NATIONAL CENTER Series 21 

For HEALTH STATISTICS Number 17 

. 

VITAL and HEALTH STATISTICS 

DATA FROM THE NATIONAL VITAL STATISTICS SYSTEM 

Divorce


Statistics


Analysis


United States, 1964 and 1965 

Analysis of national divtwce data for 1964 and 

including divorce rates for standard metropolitan 

., 

1965, 

statistical areas, estimates of divorce rates by age of . 

husband and wife at decree, and statistics by other 

selected characteristics. -

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


Public Health Service


Health Services and Mental Health Administration


Washington, D.C. October 1969 
Public Health Service Publication No. 1000-Series 21-17 

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

Washington, D. C., 20402- Price 60 cents 
NATIOhlAL CENTER FOR HEALT’H STATISTICS 

THEODORE D.WOOLSEY, Dzk@cto? 

PHILIP S.LAWRENCE, SC.D., AssociaieDz’?ecto? 

OSWALD K. SAGEN, PH.D.,,Assist~nt D’itecforfor Health .$tatisficsllev.elo#merzt 

WALT R.SIMMONS,M.A.,Assistatzt Director for Resedrch and Scientific Deue~oprnefit 

ALICE M, WATERHOUSE, M.D.,Medicdz Consultant 

JAMES E.KELLY, D.D.S.,DentalAdvisor 

EDWAR~ E, MINTY, Executive Officer 

MARGERY R, CUNNINGHAM, Irz/orrnatim
 O//icer


DIVISION OF VITAL STATISTICS 

ROBERT D. GROVE, Ph, D!, Directot’ 

ROBERT A.ISRAEL, M,S.,Deputy Difectot 

ROBERT A.ISRAEL, M.S,,Actitig Cbie/, Mortality Statistics Brdr2ch 

JOHN E.PATTERSON, Chic/,~dtdiity Statistics Branch 

LOREN E. CHANCELLOR, Chief, ~egistratian MetLods Br@z.cb 

ALICE M, FIETZEL,Chief,tiaf?idge~rzd Divorce Statt’.stics Branch 

ARNE B. NELSON, M.A.,Chic/, Vital Records Survey Btan.cb 

MICHAEL J.ZUGZDA, chief,stdii~tical F?esotirces
 Section

PUblic Health Service Publication No. ItIOO-Series 21-No, 17 

Libtery of Congress Catelog Card Number 6’64322?0 
------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTENTS


Totals and Rates


National Trend


International Comparisons


Regions, Divisions, andStates --=-


Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas


Age of Husband and Wife -----------------------------------------------


Age at Decree in Selected States


Likelihood of Divorce by Age at Decree


Age at Marriage of Divorcing Couples


Likelihoodof Divorce by Age at Marriage


Trend in Age of Husband and Wife at Decree and at Marriage


Race and Marriage Order


Race--------------------------------------------------------------,


Number of ~is Marriage-----------------------------,-------------


Likelihood of Divorce by Marriage Order


Color, Marriage Order, andAge


Geographic Variables


Residence of Defendant


Place of Marriage of DivorcedCouple


Duration of Marriage


Modal and Median Dul-ation ------------------------------------------


Trend-------------------------------------------------------------


Variation in Duration of Marriage


Number ofChildren


Children Reported ----.-----


All ChildrenInvolved


Legal Grounds for Decree


References


Detailed Tables


Appendix: Sources and Quality ofData


Definitions


Sources ofData-----------------------*-----------------------------


Completeness of Data -----------------------------------------------


Sample Desi~-----------------------------------------------------


Estimates From Probability Sample


Sampling Errors of Estimates


Divorces by Age---------------------------------------------------


Children Involved in Divorce


Estimating Procedures for Number of Chil&en


Page 

1 

1


2 

2 

4 

5 

5 

5 

6 

6 

7 

7 

7 

7 

8 

8 

8 

8 

10 

10 

10 

11 

11 

12 

12 

13 

13 

15 

16 

51 

51 

51 

53 

.56 

58 

58 

59 

59 

59 
-------------------

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

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

IN THIS REPORT an analysis of divorce and annulment totals is pYesented for the United States, i?viividuul States, and standavd metropolitan 

statistical aveas, as well as an an.hlysis of the 1964 and 1965 detuiled 

divorce statistics for the 22 States included in the divorce -vegistvation 

a~ea. 

The national divorce vate, which showed little variation for more than 

a decade, has been inc~easing in ~ecent yea~s, and this incvease cannot 

be completely explained by the growth in the numbev of young mavried 

couples. Simultaneously, the median age at t~le time of the de~~ee and 

the median duration of rnwriage showed a decline. The average number 

of children vepo~ted per decree declined slightly, reflecting the dec~ease in births in recent years. 

Total numbevs and rates fov metropolitan areas, national estimates of 

age-specific divovce rates, and data on are and on the dwation of mavriage by color and mavviage ovdev are presented he~e for the first time. 

====7 

Category not applicable . . .

I I 

I Quantity zero -

I 

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

Figure does not meet standards of 

* reliability or precision 
DIVORCE STATISTICS ANALYSIS


AIexander A. Plateris, Ph. D., 

TOTALS AND RATES 

National Trend 

The number of divorces and annulments 

granted annually in the United States has been 

steadily rising in recent years from the postWorld War II low point of 368,000 in 1958. This 

number increased to 450,000 in 1964 and 479,000 

in 1965, 499,000 in 1966, 523,000 in 1967, and a 

provisional estimate of 582,000 in 1968. The total 

increase during the 10-year period (1958-67) was 

155,000 or 42.1 percent. The highest annual 

divorce totals observed prior to 1964 were 610.000 

for 1946, 485,000 for 194.5. and 483,000 for 1947, 

and divorce totals in recent years are in the same 

order of magnitude. 

These increases cannot be explained solely 

either by the growth of the total population or of 

the number of married couples, because divorce 

rates are also increasing though to a lesser degree than the annual number (table 1 and fig. 1). 

