 450.3

76.2

27.5

14.8

12.0

15.8

17.5

451.5

87.7

29.1

14.8

13.7

15.5

19.3

551.5

104.7

32.7

15.6

14.3

15.8

20.0

260.6 1 251.2 [ 250.6

849.6 884.3 908.8

;::.: $;:.; ;;;.;

161:5 161:4 163:6

148.2 147.8 152.0

139.6 143.5 145.2

128.6 144.0 154.9

61.9

650.5

154.0

51.2

33.6

32.6

36.9

39.0

27.2

349.7

70.5

24.5

13.7

12.7

15.0

18.5

252.0

844.1

;;:.:

157:3

140.7

141.0

131.7

=+

67.61 58.8

I

728.9 779.8 662.2

166.9 189.3 142.1

56.6 61.1 50.5

35.5 38.0 31.7

34.5 36.6 31.3

37.0 37.7 35.9

36.7 36.7 36.6

_._2dl 28.9 I 24.9

460.1 524.0 393.5

77.2 90.9 63.4

25.9 28.2 22.9

13.4 14.1 12.3

13.1 14.0 11.6

14.4 14.8 13.9

17.7 17.8 17.7

49
Table 18. Numberof illegitimatebirths and illegitimacyratios for metropolitanand nonmetropolitan counties,by color: 35 reporting States, 1964

[By place ofresldence. Basedon a 50-percent sample. Refers only toillegitimate births occurring within thereporting area to residents of area.

Metropolitan counties include all counties that areinstandard metropolitan statistical areas (metropolitan State economic areas for New England) ~NonmetropoIitan counties include all other counties]

State and color

Total, 35 States--------------

White-----------------------

Nonwhite--------------------

Alabama-----------------------------

White-----------------------------

Nonwhite--------------------------

Alaska------------------------------

White-----------------------------

Nonwhite--------------------------

Delaware----------------------------

White-----------------------------

Nonwhite--------------------------

District of Columbia----------------

White-----------------------------

Nonwhite--------------------------

Florida-----------------------------

White-----------------------------

Nonwhite--------------------------

Hawaii------------------------------

White-----------------------------

Nonwhite--------------------------

Illinois----------------------------

White-----------------------------

Nonwhite--------------------------

Indiana-----------------------------

White-----------------------------

Nonwhite--------------------------

Iowa--------------------------------

White-----------------------------

Nonwhite--------------------------

Kansas------------------------------

White-----------------------------

Nonwhite--------------------------

Kentucky----------------------------

White-----------------------------

Nonwhite--------------------------

Louisiana---------------------------

White-----------------------------

Nonwhite--------------------------

Maine-------------------------------

White-----------------------------

Nonwhite--------------------------

Metro- NonTotal politan metrocounties ::;;:;:s

Numberof illegitimatebirths

195.068

73,692

121,376

9,162

950

8,212

420

116

304

1,194

316

878

4,648

412

4,236

12,384

3,346

9,038

1,138

314

824

17,096

5,666

11,430

5,772

3,554

2,218

1,862

1,636

226

1,864

1,210

654

4,140

2,370

1 770

524

094

43C

876

856

20

123.884

46,574

77,310

4,296

466

3,830

. . .

. . .

. . .

692

222

470

4,648

412

4,236

8,004

2,506

5,498

966

280

686

15,522

4,448

11,074

3,816

1,842

1,974

920

708

212

1,072

616

456

1,738

746

992

4,644

588

4,056

208

204

4

71.184

27,118

44>066

4,866

484

4,382

420

116

304

502

4%

...

...

...

4,380

840

3,540

172

1%

1,574

1,218

356

1,956

1,712

244

942

928

14

792

594

198

2,402

1,624

778

4,880

506

4,374

668

652

16

=

Ratio per 1,000 live births

72.6

33.2

261.6

120.1

19.6

295.4

57.7

23.4

131.1

104.3

34.8

372.0

239.7

82.2

294.5

108.6

40.1

295.5

65.5

57.4

69.2

76.9

30.7

301.9

54.4

36.5

258.3

33.6

30.0

230.6

43.0

30.1

209.3

60,9

38.1

308.1

,110.6

21.1

246.1

41.2

40.8

70.9

78.0

36.0

262.9

121.3

21.1

288.2

...

...

...

91.4

35.6

353.4

239.7

82.2

294.5

110.8

47.1

289.2

65.0

54.8

70.4

86.9

31.3

302.8

73.5

41.5

260.1

43.1

34.5

265.7

56.8

36.7

216.5

71.8

35.2

330.0

111.1

23.0

249.4

51.1

50.5

133.3

65.0

29.3

259.2

119.0

18.3

302.0

57.7

23.4

131.1

129.6

33.1

396.1

...

...

...

104.9

27.8

305.9

68.6

96.0

64.1

36.0

28.7

276.8

36.2

32.2

244.0

27.6

27.4

76.9

32.4

25.3

194.5

54.9

39.6

284.1

110.1

19.2

243.1

38.9

38.5

63.5

50
Table 18. Number of”illegitimte births and illegitimacy ratios for metropolitan and nonmetropolitan counties, by color: 35 reporting States, 1964—Con.

[By place of residence. Based ona 50-percent sample. Refers only to illegitimate births occurring within Urereporting area toresidents of area.

hietropolitan counties include all counties that areinstandard metmpoli~n statistical areas (metropolikn Skte economic areas for New Ens

land); Non metropolitan counties include all other counties]

State and color

Michigan ----------------------------

White -----------------------------

Nonwhite --------------------------

Minnesota ---------------------------

White -----------------------------

Nonwhite --------------------------

w;;;~~~pi -------------------------

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

Nonwhite --------------------------

Missouri ----------------------------

White -----------------------------

Nonwhite --------------------------

Nevada ------------------------------

White -----------------------------

Nonwhite --------------------------

New Jersey --------------------------

White -------------------- --------

Nonwhite --------------------------

North Carolina ----------------------

White-----------------------------

Nonwhite --------------------------

North Dakota------------------------

White -----------------------------

Nonwhite --------------------------

Ohio--------------------------------

White -----------------------------

Nonwhite --------------------------

Oregon------------------------------

White -----------------------------

Nonwhite --------------------------

Pennsylvania ------------------------

White -----------------------------

Nonwhite --------------------------

Rhode Island------------------------

White -----------------------------

Nonwhite --------------------------

South Carolina ----------------------

White -----------------------------

Nonwhite --------------------------

South Dakota ------------------------

White -----------------------------

Nonwhite --------------------------

Metro- NonTotal politan metrocounties :::~i:s

Numberof illegitimate births

9,800

5,330

4,470

3,570

3,100

470

8,690

494

8,196

6,430

2,306

4,124

526

302

224

7,096

2,850

4,246

10,874

1,988

8,886

506

418

88

12,780

6,790

5,990

1,690

1,:;:

12,966

6,222

6,744

640

498

142

7,266

808

6,458

796

444

352

8,094

3,914

4,180

2,524

2,210

314

676

6%

4,884

L,448

3,436

474

270

204

6,054

2,290

3,764

2,722

614

2,108

66

66

10,498

4,822

5,676

1,158

986

172

11,092

4,516

6,576

532

412

120

2,298

332

1,966

196

178

18

1,706

1,416

290

1,046

890

156

8,014

454

7,560

1,546

858

688

52

32

20

1,042

560

482

8,152

1,374

6,778

440

352

88

2,282

1,968

314

532

506

26

1,874

1,706

168

108

86

22

4,968

476

4,492

600

266

334

Metro- NonTotal politan metrocounties politan

counties

Ratio& per 1,000 live births

55.8

34.3

224.6

46.4

41.3

269.5

153.4

19.0

267.1

72.6

30.5

317.0

52.4

34.4

177.8

53.7

25.5

209.6

102.5

27.3

266.8

35.0

30.3

129.8

60.9

36.2

269.4

50.4

46.2

158.4

59.3

32.1

268.0

35.5

28.8

193.5

1.27.8

24.3

273.5

51.0

31.4

235.9

62.6

35.3

227.1

59.2

53.3

262.5

130.6

17.1

224.6

86.8

32.1

308.9

57.1

37.2

198.1

60.1

27.5

215.1

104.1

33.1

276.9

44.5

44.7

71.7

38.4

271.5

67.4

60.2

215.0

64.7

30.7

268.2

37.4

30.2

211.3

117.9

25.7

298.5

88.7

82.0

450.0

37.0

31.7

193.3

30.6

26.4

284.7

155.7

19.2

271.4

47.8

28.2

364.4

29.8

21.1

87.0

33.2

19.6

174.8

102.0

25.3

263.8

33.9

28.6

131.0

36.0

31.7

236.4

32.5

31.8

57.8

39.7

36.6

260.1

28.4

23.6

132.5

132.9

23.4

263.8

44.7

22.2

230.0

51
Table 18. Numberof illegitimate births and illegitimacy ratios for metropolitan and nonmetropolitan counties, by color: 35 reporting States, 1964-Con,

[By place of residence. Bassd on a 50-percent. sample. Refers only h illegitimate births occurring within the reporting area to residents of area.

Metropolitan counties include all counties that arein stsndard metropolitan statistical areas (metropolitan State economic areas for New Eng.

land) .Nonmetropolitsn counties include allothercountiesl

State and color

Tennessee ---------------------------

White -----------------------------

Nonwhite --------------------------

Texas-------------------------------

White -----------------------------

Nonwhite --------------------------

Utah--------------------------------

White -----------------------------

Nonwhite --------------------------

Virginia ----------------------------

White -----------------------------

Nonwhite --------------------------

Washington --------------------------

White -----------------------------

Nonwhite --------------------------

West Virginia -----------------------

White -----------------------------

Nonwhite --------------------------

Wisconsin ---------------------------

White -----------------------------

Nonwhite --------------------------

Wy~m:;-----------------------------

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

Nonwhite --------------------------

Metro- NonTotal politan metrocounties politan

counties

Number of illegitimate births

8,040

.2,002

6,038

14,906

6,578

8,328

460

436

24

~:::

6;218

2,906

2,444

462

2,486

1,980

506

3,606

2,686

920

270

218

52

5,104

830

4,274

11,212

5,188

6,024

360

342

18

4,354

1,328

3,026

2,040

1,696

344

772

634

138

2,248

1,420

828

...

..*

...

2,9361

1,172

1,764

3,694

1,390

2,304

100

94

6

4,330

1,138

3,192

866

748

118

1,714

1,346

368

1,358

1,266

92

270

218

52

Tota 1

Metro- Nonpolitan metrocounties politan

counties

Ratio per 1,000 live births

100.1

31.9

343.7

63.7

33.5

221.4

19.2

18.7

40.0

89.6

33.7

261.5

50.9

45.5

134.7

69.7

58.1

320.7

40.6

31.5

253.7

37.3

31.6

158.5

133.4

31.2

366.8

70.7

39.4

223.6

21.9

21.1

73.8

82.0

32.2

254.7

55.1

49.1

139.2

70.4

60.4

294.9

51.6

35.1

264.4

,,.

.,,

...

69.9

32.5

298.3

48.9

21.4

215.8

13.4

13.2

16.9

98.8

35.6

268.4

43.0

39.0

123.2

69.4

57.1

331.5

30.0

28.3

186.2

37.3

31.6

158.5

52
Table 19. Numberof illegitimatebirths and illegitimacyratios, by color: 150 standard metropolitan statisticalareaslof the United States, 1964

@yplaceofresidence. Refers ODIYto births occurring within the reporting area to residents of the area. Areas shown are those listed in standard

metrcmolitel rstatisticalareas issuedin 1961 by the Bureau of the Budzet. excer.rt for those in New England, where areas are metropolitan State

econ~mic areas established bythe Bureau of the Census in 1960. Ba~erf’on a;O-percentsamplel -

Standardmetropolitan statisticalareas

Abilene, Tex---------------------------------------

Akron, Ohio----------------------------------------

Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton,Pa.-N.J----------------

Altoona, Pa----------------------------------------

Amarillo, Tex-------------------------------.------

&m Arbor, Mich------------------------------------

Asheville, N.C-------------------------------------

Atlantic City, N.J---------------------------------

Austin, Tex-------------.------.-------------------

Baton Rouge, La------------------------------------

Bay City, Mich-------------------------------------

Beaumont-PortArthur, Tex--------------------------

Birmingham,Ala------------------------------------

Brownsville-Harlingen-SanBenito, Tex--------------

Canton, Ohio---------------------------------------

Cedar Rapids, Iowa---------------------------------

Champaign-Urbana,Ill------------------------------

Charleston,S.C------------------------------------

Charleston,W. Va----------------------------------

Charlotte,N.C-------------------------------------

Chicago, Ill---------------------------------------

Cincinnati,Ohio-Ky--------------------------------

Cleveland,Ohio------------------------------------

Cbkmbia, S.C------------------------------------

Columbus, Ohio..-----------------------------------

Corpus Christi, TAX--------------------------------

Dallas, Tex----------------------------------------

Davenport-RockIsland-Moline,Iowa-Ill-------------

Dayton, Ohio---------------------------------------

Decatur, 111---------------------------------------

.

Des Moines, Iowa-----------------------------------

Detroit,Mich--------------------------------------

Dubuque, Iowa--------------------------------------

Dulu~-~p~ior, Minn.-Wis-------------------------

. --------------------------------------- 9

El Paso, Tax---------------------------------------

Erie, pa-------------------------------------------

Eugene, Oreg---------------------------------------

Evansville,Ind.-Ky--------------------------------

Fargo-Moorhead,N. Dak.-Minn-----------------------

Flint, Mich----------------------------------------

Fort Lauderdale-Holly’wood,Fla-.-------------------

Fort Wayne, Ind------------------------------------

Fort Worth, Tax------------------------------------

Gadsden,Ala---------------------------------------

Galveston-TexasCity, Tex--------------------------

Gary-Hammond-EastChicago, Ind---------------------

Grand Rapids, Mich---------------------------------

Green Bay, Was-------------------------------------

Greensboro-HighPoint, N.C-------------------------

NonTotal White white

Number of illegitimate

108

748

312

132

130

180

190

402

426

644

3::

1,598

186

414

106

122

1,038

390

806

13,272

2,120

2,576

638

1,434

268

2,598

258

1,178

184

372

5,648

2;;

320

694

248

118

234

90

574

962

390

844

146

312

760

:;:

582

births68

;;:

130

94

106

100

166

252

78

70

1%

180

256

98

62

100

308

168

3,292

816

856

116

752

218

858

202

566

102

264

2,344

2%

32

658

166

112

126

90

298

264

242

362

20

2%

336

118

152

3::

44

3:

X!

236

;;:

29:

1,45:

158

8

9%

6%

9,980

1,304

1,;;;

682

1,7%’

6%

82

108

3,304

10

288

36

8;

108

276

698

148

:;:

250

472

114

43:

*’

Ratio per 1,000

live births

37.9

68.7

35.1

49.3

35.7

44.6

69.9

126.7

77.8

106.2

31.8

60.6

124.6

42.1

60.5

29.2

48.4

153.0

79.9

117.4

91.9

85.2

68.5

L05.O

83.4

45.1

91.4

40.5

75.3

73.3’

66.3

69.0

14.5

57.7

129.3

63.4

46.0

32.4

57.2

39.0

56.2

L31.2

68.5

63.3

77.7

95*1

55.5

51.9

35.3

L02.8

25.7

42.8

30.6

48.8

27.8

28.8

41.8

68.3

54.5

20.4

29.4

20.2

19.0

41.0

40.3

27.3

;;.:

66:6

35.9

29.5

38.9

28.2

30.1

51.0

38.4

39.4

33.2

42.0

45.5

49.6

34.8

14.6

56.9

21.3

62.2

32.5

.31.2

33.9

39.2

33.5

54.2

46.8

32.2

13.6

26.5

25.8

41.4

33.5

37.8

194.2

275.1

333*3

142.9

135.3

210.2

272.7

318.9

205.2

253.1

428.6

162.6

287.1

250.0

318.5

173.9

265.5

359.7

315.4

291.1

302.8

335.2

238.2

234.3

281.1

185.2

260.8

195.8

283.1

303.7

377.6

228.7

89.;

296.3

98.9

299.3

120.0

287.2

210.7

283.5

285.7

230.6

311.9

266.5

186.7

200.0

166.7

261.2

53
Table 19. Number of illegii:imatehirtns and illegitimacy ratios,by color: 150 standard rnetropoli.

tan statistical.areasl of the United States, 1964—Con.