The crude divorce rate per 1,000 population which 

from 1955 through 1963 varied between 2.1 and 

2.3 g~ew to 2.4 in 1.964 and 2.5 in 1965. The 

annual rates were 2.5 in 1966 and 2.6 in 1967, 

with a provisional rate of 2.9 in 1968. The rate 

per 1,000 married women aged 15 years and over 

increased from 9.6 in 1963 to 10.0 in 1964 and 

10.6 in 1965; a rate of this magnitude had not 

occurred since 1949. Furthermore, these increases cannot be completely explained by increased numbers of young married persons, 

Division of Vital Statistics 

among whom divorce occurs more frequently than 

in the total married population. When 1965 agespecific divorce rates, discussed later in this 

report, were applied to the numbers of married 

women under 25 years of age, as estimated by the 

Bureau of the Census,1 146,100 divorces” were 

obtained for 1965 and 128,000 for 1960—an increase of 18,100, which represents only 21.0 

percent of the total increase of 86,000 decrees 

between the two years. 

These data indicate that the recent increases 

in the number and rates of divorces are not due 

exclusively to changes in the population, but are 

also, at least in part, due to a higher likelihood 

of the occurrence of divorce. The last year when 

a decline took place was 1962. From 1962 to 1965 

the divorce total increased by..66,000, or 16 per-. 

cent. The rate, increased 0.3 points per 1,000 

total population, or 14 percent, and the rate per 

1,000 married women, increased. by 1.2 points, 

or 13 percent: Thus after a period of generally 

little change in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s, 

divorces have resumed an upward trend, which 

was characteristic of the 80-year period, 1867-

1946. 

In addition to husbands and wives, children 

are also usually involved in divorce cases. The 

total number of persons involved including children was 1,513,000 in 1964”and 1,588,000 in 1965J 

This figure has increased 44.2 percent during 

the n-year period, from 1,101,000 in 1955 (table 

2). The rate per 1,000 population increased from 

6.5 in 1958, when it was lowest, to 8.2 in 1965. 

1


, 
Is – - 1’s 

16 16 

14 14 

12 12 

Per 1,000 married women 

15 years of age ondover 

10 10 w 

~ 

e 

8 8 

6 -6 

4 *8e$ 4 

@ ‘+ Per 1,000 total population

,/ k 

�* ** “---m m-.-m .- O.e*mm O*w- �** 

2 ** - ***. -..* -2 

-w. mom. -*--*--- -9*_+*-

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 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I [ I 0 

1920 1930 1940 ‘ 1950 1960 1970 !-

Figure 1. Divorce rates: Uni ted States, 1920-65. 

International Comparisons 

Since 1962, the divorce rate has been higher 

in the United States than in any country for which 

information was reported to the Statistical Office 

of the United Nations, though a few small nonsovereign areas may have had still higher rates. 

Prior to 1962, the rate for Egypt was higher than 

that for the United States, but, since then, the 

Egyptian rate has declined and that of the United 

States has increased. Countries shown in table 3 

are listed in the descending order of magnitude 

of the latest available rate. It can be seen that the 

American and Egyptian rates are followed by 

several Eastern European countries, while Venezuela, Canada, and the Netherlands have the 

lowest rates among those included in the table. 

The very pronounced difference between the rate 

for the United States and for Canada is characteristic for all years for which information is 

available. Several European, Latin American, 

and Asiatic countries have no provisions for 

granting divorces, though some annulments may 

have been granted. 

The international data in table. 3 indicate 

that the increase of the divorce rate in the years” 

following 1962 was not limited to the United 

States. When rates for two consecutive years 

were compared; it was found’ that from 1961 to 

1962 the rates increased in nine countries, but 

from 1964 to 1965 they increased in 16 countries, while the number of countries with declining rates was 11 and 2, respectively. 

Regions, Divisions, and States 

The numbers of divorce and annulment decrees granted in 1965 were larger than the 1964 

figures in all regions, in eight out of nine geographic divisions, and in 37 States and the District 

of Columbia, while they declined in 13 States. 

2 
In 12 States changes were minirnal-50 detrees or less in either’ direction. The divorce 

rate per 1,000 population increased in three regions (in the Northeast it did not change) and in 

most geographic divisions, as shown in table 4. 

The rate also increased in 23 States and the 

District of Columbia, declined in nine and did, not 

change in 16, while this information was not 

computed for two States. The largest increases 

occurred in North Carolina, where the annual 

total grew by 54 percent and the rate by 0.8 

points, in California, where the number of di. 

Rata 

vorces increased 18 percent and the rate 0,5 

points; and in Indiana where tkI~ increases were 

16 percent and 0,5 points, The largest declines 

were found in Nevada (M percent of the total and 

5.3 points of the rate) and H~w.aii (34 percent and 

“0.8 points), Changes in North Carolina and in 

Hawaii are associated with amendments to the 

State divorce laws. 

As in ‘previews years, the State diyorce rates 

were 10!v in the East and North agd high in the 

West and South (fig, 2), The divorce rate for the 

West was fmm times that for the Northeast, and 

Fjgwe 2. Diyorce rates per J, Q(XIpopulation: each State, JS465, 
------

----------

-----------

the rate for the South almost three times as 

high. The largest rate for a geographic division 

was 5.0 for the Mountain Division, more than six 

times that for the Middle Atlantic (0.8). In figure 

2, States areclassified bythe size of their rate; 

17 states and the District of Columbia had rates 

below 2.0, 17 States had rates ranging_from2.Oto 

3.0, and 16 States hadrates above 3.0. ’The distribution of these States by region is as follows: 

Totul Below 2.0- Above 

2.0 3.0 3.0 

United States-- 50 17 17 16 

Northeast 9 

North Central-- 12 z E i 

South 16 38 

West 13 1 2 1; 

Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas 

Population estimates for 1965 for standard 

metropolitan statistical areas (SMSA’S) and for 

each constituent county2 made it possible to 

compute divorce rates for each SMSA. Since in 

New England, SMSA’sdo not follow county lines, 

population figures for the corresponding State 

economic areas were published instead.Someadjustments of these figures were necessary, since 

the 1965 definitions of the SMSA’swere usedby 

the Bureau of the Census, whileit isthe policyof 

the Division of Vital Statistics tocompiledatafor 

SMSA’s as defined in 1960. 

About two of three divorces granted in the 

United States (67.4 percent in 1965) were granted 

within the SMSA ‘s. This percentage varied from 

57.0 percent in the South to 77.2 percent in the 

West. Most decrees—58.5 percent of the national 

total—were granted in counties that include the 

central cities and only 8.8 percent in suburban 

counties. This distribution indicates the place 

where the. decree was granted rather than the 

place of residence of the parties to divorce, and 

it is possible that in States where ,residence in 

the county is not mandatory some residents of 

./

,1 the suburban or nonmetropolitan counties obtained their divorces in the central cities, while 

in a few cases the contrary seems to be true. 

Divorce rates were computed for 200 SMSA !s, 

as defined in 1960, for divorces granted both in 

1960 and in 1965 (table 5). As expected, the 

‘variation was pronounced ranging from 0.3 per 

3.0r 

I 2.5 t 

I 

Totol All metro- Cenlrol Other NonUnited politon counf lee metropOlltm metrOStates counties counties politan 

coun?les 

METROPOLITAN AND NONMETROPOLITAN AREAS 

Figure 3. Divorce rates for metropol itan and non-


met ropolitan areas: h ited States, 1965.


1,000 population in the New York SMSA in both 

1960 and 1965 to 43.3 in 1.960 and 35.2 in 1965 in 

the Reno SMSA. The magnitude af the rate depended in part on two factors: the geographic 

location and the size of the SMSA. Rates for ‘ 

SMSA’S located in States with low divorce rates 

tend@l to be low and those in States with high 

divorce rates tended to be high. On the other 

hand, as rates for central cities were usually 

much higher than for the suburban counties within the same SMSA, everything else being equal, 

large metropolitan areas, which included many 

suburban counties, tended to have lower rates 

than small metropolitan areas. Rates increased 

in most SMSA’s between 1960 and 1965. Information is available for 200 such areas, with 154 of 

them experiencing an increase, 34 a decline, and 

no change in 12. 

In the United States and in the majority of 

geographic divisions and States, the divorce rate 

for all metropolitan counties combined was higher 

than for nonmetropolitan counties combined (table 

6 and fig. 3), but this differenc~ seems to be 

4

declining. In 1960, metropolitan counties had 

higher rates in 41 States, but in 1965 only in 

35 States. The rates for nonmetropolitan counties 

were higher than or equal to those for metropolitan counties in many Northeastern States as 

well as in States that seem to have “divorce 

mills” in some of their nonmetropolitan counties. 

AH States except three (Alaska, Vermont, 

and Wyoming) had metropolitan counties that 

contain central cities, but only 31 had suburban 

metropolitan counties. In 26 of these 31 States 

rates for counties containing central cities were 

higher than for suburban counties, in three States 

(,Minnesota, Alabama, and Washington) the contrar y was true, while in Florida and Tennessee 

both. rates were equal. In 15 of the 31 States, the 

rate for suburban metropolitan counties was also 

lower than that for nonmetropolitan counties, and 

in two other States the nonmetropolitan and the 

suburban rates were equal. 

AGE OF HUSBAND AND WIFE 

Age at Decree in Selected States 

All States included in the divorce-registration area (DRA) have questions about age, or date 

of birth, of the parties on their divorce record 

forms, but in many registration States these 

questions are often left blank, and in a few States 

this information is reported in “less than 10 percent of the cases. originally, the number of States 

that reported age satisfactorily was very small 

(only four in 1960), but it has increased considerably in recent years, and in 1965 data from 10 

States were usable. These States are Hawaii, 

Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, 

Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin. These States reported 71,879 decrees, or 

43.6 percent of the DRA total. 

In all 10 States the modal age groups at 

time of decree wefe either 20-24 or 25-29 years 

for men and 20-24 for women. These age groups 

included one-fifth of the divorced husbands and 

about one-fourth of the divorced wives (table 7). 

The number of divorces declined with age, including a small number who were divorced when 

they were over 65 years (fig. 4). All reporting 

States showed the same general pattern in age at 

decree. 

25 r 

:? wife :> 

; $. 

20 - : -2 

:


;


:


:
 15- ;
 k


z g u

$ : 

u : 

: L 10- ~ 

~ 

: 

5 -


0 I I I I I I I Under 20- 23- 30-33- 40-45-50-55-60- 65+ 

20 24 29 34 39 44 49 54 59 64 

AGE AT OECREE IN YEARS 

Figure L Percent of d ivorces and annulments, by age 

of tiusbandand wife at decree: total of 10 selected 

registration States, 1965. 

Likelihood of Divorce by Age at Decree 

NationaI divorce figures by age at decree 

were estimated for 1965, by applying to the national divorce totaI me percentages computed for 

the 10 States combined, and estimated age-specific divorce rates were prepared from these 

data (table 8). As expected, the rates declined 

with age, and this decline was very pronounced 

for both wives and husbands (fig. 5). The rate for 

teenaged wives was 30.6 per 1,000, the highest of 

all age-specific rates; it declined consistently 

afterwards to 1 9 per 1,000 in the group 65 years 

and older. For husbands, the highest rate was 

found in the 20-24 years group, slightly higher 

than that for teenaged husbands, and the decline 

for older age groups was smaIler compared with 

that for the wives. Age-specific rates for husbands were higher than the comparable rates for 

wives in all age groups, except the teenage. 

The estimated rates for 1965 show the same 

pattern as the age-specific rates for four selected States published in the report, “Divorce 

Statistics Analysis, United States, 1962. ” 

The propqwity to divorce for various age 

groups can also be demonstrated by comparing 

-. 5 
30 – ~ Wife 

)@., H.sbmd 

~> 

~ 25 – $ 

~ g : 

~ g : J ~ 

g 20 – 2

: n. :-

0 ~
 0 -2
 0
_. -$


t- u 15 – .< LLJ >. 

u $.,, 

~ ..,,

%, 

10 – ++, 

%,%,, 

%,,, 

+., .,, 

5 – 

0 L 

Under 20-25- 30- 35- 55- 65+ 

20 24 29 34 44 ::- 64 

AGE AT DECREE IN YEARS 

Figure 5. Estimated age-specific divorce rates: United 

States,. 1965. 

the age distribution of persons divorced in the 10 

States in 1965 with that of all married persons 

(table 9). 