[Byplwe of residence. Refers only to births occurring within the reporting area to residents of the area. Areas shown are those listed in standard

metropolitan statistical areas issuedin 1961 by the Bureau of tbe Budget, except for those in New England, where areas are metrOPOlitan State

economic areas established by, the Bureau of;he Census in 1960. Ba;ed on a 50-percent samplq

Standard metropolitan statistical areas

Greenville, S.C------------------------------------

Hamilton-Middletown, Ohio--------------------------

Harrisburg, Pact -----------------------------------

Honolulu, Hawa~l -----------------------------------

Houston, Tex---------------------------------------

Huntington-Ashland, W.Va. -Ky.-Ohio-----------------

Huntsville? Ala------------------------------------

Indianapol~s, Ind----------------------------------

Jackson, Mica --------------------------------------

Jackson, Miss --------------------------------------

Jacksonville, Fla----------------------------------

Jersey City, N.J-----------------------------------

Johnstown, Pa--------------------------------------

Kalamazoo, Mica ------------------------------------

Kansas City, Mo.-Kans ------------------------------

Kenosha, Wis---------------------------------------

Knoxville, Term ------------------------------------

Lake Charles, La-----------------------------------

Lancaster, Pa--------------------------------------

Lansing, Mica --------------------------------------

Laredo, Tex----------------------------------------

Las Vegas, Net-------------------------------------

Lexington, KY--------------------------------------

Lima, Ohio-----------------------------------------

Lorain-Elyria, Ohio--------------------------------

Louisville, Ky.-Ind --------------------------------

Lubbock, Tex---------------------------------------

Lynchburg, Va--------------------------------------

Madison, Wis---------------------------------------

Memphis, Term --------------------------------------

Miami, Fla-----------------------------------------

Nidland, Tex---------------------------------------

Milwaukee, Was-------------------------------------

Minneapolis-St. Paul, Mien -------------------------

Mobile, Ala----------------------------------------

Monroe, La-----------------------------------------

Montgomery, Ala------------------------------------

Muncie, Ind----------------------------------------

Muskegon-Muskegon Heights, Mica --------------------

Nashville, Term ------------------------------------

Newark, N.J----------------------------------------

New Orleans, La------------------------------------

Newport News-Hampton, Va---------------------------

Norfolk-Portsmouth, Va-----------------------------

Odessa, Tex ------.-------------.-.---------.--..-.--

Ogden, Utah----------------------------------------

Orlando, Flab --------------------------------------

Paterson-Clifton-Passaic, N.J----------------------

Pensacola, Fla-------------------------------------

Peoria, Ill----------------------------------------

rotal IIWhite Nonwhite

II I

Number of illegitimate

births

492

230

606

966

2,774

282

238

1,734

138

676

1,;;;

160

196

1,902

5;:

256

238

320

4%

192

162

234

1,330

234

244

234

3,158

2,190

1,6%

2,254

1,126

400

694

134

234

874

2,784

2,076

482

1,604

74

6;;

746

512

450

l%

356

280

846

242

7:;

104

40

410

294

136

140

736

2::

74

180

266

2::

%

134

504

122

2::

208

71C

9%

1,948

136

::

1!:

192

77C

282

llC

352

4C

2;:

316

122

32C

3;;

250

686

1,928

40

188

1,002

6::

972

378

!%

1,166

23;

182

58

54

19:

1;:

100

826

112

176

2,9;:

1,480

7%

306

990

374

636

1::

682

2,014

1,794

372

1,252

34

47:

430

390

124

=

Katio per 1,000

live births

L:) .:

86:5

65.0

83.4

53.8

51.1

.00.3

49.5

.30.6

i15.1

53.8

35.8

54.7

80.4

27.2

(55.;

39:3

42.4

33.0

68.6

55.5

69.3

44.1

79.1

48.6

101.3

40.2

L95.O

L17.O

49.1

61.4

59.7

L34.4

147.8

L79.4

50.4

68.7

93.8

77.8

90.8

69.3

98.7

37.3

24.9

84.9

31.8

88.3

72.7

25.8

40.5

56.4

54.8

34.9

47.6

1300

52.6

39.2

17.1

47.0

28.2

30.9

41.6

37.4

24.6

40.7

31,2

30.5

36.7

32.4

41.0

28,2

41.2

27.4

34.8

28.4

39.3

37.7

24.2

52.0

30.2

37.4

53.2

27.3

16.4

31.8

32.3

39.4

27.1

28.9

20.3

22.2

31.1

21.7

24.7

34.3

14.7

27.7

56.1

320.5

261.5

359.2

70.4

214.0

241.0

231.0

297.0

250.0

224.6

295.8

184.2

375.0

259.3

291.5

222.2

352.4

;;:.;

180:0

142.9

224.5

197.1

301.6

243.9

355.1

216.2

259.6

209.3

388.8

291.7

;;:.;

281:8

291.9

332.7

311.2

293.5

255.4

305.0

220.7

199.9

;;:.:

239:4

34.5

258.7

215.2

280.6

298.1

54
@le 19. Number of illegitimate births and illegitimacy ratios,by color:150 standard metropolitan statistical areasl of the United States 1964—Con.

@yplace of residence. Refers only to births occurring within thereporting area roreeidents of the area. Areas shown are those listed in standard

metrmolitans tatistical areas iseuedin 1961 by the Bureau of the Budget, except for those in New England, where areas are metropolitan State

econ~mic areas established bythe Bureau of the Census in 1960. Based ona50-percent samplel

Standard metropolitan statistical areas

Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J ------------------------------

Pittsburgh, Pa--------- ----------------------------

Portland, Maine ------------------------------------

Portland, Oreg.-Wash --------------------------- ----

Providence, R.I------------------ --------- ---------

Provo-Orem, Utah-----------------------------------

Racine, Wis----------------------------------------

Raleigh, N.C---------------------------------------

Reading, Pa----------------------------------------

Reno, Nev------------------------------------------

Richmond, Va --------- --------------------------- ---

Roanoke, Va ------------------ ------------------ ----

Rockford, 111------------------ --+------ -----------

Saginaw, Mich --------------------4------ -----------

St. Joseph, Mo-------------------------------------

St. Louis, Mo.-I11---------------------------------

Salt Lake City, Utah---------------+---------------

San Angelo, Tex -------- ---------------- ------------

San Antonio, Tex ------------------ --,---------------

Scranton, Pa------------------ ------*--- -----------

Seattle, Wash --------- ------------------- ----------

Shreveport, La ----------------------*- -------------

Sioux City, Iowa--------------------------- --------

Sioux Falls, S. Dak -----------------a --------------

South Bend, Ind--------- ---.---------+----- ---------

Spokane, Wash-----------------------+--------------

Springfield, Ill--------------------+--------------

Springfield, Mo --------- ------------+----- ---------

Springfield, Ohio------------------ -j---------------

Steubenville-Weirton, Ohio-W.Va-----<---------------

Tacoma, Wash ------------------ -----k--- --------- ---

Tampa-St. Petersburg, Fla ---------+-----------------

Terre Haute, Ind--------- ---------,---------- -------

Toledo, Ohio------------------ ---*----- ------------

Topeka, Kans------------------ ---p-----------------

Trenton, N.J---------------------------------------

Tuscaloosa, Ala ------------------ +-------- ---------

Tyler, Tex-----------------------+-----------------

Waco, Tex------------------------------------------

Waterloo, Iowa------------------ -+-------- ---------

West Palm Beach Fla--------- -----+---- -------------

Wheeling, W. Vs.-Ohio------------*-----------------

Wichita, Kans--------------------w-----------------

Wichita Falls, Tex ---------------+-- --------- ------

Wilkes-Barre-Hazleton, Pa--------+ --------- --------

Wilmington, Del.-J.J--------------*----------------

Winston-Salem, N.C---------------------------------

York, Pa--------------------------- *-------- -------

Youngstown-Warren, Ohio--------- ..----*--------------

Chicago-Northwestern Indiana~----------------------

II Non- Total White

white

huaber of ille~itimate

births7,078

2,168

208

1,106

532

36

116

380

286

72

1,094

262

254

278

102

4,034

252

76

1,298

118

1,372

1,268

110

196

320

250

230

96

176

112

352

1,472

200

702

150

568

330

174

244

144

796

252

540

1::

802

444

338

520

14,032

IAII SMSATS that are completely in the reporting area.

1,840

1,086

204

940

412

34

;:

208

66

232

106

132

134

74

1,022

238

48

1,016

112

1,106

128

98

178

178

230

172

1;!

88

294

610

154

388

88

320

48

30

60

94

174

220

3;;

172

278

2X

258

3,580

5,238

1,082

16:

120

2

2%

7:

862

156

122

144

28

3,012

14

2%!

6

266

1,140

12

lE!

:;

ii:

24

8%

46

314

62

248

282

144

184

50

622

2%

48

8

524

368

108

262

10,452

EIEEIE

Ratio per 1,000

live births

75.4

50.3

51.1

71.5

37.4

12.9

32.2

91.9

56.6

29.5

118.3

83.9

50.8

57.4

57.0

85.7

23.5

50.3

68.0

31.9

61.3

184.6

51.6

88.7

68.8

49.1

68.2

38.4

61.9

37*4

46.5

98.8

98.0

74.3

43.0

103.1

139.2

93.0

73.3

51.4

148.7

74.9

69.8

35.3

33.0

90.5

103.4

69.4

55.6

88.7

25.1

28.0

50.5

63.9

30.2

12.2

22.5

30.0

43.0

28.8

36.5

39.9

28.8

31.5

43.2

27.4

22.5

33.5

57.5

30.5

53.2

33.1

47.5

82.0

42.7

46.7

54.2

31.8

43.4

30.9

42.7

51.6

79.9

47.6

28.0

74.9

32.3

25.6

22.9

36.5

50.3

67.3

45.8

19.7

31.7

38.2

24.6

49.3

30.7

29.2

255.5

252.1

133.3

217.8

211.3

83.3

170.9

232.2

357.8

40.5

297.2

331.9

286.4

242.4

378.4

307.4

86.4

359.0

201.1

250.0

165.8

380.0

171.4

450.0

297.1

123.5

295.9

360.0

244.3

166.7

83.6

280.8

410.7

242.3

177.1

200.3

319.0

206.9

261.4

219.3

328.1

326.5

258.0

;:;.;

.

331.6

305.1

524.3

274.1

294.6

2Corrrprisedof two standard metropolitan statistical areas—

East Chicago, Indiana.

Chicago, Illinois,and Gary-Hammond55
Table 20. Illegitimacy ratio% by age of mother and color: standard metropolitan statistical areas

in the reporting States with one million or more population in 1960: 1964

[Byplace of residence. Refers onlytibirths occ.rfing within thereporting areatiresidents of thearea. Areas shown are those listed instand.

ard metropolitan statistical areas issued in 1961 by the Bureau of the Budget, except for those in New Englend, where areas are metropolitan

State economic areas established b~the Bureau of the Census in 1960. Based 0na50-perOent sampIe. Figures forage ofmother not stated

are distributed]

Age of mother

Color and area

30-34 35-39 40+

years years years

All

ages

Total

All areas-----------------------

Chicago-Northwestern Indianal ---------

Chicago, Ill--------------------------

Philadelphia, Pa. -N.J-----------------

Detroit, Mica -------------------------

Pittsburgh, Pa------------------------

St. Louis, Mo. -Iii--------------------

Cleveland, Ohio -----------------------

Newark, N.J---------------------------

Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn ------------

Houston, Tax--------------------------

Milwaukee, Was------------------------

Paterson-Clifton-Passaic, N.J---------

Seattle, Wash -------------------------

Dallas, Tax---------------------------

Cincinnati, Ohio-Ky -------------------

Kansas City, Mo. -Kans-----------------

White

All areas-----------------------

Chicago-Northwestern Indianal ---------

Chicago, 111--------------------------

Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J -----------------

Detroit, Mica -------------------------

Pittsburgh, Pa------------------------

St. Louis, Mo. -Iii--------------------

Cleveland, Ohio -----------------------

Newark, N.J---------------------------

Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn ------------

Houstonj Tax--------------------------

Milwaukee, Was------------------------

Paterson-Clifton-Passaic, N.J---------

Seattle, Wash -------------------------

Dallas, Tax---------------------------

Cincinnati, Ohio-Ky -------------------

Kansas City, Mo.-Kans -----------------

Ratio per 1,000 live births

74,8 900,4 256,0 70,0 37.6 33.0 32.9 34.6

47,4

50,1

27,8

21,6

16.3

54,6

29,2

23.8

20,3

45,2

36.7

11,0

16.5

47,6

37,5

38,4

11.2

44,4

46,0

23.8

16,9

18.9

40,8

31,6

27,1

25,4

95,9

39,4

21,9

56,5

29.0

61,6

43,8

15.4

16,5

16,7

9,3

9,3

9,5

15.8

10,0

8,0

26,0

21.5

21.7

16,2

56.5

26.5

14.8

88,7

91.9

75,4

69,0

50,3

85,7

68,5

77.8

59.7

83,4

61.4

31,8

61,3

91.4

85.2

80.4

32.5

942,5

939,0

895.2

960.0

882,4

824.6

974,4

926.8

923,1

764,7

1,000.0

571,4

1,000.0

816.3

864,9

857.1

635.0

282,0

290,3

302,7

280.3

220.5

245,2

261.2

314,6

224,1

202,5

255,6

154.5

209,2

193,0

269,8

203,4

133,8

77,7

80,9

71,4

64.7

52.9

74.4

67,6

80,6

68,5

77,4

59,9

37.4

58,2

80.3

73,7

68,6

34.2

50,6

53,1

34,6

26,0

25,9

44,9

33*5

36,1

29,6

40.9

31,4

16,3

26.2

51,1

43.4

47.7

14,6

52.3

54,3

24,4

15,7

17.9

51,7

20,4

27.7

26.9

37.8

23,5

6,9

29,3

43,3

54,4

50,8

12.3

529.4

500,0

562.5

833.3

600.0

400.0

833.3

833,3

900.0

666.7

1,000.0

.

1,000.0

631,6

500.0

333.3

128,9

130,2

117.5

161,7

128,0

106.2

120.9

161,4

205.3

94,8

181.0

84,3

191.7

91,8

156.2

110.0

30,6

31.3

29,1

35.0

34,1

25.6

33.8

30.5

63,0

33.7

39.4

16.4

49,7

33,2

33*5

34.8

12,4

12,9

11.4

13.1

13.1

11,9

11.8

15,5

24.8

14,0

19,6

7,5

21,6

21,4

17.8

21.1

9,2

9,5

8.4

11,3

9,1

11.2

11.C

4,5

17.4

19.5

16.(

6,5

14,5

23,;

16,[

10,:

12,7

13,3

9,2

8,0

12.5

13,9

8,2

12,1

22.4

13,9

11.6

3,6

22,1

19.C

19,1

13.4

29.2

29,5

25.1

34.8

28.0

27.4

28.2

28,9

53,2

34.9

37.4

14.7

53,2

39,4

38.9

37.4

lcomprised of two ~tandard metropolitan statistical areas-Chicago, Illinois, and Gary-H~nondEast Chicago, Indiana.

56
Table 20. Illegitimacy ratios, by age of mother and colox standard metropolitan statistical areas

in the reporting States with one million or more population in 1960: 1964—Con.

[Byplace of residence. Refers only tiblrths occuming within thereporting area tiresidcn& of thearea.Areas show'n are those Iistsd in standardmetropoliten statistical areas issued in 1961 by the Bureau of the Budgetj except for those in New England, where areas are metropolitan

State economic areas established bythe Bureau of the Census in 1960. Based ona50-percent sample. Figures forage -fmother not stated

are distributed]

Color and area

Nonwhite

All areas-----------------------

Chicago-NorthwesternIndiana~---------

Chicago, Ill--------------------------

Philadelphia,Pa.-N.J-----------------

Detroit,Mica-------------------------

Pittsburgh,Pa------------------------

St. Louis, Mo.-I11--------------------

Cleveland,Ohio-----------------------

Newark, N.J---------------------------

Minneapolis-St.Paul, Minn------------

Houston, Tax--------------------------

Milwaukee,Was------------------------

Paterson,Clifton-Passaic,N.J---------

Seattle,Wash-------------------------

Dallas, Tax---------------------------

Cincinnati,Ohio-Ky-------------------

Kansas City, Mo-Kans------------------

Age of mother

All Under

15 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40+

ages

years

years years years years years years

Ratio per 1,000 live births

263.3

294,6

302,8

255.5

228.7

252,1

307.4

238.2

220.7

281.8

214.0

276.1

215.2

165,8

260.8

335.2

291.5

965.8

987.3

986.5

955,1

984,1

1,000.0

976,2

1,000.0

942,9

1,000.0

800.0

1,000.0

1,000.0

1,000.0

* 933,3

965.5

944.4

506,4

510,7

519.3

541.3

539.6

508,4

494.2

514.0

495,7

509.6

426.5

541.1

390,9

372.3

428,2

586,5

524,7

239,9

255,1

262.1

230.0

226.2

227.9

284.3

219.2

213.8

248.8

199.4

250.0

225.1

178.4

243,8

311,3

265.2

166.0

215.3

223.3

140,2

101.9

182.4

204.1

145,4

108.9

237.7

125.1

168.3

131,4

94.7

170.6

218.4

212.3

146.3

202,9

212.7

116,8

72.6

101.4

237,6

118.3

98.4

142.9

114.0

239.2

86.6

40.0

128,7

165.5

160.7

144*4

217,6

226,1

97.5

54.6

80.0

219,3

80,9

97.3

242,4

107,4

132,7

97.6

116,7

129.9

260,9

196.5

137.8

160.9

169,3

90,0

52.6

111,1

160,4

146,7

136,4

258.8

212.1

166.7

55.6

120.0

333.3

166.7

l(J~rised of two standard metropolitan statistical areas--Chicago, Illinois, and Gary-HammondEast Chicago, Indiana.