The percentages for the divorced were more 

than twice as high as the percentages for the 

married population in the young age groups, and 

the ratio between the two sets of percentages 

declined consistently with increasing age, to 0.1 

for the oldest group. 

The likelihood of divorce was high for young 

husbands and wives for all years for which data 

are available. The highest median age at decree 

for reporting States was always considerably 

lower than the corresponding age of the total 

married population (table 1:. 

Age at Marriage of Divorcing Couples 

In the 10 States that reported age with 

satisfactory completeness, almost 20 percent of 

the husbands and 50 percent of the wives div,orced 

in 1965 were married while still in their teens, 

6 

and 62 and 75 percent, respectitiely, were married 

while under 25 years of age (table 11). Percentages declined rapidly with increasing age at the 

time of marriage, and only 6 percent of the husbands and 4 percent of the wives had been 

married when 45 years or older. Twemy-five 

percent of all men divorced in 1965 in the selected States were under 20.7 years of age at the 

time of their marriage, 50 percent were under 

23.6 years of age, and 75 percent, under 29.1 

years of age. For wives, comparable figures 

were 17.1, 20.4, and 24.9, respectively (table 12). 

There was comparatively little variation among 

the selected States. The interquartile range of 

the age at marriage was narrow, 8.4 years for 

men and 7.8 years for women. Thus, irrespective 

of their age at decree, the middle 50 percent of 

divorced women were married in their late teens 

and early twenties. As duration of marriage varies 

considerably, the distribution of age at decree is 

much wider than that of the age at marria ~“e. 

Likelihood of Divorce by Ag: at Marriage 

Rates by age at marriage cannot be computed 

because population bases are not available by the 

age of the married population at the time of their 

current marriage. Another method had to be use~ 

therefore age at marriage of the divorced poptllation was compared with that of brides and 

grooms married in earlier years. Because of the 

general interest in teenage marriages, persons 

who had married while still under 20 were used 

for comparison (table 13), It was found that the 

propor~ions of divorced ,pwsons who had married 

in their teens were considerably higher than lhe 

proportions of teenage brides and grooms for all 

years included in the table, and therefore the 

likelihood of divorce was higher for persons who 

married at an early age than for the total married 

population. This finding is based on data from a 

group of 15 States, some of which have very high 

percentages of divorces for which age was not 

stated. 

The inference from the data in table 13 is 

supported by an analysis of Bureau of the Census . 

statistics on the age of women at first marriage 

by their marital status at the time of the 1960 

census.3 It is demonstrated from these data that 

women who had been divorced and had either remarried or not remarried, at the time of the 
Y

enumeration, were, in general, younger at “~.e 

time of their fimt marriage than women still 

living with their first husbands. 

Trend in Age of Husband and W!fe 

a~ Decree and a? Marriage 

Data showing trends on age ac decree and 

age at marriage are incomplete and unsatisfactory. Only eight States reported age at decree for 

1958 and nine States for 1959. Age at marriage 

was not computed before 1960. Although since 

1960 all registration States have reported both 

age at decree and age at maxriage, the reporting 

has been incomplete in most States, Median ages 

at decree and at marriage for each individual 

ri?gistr~tion State are shown in tables 14 and 15, 

respectively. Many of the 10 States that had 

satisfactory data for 1965 had had a less complete reporting in prior years. 

For the 10 Stares combined, median and 

quartile ages at decree and at marriage were 

highest in 1962 and have declined since that year 

(table 16), The divorce rate began to rise and the 

median duration of marriage started to decline 

{as discussed later in this report) at about the 

same time, and it is likely that there is an association. between age, rate, and duration. 

RACE AND MARRIAGE ORDER 

Race 

Information about ~ace is reported ,with 85 

percent or more completeness in the 10 DRA 

States shown in table 17; nine of these States also 

have satisfactory reporting of age. 71e reporting 

of ~ace is less complete in 11 DRA States, and 

this information is notcollected i~ Ohio. 

Almost 90 percent of persons divorced inf.he 

10 States combined were white, almost’ 10 percent Negro, and about 1 percent members of 

other race~, which include Indian, Chinese, 

Japanese, Filipino, Hawaiian, and so forth, N.Onwhite husbands and wives other than Negroes 

represent 0.5 percent cm,Yes.sin most reporting 

continental States, but about 50 percent in Hawaii. 

The proportion of racial groups among persons 

who divorce depends on two factors: (1)~ir 

proportion in the total married population, and 

(2) the differential likelihood of divorce in various 

racial groups. Divorce rates by race, or by 

color, could not be computed for 1964 and 1965, 

because population figures were not available for 

individual States. 

Divorce data do not represent all family 

disruptions. The great majority of marriages 

are ended by the death of one of the spouses. 

Some couples are separated, i.e., married but 

living apart because of marital discord, with 

Iitrle hope of reconciliation. The difference be. 

Gveen the white and nonwhite population is pro. 

notmced in the prevalence of separation-1965 

estimates for the United Statesl indicate that 1.7 

percem of white married men were separared 

compared with 9.5 percent of nonwhite married 

men—percentages of the separated among married women were 2.4 for white and 15.3 for nonwhite, Similar proportions are found fox earlier 

years. 

In more than 99 percent of all divorces both 

husband and wife belonged m the same color 

group, either white or nonwhite, but in a small 

number of cases one spouse was white and the 

other nonwhi~e (table 18). These couples represent a sizable proportion among divorces grantdd 

in Hawaii (over 20 percent) but a negligible 

fraction .of those granted on the continem. Information is not a~ailable for interracial divorces 

within the nofiwhite population, i.e., cases- in 

which the husband and the wife belong to two 

different nonwhite races. ,.. 