57
Table 21. Number of illegitimatebirths and illegitimacyratioa, by color for specifiedurban

placea common to 1955, 1963, and 1964

[Byplaceofmsiderrce. Includes only illegitimate births occurring within the reporting area to residents of the area. Specified urban places are

those with populations of 100,OOOor more in 195~

Urban place and color

Akron, Ohio----------------------------

White--------------------------------

Nonwhite-------’---------------------

Allentown, Pa--------------------------

White--------------------------------

Nonwhite-----------------------------

Ar~gg~n (county),Va2----------------

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

Nonwhite-----------------------------

Austin, Tax----------------------------

White--------------------------------

Nonwhite-----------------------------

Baton Rouge, La-----------------------

White--------------------------------

Nonwhite-----------------------------

Birmingham,Ala------------------------

White--------------------------------

Nonwhite-----------------------------

Canton, Ohio---------------------------

White--------------------------------

Nonwhite-----------------------------

Charlotte,N.C-------------------------

White--------------------------------

Nonwhite-----------------------------

Chattanooga,Term----------------------

White--------------------------------

Nonwhite-----------------------------

Chicago, Ill---------------------------

White--------------------------------

Nonwhite-----------------------------

Cincinnati,Ohio-----------------------

White--------------------------------

Nonwhite-----------------------------

Cleveland,Ohio------------------------

White------------------------------

Nonwhite-----------------------------

----------------------------Columbus, Ohio-------------------------

White--------------------------------

Nonwhite-----------------------------

Corpus Christi, Tax--------------------

White--------------------------------

Nonwhite-----------------------------

Dallas, Tax----------------------------

White--------------------------------

Nonwhite-----------------------------

w

Numberof illegitimate

births

343

182

161

2;

7

lcl;

53

220

105

115

296

2%

1,142

1,0:;

110

;;

4;;

383

390

3%

7,891

1,729

6,162

1,087

295

792

1,568

387

1,181

548

27’4

274

141

106

35

938

245

693

586

294

292

72

---

---

156

---

---

400

240

160

412

3%

1,098

72

1,026

192

106

86

626

112

514

436

3%

L0,814

2,090

8,724

1,502

454

1,048

2,052

448

1,604

1,088

520

568

218

---

---

1,764

434

1,330

622

308

314

82

---

---

196

---

---

394

238

156

424

3%

1,090

100

990

202

1%

660

130

530

484

3;:

L1,586

2,250

9,336

1,678

508

1,170

2,196

502

1,694

1,216

558

658

224

---

---

2,096

554

1,542

1955 19631 19641

Ratio per 1,000

live births

43.2

26.5

150.6

2(%/

25.5

(3)

(3)

50.2

27.9

L87.6

67.9

L9]:i

L28.5

11.7

~71-(3

28.9

(3)

(3)

L06.5

28.8

~36.7

L09.8

24.8

!51.3

90.8

27.8

!49.4

79.4

27.7

!62.1

65.2

22.7

.67.8

48.8

29.4

.44.0

24.4

(3)

(3)

58.3

19.3

!04.8

90.3

54.9

256.6

38.3

---

---

35.9

---

---

79.5

56.5

204.1

99.7

10.0

252.0

126.9

14.5

277.3

87.0

55.4

294.5

124.1

35.3

274.6

158.2

42.4

319.4

133.4

41.2

287.8

119,2

49.2

311.0

101.9

34.5

224.9

87.9

52.1

236.9

43.4

---

---

103.0

36.1

260.3

99.4

60.3

274.5

44.5

---

---

46.8

---

---

79.9

57.5

196.0

109.4

15.9

261.2

122.6

18.9

275.2

94.0

52.3

337.6

132.9

41.8

285.6

177.9

56.J

353.0

145.9

45.3

314.0

138.0

58.3

339.9

112.8

40.1

243.5

101.8

58.2

280.0

44.7

---

---

122.3

48.8

267.0

Percent

change

between

1955 and

1964 ratio

130.1

127.5

82.3

68.6

---

---

83.5

---

---

59.2

106.1

4.5

61.1

112.0

35.6

-4.6

61.5

1.5

225.3

---

---

24.8

;;.;

.

62.0

126.2

40.5

60.7

62.9

25.9

73.8

110.5

29.7

73.0

76.7

45.1

108.6

98.0

94.4

83.2

---

---

109.8

152,8

30.4

See footnotesat end of table.
Table 21. Number of illegitimate births and illegitimacyratios, by color for specified urban

places cmmnon to 1955, 1963, and 1964—Con.

[Byplaceof residence. Includes only illegitimate births occurring within thereporting area toresidenta of the area. Sfiecified urban places are

those with populations of 100,000 or more in 1950]

Urban place and color

Dagyti Ohio---------------------------

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

Nonwhite-----------------------------

Des Moines, Iowa-----------------------

White--------------------------------

Nonwhite-----------------------------

Detroit, Mica--------------------------

White--------------------------------

Nonwhite-----------------------------

Duluth, Mien---------------------------

White--------------------------------

Nonwhite-----------------------------

El Paso, Tax---------------------------

White--------------------------------

Nonwhite-----------------------------

Erie, Pa-------------------------------

White--------------------------------

Nonwhite-----------------------------

Ev&n;;~lle, Ind------------------------

---------.-----------.-.-.---.--

Nonwhite-----------------------------

Flint, Mica----------------------------

White--------------------------------

Nonwhite-----------------------------

Fort Wayne, Ind------------------------

White--------------------------------

Nonwhite-----------------------------

Fo&tt;rth, Tax------------------------

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

Nonwhite-----------------------------

Gary, Ind------------------------------

White--------------------------------

Nonwhite-----------------------------

Grand Rapids, Mica---------------------

White--------------------------------

Nonwhite-----------------------------

Houston, Tax---------------------------

White--------------------------------

Nonwhite-----------------------------

Indianapolis,Ind----------------------

White--------------------------------

Nonwhite-----------------------------

Jacksonville,Fla----------------------

White--------------------------------

Nonwhite-----------------------------

II1955 19631 19641

Numberofillegit imate

births

436

171

265

194

136

58

2,747

661

2,086

58

53

5

388

373

15

108

81

27

130

;:

291

144

147

136

64

72

574

148

426

291

2:!

169

114

55

1,581

367

1,214

765

313

452

849

202

647

786

280

506

292

2i8

74

3,402

772

2,630

138

---

---

562

---

---

176

---

---

162

---

---

438

216

222

358

206

152

646

248

398

476

4:;

;;:

144

2,502

634

1,868

1,432

528

904

1,068

260

808

860

312

548

330

224

106

3,836

948

2,888

186

---

---

522

---

---

192

---

---

178

---

---

472

200

272

352

208

144

698

242

456

480

4::

358

244

114

2,436

716

1,720

1,604

618

986

994

244

750

1955

Rat

1

57.2

27.8

180.8

43.0

(3)

(3)

59.4

20.6

148.0

23.9

(3)

(3)

45.3

(3)

(3)

30.5

(3)

(3)

41.0

(3)

(3)

:;.;

114:4

31.5

(3)

(3)

63.1

20.0

253.7

50.4

L2;:i

29.3

(3)

(3)

64.4

20.5

L84.0

63.3

33.4

L66.0

97.5

33.9

~34.9

19631 19641

per 1,000

e births

107.8

51.2

278.0

64.3

51.9

217.6

107.6

39.7

216.4

60.1

---

---

53.3

---

---

58.8

---

---

56.8

---

---

85.6

54.6

192.0

82.1

53.5

298.0

82.3

41.3

215.6

98.6

23.0

194.0

67.5

44.4

239.2

96.3

34.9

239.4

103.8

51.0

261.6

215.4

101.9

335.8

124.2

61.3

298.6

76.5

55.5

381.3

123.1

50.8

230.9

87.2

---

---

61.9

---

---

64.5

[;)

61.0

---

---

88.7

48.7

223.7

85.8

57.9

281.3

86.7

39.6

234.6

101.8

26.5

197.5

74.1

57.1

202.8

94.6

40.3

215.1

121.8

62.7

298.6

215.5

106.8

322.2

Percent

change

between

1955 and

1964 ratio

117.1

120.5

65.2

77.9

---

---

107.2

146.6

56.0

264.9

---

---

36.6

---

---

111.5

---

---

48.8

---

---

96.2

73.9

95.5

172.4

---

---

37.4

98.0

-7.5

102.0

2;;.;

.

152.9

---

---

46.9

96.6

16.9

92.4

87.7

79.9

121.0

215.0

37.2

See footnotes at end of table.

59
Table 21. Number of illegitimate births and illegitimacy ratios, by color for specified urban

places common to 1955, 1963, and 1964—Con.

k P’ace0’ ‘esidence‘c1ude9Only‘llegitima@births‘Ccurfing‘ithin ‘he‘PO’@ area~ residen@of the area. Spetified .rban placesme

those with populations of 100,000 ormorein 19501

Urban place and color

Kansas City, Kens ----------------------

white --------------------------------

Nonwhite -----------------------------

Kansas City, Mo------------------------

white --------------------------------

Nonwhite -----------------------------

Knoxville, Term ------------------------

White --------------------------------

Nonwhite -----------------------------

Louisville, Ky-------------------------

White --------------------------------

Nonwhite -----------------------------

Memphis, Term--------------------------

White --------------------------------

Nonwhite -----------------------------

Miami, Fla-----------------------------

white --------------------------------

Nonwhite -----------------------------

Milwaukee, Was-------------------------

white --------------------------------

Nonwhite -----------------------------

Minneapolis, Mien ----------------------

White --------------------------------

Nonwhite -----------------------------

Mobile, Ala----------------------------

white --------------------------------

Nonwhite -----------------------------

Mo$~ery, Ala------------------------

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

Nonwhite -----------------------------

Nashville, Term------------------------

white--------------------------------

Nonwhite-----------------------------

New Orleans, La------------------------

White --------------------------------

Nonwhite-----------------------------

Norfolk, Va----------------------------

White --------------------------------

Nonwhite -----------------------------

Peoria, Ill----------------------------

White --------------------------------

Nonwhite -----------------------------

Philadelphia, Pa-----------------------

White --------------------------------

Nonwhite -----------------------------

1955 19631 19641

Numberof illegitimate

17$

1:!

766

241

525

251

1%

621

143

478

1,759

114

1,645

589

166

423

583

330

253

549

461

88

404

3%

484

4:2

574

101

473

L,177

253

924

628

5%

113

60

53

3,782

639

),143

births256

1::

1,296

346

950

320

142

178

1,074

;;;

2,402

154

2,248

948

234

714

1,366

618

748

918

762

156

724

106

618

364

3%

888

228

660

1,762

396

1,366

878

138

740

316

---

---

4,xl:

3,860

278

116

162

1,396

402

994

314

136

178

1,136

374

762

2,;;:

2,412

968

262

706

1,312

576

736

1,128

904

224

680

6;:

530

46

484

874

192

682

1,708

186

1,522

860

154

706

282

---

---

5,194

916

4,278

1955 19631 “ 19641

Ratios per 1,000

live births

45.0

15.1

141.0

68.1

26.8

231.4

84.7

34.0

304.5

56.0

16,2

214.3

139.9

17.0

279.4

110.9

45.3

257.1

32.5

20.7

126.7

45.4

(3)

(3)

:;.;

~zljj

L44.6

8.7

~90.2

U7.1

32.7

~61.8

70.3

27.5

L22.4

75.4

14.7

!30.8

44.0

(3)

(3)

82.6

20.2

!21.2

75.:

35.5

186.5

112.C

40.5

313.2

86.7

44.7

343.6

95.1

40.9

319.7

196.5

24.6

377.3

150,8

62.4

281.3

77.6

41.6

269.5

87.2

77.0

244.5

139.1

34.1

294.0

122.1

15.8

277.7

95.1

32.1

296.0

115.4

51.4

180.5

101.6

23.4

270.5

143.8

(4)

(4)

109.3

31.5

239.0

86.0

48.1

197.1

126.5

50.4

325.0

82.’8

41.4

351.8

105.1

43.1

356.4

212.4

27.5

395.3

168.8

79.2

291.0

92.5

48.6

314.3

114.0

98.4

316.4

127.9

23.9

282.5

161.7

26.7

310.7

93.8

3:::i

113.2

25.1

198.3

102.5

27.0

263.2

128.3

---

---

122.3

34,9

263.7

Percent

change

between

1955 and

1964 ratio

91.1

218.5

39.8

85.8

88.1

40.4

-2.2

21.8

15.5

87.7

166.0

66.3

51.8

61.8

41.5

52.2

74.8

13.2

184.6

134.8

148.1

151.1

---

---

36.5

63.7

27.5

11.8

:206.9

7.1

-19.9

-17.1

16.5

61.0

-8.7

62.0

191.6

---

---

48.1

72.8

19.2

See footnotes at end of table.

60
Table 21. Number of illegitimatebirths and ille itirnacyratioa, by color for specifiedurban

places comeon to 1955, 1!363, and 1964—Con.

rByplace of residence. Includes only illegitima@ births occnrnng witMntie repoMng area tir~sidenk of the mea. Specified urbnn places are

---

those with populations of 100,000 or more in 19561

Urban place and color

Pittsburgh,Pa-------------------------

White--------------------------------

Nonwhite-----------------------------

Po~rtd, Oreg-------------------------

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

Nonwhite-----------------------------

WJVovnce, R.I------------------------

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

Nonwhite-----------------------------

Re&d~~, Pa----------------------------

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

Nonwhite-----------------------------

Ri=t;d, Va---------------------------

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

Nonwhite-----------------------------

St&.&is, Mo--------------------------

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

Nonwhite-----------------------------

Stti.Pt~l,Mien-------------------------

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

Nonwhite-----------------------------

Sa~i&ke City, Utah-------------------

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

Nonwhite-----------------------------

Sa&~onio, Tax-----------------------

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

Nonwhite-----------------------------

sc~:n, Pa---------------------------

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

Nonwhite-----------------------------

Se~t, Wash--------------------------

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

Nonwhite-----------------------------

sh~reort, La-------------------------

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

Nonwhite-----------------------------

So~utt~end,Ind------------------------

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

Nonwhite-----------------------------

sp~t~e, Wash--------------------------

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

Nonwhite-----------------------------

Ta~cotl Wash---------------------------

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

Nonwhite-----------------------------

II1955 19631 19641

770

310

460

360

253

107

136

85

51

91

55

36

812

7::

L,998

320

1,678

299

247

52

%

10

640

454

186

49

47

2

435

308

127

518

4%

172

1::

106

99

7

133

102

31

1,058

366

692

590

468

122

240

142

98

126

---

---

800

122

678

2,672

462

2,210

484

---

---

158

---

---

1,112

866

246

46

---

---

836

568

268

776

6;;

210

88

122

196

---

---

226

---

---

1,100

368

732

652

498

154

234

---

---

180

---

---

916

118

798

2,::;

2,192

542

---

---

164

---

---

1,170

896

274

74

---

---

844

608

236

868

7%

224

l%

206

---

---

230

---

---

II.955 19631 19641

Rat

37.3

17.2

.73.9

47.6

36.4

.76.3

27.6

(3)

(3)

44.5

(3)

(3)

58.2

28.7

89.0

93.6

21.7

53.8

35.7

(3)

(3)

14.8

(3)

(3)

36.1

27.6

42.6

20.5

(3)

(3)

28.8

22.2

)2.5

)2.5

L9.8

16.1

!6.2

(3

(3 {

21.4

(3)

(3)

29.7

(3)

(3)

3 per

ve bir

97.7

45.7

245.9

92.0

80.6

202.8

62.7

42.5

201.6

75.8

---

---

172.9

58.4

267.4

159.0

47.0

316.5

63.2

---

---

31.5

---

---

64.8

54.5

194.0

26.0

---

---

78.5

62.4

172.2

1:;.:

346:3

68.3

34.1

247.0

55.7

---

---

64.9

---

---

000

s

101.8

46.2

258.1

107.4

91.9

236.2

21.3

(4)

(4)

103.0

---

---

189.5

51.8

312.0

162.1

45.4

305.0

75.5

---

---

36.8

---

---

70.7

58.8

206.6

42.6

---

---

89.5

75.4

172.3

210.0

43.4

393.3

80.6

38.9

288.8

62.7

---

---

75.1

---

---

Percent

change

between

1955 and

1964 ratio

172.9

168.6

48.4

125.6

152.5

34.0

-22.8

---

---

131.5

---

---

19.8

80.5

8.0

73.2

109.2

20.2

111.5

---

---

148.6

---

---

95.8

113.0

44.9

107.8

---

---

210.8

239.6

68.1

104.9

1:;.:

.

74.5

---

---

193.0

---

---

152.9

---

---

See footnotes at end of table.

61
Table 21. Number of illegitimate births and illegitimacy ratios, by color for specified wrban

places common to 1955, 1963, and 1964-Con.

[BYP’ace‘f‘esidenceIncludesODIYi@@imete birtbsO’=urn%withinthe,epo~in~areatO,esiden~ofthemea. .%ecifkdurbandateswe

those with populations oflOO,OOOor more in 1950~

Urban place and color

Tampa, Fla-----------------------------

White --------------------------------

Nonwhite -----------------------------

Toledo, Ohio---------------------------

White --------------------------------

Nonwhite -----------------------------

Washington, D.C------------------------

White --------------------------------

Nonwhite -----------------------------

Wichita, Kane --------------------------

White --------------------------------

Nonwhite -----------------------------

Wilmington, Del------------------------

White --------------------------------

Nonwhite -----------------------------

Youngstown, Ohio-----------------------

White --------------------------------

Nonwhite-----------------------------

II1955 19631 19641

Number ofillegitimste

birtha

378

2%

335

123

212

3,470

409

3,061

250

157

93

2;;

192

174

1:;

lBaaed on a 50-percent sample of births.