Nmnber of This Marriage 

‘I’he reporting of the item, “number of this 

marriage, J has improved -considerably over r eeent years. In 1963 Drily six States (Hawaii, Iowa, 

Missouri, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Wiscgnsin) reported this item with 85 percent or more 

completeness. “Three additional States —’Kansas, 

Montana, and Virginia-achieved this level of 

reporting by 1965, The case of Virginia is particularly interesting. Until 1964 the State did not 

require the reporting of the number of this 

marriage of ‘husband and wife, A new divorce 

record form which included ~fs ifeti was introduced in 1964, and in 19,65—the first full 
calendar year when the new form was used— 

the reporting was 98 percent complete. 

Almost 75 percent of husbands and wives divorced in 1965 in the nine States combined had 

been married once, 20 percent twice, and 6 percent three or more times (table 19). These proportions varied considerably among the reporting 

States for both husbands and wives, and because 

of these variations, data for the reporting States 

combined may change considerably after more 

States achieve a satisfactory level of reporting 

the number of marriages of parties who divorce. 

Likelihood of Divorce by Marriage Order 

The term, marriage order, is used to denote 

the classification of marriages as first marriages 

or remarriages, without a further subclassification of remarriages by the number of this marriage. Data for past years indicate that remarriages have a higher likelihood of ending in 

divorce than first marriages. 

Percent distributions of marriages and of 

divorces by marriage order were prepared for 

the total of a group of nine States (table 20). 

Information about marriages has been available 

since 1956; hence, annual figures for a 10-year 

period are shown in the table, and over 60 percent of all couples divorced in 1965 had married 

during this 10-year period. Percentages of first 

marriages are higher among persons who were 

married during all years shown in table 20 than 

among those who divorced, though the difference 

between the two sets of percentages tended to 

decline in recent years. Hence, husbands and 

wives married once were and still are underrepresented among those who divorce, and, conversely, persons married more than once are 

overrepresented, but in recent years the difference has become less pronounced. The great 

majority of remarried persons had been previously divorced, rather than widowed; e.g., in 

1964, 16.8 percent of brides and 17.3 percent of 

grooms in the marriage-registration area had 

been previously divorced and only 5.8 and 5.1 

percent, respectively, were widowed. This seems 

to indicate that persons who have already been 

divorced at least once are more likely to divorce 

again than persons who have never been divorced. 

Color, Marriage Order, and Age 

Tabulations of 1963 divorces were prepared 

for a special study, including tables showing the 

interaction of color, marriage order, and age of 

husband and of wife in five States with good reporting of all three variables: Hawaii, Iowa, 

Missouri, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. Figures for 

the five States combined indicate that the proportion of persons married more than once was 

slightly higher among white husbands and wives 

who divorced than among nonwhite —about 28 percent for white husbands and wives and about 23 

percent for nonwhite. White persons divorced at 

a younger age than nonwhite (table 21 and fig. 6). 

Within each group of husbands and wives classified by marriage order, percentages for white 

persons were higher in the youngest age group 

and percentages for nonwhite persons were higher 

in the oldest age group. The same applies to the 

age at marriage of divorcing persons married 

once, but the age at marriage of nonwhite per. 

sons married more than once was concentrated 

in the age group, 25-34 years, with percentages 

for the white group higher for both the group 

under 25 years and that over 34. 

GEOGRAPHIC VARIABLES 

Residence of Defendant 

Divorce statistics are tabulated by State of 

occurrence, which may or may not have been the 

State of residence of the couple. The plaintiff, 

in order to file a divorce complaint, must, at 

least nominally, be a resident of the State where 

the complaint was filed.. Hence, only the information about the residence of the defendant is 

of interest fox divorce statistics. Information as 

to who is the defendant was reported with a high 

degree of completeness: 97.1 percent in 1964 and 

98.4 in 1965 for the DRA as a whole, with the 

reporting for only one State less than 85 percent 

complete. Residence of the defendant was available in 80 percent of all cases granted in the DRA 

in 1965, and the reporting was 85 percent or more 

complete in the 12 States listed in table 22. Usually, the wife is the plaintiff and the husband the 

defendant. In 1965 this was the case in 71.4 

8 
AGE AT DECREE AGE AT MARRIAGE 

HUSBAND WIFE I HUSBAND WIFE 

100 

80 

60 

/’

40 

20 

o— — Nonwhite White White 

undIer 25 years _ Under 20 yearrs 

2:5-34 years _ 20-24 yeors 

35+ years m 25+ years 

Figure 6. Percent distribution of divorces and annulments, by color and a~e: total of five selected registration 

States, i963. 

percent of divorces granted inthe DRA, and this 

proportion was similar in earlier years. Thus, 

the wife was the defendant in less than30 percent 

of all divorces. 

There are differences between the place of 

residence of divorcing husbands and that of divorcing wives. Defendant husbands resided in the 

State where the decree was granted more often 

than defendant wives: for the DRA, the percentages were 86.1 for husbands and 75.4 for wives 

(table 22). A similar pattern was found for the 

individual States, with percentages for husbands 

rang”ing from 71.8 to 90.0 and for wives from 

57.9 to 79.3. 

These data indicate that when the wife applies 

for divorce, and, therefore, the husband is the 

defendant, both spouses are more likely to live 

in the same State than in cases where the husband 

applies. Since in over 70 percent of divorces the 

husband is the defendant, it can be said that when 

the couple conforms to the usual manner of seeking divorce, both spouses are more likely to live 

in the State where the suit is filed. Furthermore, 

when the couple does not conform to the preva9 
lent pattern, the distance between places of residence of the spouses tends to be more pronounced. 

In 1965, 15.2 percent of defendant wives but only 

7.4 percent of defendant husbands lived outside 

the region where the decree was granted. 

Differences in the State of residence of 

the spouses are due to migration that occurred 

after separation. From the available data it is 

impossible to say whether the plaintiff, thedefendant, or both, changed theirStateofresidence. 

As.most of the States included inthe13RA contain no “divorce mills, “ it is unlikely that the 

migration was due to the plaintiff establishing 

a temporary residence outside his or her own 

State for the sole purpose of, obtaining an easy 

divorce. 

Place of Marriage of Divorced Couple 

, In the DRA, 60,9 percent of couples were 

married in the same State where they were di­

.%orced. This proportion can be compared with 

83.0 percent of defendants who were residents of 

the State where the decree was granted. Thus, 

among couples divorced in 1965, out-of-State 

marriages were more prevalent than out-ofState residence of either of the spouses. This 

difference is due to marriages performed outside the intended State of residence of the couple 

and to migration of the couple before separation. 

Marriages performed outside the State of residence are exemplified by the high percentage of 

couples divorced in Tennessee, but married in 

Georgia and Mississippi (15.5 and 16.1 percent, 

respectively, of all couples divorced in Tennessee in 1963) and by couples divorced in Oregon, 

but married in Nevada (13,2 percent in 1963). 

The majority of all divorced couples -60.9 

percent in 1965—were married in the State 

where the decree was granted (table 23), though 

in most Western States, couples married within 

the State represented less than half of all divorces 

granted during the year. On the other extreme, in 

Rhode Island and Maryland, this proportion was 

70 percent or more. In general, it seems that the 

proportion of divorced couples married in the 

State where the decree was granted declined from 

east to west. The variations are due in part to 

the general stream of migration from east to 

west, as well as to “marriage mills” and’ ‘divorce 

mills” functioning in the western part of the 

country. 

The available information for 1963 ,indicates 

that, among coupIes married iri a State other than 

where they were divorced, the majority were 

married in a contiguous State. Fur the DRA, 23.1 

percent of divorced cotiples were in this category 

compared with 16.6 percem who had married in a 

noncontiguous State, or outside the United States. 

DURATION OF MARRIAGE 

Madal and Median Duration 

Duration of marriage is computed by subtracting, , the year and month &e” marriage was 

performed from the year and month the decree 

was granted.’ Since the time of marriage is reported with a high degree of conipleteness, information about duration of marriage was available for the DRA in 96.1 percent of cases in 1964 

and in 97.4 percent of cases in 1965. Thirteen 

States in 1964 and 16 States in 1965 ~eached a 

level of completeness of 99.0 percent or higher. 

The distribution of divorces by duration of 

marriage in 1964 and 1965 was similar to that 

for earlier years: the highest percentage was 

found after 1 full year of marriage, and percentages declined with each additional year (fig. 7). 

This pattern was observed for the DRA and for 14 

of the 22 registration States, both in 1964 and in 

IO r 

0 1 I 1 ( I 1 r ! f f t 1 I r , ! I 1 ( r r r [ 1 1 1 1 1 ( [ f ! 1( I ! f 

<1 240 0 10 12 !4 !6 18 20 22 24 26 2S 30 32 34 S6 

YEARS OF OURATION 

Figure 7. Percent of divorces and annulments,by doration of marriage: divorce-registration area, f965. 

10 !-
1965 (percentages for the latter year are shown 

in tab~e 24). Most of the States where the modal 

duration of marriage was 2 years or more in 1964 

and 1965 had divorce rates below the national 

average. It seems probable that there is a connection between low rates and comparatively few 

divorces soon after marriage. 

The median duration of marriage for the 

DRA as a whole was 7.4 years in 1964 and 7.2 

in 196!5. In 1964, State medians varied from 5.0 

to 9.8 years, and in 1965 from 5.1 to 9.2. Similar variations were found for the first and third 

quartiles (table 25). 

There was a strong regionaI variation among 

the State medians. All reporting States in the 

northeastern part of the country, including the 

Northeast Region, the East North CentraI Division, 

and the northern part of the South Atlantic Divisicm, had medians higher than that for the DRA, 

whiIe all other reporting States had lower medians. 

This was true for both 1964 and 1965. 

Trend 

The trend in duration changed its direction 

on several occasions. During the first period for 

which data are available, 1867-86, the median 

duration was slightly higher than it is now, 7.6 

years, and during the subsequent 20- year period 

it increased further to 8.2 years. The trend then 

reversed itself and in the earIy and middle 1920’s 

this median was much lower, about 6.6 years. In 

1927, a period of increase in duration began, and 

the median reached 7.1 years in the early 1930’s, 

a figure very similar to the median of 7.2 years 

found in 1960—the last year for which national 

data are available. The increase of the median in 

the late 1920’s and early 1930’s cannot be said to 

be exclusively caused by the depression, since 

this increase began in 1927, before the onset of 

the depression. 

Information about duration of marriage for 

limited nwnbers of States is available for each 

year since 1954 (table 26). In order to ascertain 

the direction of the trend, increases and declines 

of State medians for consecutive years were 

compared. There were more increases than declines in the annual State medians prior to 1963, 

but more declines. from 1963 to 1964 and from 

J964 to 1965. Moving averages of the medians 

eliminated minor fluctuations, but presented the 

same pattern. 

The question arises whether declines in the 

median duration of marriage are connected with 

recent increases in the divorce rates. Data are 

not sufficient to warrant a definite answer, but it 

should be noted that changes in the rates, in age 

at decree, and in duration of marriage, occurred 

simultaneously. Statistics for later years may 

provide materials for. a more definitive answer. 

Variation in Duration of Marriage 

The duration of marriage at decree is associated with other variables analyzed in this 

report. The 1963 divorce data for a group of five 

States (Hawaii, Iowa, Tennessee, Missouri, and 

Wisconsin) were tabulated by marriage duration, 

marriage order, and color. 

Medians and quartiles of duration by marriage order of the spouses indicate that divorced 

persons married once are, on the average, married for more years than persons married more 

than once (table 27). Duration for white couples 

is shorter than for nonwhite, in the case of both 

ft.-st marriages and remarriages. Duration for 

nonwhite couples in the four continental States; 

where the great majority of nonwhite persons are 

Negroes, was longer than that for Hawaii, where 

other nonwhite and interracial couples constitute 

the overwhelming majority of the nonwhite population. 