‘2Claasifiedas urban under a special rule.

614

174

440

544

254

290

4,566

412

4,154

452

226

226

474

142

332

206

1%

630

210

420

620

318

302

4,648

412

4,236

516

290

226

514

146

368

222

1%

II1955 19631 19641

Ratios per 1,000

live births

70.8

23.3

246.3

44.2

19.3

L78.9

L65.8

43.3

~6(j.9

31.6

(3)

(3)

L1l.2

43.3

307.7

40.3

17.7

L30.5

100.4

38.0

285.7

77.1

43.9

229.4

225.5

72.1

285.9

;5.;

258:6

201.0

107.4

320.5

77.7

27.7.

217.1

109.8

50.2

269.9

85.9

53.2

243.2

239.7

82.2

294.5

77.6

50.2

259.8

202.8

93.4

379.4

84.8

30.7

268.5

Percent

change

between

1955 and

1964 ratio

55.1

115.5

9.6

94.3

175.6

35.9

44.6

89.8

10.3

145.6

---

---

110.4

73.4

IOS.7

.3Rationot computed; total live births not available by cOlOr.

hRatio not computed; total illegitimate births not available by color.

62
Table 22. Percent distributionof live births, by live-birthorder according to legitimacy status

and color: total of 35 reporting States, 1964

[BYplaceof residence. Refersonlytobirtbsoccurringwithinthe reporting area to residents of tbe srea. Live-birth order refers ta number of

children born alive to mother. Figures for birth order not stated are distributed proportionately. Figures for legitimacy ststus not stated or not

reported are included in legitimate bkths]

II

Legitimacy status and color

Total--------------------------.----------------

Legitimatel!------------------------------------ -------

Illegittite ------------------------------------------

White -------- --------s---------------- ------------

Legitimate -------- ------------------------------------

Illegitimte------------------------------------------

Nonwhite------------------------------------------

Legitimate-------------------------------------------

Illegitimte------------------------------------------

Live-birth order

Total

1 2 3 4 5+

Percent distribution

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

28.1

26.2

52.1

29.0

;;.;

.

24.1

17.1

43.7

23.6

24.2

17.1

24.7

25.0

14.3

18.7

18.6

18.8

17.9

18.6

9.8

18.6

1;.:

.

14.7

16.0

11.2

11.9

1:.:

.

12.0

12.2

5.1

11.3

12.6

7.5

18.5

18.8

14.5

15.8

16.1

7.3

31.2

35.6

18.8

lIncludes Iegitirnacynot stated or not reported.

63
Table 23. Number of live births,by birth weight,color, legitinmcy status, and live-birth order: total of 35 reporting State% 1964

[Byplaceofremdence. fzefers only fn illeg)~imata hrths occ.mng wthn the reporh.g arm b residents ofarea.Liv.%birth orderrefer.q to the nunhrof children born dive to mwkhec. Pig.ras

forlegitimacY stitusnot shhdornotrePorkd am,ncluded inlogttimebbirti8. F1gnmsforLtih weigbtnot stitid~e distibu~d pmpoctionakly. B&sedo" a6O.peroents,mple]

Color, legitimacy

status, and live-birth

order

Total live births-.

Legitimate-------

Illegitimate-----

White------------------

Legitimate-----------

Illegitimate---------

Nonwhite---------------

Legitimate-----------

Illegitimate---------

First child------------

Legitimate-----------

Illegitimate---------

Nhite------------------

Legitimate-----------

Illegitimate---------

Nonwhite---------------

Legitimate-----------

Illegitimate---------

Second child and over--

Legitimate-----------

Illegitimate---------

Nhite------------------

Legitimate-----------

Illegitimate---------

Nonwhite ---------------

Legitimate-----------

Illegitimate---------

Birth order not .WatedLegitimate-----------

Illegitimate---------

White------------------

Legitimate -----------

Illegitimate---------

Nonwhite---------------

Legitimate-----------

Illegitimate---------

Total 1,000

grams

1:s

2,685>136 15,089

2,490,068 12,784

195,068 2,305

2,221,112 10,205

2,147,420 9,;:;

73,692

:+;,:;: 4,884

3,281

121;376 1,603

754,530 4,469

653,110 3,391

101,420 1,07B

642,962 3,164

594,470 2,773

48,492 391

111,568 1,305

58,640 618

52,928 687

1,928,360 10,580

L,834,964 9,359

93,396 1,221

1,576,582 7,016

1,551,454 6,709

25,128 307

351,778 3,564

283,510 2,650

68,268 914

2,246 40

1,994 34

252 6

1,568 25

1,496 21

72 4

678 15

$:; 13

2

1,oo1- 1,501-

1,500 2,000

grams grams

18,082

15,378

2,704

12,289

11,462

827

5,793

3,916

1,877

5,179

3,970

1,209

3,778

3,302

476

1,401

668

733

L2,870

11,377

1,493

8,486

8,135

351

4,384

3,242

1.142

:?

2

25

25

8

6

2

41,54C

36,246

5,294

29,024

27,543

1>481

12,516

8,703

3,813

11,711

9,274

2,437

83654

7,827

827

3,057

1,447

1,610

29,759

26,910

2,849

20,319

19,667

652

9,440

7,243

2>197

::

8

51

49

2

19

13

6

Birth weight’

I h 1 I

2,001- 2,500, z sol

grams 3,001- 3,501-

2,500 ~ 3:ooo- 3,500 4,000

grams less grams grams grams

I I [ I

Number of live births

144,761

—

126,62[

18,13t

103,311

97,96L

5,35C

41,45C

28,664

12,786

43,01s

33,772

9,247

31,495

28,172

3,327

11,520

5,600

5,920

101,565

92,690

8,875

7L,685

69,666

2,019

29,880

23,024

6,856

180

166

14

130

126

4

x

10

219,475

—

191,036

28,439

154,832

L46,472

8,360

64,643

4J:;j

,

64,378

50,407

13,971

47,095

4;,(u?

17,283

8,333

8,950

L54,774

L40,336

14,438

107,506

104,177

3,329

47,268

36,159

11,109

323

293

30

231

2;;

92

72

20

507,673

455,692

51>981

387,143

370,522

16,621

120,530

85,170

35,360

160,550

132,087

28,463

126,093

114,791

11,302

~+;;:

17:161

346,670

323,210

23,460

260,760

255,453

5,307

85,910

67,757

18,153

453

3gxJ

290

278

12

163

lj~

1,018.240

946,545

71,695

846,732

818,314

28,418

171,508

128,231

43,277

305,281

2::,;::

,

263,202

243,738

19,464

42,079

22,787

19,292

712,159

679,308

32,851

582,977

574,042

8,935

129,182

105,266

23,916

800

7;;

553

5;$

247

178

69

703,563

6::,W&

,

620,246

6f;,~~$

,

83,317

:;,;:;

,

180,867

164,073

16,794

165,773

1:8,;::

>

1:,:3:

6;395

522,218

505,106

17,112

454,096

448,480

5,616

;:,;;;

11:496

478

4;:

377

3;;

101

i:

4,001-

4,500

grams

195.2M

18J,j~l

>

176,196

172,535

3,661

19,048

15,256

3,792

38,136

35,063

3,073

35,820

33,747

2,073

2,316

1,316

1,000

156,968

152,606

4,362

140,282

138,700

1,582

16,686

13,906

2,780

140

122

78

94

8;

46

34

12

lEquivalents of the gram weights in terms of pounds and ounces are as follows:

500 grama .x less - 1 lb. 1 oz. cm less

501-1,000 rams

8

-llb.20z. -21b.3 oz.

1,001-1,50 grams - 2 lb. 4 oz. - 3 lb. 4 OZ.

1,501-2,000 grams - 3 lb. 5 OZ. - 4 lb. 6 ~z.

2,001-2,500 grams - 4 lb. 7 oz. - 5 lb. 8 oz.

2,501-3,000 grams = 5 lb. 9 oz. - 6 lb. 9 oz.

3,001-3,500 grams - 6 lb. 10 oz. - 7 lb. 11 oz.

3,501-4,000 maw - 7 lb. 12 OZ. - 8 lb. 3.3OZ.

4,001-4,500 grams - 8 lb. 14 oz. - 9 lb. 14 oz.

4,501-5,000 grams - 9 lb. 15 OZ. - 11 lb. O OZ.

5,001 grama or more - 11 lb. 1 oz. or more

4,501-

5,000

grams

36,221

-

34,89;

1,32;

31,92;

31,4.31

4.96

4,29;

3,4.6(

831

4,932

4,608

325

43630

4,423

207

303

185

118

31,249

30,255

994

27,278

26,989

289

3,971

3,266

705

42

34

8

19

19

23

1:

5,001

graa

or

more

4,717

-

4,500

217

6,036

3,940

96

6B1

560

121

385

3;;

349

323

26

36

24

12

k,322

!,143

179

),683

1,613

70

:;;

109

10

10

-

4

4
Table 24. Median birth weight and percent immature, by color, live-birthorder, and legitimacy

status: total of 35 reporting States, 1964

[By place ofrqsidence. Refers ordy to illegitimate births rxx.wming within the reporting area to residents of the area. Live-birth order refers to the

number of children born alive to mother. F@es for legitimacy status notstated ornotreperted are included in legitimate birtbs. Figures for

birth weightnotstated aredistcibuted nrormrtionatelv.B asedona 50.Dercerrts amDle.T hemediani sthevaluewhich divides a distribution into

two equ~~ parte; one-half the values ~ei~g less th& the nrsdian and ~ne.half being more]

Live-birth order and legitimacy status

Total live births------------------------

Legitimate------------.----------------

Illegitimate---------------------------

First child------------------------------------

Legitimate-----------------------------------

Illegitimate---------.-----------------------

Second child and over--------------------------

Legitimate-----------------------------------

Illegiti=te-----.---------------------------

Birth order not stated-------------------------

Legitimate-----------------------------------

Illegitimate---------------------------------

Total White Nonwhite

Median weight in gramsl

3,300.0

3,310.0

3,110.0

3>250.0

3,270.0

‘3,1OO.O

3,320.0

3,330.0

3,130.0

3,210.0

3,210.0

3,210.0

3,330.0

3>340.0

3,200.0

3,280.0

3,290.0

3,200.0

3,360.0

3,360.0

3,220.0

3,230.0

3,230.0

3,370;0

3,130.0

3,160.0

3,050.0

3,040.0

3,070.0

3,000.0

3,160.0

3,170.0

3,100.0

3,160.0

3,160.0

3,170.0

Total

I

White ~;e

Percent irmnature

(2,500 gramsor less)

8.2

7.7

14.6

8.5

1;::

8.0

1;:;

14.4

14.7

11.9

7.0

1!:!

;:? 10.4

6.8

6.7

13.2

14.7

14.8

13.9

13.9

13.0

16.5

15.5

14.2

16.9

13.4

12.8

16.3

13.6

14.5

11.1

lConmutedto the nearest 10 grams on basis of exact conversionof interval limits from pounds

and ounces.

65
Table 25. Number of live births, by legitimacy status, attendant, and color: each of 35 reporting States, 1964

[Byplnce ofrestdenc., Refers onlytirlleg,ttma& b,rthso...mnng wtLhtnthe reprting .ce. mrestdenti of&ear.&, Dased.n a50-p.roents.mple. F!gure. forlegitima.y n.bskted ornot

reportedsre ,..ludwi m Iq!tim.le bkthsl

Area and color

‘To~~l.--.---..

White-------

Nonwhite----

Alabama-------------

White-------------

Nonwhite----------

Alaska--------------

White-------------

Nonwhite----------

Delaware------------

Nhite-------------

Nonwhite----------

District of ColumbiaWhite-------------

Nonwhite----------

Florida-------------

White-------------

Nonwhite----------

Hawaii--------------

white-------------

Ncmwhite----------

Illinois------------

White-------------

Nonwhite----------

Indiana-------------

White-------------

Nmwhite ----------

Iowa----------------

White-------------

Nm.white----------

Kansas--------------

White-------------

Nonwhite----------

Kentucky------------

White-------------

Nonwhite----------

Louisiana-----------

White-------------

Nonwhite----------

Maine---------------

Nhite-------------

Nmwbite ----------

Michigan------------

White-------------

Nonwhite----------

Minnesota-----------

Nhite-------------

Nonwhite----------

Mississippi---------

Nhite-------------

Nonwhite----------

Mj..ssowi---_-------

Nhite-------------

Nonwhite----------

Nevada --------------

White-------------

Nonwhite----------

New Jer.sey----------

White-------------

Ncm?hite----------

2,685,13(

—

2,221,11:

464,02i

76,31(

48,51{

27,80(

7,27!

4,95(

2,31[

11,44/

9,0s1

2,36(

19,391

5,01(

14,38/

113,981

83,40;

30,58;

17>368

5,466

11,902

222,24E

184,392

37,856

106,022

97,434

8,588

55,442

54,462

980

43,358

40,234

3,124

67,958

62,2L4

5,744

86,142

51,888

34,254

21,264

20,982

282

175>506

155,602

19,904

76,864

75,120

1,744

56,654

25,966

30,688

88,606

75,596

13,010

10,038

8,778

1,260

132,072

111,814

20,258

.

I

Attendant

Total I

Physician Physician Other

not in Mid- and

hos~tall hospital wife not

state<

u I I i

Number of legitimate births

2,490,06/

2,147,42(

342,64~

67,151

47,56(

19,58[

6,851

4,84(

2,011

10,25(

8,76C

1,48:

14,74(

4,59[

10>14$

101,60(

80,05C

21,s4L

16,23C

5,152

11,07E

205,152

178,72t

26,426

100,25C

93,88C

6,37C

53,580

52,826

754

41,494

39,o24

2,470

63,818

59,844

3,974

76,618

50,794

25,824

20,388

20,126

262

165,706

150,272

15,434

73,294

72,020

1,274

47,964

25,472

22,492

82,176

73,290

8,886

9,512

8,476

1,036

124,976

108,964

16,012

2,432,66o

2,127,672

304,988

59,922

46,962

1.2,960

6,482

4,808

1,674

10,158

8,712

1,446

14,576

4,580

9,996

98,458

79,478

18,980

16,148

5,142

11,006

202,638

U;, :;:

99,670

93,396

6,274

53,424

52,674

750

41,312

38,866

2,446

61,790

58,050

3,740

75,210

50,674

24,536

20,130

19,872

258

165,190

149,898

15,292

73,078

7:,U:

38,158

25,300

12,858

8L,274

72,696

8,578

9,48o

8,452

1,o28

124,410

108,592

15,818

15.130

8,426

6,704

1,032

274

758

52

::

28

14

14

162

1;!

478

168

310

48

4:

922

654

268

484

416

68

128

124

4

158

134

24

742

632

110

310

2::

134

132

2

462

332

130

148

144

4

1,136

1,0;:

566

452

114

20

12

8

380

278

102

16,134

_

8,106

?8,028

5,866

218

5,648

138

13i

52

36

16

2,352

314

2,038

2

;

32

22

6

4

2

12

12

6

6

1,132

1,020

112

1,010

9%

1:

4

24

24

3,418

B,3i:

218

1%’

::

2

6,14

_

3,21f

2,92:

33L

lli

222

18i

1;!

12

6

6

8

8

312

2?:

32

2:

1,560

792

768

::

26

16

16

18

18

154

142

12

88

14

74

124

122

2

44

36

8

::

6

252

2;:

118

::

12

12

174

84

90

Total

Number of illegitimate births

195,06[

73,69:

121,37(

9>16;

95[

8,21:

42(

11(

313f

1,19/

31<

87E

4,64E

412

4,236

12,384

3,346

9,038

1,138

314

824

17,096

5,666

11,430

5,772

3,554

2,218

1,862

1,636

226

1,864

1,210

654

4,140

2,370

1,770

9,524

1,094

8,430

876

856

20

9,800

5,330

4,470

3,570

3,100

470

8,690

494

8,196

6,430

2,306

4,124

526

302

224

7,096

2,85o

4,246

Attendant

I I 1

Physician Physician Other

in Mid- and

hospitall h%;i% wife not

stated

173,84

71,61t

102,22(

5,17(

90[

4,26:

3SL

lli

272

1,164

316

848

4,57C

402

4,168

10,898

3,302

7,596

1,132

314

818

16,266

5,408

10,858

5,638

3,486

2,152

1,842

1,616

226

1,836

1,184

652

3,868

2,240

1,628

8,604

1,082

7,522

856

836

20

9,644

5,268

4,376

3,534

3,068

466

4,430

472

3,958

6,176

2,252

3,924

514

292

222

;,:%:

4;154

24&cJl

14,%

3,37/

3,3!

11

1:

U

1;

l,18e

1,1;!

16

16

..

..

138

84

54

76$

76:

.,

4

4

:

3,800

3,7%

108

lot

4

i

1,940

_

346

1,594

140

13:

16

1;

4

i

114

10:

510

4%

g

30

2

2

4

2

2

32

;;

40

3:

10

10

16

10

6

22

18

4

98

9:

26

2:

8

6

2

56

5:

lIt is assumed that all births in hospitals or institutions are attended by physicians.
Table 25. Number of live births, by legitimacy status, attendant, and color: each of 35 reporting States, L964—con.

Area and color

North Carolina------

White-------------

Nonwhite----------

North Dakota--------

White-------------

NOn~hite----------

Ohio----------------

White-------------

Nonwhite----------

@-egon-------------

White -------------

No”~j.t~---------

Pennsylvania--------

White-------------

Nmwhite ----------

Rhode Island--------

White-------------

NOn~hite----------

South Carolina------

White-------------

Nonwhite----------

South Dakota--------

white-------------

NO”~hite----------

~enne*~~~-----------

White-------------

Nmwhite ----------

Texas ---------------

White-------------

Nmwhite ----------

Utah----------------

White-------------

Nonwhite----------

Virginia------------

White-------------

Nonwhite----------

Wa~$:tOn ----------

..---------.-

Nmwhite ----------

We~i;rginia -------

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

Nmwhite ----------

Wisconsin-----------

White-------------

Nonwhite----------

I.ly;ncm:-------------

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

Nmwhite ----------

Total

live

births

m:, ;::

33;306

14>470

13,13

209,760

187>528

22,232

33>558

32,308

1,250

:;;,j::

25;162

18,028

17,294

734

56,874

33,262

23,612

15,620

14,128

1,492

80,286

62,720

17,566

234,100

196,484

37,616

23,924

23,324

600

96,906

73,130

23,776

57,132

53,702

3,430

35,658

34,080

1,578

88,42.4

85,188

3,626

7,236

6,908

32a

rqmrwl mm IM-IWM m lqgmmt. bmh. 1

!

Attendant Attendant

Tota1 Physician Physician Other Tots1 Physician P~~i;Jm Other

in not in NLd- and in Mid- and

hospita1’ hospital wife not hospital’ hospital wife not

stated stated

I

Number of legitimate births

95,200

70,.780

24,420

13,964

13,:;:

196,980

180,738

16,242

31,868

30,816

1,052

205,776

187,358

18,418

17,388

16,796

592

49,608

32,454

17,154

14,824

1;,;:;

72,246

60,718

11,528

219,194

189,906

29,288

23,464

22,888

576

88,222

70,664

17,558

54,226

5;,;2:

33,172

32,100

1,072

85,208

8;,50$

>

6,966

6,690

276 II

91,194

70,570

20,624

13,930

13,350

580 ~

196,080

179,920

16,160

31,630

3:,;:;

204,258

186,054

18,204

17,354

16,768

586

44,826

32>232

12,594

14,690

13,598

1,092

70,416

60,114

10,302

209,442

1::,;::

23,322

22,762

560

85,368

70,104

15,264

53,988

51,050

2,938

32,736

31,696

1,040

84,996

82,306

2,690

6,922

6,650

272

1,240

120

1,120

18

14

4

;::

58

122

118

4

1,166

1,052

114

28

24

4

970

140

830

:~

536

220

316

1,344

1,062

282

66

64

2

738

296

442

182

162

20

268

252

16

176

160

16

38

3;

2,564

46

2,518

6

i

12

10

2

8

;

10

10

3,4::

3,414

54

:$

1,008

180

828

7>662

5,616

2,046

1,936

212

1,724

6

4

2

102

90

12

2

2

2

2

202

44

158

LO

10

94

ii

108

108

342

242

100

:

2

340

3%

26

2:

286

204

82

746

554

192

:;

14

180

l%

2;

8

66

62

4

34

34

4

4

q, p:

8:886

506

418

88

12,780

6,790

5,990

1,690

1,:;;

12,966

6,222

6,744

640

498

142

7,266

808

6,458

796

444

352

8,040

2,002

6,038

14,906

6,578

8,328

460

436

24

8,684

2,466

6,218

2,906

2,444

462

2,486

1,980

506

3>606

2,686

920

270

218

52

Number of illegitimate births

9,064

L,964

7,100

496

410

86

12>636

6,712

5,924

1,538

1,348

190

L2,764

6>148

6,616

634

494

L40

5>126

778

4,348

774

444

330

7,328

L,940

5,388

1:,:;g

7;142

458

434

24

7,316

2,394

4,922

2,864

2,408

456

2,4L6

1,926

490

3,424

2,528

896

266

214

52

534

5H

8

6

2

106

z

152

144

8

166

1?:

;

472

4%

166

1::

160

1%

2

2

204

I&l

36

3:

%

8

176

154

22

-

.

L,L16

1,11:

2

2

1,492

1,48;

12

L2

492

4%

1,338

376

962

1,054

1,Oi:

22

16

6

‘It is assumed that all births in hospitals or institutions are attended by physician..

67
Table 26. Percent distribution of legitimate and illegitimate births, by attendant and color:

each of 35 reporting States, 1964

[BYplace of residence. Refers only to illegitimate births occurring within the reporting area to residents of the area. Bas{d on a 50-percent

sample. Figures for legitimacy notstated or not reported are included in Legitimate births]

Area and color

Total ----------

White --------

Nonwhite -----

Alabama --------------

White --------------

Nonwhite -----------

Alaska ---------------

White --------------

Nonwhite -----------

Delaware -------------

White --------------

Nonwhite-----------

District of ColumbiaWhite --------------

Nonwhite -----------

Florida --------------

White --------------

Nonwhite -----------

Hawaii ---------------

White --------------

Nonwhite -----------

?-llinoia-------------

White --------------

Nonwhite -----------

Indiana--------------

White --------------

Nonwhite -----------

Iowa-----------------

White --------------

Nonwhite -----------

Kansas---------------

White --------------

Nonwhite -----------

Kentucky -------------

White --------------

Nonwhite -----------

Louisiana ------------

White ---------------

Nonwhite -----------

Total

Attendant

Percent distribution of

legitimate births

100.C

100.c

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Loo.0

100.0

100.0

LOO.O

LOO.O

LOO.O

LOO.O

LOO.O

LOO.O

LOO.0

100.0

LOO.0

100.0

LOO.O

LOO.O

LOO.O

LOO.O

LOO.0

:00.0

97.7

99.1

89.0

89.2

98.7

66.2

94.6

99.3

83.1

99.1

99.4

97.6

98.8

99.6

98.5

96.9

99.3

88.1

99.5

99.8

99.4

98.8

99.2

96.0

99.4

99.5

98.5

99.7

99.7

99.5

99.6

99.6

99.0

96.8

97.0

94.1

98.2

99.8

95.0

0.6

;.;

.

;:2

3.9

0.8

0.3

1.9

0.3

0.2

0.9

::;

1.5

0.5

0.2

1.4

0.3

R

0.4

0.4

1.0

0.5

0.4

l.l

0.2

M

0.4

0.3

1.0

1.2

;::

0.4

0.1

1.0

1.5

:::

%;

28.8

2.0

6.;

0.5

0.4

1.1

:::

9.5

0.0

oil

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.0

RI

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

M

2.8

::?

3.7

0.2

0.1

0.9

0.5

0.2

1.1

:::

8.1

0.l

%;

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.1

1.0

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.8

0.4

2.9

0.1

0.1

0.4

0.0

0.0

::;

0.2

0.2

0.3

0.l

0.0

0.3

Physician f

Total\ in r

Attendant

I

Physician

lot in

II hos- 1

hospita11 pital I

Midwife

100.C

100. c

100. c

100.C

100.C

100.c

100.C

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.O

100.0

100.O

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

LOO.0

LOO.O

LOO.O

LOO.O

LOO.O

LOO.0

LOO.0

Percent distribution of

illegitimate births

89.1

97.2

84.2

56.4

95.6

51.9

91.4

96.6

89.5

97.5

100.0

96.6

98.3

97.6

98.4

88.0

98.7

84.0

99.5

100.0

99.3

95.1

95.4

95.0

97’.7

98.1

97.0

98.9

98.8

100.0

98.5

97.9

99.7

93.4

94.5

92.0

90.3

98.9

89.2

2.2

1.6

2.6

5.2

R

1.4

1.7

1.3

0.8

1.:

H

1.6

M

1.7

0.5

0.;

1.8

3.1

1.1

1.5

1.5

1.6

;;:

;.;

.

2.5

1.5

3.7

;::

1.3

Other

and

not

stated

1.0

0.5

1.3

:::

1.6

3.8

5.;

0.3

0.;

.-

0.9

0.2

1.2

3.0

H

0.8

0.5

1.4

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.2

0.3

008

0.4

1.2

0.4

0.5

0.4

lIt is assumed that all births in hoapi.tals or institutions are attended by physicians.

68
Table 26. Percent distribution of Iegit*te and illegitimate births, by attendant and color:

each of 35 reporting States, 1964—Con.

[By place of residence. Refers only to illegitimate births occurring within the reporting area toresident.s of the area. Basedon a 50-percent

sample. Figures for legitimacy not stated or not reported are included in legitimate births]

Area and color

Maine .--?------------

White --------------

Nonwhite -----------

Michigan -------------

White --------------

Nonwhite -----------

Mi~i~ta ------------

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

Nonwhite -----------

Mi$ss;~iPPi ----------

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

Nonwhite -----------

Mi~ss~i -------------

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

Nonwhite -----------

Nevada ---------------

White --------------

Nonwhite-----------

Ne$gesey -----------

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

Nonwhite -----------

No~rtt~arolina -------

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

Nonwhite -----------

North Dakota ---------

White --------------

Nonwhite -----------

Ohio-----------------

White --------------

Nonwhite-----------

Oregon ---------------

White --------------

Nonwhite -----------

Penn;:~ia ---------

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

Nonwhite -----------

Rh~t~sland ---------

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

Nonwhite -----------

Attendant

mPhy- Physician sician

Total in not in

hos- hospita11 pital

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100*O

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Midwife

Percent distribution

legitimate births

98.7

98.7

98.5

99.7

99.8

99.1

99.7

99.7

99.2

79.6

99.3

57.2

98.9

99.2

96.5

99.7

99.7

99.2

99.5

99.7

98.8

95.8

99.7

84.5

99.8

99.8

98.3

99.5

99.5

99.5

99.3

99.2

99.4

99.3

99.3

98.8

99.8

99.8

99.0

0.7

0.7

0.8

0.3

0.2

0.8

:.;

0:3

2.4

0.3

4.7

0.7

0.6

1.3

0.2

0.1

0.8

0.3

0.3

0.6

::2

4.6

0.1

M

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

%:

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.2

0.1

0.7

0.

of

0.O

0.0

0.0

0.0

17.6

3!:?

0.3

0.1

1.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

::;

10.3

0.0

1.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.2

0.0

0.0

Other

and

not

stated

0.6

0.6

0.8

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.1

0.1

0.5

0.5

0.1

1.0

0.1

0.1

0.4

0.1

0.1

%:

0.6

0.2

0.1

0.6

0.1

0.1

0.0

:::

0.3

0.4

0.2

M

0.0

0.0

0.3

Attendant

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

LOO.O

LOO.O

LOO.O

100.0

100.0

LOO.O

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

LOO.O

Percent distribution of

illegitimate births

97.7

97.7

100.0

98.4

98.8

97.9

99.0

99.0

99.1

51.0

95.5

48.3

96.0

97.7

95.2

97.7

96.7

99.1

98.4

99.2

97.8

83.4

98.8

79.9

98.0

98.1

97.7

98.9

98.9

98.9

91.0

90.3

96.0

98.4

98.8

98.1

99.1

;3.;

.

1.1

1.2

1.4

0.9

2.0

0.3

0.3

4.2

;::

;:;

1.7

0.8

1.3

0.8

0.6

0.9

4.9

0.6

5.9

1.6

M

0.8

0.9

0.7

9.0

M

M

1.7

0.9

0.8

1.4

0.0

0.1

0.1

0.1

43.7

4::!

:::

.

0.1

0.1

0.0

10.3

1::;

0.0

0.0

1.1

1.2

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.6

0.6

0.9

:::

1.2

0.4

R

1.5

;::

0.8

0.1

1.2

::;

1.7

0.4

0.5

0.3

0.2

0.4

0.3

M

llt is assumed that all births in hospitals or institutions are attended by physicians.

69
Table 26. Percent distributionof legitimateand illegitimate birkhs, by attendantand color:

each of 35 reporting States, 1964—Con.

[BYPhCeOfresidence. Refers only to illegitimate births occurring within the reporting area to residents of the area. Based on a 50-percerrt

eample. Figures for legitimacy not stated or not reported are included in legitimate births]

Area and color

South Carolina-------

White--------------

Nonwhite-+--------

South Dakota ---------

White --------------

Nonwhite -----------

Tennessee ------------

White --------------

Nonwhite -----------

Texas ----------------

White --------------

Nonwhite -----------

Utah-----------------

White --------------

Nonwhite -----------

Virginia -------------

White --------------

Nonwhite -----------

Washington -----------

White --------------

Nonwhite-----------

West Virginia --------

White --------------

Nonwhite -----------

Wisconsin ------------

White --------------

Nonwhite-----------

Wyoming --------------

White --------------

Nonwhite -----------

Total

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Physician

h%-

pita11

Attendant

Phy- Other

Qi: Mid- and

hos- wife not

stated pital

Percent distribution of

legitimate births

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

,1.

90.4

99.3

73.4

99.1

99.4

95.8

97.5

99.0

89.4

95.6

96.2

91.4

99.4

99.4

97.2

96.8

99.2

86.9

99.6

99.6

99.0

98.7

98.7

97.0

99.8

99.8

99.4

99.4

99.4

98.6

n

4.8

0.4

0.3

0.7

0.7

0.4

2.7

0.6

0.6

1.0

0.3

M

0.8

0.4

2.5

0.3

0.3

0.7

0.8

0.8

1.5

0.2

0.2

0.6

0.5

0.5

1.4

R

L9.9

0.4

0.2

1.8

;::

7.2

3.5

3.0

7.0

M

9.8

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.3

0.3

1.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.7

:::

0.2

0.0

1.8

0.4

0.3

0.7

0.3

0.3

0.7

0.3

0.3

2.4

0.2

0.1

0.7

0.1

:::

0.2

0.2

0.4

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.1

Total

100.0

100.0

100.0

LOO.O

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Physician

hi; -

pita11

Attendant

I

Phy-

:::Lg Midhos- wife

pital

Other

and

not

stated

Percent distribution of

illegitimate births

70.5

96.3

67.3

97.2

100.0

93.8

91.1

96.9

89.2

88.8

92.6

85.8

99.6

99.5

100.0

84.2

97.1

79.2

98.6

98.5

98.7

97.2

97.3

96.8

95.0

94.1

97.4

98.5

98.2

100.0

6.5

2.7

7.0

2.1

H

;::

1.3

0.4

0.5

2.3

;::

1.2

M

1.1

1.0

1.6

4.9

5.7

2,4

20.5

2;::

1.5

3.;

6.1

1.1

7.8

9.0

1::;

12.1

1%2

0.9

0.8

1.2

2.4

2.;

1.3

2.;

0.7

0.5

0.7

M

1.4

;:2

1.5

%2

0.8

0.9

0.4

0.2

0.l

0.2

1.5

1.8

lIt is assumed that all births in hospitals or institutions are attended by physicians.

Zo
APPENDIX 1

POPULATION ESTIMATES

The numbers of unmarried women by color, enumerated by the U.S. Bureau of the Census in 1940 and

1950, have been used to compute illegitimacy rates for

those years. However, in each year since 1957 estimates of the population 14 years and older, classified

by age, color, sex, and marital status, have been available from the Census Bureau’s March Current Population Survey. 11 Since these estimates fluctuate erratically from year to year because of sampling error, they

have been smoothed so that the rates computed from

them do not show similar variations.

The observed percentage of unmarried women in

each age and color group in each year was smoothed

by computing a three-term moving average for the

years 1955-65. The data necessary for calculating the

averages at the beginning of the period are not available by color, and, therefore, had to be estimated. These

estimates were made by assuming that the proportion

unmarried for each age- color group in each year from

1954 to 1956 was the same as the corresponding proportion in 1957, and then adjusting these estimates by

color to the observed total unmarried population in each

age group in each year.

The percentage of unmarried women obtained by

computing a moving average were subsequently applied

to estimates of the total resident population as of July

1 in the appropriate age-color groups. The total numbers of unmarried women by age for 1955-65 were

estimated by summing the white and nonwhite figures.

The total figures for 1951-54 were estimated by

computing a three-term moving average of the percent

unmarried for each age group and applying these to the

amual July 1 estimates of the total resident population

in the appropriate age groups.

In this report the age-specific illegitimacy rates

shown in table 1 for 1941-49 are based on Census Bu- .

reau estimates of the unmarried female population. The

rates by age and by color for 1940 and 1950 are based

on census counts. The illegitimacy rates by age for

1951-65 and the rates by age and color for 1955-65

were computed using the smoothed series of population

estimates described almve. This was done in order to

have a consistent series for these years. They differ,

therefore, from those published in various issues of

Vital Statistics of the United States, which were based

on estimates provided annually by the Census Bureau.