Another variable associated with duration of 

marriage is place of marriage, because couples 

married in the State where they divorce have a 

shorter duration than couples married elsewhere 

(table 28). The difference could be partially explained by a higher likelihood of inter-State migration during a comparatively long period of 

marriage. However this does not explain the 

tact that State residents married out of State 

have a longer duratiofi of marriage than residents married in their State of residence. The 

median duration for couples married and divorced 

in Pennsylvania was 8.6 years, but 9.3 years for 

Pennsylvania couples married in Maryland. Couples married and divorced in Tennessee had a 

median duration of 4.4 years and those married 

and divorced in Georgia 6.1 years, while couples 

from Tennessee married in Georgia had a median 

11

of 7.8 years. Much more information is necessary 

to elucidate the relationship between residence, 

State of marriage, and duration of marriage at 

time of decree. 

NUMBER OF CHILDREN 

Children Reported 

The level of reporting the number of children of divorced couples is satisfactory. For the 

DRA as a whole, the percent completeness was 

94.3 in 1965, and in only four States was this 

percentage below 90.0. The increase of the overall level of completeness was due to a change in 

coding rules. Values could be assigned to many 

cases from Pennsylvania and Rhode Island that 

would have been coded “not stated” according to 

70


60


50


40


1-


Z 

w 

0 

E 

LLJ 

30


20


10 

0 

I 2 3 4 5 6+ 

NUMBER OF CHILOREN PER DIVORCE 

Figure 8. Percent of divorces and annulments, by 

number of Ch i Idren reported: total of 20 se]ictej 

re’ji
strat ion States, 1965,


650,000


600,000 Number of children 

550,000


500,000


450,000


400,000 Number of divorces 

350,000


300,000


/


oT-


I YEARS 

Figure 9. Number of divorces and number of children


reported in divorce cases: Un ited States, 1953-65.


the previous rules. Due to this change, the level 

of completeness improved considerably for both 

States. The coding procedures are described in 

the appendix. 

Numbers and percentages of divorces for 

1964 and 1965, classified by the number of children reported, are shown in table 29. In order to 

make the data comparable, figures for Pennsylvania and Rhode Island were omitted. In the 

remaining 20 States, for each 10 divorced couples four had no children, four had one or two 

children, one had three children, and one, four 

children or more (fig. 8). The increase in the 

total number of divorces from 1964 to 1965 was 

caused almost exclusively by divorcing coupies 

reporting no children. Couples reporting one or 

two children increased slightly, while those reporting three children or more showed a slight 

decline. 

The changes in the numbers of children reported in divorce cases probably reflect the 

decline in the number of children born annually 

from a peak of 4,268,326 in 1961 to 3,760,358 in 

1965. This decline led to a virtual cessation of 

the growth of the number of children under 18 

and to an actual decline of those under 5. The 

12

--

---

------

figures, in thousands, estimated by the Bureau 

of the Census.5 were as follows: 

1965 1964 1963 

Under 18 years 70,428 70,229 68,855 

Under 5 years 20,433 20,693 20,750 

5-17 years 49,995 49,536 48,105 

All Children Involved 

The estimating procedures for thetotalnumber of children involved, which were used for 

the years 1961 through 1964, became obsolete 

in 1965 because of the changes in the coding 

procedures. Anew method had to bedeviled, and 

national totals for the years 1961-64 were reestimated (table 30). The methods are described 

in the appendix. 

The national total number of children involved continued to increase (fig. 9) but the mean 

number per decree declined from 1.36 in 1964 

to 1.32 in 1965 due, no doubt, to the decline in the 

total number of children. The decline was small, 

60 “


50 —


40 —


30 —


20 —


10 —


o .


Crueny	 Neglect Indignities 

and mmeupport 

LEGAL 

but it was the first such decline since 1953, the 

first year for which the number of children was 

estimated. The decline in the mean number of 

children is not due to the new method of estimating this figure, as each of the methods tried 

yielded a decline. 

Declines in the total numbers of children 

were observed in the DRA and in many registration States (table 31). The total number of children involved in the DRA was 219,200 in 1964 

and 212,700 in 1965. ‘rotals declined in 10 of the 

22 States, increased in 11, and showed no change 

in one. The average numbers of children per 

decree declined in 16 States and increased in six. 

LEGAL GROUNDS FOR DECREE 

The legal grounds for a divorce or annulment decree are known in all cases or are easily 

ascertainable by the court clerk responsible for 

the completion of the statistical report. Still, 

this information is left blank on a small proportion of records (4.2 percent in 1964 and 3.0 percent in 1965). 

Desertion Voluntq Adultery N other 

or abandonment seporotion 

GROUNOS FOR DECREE 

Figure 10. Percent of divorces and annulments, by legal grounds for which decrees were granted: d ivorce-registration area, 1965. 

13 
Legal grounds are listed in the State divorce 

statutes and a decree can be granted only if the 

reason for divorce is described in terms of these 

grounds. Hence, the true cause for the decision 

of the spouses to seek divorce remains unknown; 

it may coincide with the legal ground mentioned 

in the divorce petition, or it may not, and, no 

doubt, the legal ground and the cause do not always coincide, especially in cases that are not 

contested. The least defined and the least unpleasant ground is usually favored by the plaintiff, The same ground may differ considerably 

between two States—it may be an easy ground 

for divorce in one State and a much more difficult one in another. Furthermore, the t erminology 

used by the courts may differ from that used in 

the statutes. 

In the majority of the reporting States, one 

particular ground was alleged in 80 percent or 

mm-e of divorce decrees. This ground was cruelty 

in 10 States (Geor;ia, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, 

Montana, Nebraska,’ Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, 

and Wisconsin), indi~: ities in three States (Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming), nonsupport 

in one State (Ohio), and incompatibility in one 

State (Alaska), 

Though there are a large number of grounds 

listed in the State statutes, few of them are 

14 

numerically important for the DRA as a whole, 

Only six legal grounds were alleged in 1 percent 

or more of all divorces granted in the DRA; they 

are cruelty, neglect or nonsupport, indignities, 

desertion or abandonment, voluntary separation 

or absence, and adultery (table 32 and fig. 10). A 

seventh ground, incompatibility y, should be added 

here, because over 95 percent of decrees granted 

in Alaska were granted on this ground, Only 4.4 

percent of divorces in 1964 and 6.4 percent in 

1965 were granted on all other grounds combined, 

‘Jle total number of legal grounds for which 

divorces were granted is larger than the total 

number of divorces, because 14 percent of decrees 

were granted on two or more grounds, The proportion of cases with multiple grounds varied 

from 0.3 percem in Alaska to 55 percent in 

Karmas, The multiple grounds most widely used 

in DRA States were cruelty and gross neglect or 

nonsupport, used M 1965 for 14,696 decrees; 

cruelty and desertion or abandonment (1,531 decrees); cruelty and indignities (1,262); desertion 

or a! andonment and neglect or nonsupport (905); 

and desertion and indignities (658). All other 

combinations of legal grounds were found in the 

remaining 2,661 divorce decrees. 
REFERENCES 

~TJ,S.Bureau of the Census: Population characteristics. 