—000

71
APPENDfX II

EVALUATION OF lLLmlTIMACY STATISTICS

There are two ways in which inaccuracies ma

enter data on legitimacy: (1) a birth may be inaccurate /’y

reported to be legitimate or illegitimate or (2) the assumptions used to estimate illegitimate births for the

country as a whole may be invalid. (It is necessa~ to

estimate the number of illegitimate births for the etxire

country since only 35 States actually report legitimacy

on their birth certificates as shown in figure I.)

The first step to take in evaluating the quality of

illegitimacy statistics is to test the validity of the estisumption that there are the same proportions of illegitimate births among the white and nonwhite populations

in the reporting and in the nonreporting States.

The method described here represents an attempt

to find an independent way of determining legitimacy

that will be comparable to legitimacy as reported on

the birth certificate. If such a method can be devised,

it can b applied to data for the nonreporting States.

Then it will ke possible to compare the results of this

independent method with the results of the customary

mation procedure. This procedure is based on the as- estimation procedure.

Figure 1. Report ing of Iegitimacy status, [965.

72
Inferential Method

A method of determining the legitimacy of a child

by comparing the names of parents and child has been

used in Maryland for some years. The method used

here is based on the one used in Maryland, with several

adaptations so that records can be coded mechanically.

Comparisons of the father’s surname, the child’s

surname, and the mother’s maiden name were made.

it would have been preferable to have had the mother’s

present surname in order to infer legitimacy accurately.

In some States this is reported. In States that do not ask

specifically for the mother’s present surname, this information may be found elsewhere on the certificate. For

example, the mother is generally the informant and her

name may be given as such or her present mailing address may be given, including her name. Finally, the

mother may sign the birth certificate. IrI cases where

the mother’s present surname was not given, the child

was considered legitimate if the father’s and child’s

names were the same and illegitimate in all other cases.

Originally, 26 combinations of names were allowed: 4

of these were legitimate and 22 illegitimate. In fact,

only 2 of the 4 possible legitimate categories had a

large number of births; 6 of the 22 possible illegitimate

categories contained almost 98 percent of the births

inferred to be illegitimate. These were as follows (the

letters A,B,and C are used to represent surnames):

Status Child

Legitimate--- A

A

Il.legitimate-

;

A

A

A

A

Mother’s

Father maiden

name

A B (or A)

A B (or A)

A

A

A

B :

B c

f%mant

A

A

B

A

A

A

Records from 10 reporting States were used to

test this method. The information used included the first

four letters of each name, the reported legitimacy

status, live-birth order, age of mother, race, and place

of residence and occurrence. The inferred legitimacy

codes were derived mechanically from the rules described above. All records for births occurring during

August 1963 in Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Ohio,

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas,

and Washington and during June, July, and August 1963

in Delaware were included. The States included in this

study presented several different kinds of characteristics with respect to population, laws relating to legitimacy, and rules for completing certificates for the illegitimate child.

Reasons for the disagreement between the two

methods were especially important in determining why

the number of illegitimate births was overestimated or

underestimated. Therefore a formula was devised for

presenting these differences and the component causing

the difference. Tables were designed in the following

form:

Reported

Total --------

Legitimate --------

Illegitimate-----Not stated --------

Total

A

Inferred

Legitimate

x

Illegitimate

B

Y

c

P

Uncletermined

Q

A is the number of illegitimate births that would be

published, B is the number inferred, C is the number

on which the two methods agree. The difference between A and B is the overall difference between the

two methods. X, Y, P, and Q are the components responsible for this difference.

From the relationships shown in the above table:

(I) C= A-X-9

and -

(2) C= B-Y-P

therefore

(3) A- X- Q= B-Y_P

or

(4) A= B+ X+ Q-Y-P

where

A = all reported illegitimate births.

B = all inferred illegitimate births.

X = all births reported as illegitimate but inferred

legitimate.

Q = all births reported as illegitimate but ofundetermined status using the inferential system.

Y = all births reported as legitimate but inferred

illegitimate.

P = all births of not stated legitimacy inferred as

illegitimate.

Divide each term by A and multiply by 100:

(5)100 =++++ +.$.$

73
Table I. Agreementl between reported and inferred legitimacy, by race for total of 10 States and

by color for each reporting State, August 1963

[Byplaceof occurrence]

,

State and color

Total of 10 States-----------

White ----------------------

Negro ----------------------

Other----------------------

Delaware2----------------------

White ------------------------------

Nonwhite ---------------------------

Louisiana ----------------------

White ------------------------------

Nonwhite ---------------------------

Minnesota ----------------------

White ------------------------------

Nonwhite ---------------------------

Mississippi --------------------

White ------------------------------

Nonwhite ---------------------------

Ohio---------------------------

White ------------------------------

Nonwhite ---------------------------

Pennsylvania -------------------

White ------------------------------

Nonwhite ---------------------------

Rhode Island-------------------

White ------------------------------

Nonwhite ---------------------------

South Carolina -----------------

White ------------------------------

Nonwhite ---------------------------

Texas --------------------------

White ------------------------------

Nonwhite ---------------------------

Washington ---------------------

White ------------------------------

Nonwhite ---------------------------

Percent

reported

illegitimate

(A)

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Inferred

illegitimate

(B)

101.7

100.7

102.2

100.0

101.4

101.1

101.5

100.4

100.0

100.4

98.1

98.2

97.4

109.3

111.5

109.3

100.7

100.2

101.3

100.3

100.7

99.8

107.7

107.5

108.3

101.4

100.0

101.6

100.2

100.4

100.0

103.0

103.6

100.0

Errots of understatement

Reported illegitimate

Inferred

legitimate

(m

0.7

::;

1.8

0.5

:::

1.5

M

0.5

0.;

0.8

1.6

1.6

2.0

1.3

0.6

;:!

2.0

1.8

3.2

Inference

undetermined

(9)

0.1

:::

0.8

0.9

0.1

0.;

0.6

::;

0.5

0.6

Errors of overstatement

Inferred illegitimate

Reported

legitimate

(Y)

1.8

2:

0.6

:::

0.4

0.5

9.5

11.5

9.4

1.1

::$

1.0

;:;

1.1

1,6

1.0

0.2

:::

0.5

0.6

Legitimacy

status

not stated

0.7

0.;

0.4

Ooi

0.4

M

1.0

7.7

1.6

1.6

1.6

5.0

lAgreement expressed in percentage terms; the number reported

cent. The formula

illegitimate equals 100.0 perfor presenting the reaaons for disagreement between reported and inferred

legitimacy is as follows:

100=;+++:.-$-;

2A11 records for births occurring during June, July, and August 1963 in Delaware were included.

74
Table II. Agreement between reported and inferred le~itimacy,by age of mother: total of 10 reporting States, Aug~st 19~3-2- -

[Byplaceofoccurrence]

Percent

reported

illegitimate

(A)

Errors of understatementErrors of overstatement

Inferred illegitimate

Reported illegitimate Inferred

illegitimate

(B)

Age of mother

Inferred Inferlegiti- ence

mate undetermined

~eported

Legitimate

Legitimacy

status

not stated

I +

+“ Total------------------------ 100.0

Under 15 years--------------------- 100.0

15-19 years------------------------ 100.0

20-24 years------------------------ 100.0

25 years and over------------------ 100.0

101.7 0.7 I 0.1

I

100.0

100.7

101.6

number

103.5

reported illegitimate

m

equals 100.0 perfor disagreement between reported and inferred

lAgreementexpressed in percentage terms; the

cent. The formula for presenting the reasons

legitimacyis as follows:

2A11 records for births occurring during June, July, and August 1963 in Delaware were included.

l%e quantitative measure of the success of the inferential method is presented in the table below.

0fthe95,602records reviewed,6,465 werereported

to represent illegitimate births and 6,574wereinferred

to represent illegitimate births. That is, by the inferential method 1.7 percent more babies would have been

considered illegitimate than were reportedto be illegitimate. In nine States the inferred method overestimatesthenumber ofillegitimate births,andinoneState

(Minnesota)itunderestimatesthenumber (table1).In

most Statesthedisagreementis quitesmall.Most of

the differencescome from caseswherea birthisreportedto k legitimatebutinferredtobe illegitimate

(1.8percent).The onlyStateswhichshow more than2

percentdisagreementare Mississippi(9.3 percent),

RhodeIsland(7.7 percent), andWashington (3.Opercent).

Errors of

understatement

Errors of

overstatement

Reported

illegitimate

Inferred

Reported illegitimate

illegitimate

Inferred

illegitiItem mate

Legitimacy

status

not

stated

(P)

48

0.7

●O5

75

T.nferred Inference

legiti- undetermate mined

Reported

legitimate

+

(x) (9)

47 8

0.7 0.1

(A)

6,465

100.0

6.76

(B)

6,574

101.7

6.88

(Y)

Number---------------------------- 116

Percent---------------------------

Percent of total records(95.602)--

1.8

.05 I .01 .12
Table III. Agreementl between reported and inferred legitimecy2 by live-birth order: total of LO

reporting Statea, August 1963

[Byplaceofoccurrence]

Live-birth order

Tota~3 -----------------------

First birth------------------------

Second birth -----------------------

Third birth ------------------------

Fourth birth -----------------------

Fifth birth ------------------------

Sixth birth ------------------------

Seventh birth ----------------------

Eighth birth and over --------------

Percent

reported

illegitimate

(A)

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Inferred

ille-

~itimate

(B)

101.7

100.5

101.2

101.3

103.4

103.5

105.5

102.9

109.6

Errors of understatement

Reported illegitimate

Inferred

legitimate

(m

0.7

0.4

0.5

%;

1.9

::;

2.4

Infer -

ence

undetermined

(Q)

0.1

0.2

O.i

Errors of overstatement

Inferred illegitimate

Reported

legitimate

(Y)

1.8

0.4

0.8

M

5.1

5.5

3.6

11.6

Legitimacy

~t~t~s

aot stated

(P)

. 0.7

l@r~eme~t expressed in percentage terms; the number reported illegitimate equals 10IO.O percent. The formula for presentin$z the reasons for disasxeement between reported and inferred

illegitimacy is as follow;:

Ioo.:+++f+z

A

2A11 records for births occurring during June, July, and August 1963 in Delaware weze included.

~Total includes fig-es for birth order not stated, which are not distributed.

Apparently the inferential method overstates the number

of illegitimate births slightly more for the nonwhite

than for che white population (2.2 percent overstatement

for the former and 0.7 percent overstatement for the

latter).

While there is relatively small variation between

the two methods regardless of the segment ofthepopulation of births considered, there are some interesting

variations by birth order and maternal age. For women

under 15 years of age (there were only 204 in the sample) there was perfect agreement. With increasing age,

however, there was an increasing amountof disagreement. For women over 25, 3.5 percent more children

were inferred illegitimate than were reported illegitimate. This probably results from problems in name

comparisons, where a woman had heen married and

was either divorced or widowed. The young women

were less likely to have ever been married (table Ii).

This hypothesis was supported by the increasing numbersof babies reported as legitimate but inferred illegitimate with increasing matemalage.The samepattern

existed (table 111) when the relationship of increasing

birth orderto increasing disagreement ofthetwomethods was reviewed. The smaller numbers tsfillegitimate

births at highex birthordersmay have accounted for

some of the wide differences.

In table IV agreement is shown by occurrencein

metropolitan and nonmetropolitan counties for eachof

the 10 States. Overall agreement was better for residents of metropolitan counties. However, this was not

true in five of the States.

The greatest source of difference between these

two methods came from births reported asle,gitimate

but inferred illegitimate. This was particularly apparent

where births were distributed by live-birth order and

age of mother.

Since the method of inferring illegitimacy (using a

comparison of names on birth certificates of 10 States

reporting legitimacy) was so successful, this method

was appliedto a sample of births occurring in the nonreporting States. All births occurring in these States

during August 1964 constituted the population to be

sampled. All even-numkx?red birth certificates were

processed in the same manner as for the 10 reporting

States.

76
Table IV. Agreement between reported and inferred legitimacy for metropolitan and nonmetropolitan counties: each of 10 reporting States,August 1963

[Byplaceofoccurrence]

Area

Total of 10 States

Metropolitan-----------------------

Nonmetropolitan--------------------

Delaware2

Metropolitan-----------------------

Nonmetropolitan--------------------

Louisiana

Metropolitan-----------------------

Nonmetropolitan--------------------

Minnesota

Metropolitan-----------------------

Nonmetropolitan--------------------

Mississippi

Metropolitan-----------------------

Nonmetropolitan--------------------

Ohio

Metropolitan-----------------------

Nonmetropolitan--------------------

Pennsylvania

Metropolitan-----------------------

Nonmetropolitan--------------------

Rhode Island

Metropolitan-----------------------

Nonmetropolitan--------------------

South ~arolina

Metropolitan-----------------------

Nonmetropolitan--------------------

Texas

Metropolitan-----------------------

Nonmetropolitan--------------------

Washington

Metropolitan-----------------------

Nonmetropolitan--------------------

Percent

reported

illegitimate

(A)

——

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

I:f&red

gitimate

(B)

100.6

103.6

102.2

100.0

100.8

99.7

98.6

96.0

114.0

109.0

,.100.5

‘102.3

100.1

101.5

108.9

100.0

100.0

101.9

100.2

100.0

100.7

108.6

Errors of understatement

Reported illegitimate

Inferred

legitimate

0.7

0.8

0.;

1.0

1.6

1.5

O.i

1.4

3.4

lAgre~ent e~ressed in percentage terms; the n~er reported

cent. The formula for presenting the reasons for disagreement

legitimacyis as follows:

2A11 records for births

Inference

undetermined

(9)

0.1

0.2

0.5

2.0

0.1

0.6

0.6

0.7

Errors of overstatement

Inferred illegitimate

Reported

legitimate

(Y)

0.8

3.6

0.4

1.0

2.;

14.0

9.1

1.0

2.3

1.1

0.8

1.;

0.2

1.:

Legitimacy

status

not stated

(P)

0.7

0.9

2.2

0.4

.

0.:

0.5

0.8

2.3

8.9

0.6

1.9

illegitimateequals 100.0 perbetween reported and inferred

occurring during June, July, and August 1963 in Delaware were included.

77
Table V. Number of illegitimate births and illegitimacy ratios, by color qnd geographic division,

according to two estimation procedures: United States, 1964

[Refers only to birtbs occurring within tbe United States. Based on a 50-percent sample. Due to rounding estimates to tbe nearest hundred,

figures by color may not add to total~

Color and geographic division

Total

United States --------------------------------

New England ----------------------------------------

Middle Atlantic ------------------------------------

East North Centra14 --------------------------------

West North Central---------------------------------

South Atlantic -------------------------------------

East South Centra14--------------------------------

West South Central ---------------------------------

Hountain -------------------------------------------

Pacific --------------------------------------------

White

United States --------------------------------

New England----------------------------------------

Middle Atlantic ------------------------------------

East North Centra14 --------------------------------

West North Central -------------------------------,---

South Atlantic -------------------------------------

East South CentralJ --------------------------------

West South Central ---------------------------------

Mowtain -------------------------------------------

Pacific --------------------------------------------

Nonwhite

United States --------------------------------

New England ----------------------------------------

Middle Atlantic---z --------------------------------

East North Central ------------------ --------------

West North Central ---------------------------------

South Atlantic----z --------------------------------

East South Central -------..------------------------

West South Central ---------------------------------

Nountain -------- -.------------.--------------------

Pacific --------------------------------------------

Estimate of

illegitimate

births

Independent

methodl

272.200

6,500

49,000

49,100

15,700

63,500

30,000

31>300

7,500

19,600

110.600

4,400

20,500

24,000

9,800

14,600

5,800

9,800

6,000

15,600

161,600

2,100

28,400

25,000

5,900

48,900

24,200

21,500

1,500

4,000

Usua10

method”

275.700

9,200

42,200

49,100

15,700

67,200

30,000

31,000

6,000

25,300

114,300

7,500

17,900

24,000

9,700

16,300

5,800

9,800

3,900

19,400

161,300

1,6oo

24,400

25,000

6,000

50,900

24,200

21,200

2,100

5,900

Index of

agreement

of two

methods3

98.73

70.65

116,11

...

m;.;:

.

...

100.97

125.00

77.47

96.76

58.67

114.53

...

101.03

89.57

...

100.00

153..85

80.41

100.19

131.25

116.39

...

98.33

96.07

...

101.42

71.43

67.80

Illegitimacy

ratio

T_ndependent

method

67.6

29.1

69.8

...

48.3

102.5

...

76.5

43.1

40.0

32.8

20.7

34.1

...

32.4

33.4

...

30.8

37.7

36.5

245.5

204.4

282.1

...

261.5

268.5

...

236.6

99.4

63.7

Usual

lethod

68.5

41.2

60.1

61.2

48.3

108.5

106.7

75.8

34.5

51.6

33.9

35.2

29.7

33.8

32.1

37.3

29.1

30.8

24.5

45.4

245.0

155.7

242.4

271.1

266.0

279.5

295.9

233.3

139.2

94.0

lEsti~te ~~uals total of reported and inferred illegitimate births.

2Based on usual procedure for estimating U.S. totals.

Slhdex equals [(independent estimate)-(usual estimate)]x100

lA1l States in the East North Central and East South Central Divisions report legitimacy status.The totals reported in the two divisions were used in computing the U.S. totals.

This procedure was designed to permit evaluation To obtain the distribution by geographic division,

of the usual method for estimating illegitimate births the number of illegitimate births inferred for each State

by geographic division and color, by age of mother and for the month of August 1964 was inflated to a total for

color, and by live-birth order and color. the year 1964. This was done byassumingthat the ratio

78
of illegitimate births to total births in Augustwas sion.Thisyieldeda totalnumber ofillegitimate births

identicalto thatfortheyear 1964.The formulafor foreachdivisionas shownbelow:

eachnonreportingStatefollows: (b) Totsl il- Total inlegitimat.e ferred il-

!rOta.1re.

~:+ ‘(i3?ii)x[5~6))

births ac- = legitimate corded ii-

(a) Total in.

+ legitimate births cording to births in

new proce - nonreport -

in reporting

dure, 1964 States ing States

An indexoftheagreementofthisestimatewiththe

estimateresultingfrom theusualestimatingprocedure

The inflatedfiguresfor each nonreportingState was calculatedforeachgeographicdivisionas follows:

were summed withineach geographicdivision.Then

theinflatednumber foreach geographicdivisionwas

Reported + inferred

(c) Index of illegitimate births

added to the number of illegitimate births recorded by agreement = Estimate of illegitimate x

the States reporting illegitimacy in the respective divi - births by usual procedure

Table VI. Number of illegitimatebirths and illegitimacy ratios, by color and age of mother

cording to two estimation procedures: United States, 1964

10CI

ac -

[Refers only to birtbs occurring within the United States. Based on a 50-percwrt sample. Due to rounding estimates to the newesL hundred. fiz.

ures by color may not add to totals. Figures for age of mo~er not stated are d“;stributed]

Color and age of mother

Total----------------------------------------

Under 15 years-------------------------------------

15-19 years----------------------------------------

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

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

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

35-39 years----------------------------------------

40 years and over----------------------------------

White -------- --------- -------- -------- ----------

Under 15 years-------------------------------------

15-19 years------------------------------.--------

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

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

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

35-39 years----------------------------------------

’40years and over---------------.------------------

Nonwhite---------------------------------.-.---

Under 15 years-------------------------------------

15-19 years----------------------------------------

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

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

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

35-39 years------------------------.--.,------------

40 years and over----------------------------------

Estimate of

illegitimate

births

Independent

rnethodl

272,200

5,800

108,200

85,800

37,100

20,100

11,500

3>700

110,600

1,400

43,200

38,600

14,200

7,100

4,500

1,600

L.61,600

4,400

65,000

47,200

22,900

13,000

7,000

2,100

Usual

methods

275.700

5,800

111,400

87,900

36,400

19,500

1;,;;;

>

114,300

1,400

45,200

40,600

14,300

6,800

4,400

1,600

161,300

4,400

66,200

47,300

22,100

2,700

6,700

1,900

lEsti~te equals total of reported and inferred illegitimatebirths.

Index of

~greemen

of two

methods~

98.7?

100.OC

97.13

97.61

101.92

103.08

103.60

102.78

96.76

100.00

95.58

95.07

99.30

104.41

102.27

100.00

100.19

1:;.:;

99:79

103.62

102.36

104.48

110.53

..

Illegitimacy

ratio

Independent

method

67.6

742.1

184.7

59.6

36.8

34.4

37.1

40.1

32.8

523.2

;;.:

16:4

14.4

17.3

20.7

245.5

856.0

459.8

219.9

160.6

144.0

142.3

138.4

Usua1

method

68.5

742.1

l:XJ:

36:1

33.3

35.8

39.0

33.9

523.2

1$)).;

16:5

L3.7

16.9

20.7

245.0

856.0

468.3

220.4

155.0

140.7

136.2

125.2

‘Based on usual procedure for estimatingU.S. totals.

31ndex equals[(independentestimate)+ (usual estbate)]x 100

79
lnaddition,the illegitimacyratiosthatwould be obtained

for each method were computed for each geographic

division.

Table V presents the results of this computation

by geographic division and color. In general, agreement

was very close for white and nonwhite in the West North

Central, South Atlantic, and West South Central Divisions. The differences between the two estimates were

especially large in the New England, Mountain, and

Pacific Divisions. Despite the considerable variation

in agreement among the geographic divisions, the overall U.S. totals for each method were remarkably similar. For all births the index of agreement was 98.73,

for white births it was 96.76, and for nonwhite births it

was 100.19. In other words, this procedure resulted in

a somewhat smaller estimate of total and white illegitimate births and a slightly larger estimate of nonwhite

illegitimate births as compared with tbe usual method.

The evaluation procedure for the distributions by

age of mother and color and by live-birth order and

color was carried out in the same manner as above. In

both cases, however, the comparisons were made only

for the United States totals, omitting the analysis by

geographic division. The results of the evaluation procedure are presented in tables VI and VII. There was

substantial agreement between the two procedures by

age of mother. and color (table VI). Least consistent

were the estimates for births to all mothers 30-39

years of age, to white mothers 15-24 years of age, and

to nonwhite mothers 35 years and over.

The estimates for illegitimate births by live-birth

order and color compared in table VII indicate that

Table VII. Number of illegitimate live births and illegitimacy ratios, by ;;~ and live-birth

order according to two estimation procedures: United States,

[Refersonlytobirths occurri.gwithin,heUnitedStates.Based cm a 50-percent smnple. Live-birtb order refers lm nur

to mother. Due to rounding estimates to the nearest bmrdred, figures by color may not add to tot

Color and live-birth order

Total -------- --------------------------------

First birth ------------.----------- ----------------

Second birth -------------------------- -------------

Third birth ----------------.-----------------------

Fourth birth ------------------------ ---------------

Fifth birth ------------------------- ----------------

Sixth birth and over -------------------------------

Not stated-------------.------------.--------------

White ------------------------------------------

First birth -----------------------------------.--.-

Second birth ----------------.------- --------------.

Third birth -------------------------.- -------------

Fourth birth ----------.---------------- ------------

Fifth birth ------------------------ --------..----.-

Sixth birth and over-------------------------------

Not stated------------------------ -.---------------

Nonwhite------ ..--..-.-.----.---..--.-=--------

First birth ------------------.---------------------

Second birth -----------.------------ ---------------

Third birth .-------.-------.-----------------------

Fourth birth ---.--------.----------- ---------------

Fifth birth --------.-------------------------.-----

Sixtk birth and over-------------------------------

Not stated-------------------.---------------------

Estimate of

illegitimate

births

Independent

method 1

272,200

1;; , ;::

26;700

18,400

12,800

27,;~;

110,600

70,500

16,200

8,600

5,800

4,000

5,200

100

161,600

69,100

31,000

18,100

12,600

8,800

21,900

200

Usua 1

method%

275.700

147,100

47,200

26,400

17,600

11,900

24,800

500

114,300

76,000

16,100

8,300

5,600

3,300

4,6oo

300

161,300

71,100

31,100

18,100

12,000

8,600

20,200

200

lEsti~te equals total of reported and inferred illegitimate births.

Index of

agreement

of two

methods3

98.72

94.90

100.00

101.14

104.55

107.56

109.27

60.00

96.76

92.76

100.62

103.61

103.57

121.21

113.04

33.33

100.19

97.19

99.68

100.00

105.00

102.33

108.42

100.00

! of children born alive

Illegitimacy

ratio

Independent

method

67.6

119.9

49.0

37,1

39.2

45.7

64.o

36.8

32.8

70.3

19.4

13.8

14.7

17.9

18.4

14.0

245.5

;2!;.:

184:8

169.9

156.5

156.2

200.0

Jsual

nethod

68.5

126.3

49.0

36.7

37.5

42.5

58.6

61.3

33.9

75.8

19.3

13.4

14.2

14.7

16.2

41.9

245.0

$3:.:

~84: 8

1.61.8

1.52.9

1.44.1

200.0

2Based on usual procedure for estimating U.S. totals.

31ndex equals [(independent estimate)+ (usual estimate)] x 100

80
agxeement between the two methods is greatest for the

second, third, and fourth order births. Agreement for

first order births is somewhat greater than for fifth

and ‘higher order births. The relationships are similar

within each color group.

In general, the inferential method of estimating

total illegitimate births for the United States and the

distributions of these births by geographic division and

color, age of mother and color, and live-birth order

and color has yielded estimates that are remarkably

consistent with the results of the usual procedure.

There is one group of births for which legitimacy

status cannot Ix determined by either of the two methods

described above. This group consists of those births

which occur in reporting States to residents of nonreporting States. In our usual procedure for tabulating

births by legitimacy status, the births are allocated

according to place of residence. Therefore if an illegitimate birth occurs within a reporting State to a resident of a State which does not report legitimacy status,

the fact that the child is illegitimate is not shown.

The independent procedure for estimating illegitimate births is based on inferring the legitimacy status

of those births which occur in nonreporting States.

Therefore the legitimacy status of the birth occurring

in a reporting State to a resident of a nonreporting

State is still not indicated. A schematic presentation of

the above methods of determining legitimacy status is

shown bdOW.

Otxtmwnce

Residence

Legitimacy

reporting

area

Nonreporting

area

LegLtimscy reporting area

Included

in regular

tabulations

Not included

in either

system;

amounts to

0.6 percent

of total

Nonreporting

area I

Included in inf erentia 1

stud y

A tabulation of illegitimate births according to

place of residence shows the number of these births

occurring in reporting States to residents of every nonreporting State, In 1964 there were 1,624 such births,

or 0.6 percent of the estimated number of illegitimate

births in the entire United States. (Unpublished data)

81
APPENDIX Ill

ESTIMATES OF BIRTHS BY COLOR FOR THE UNITED STATES IN 1962 AND 1963

The birth certificates used in New Jersey during mated. The estimates were made so that the time series

1962 and 1963 did not include a question on race. There- of the various illegitimacy measures would be continufore the number of white and nonwhite illegitimate births ous for all years from 1940 to 1964.

occurring in New Jersey for these years had to be estiTable VIII. Estimated number of total births and illegitimate births, by color: New Jersey; 1962

and 1963

Total births Illegi.ttite births

Year

Total Whit e ~h:;e Total White Non -

whit e

1962

1963

------------------------------------------- 131,714 112,944 18,770 5,790 2,081 3,709

-------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --- 132,748 113,831 18,917 6,540 2,351 4,189

—000

82
APPENDIX IV

ADJUSTMENT OF NUMBERS OF ILLEGITIMATE BIRTHS IN THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND SOUTH DAKOTA

District of Columbia birthcertificate, thenumber ofwhiteillegitimate births

classifiedas DistrictofColumbiaresidentswas overIn 1963and 1964 theplaceof residencewas in- stated.Ingeneral,thesebirthsoccurredto mothers

completelyreportedon a sizablenumber ofDistrictof whose placeofresidencewas givensimplyas Virginia

Columbia birthcertificatesof illegitimatechildren. or Maryland,withno countyor cityspecified.

Becauseofa processingrulethatarbitrarilyidentifies During1963 and 1964thenumber of such births

theplaceofresidenceas theplaceofoccurrencewhen was largeenoughtorequirea revisiontopreventdisthe item place of residenceis not completedon the tortionof thefigures.Sincenonresidentbirthsdo not

Table IX. Original and revised estimates of illegitimate births and illegitimacy ratios, by

color: District of Columbia, 1963 and 1964, and South Dakota, 1964

[By place of residence. Refers only to illegitimate births occurring witbirr the reporting area ta residents of area. Based on a 50-perrmt sample.

Ratios per 1,000 total live birtbs in specified group]

Year and color

1963

Total---------------------------------------------

White---------------------------------------------------

Nonwhite------------------------------------------------

1964

Total---------------------------------------------

~ite ---------------------------------------------------

Nonwhite------------------------------------------------

Total---------------------------------------------

White---------------------------------------------------

Nonwhite------------------------------------------------

Original Revised

estimates estimates~

I I

Illegit- Illegit- IJ@~t- Illegitiruate imacy imacy

births ratio births ratio

District of Columbia

4,832 1 238.71 4,566 [ 225.5

I 1 1

678 118.6 412 72.1

4,154 285.9 4,154 285.9

5,022 258.9 4,648 239.7

786 156.9 412 82.2

4,236 294.5 4,236 294.5

South Dakota

128 8.2 796 51.0

102 7.2 444 31.4

26 17.4 352 235.9

lVital‘Statistics of the United States, 1963, Vol. I, table 1-55. Vital Statistics of the

United States, 64, vol. I, table 1->6.

2Revised estfites are those shown in this rePort.

83
comprise as large a proportion of the total in other

States as in Washington, D.C., any distortion that would

result from similar problems elsewhere is not as substantial.

The number of white illegitimate births to District

of Columbia residents was adjusted for 1963 and 1964

as follows: those births occurring in Washington, D.C.,

to Virginia and Maryland residents (municipality unspecified) were subtracted from the number of white

illegitimate births originally allocated to the District

of Columbia, The figures for illegitimate births shown

in this report and summarized in table IX will therefore not agree with those published in Vital Statistics

OJ the United States for 1963 and 1964 since the adjustments were not made in these volumes.

South Dakota

Most of the illegitimate births occurring in South

Dakota in 1963 and 1964 were classified as legitimate

during the routine processing due to an error in processing instructions.

The processing problem arose because a substitute

record which did not include the item on legitimacy

status was erroneously filed for a number of illegitimate

births. When these substitute records were processed,

the legitimacy status was coded as “not reported,” and

then changed to “not stated” in editing. The “not stated’!

births were subsequently added to legitimate births.

Therefore, the illegitimate births were understated in

Vital Statistics of the United States for 1963 and 1964.

For this report, however, it was possible to obtain

more accurate counts of the numbers of illegitimate

births occurring in 1964. It was assumed that those

records described above for which legitimacy status

had been coded as “not reported” represented illegitimate births. The figures published here for South

Dakota therefore differ from those shown in Vitul Statistics of the United States, 1964.

000

84
APPENDIX V

BIASES DUE TO INCOMPLETE REPORTING OF LEGITIMACY STATUS

BY STATE OF RESIDENCE

The accuracy of comparisons of the various measures of illegitimacy among States is affected by three

variables: (a) accuracy of the respons~ (b) completeness with which the legitimacy item is answered on the

birth certificates; and (c) frequency with which women

leave their State of residence to have an illegitimate

child in a nonreporting State.

Because of the difficulty in answering the question

of accuracy and because of the confidentiality of this

item, few attempts have been made to evaluate the accuracy of these statistics. In a study of adoptions conducted by the State of Washington, 10 it was found that a

number of children reported as legitimate on the birth

certificate were reported illegitimate on adoption records.

It seems likely that accuracy varies from State to

State, city to city, or from county to county, but no

empirical evidence is available to test this hypothesis.

Table X shows the incompleteness of legitimacy

reporting for each State. In very few areas is there a

substantial amount of incompleteness. In addition, such

a small proportion of births occur outside the motherts

State of residence that this is not an important factor.

A table similar to table X was last prepared in

1955. In this 10-year interval, there has been little

change in the quality of reporting as measured by the

percentage of births with legitimacy status not stated

or not reported. (Refer to table 10 in IUegitinzate

Births: United States, 1938-19571 for the comparable

table.)

85
Table X. Live births, by legitimacy status and color: 35 reporting states, 1964

[Based m a !m-perrxmt SWnpIe]

Area and color

Total, 35 States-----------------------

white --------------------------------

Nonwhite -----------------------------

Alabw ----------------------------------

White -----------.----------------------------

Nonwhite ----------------------.--------------

Alaska -----------------------------------

White --.--.---------.-.-------.--------------

Nonwhite -.----..---...-------------..--_-----

Delaware ---------------------------------

White ------.-----------------.--------.------

Nonwhite -------------------------------------

District of Columbia---------------------

$

ite----------------------------------------

nwhite -------------------------------------

Florida ----------------------------------

Wite----------------------------------------

Nonwhite -------------------------------------

Hawaii -----------------------------------

White -------- --------------------------------

Nonwhite --.-----------.------.---------------

Illinois---------------------------------

White -----....-----.----.--.-.-.----.--------

Nonwhite -------------------------------------

Indiana----------------------------------

White ----.-..-------------.---.--------------

Nonwhite -------------------------------------

Iowa------------------------ ----.--------

White ------------------------.---------------

Nonwhite -------------------------------------

Wnsas -----------------------------------

White --------------------------------- -------

Nonwhite ---------------------.---------------

Kentucky ---------------------------------

White “---------------.-----------------------

Nonwhite -------------------------------------

Total

live

births

2,685,136

2,221,112

464,024

76,316

48,516

27,800

7,274

4,956

2,318

11,444

9,084

2,360

19,394

5,010

14,384

113,984

83,402

30,582

17,368

5,466

11,902

222,248

184,392

37,856

106,022

97,434

8,588

55,442

54,462

980

43,358

40,234

3,124

67,958

62,214

5,744

Legitimate

births

2,465,754

65,558

46,542

19,016

6,828

4,816

2,012

9,904

8,484

1,420

13,638

3,820

9,818

100,960

79,594

21,366

16,196

5,138

11,058

204,500

~9,688

93,358

6,330

52,758

52,018

740

41,062

38,606

2,456

63,652

59,694

3,958

Illegitimate

births

195,068

73,692

121,376

9,162

950

8,212

420

116

304

1,194

316

878

4,648

412

4,236

12,384

3,346

9,038

1,138

314

824

17,096

5,666

11,430

5,772

3,554

2,218

1,862

1,636

226

1,864

1,210

654

4,140

2,370

1,770

Legitimacy

status

not

stated

7,838

6,490

1,348

404

134

270

6

4

2

38

?:

48

16

32

26

18

8

2

i

412

320

92

436

408

28

124

122

2

36

32

4

102

94

8

Legitimacy

status

not

reportedL

16,476

14,824

1,652

1,192

890

302

20

20

308

264

44

1,060

762

298

614

444

170

32

14

18

240

214

26

126

114

12

698

686

12

396

386

10

64

56

8

lBirths occurring in nonreporting States to residents of reporting States.

86
Table X. Live births, by legitimacy status and color: 35 reporting States, 1964_conm

[Based on a 50-percent smpltj

Area and color

tiuisiana--------------------------------

White----------------------------------------

Nonwhite-------------------------------------

Maine------------.------.----------------

White---------.-----------------------------.

Nonwhite------------------------------------

Michigan---------------------------------

White-----.----------------------------------

Nonwhite-------------------------------------

Minnesota--------------------------------

White----------------------------------------.

Nonwhite-------------------------------------

Mississippi------------------------------

White----..----------------------------------.

Nonwhite-------------------------------------

Missouri---------------------------------

White----..-----------------------------------

Nonwhite---------------------------------.----

Nevada------.-----------------------------

White.----------------------------------------

Nonwhite-------------------------------------

New Jersey-------------------------------

White ----------.,------------------------b----

Nonwhite-------------------------------------

North Carolina---------------------------

White----------..-----------------------------

Nonwhite------------------------------------

North Dakota-----------------------------

White----------------------------------------

Nonwhite-------------------------------------

Ohio-------------------------------------

White----------------------------------------

Nonwhite-------------------------------------

Oregon-----------------------------------

White----------------------------------------

Nonwhite--------------------------------------

Pennsylvania-----------------------------

White----------------------------------------

Nomhite -------------------------------------

Total

live

births

86,142

51,888

34,254

21,264

20,982

282

175,506

155,602

19,904

76,864

75,120

1,744

56,654

25,966

30,688

88,606

75,596

13,010

10,038

8,778

1,260

132,072

1;;,;;:

a

106,074

72,768

33>306

14,470

13,792

678

209,760

1;;,;;;

33:558

32,308

1,250

218,742

193,580

25,162

Legitimate

births

76,46[

50,68;

25,78(

19,08(

18,83;

251

164,58:

149,25f

15,32f

73,124

71,852

1,272

47,734

25,378

22,356

81,136

72,300

8,836

9,258

8,236

1,022

122,550

106,650

15,900

94,916

70,566

24,350

13,872

13,288

584

196,614

180>410

16,204

31,640

30,596

1,044

203,950

185,630

18,320

Illegit.

imate

births

9,52(

1,09~

8,43(

87f

856

2C

9,80C

5,33C

4,47C

3,57C

3,1OC

470

8,690

494

8,196

6,430

2,306

4,124

526

302

224

7,096

2,850

4,246

10,874

1,988

8,886

506

418

88

12,780

6,790

5,990

1,690

1,492

198

12,966

6,222

6,744

Legitimacy

statu:

not

statec

16

:

780

774

6

910

818

92

56

54

2

170

40

130

540

508

32

54

46

8

114

98

16

106

::

10

4

6

146

122

24

28

28

216

142

74

Legitimacy

status

not

reportedl’

134

104

30

522

520

2

214

198

16

114

114

60

54

6

500

482

18

200

19;

2,312

2,216

96

178

1;:

82

82

220

206

14

200

192

8

1,610

1,586

24

lBirthsoccurring in nonreporting states to residents of reporting States.

87
Table X. Live births, by legitimacystatus and color: 35 reporting States, 1964—con.

[Basedo.a50-perce.t samplel

Area and color

Rhode Island-----------------------------

White----------------------------------------

Nonwhite-------------------------------------

South Carolina-------------------.-------

white ----------------------------------------

Nonwhite -------------------------------------

South Dakota -----------------------------

White ----------------------------------------

Nonwhite --------------------------- -----------

Tennessee --------------------------------

White --------.-------------------------------

Nonwhite-------------------------------- -----

White ------------------ ----------------------

Nonwhite -------------------------------------

White------------------------------------.,---

Nonwhite-------------------------------------

Virginia--------------------.------------

White -----------.------.---------------------

Nonwhite----------------------.--------------

Washington -------------------------------

White ---------------------.------------------

Nonwhite ------------------------ -------------

West Virginia----------------------------

White ------------------------------------ ----

Nonwhite--------.----------------------------

Wisconsin--------------------------------

White ------.---------------------------------

Nomhite -------------------------------------

Wyoming ------.---------------------------

White ----------------------------------------

Nonwhite -------------------------------.-----

Total

live

births

18,028

17,294

734

56,874

33,262

23,612

15,620

14,128

1,492

80,286

62,720

17,566

234,100

23,924

96,906

73,130

23,776

57,132

53,702

3,430

35,658

34,080

1,578

88,814

7,236

6,908

328

Legitimate

births

16,628

16,038

590

48,254

31,524

16,730

14,660

71,854

60,348

11,506

218,018

188,864

29,154

22,672

22,176

496

87,204

69,744

17,460

53,648

50,708

2,940

32,708

31,656

1,052

83,682

81,066

2,616

6,752

6,490

262

Ill.e::tbirths

640

498

142

7,266

808

6,458

796

2,002

6,038

14,906

6,578

8,328

460

436

24

8,684

2,466

6,218

2,906

2,;:;

2,486

3,6o6

2,686

920

270

218

52

Legitimacy

status

not

stated

64

64

290

108

182

32

:;

34

22

12

156

126

30

594

5;:

94

44

50

270

2;;

68

:;

1,440

1,3;:

16

1;

Legitimacy

status

not

xeported~

696

694

2

1,064

822

242

132

108

24

358

348

10

1,020

916

104

198

144

54

924

876

48

308

30:

396

38;

86

198

186

12

lBirths Occurring in nonreporting States to residents Of ?XqKnXhg states.

-ooo—

88
APPENDIX VI

RANKING OF REPORTING STATES ACCORDING TO ILLEGITIMACY RATES AND

RATIOS, 1960

Table XI. State ranking high to low for illegitimacy rates, by color: 29 reporting

ILLEGITIMACY

States, 1960

[By place of residence. Refers only to illegitimate births owurring within the reporting area to residsnts of t,he area. Basedm a 50-wmceM.sample.RatesF, 1,000u.-

mmied womenmged15-44yearsh specified group enumerntad as of April 1, 1960. Data are not shown for six re@ing States-Maine, Nevada, North Dakota,Rhode

Island,Utah,andWyoming.The number of unmarried women ty color are not avsilable for tbe.w .%atss. Therefore illegitimacy rates by color could not he computad]

Rank

order

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Lo

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25.5

25.5

27

28

29

Total

State

Mississippi ----------

District of ColumhiaSouth Carolina -------

Alabama --------------

Florida --------------

Alaska ---------------

Louisiana ------------

Delaware -------------

North Carolina -------

Tennessee ------------

Virginia -------------

Texas ----------------

Illinois -------------

Missouri--------------

Hewaii ---------------

Kentucky -------------

West Virginia --------

Ohio -----------------

Indiana --------------

Michigan -------------

South Dakota ---------

Pennsylvania ---------

New Jersey -----------

Oregon ---------------

Washington -----------

Kansas ---------------

Minnesota ------------

Wisconsin ------------

Iowa -----------------

Rate

64.3

60.0

48.1

44.4

43.8

43.4

43.1

43.0

35.5

33.1

32.9

25.0

24.9

24.2

22.3

21.3

20.2

18.6

18.4

16.7

16.2

14.3

13.7

13.1

13.0

13.0

12.7

11.3

10.1

Rank

order

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8.5

8.5

10.5

10.5

12

13

14

15

16

17.5

17.5

19

20

21.5

21.5

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

White

State

Hawaii ----------------

West Virginia ---------

Delaware --------------

Kentucky --------------

Alaska ----------------

Florida ---------------

Indiana ---------------

Texas -----------------

Oregon ----------------

Washington ------------

Minnesota -------------

Virginia --------------

Ohio ------------------

Tennessee -------------

Michigan --------------

District of Columbia --

North Carolina --------

Iowa ------------------

Missouri --------------

Louisiana -------------

Illinois --------------

Wisconsin -------------

Kansas ----------------

South Carolina --------

South Dakota ----------

Pmnsylvania ----------

Alabams ---------------

Mississippi -----------

New Jersey ------------

Rate

21.5

16.4

14.3

13.0

12.3

L2.O

11.9

11.5

L1.5

L1.1

L1.1

LO.6

10.5

LO.1

9.7

9.6

9.1

9.1

8.8

8.7

8.6

8.6

8.4

8.3

8.2

7.7

6.7

6.0

5.3

Rank.

order’

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

Nonwhite

State

Delaware -------------

Florida --------------

Missouri -------------

Illinois -------------

Tennessee ------------

South Dakota ---------

Mississippi ----------

Minnesota ------------

District of ColumbiaKentucky -------------

Alabama --------------

Wisconsin ------------

South Carolina -------

Virginia -------------

Indiana --------------

Louisiana ------------

Alasks ---------------

Texas ---------------

North Carolina -------

Ohio -----------------

Kansas ---------------

New Jersey -----------

West Virgins ---------

Pennsylvania ---------

Iowa -----------------

Oregon ---------------

Michigan -------------

Washington -----------

Hawaii ---------------

Rate

179.2

150.8

136.1

132.8

128.0

124.7

123.2

117.8

116.7

106.2

104.0

103.1

99.5

97.2

96.2

96.0

94.9

94.8

89.4

88.8

83.6

81.3

79.1

79.0

77.0

72.8

72.5

62.4

22.6

lwhe~e state5 were tied at a ra~. we average of the rank5 wa5 ~6ed for each tied state; e.g. , Washington and

Kansas were ranked at 25.5 for the total rate. -

89
Table XII. State ranking high to low for illegitimacy ratios, by color: 29 reporting States, 1960

[By place of residence. Refersonly to illegitimate births occurring within the reporting area to residents of the area. Based on a 50-percent sample. Ratios per 1,000 total

live births in specified group. Data are not shown for six reporting States-Maine, Nevada, NortA Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, .md Wyoming. The number of unmarried

worne” by color are not available for these Statss. Therefore illegitimacy rates by color could not be cc.tn putt

Rank

order 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

Total

State

District of Columbia.

Mississippi ----------

South Carolina -------

Alabama --------------

Florida --------------

North Carolina -------

Louisiana ------------

Delaware -------------

Tennessee ------------

Virginia -------------

Illinois -------------

West Virginia --------

Missouri -------------

Hawaii ---------------

Texas ----------------

Kentucky -------------

Alaska ---------------

Ohio -----------------

Pennsylvania ---------

Indiana --------------

Michigan -------------

New Jersey -----------

South Dakota ---------

Oregon ---------------

Washington -----------

Minnesota ------------

Kansaa ---------------

Wisconsin ------------

Iowa-----------------

Iatio

204.9

138.9

120.8

107.8

94.9

90.3

90.1

88.4

86.9

79.1

59.7

59.4

57.5

52.4

51.5

50.4

47.9

43.7

41.8

40.3

37.5

36.1

31.3

30.8

28.6

28.4

26.4

25.2

22.4

Rank

>rderl

1

2

3

4

5

6.5

6.5

8

9

10

11

12.5

12.5

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

White

State

District of ColumbiaWest Virginia --------

Hawaii ---------------

Kentucky -------------

Delaware -------------

Tennessee ------------

Florida --------------

Oregon ---------------

Indiana --------------

Virginia -------------

Minnesota ------------

Washington -----------

Ohio -----------------

Texas ----------------

Pennsylvania ---------

North Carolina -------

Michigan -------------

Missouri -------------

Illinois -------------

South Carolina -------

Iowa -----------------

Wisconsin ------------

Louis na------------

Kansas ---------------

South Dakota ---------

Alabama --------------

New Jersey -----------

Mississippi ----------

Alaska ---------------

Rat io

55.8

47.6

37.6

30.6

29.9

27.4

27.4

27.2

26.3

25.3

24.9

24.7

24.7

23.3

22.9

22.5

21.7

21.3

21.2

20.4

20.2

19.4

17.9

17.3

16.1

15.8

14.4

14.2

12.3

Rsnk

orderl

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

Nonwhite

State

Delaware -------------

Tennessee -------------

West Virginia ---------

Missouri -------------

Florida ---------------

District of ColumbiaAlabama --------------

Illinois -------------

Kentucky -------------

South Carolina -------

Mississippi ----------

Virginia -------------

North Carolina -------

South Dakota ---------

Texas ----------------

Minnesota ------------

Ohio -----------------

Louisiana ------------

Pennsylvania ---------

Indiana --------------

Naw Jersey -----------

Michigan-------------

Wisconsin ------------

Iowa-----------------

Kansas ---------------

Oregon~--------------

Alaska ---------------

Washington -----------

Hawaii ---------------

Ratio

347.7

295.9

292.1

285.4

277.1

272.4

263.6

261.6

258.6

258.4

244.3

241.0

238.1

216.1

213.5

212.7

206.3

204.4

202.7

194.5

177.5

165.3

163.7

161.0

152.2

131.7

126.3

96.4

59.0

l~ere States were tied at a rank, the average Of the ranks was used for each tied State; e.g. , Tennessee and

Florida were ranked at 6.5 for the white ratio.

—ooo—

90
VITAL AND HEALTH STATISTICS PUBLICATION SERIES

Originally Fublic Health Service Publication Are. 1000

Series 1. Programs and collection procedures. — Reports which describe the general programs of the National

Center for Health Statistics and its offices and divisions, data collection methods used, definitions,

and other material necessary for understanding the data.

Series 2. Data evaluation and metimds research. — Studies of new statistical methodolo~~ inckiin~ experimental tests of new survey methods, studies of vital statistics collection methods, new analytical

techniques, objective evaluations of reliability of collected data, contributions to statistical theory.

Sen”es 3. Analytical studies. — Reports presenting anai3tical or interpretive studies basedon vitaI and health

statistics, carrying the analysis further than the ex~ository types of reports in the other series.

Series 4. Documents and committee r@oTts.- Final reports of major committees concerned with vital and

health statistics, and documents such as recommended model vikd registration laws and revised

Mrth and death certificates.

Series 10. Data porn the HecMz Inteniew Swvev.- Statistics on illness, accidental injuries, disability, use

of hospital, medical, dental, and other services, and other health-related t~pics, b~sed on data

collected in a continuing national household interview survey.

Series 1]. Data j%rn z!keHealth Examination Su-nWV. —Data from direct examination, teming, and measurement of national samples of the civilian, noninstitutional population provide tlw basis for two types

of reports: (1) estimates of the medically defined prw.dertce of specific diseases in the Lkdted

States and th~ distri?mttiorts of the population with respect to physical, physicdogical, and psyclKJ-

~ogical characteri~tic~; ~nd (2) analysis of relati~nship~ among the t:~riuus me~~ur~ri-j~nts ~i~h~t

reference to an wplicit Hnite universe of persons.

Sen”es 12. Data porn tk Institutional Population SumJ12ys —Statistics relatin~ to the health charwcterktics CIf

persons in institutimts, and thdr medical, nursing, and personal cue received, based on nationaI

samples of establishments providing these services and samples of the residents or patients.

Sm’es 13. Data f~om the Hospitul Disciza~ye Swvey. —Statistics relating to cfi.scht[rged patients in short-stay

hospitals, based m a sample of patient records in a national sample of hospitals.

Sm’es 14. Data on health wscnwcw mangwww and facilities. —Statistics on the numbers, geograpbk---

bution, and characteristics of health resources incktding physicians,, dentists, nurses, ather health

occupations, hospitals, nursln~ homes, and outpatkmt facilities.

Series 20. Data on mortality.— I’ariotts statistics on mortality other tham as included in regtd.m annual or

monthly reports —special analyses by cause of death, age, and other ciema=~apltic variables, also

geographic and time series analyses.

Serz”es 21. Datu on ndality, ma-wiage, and divwce. —Various statistics on nataiity, marriage, and divorce

other than as included in reky.dar atmua 1 or monthly reports—~ ‘pecial analyses by ckmmgraphic

variables, also geogmphic and time series analyses, studies of fertility.

Series 22. Datu j?om the National P?atality and illwtility Swueys. — Statistics on characteristics of hirtbs

and deaths ttcit available from the vital records, based on sample surveys stemming from these

records, including such topics as mortality by socioeconomic class, hospital experience in the

last year of life, medical care during pregnancy, health insurance coverage, etc.

For a list of titles of reports pub~ished in these series, write to: ~fficc of ~nfomation

~ation:t] Center for Health Stxistics

Public Hcallh Scmice, HRA

Rockville, Xid. 20S52
..

,.

,.

. .,

,,:.,-, ,,Y

.*

,.- .,.

\

‘: .;,

.’

., “.

,“

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

o

*

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF H. E.VIJ. ~,

Public Health Service

HEW 390

US.MUL

HEALTH RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION

5800 Fishers Lane THIRD CLASS

Rockville, Md. 20852

BLK. RATE

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for Private Use, $300

,,q,

,’, ,

:

:,”

,

,/!