CW’ent Poprdation Reports. Series P-20, No. 144.Washingizm. 

U.S. Government Printing Office, Nov. 1965. 

%S. Z3ureauof the Census: Population estinrates.Cument 

Population i?epoks. Series P-25, No. 371. Washington. U.S. 

Government Printing Office, Aug. 1967. 

3Lauriat, P.: The Effect of Marital Dissolution en FeWity. Paper presented to the 1968 meeting of the Population 

Association of America. 

4

National Center for Health Statistics: Divorce statistics 

analysis, United States, 1963. VitaZ and Health Statistics. 

PHSPub. No. 1000-Series 21~No.,13. Public Health Service, 

Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, Oct. 1967. 

5

U.S. F3ureau of the Census: Population estimates. Cwent 

Population Reports. Series P-25, No. 3&L Washington. U.S. 

Government Printing Office, Dec. 1966. 

6 

Plateris, A.: The nonran.domness ofnonreporting of the 

number:of children on divorce records. TeohnicaZlnfomat@ 

Not@S, No. 36. National Center for Health Statistics, May 

L 967. 

—ooo — 

,.. 

,. 

,, 
Table 1.


2.


3.


4.


5.


6.


7.


8.


9.


10. 

11. 

12.


13.


14.


15.


16.


17.


18.


16


DETAILED TABLES 

Number of divorces and annulments and rate per 1,000 population with percent


changes from preceding year: United States, 1920-65-----------------------------


Number of persons involved in divorce (husbands, wives, and children) and rate


per 1,000 total population with percent changes from preceding year: United


States, l953-65-----------------------------------------------------------------


Divorce rates per 1,000 population:United States and selected countries,1958-65-


Number of divorces and annulments and rate per 1,000 population: United States,


each region, division, and State, 1963-65---------------------------------------


Divorce rates per 1,000 population: standard metropolitan statistical areas,1960


and l965------------------------------------------------------------------------


Divorce rates per 1,000 population for metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas:


United States, each division, and State 1960 and 1965---------------------------


Number and percent distribution of divorces and annulments, by age at decree of


husband and wife: 10 selected registration States, 1965-------------------------


Estimsted number and rate of divorces and annulments, by age of husband and wife


st decree: United States, l965--------------------------------------------------


Percent distribution of the total married population of the United Statea by age


and of husbanda and wives divorced in 10 selected registration States, by age at


decree: l965--------------------------------------------------------------------


Median age of all married persons in the United States and the highest and lowest


State median age at decree in the divorce-registration area: 1959-65------------


Percent distribution of divorces and annulments, by age of divorced husbands and


wives at marriage 10 selected registration States,,1965-------------------------


Medians and quartiles of age of divorced husbands and wives at marriage: 10 se­
 lected registration Statea, l965------------------------------------------------


Percent of brides and grooms and of divorced husbands and wives married under age


20: 15 selected registration States, 1957-65----------------.------------------+


Median age of husband and wife at decree: divorce-registration area and each


registration State, l959-65-----------------------------------------------------


Median age of divorced husbands and wives at marriage: divorce-registration area


and each registration State, l96O-65--------------------------------------------


Medians and quartilea of age of husbands and wives: 10 selected registration


States, l96O-65-----------------------------------------------------------------


Percent distribution of divorces and annulment, by race of husband and wife: 10


selected registration Statea, l965----------------------------------------------


Number and percent distribution of divorces and annulments, by color of husband


and wife: divorce-registration area,1960 and 1963-65----------------------------


Page


18


19


19


20 

22 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

11 

1, 
DETAILED TABUZS-Con.


Table 19.


20.


21.


22.


23.


24.


25.


26.


27.


28.


29.


30.


31.


32.”


Percent distribution of divorces and annulments,by number of this marriage: nine


selected registration States, l965----------------------------------------------


Percent distribution of divorces and marriages, by marriage order of husband and


wife: nine selected registration States, selected years-------------------------


Percent distribution of divorces and annulments, by color, age of husband and


wife, and marriage order: five selected registration States, 1963---------------


Percent distribution of divorces and annulments, by resident status of defendent


~9;;and and wife: divorce-registration area and 12 selected registration States,
 ---------------------------------------------------.----=--------------------


Percent distribution of divorces and annulments, by place of marriage: divorce-


registration area and each registration State, 1965-----------------------------


Percent distribution of divorces and annulments,by duration of marriage:divorce-


registration area and each registration State, 1965-----------------------------


Medians and quartiles of duration of marriage at decree: divorce-registration 

area and each registration State, 1965------------------------------------------

Median duration of marriage at decree: each registration State? 1954-65---------


Median and quartile duration of marriage at decree, by marriage order and color:


five selected States, l963------------------------------------------------------


Median duration of marriageaE all divorced couples and of couples married in the


State where divorced: each registration State, 1963-----------------------------


Number and percent distribution of divorces and annulments,by number of children


reported: divorce-registration area, edcluding Pennsylvania and Rhode Island,


l964-65-------------------------------------------------------------------------


Number of children involved indivorces and annulments and rate per 1,000 children


under 18 years of age: United States, 1953-65-----------------------------------


Number, of children involved in divorces and annulments and rate per 1,000 chil­


dren under 18 years of agc divorce-registration area and,eachregistration State,


l964-65-------------------------------------------------------------------------


Percent distribution of divorces and arinulments,bylegal grounds for decree: di­


vorce-registration area, l964-65------------------------------------------------
 -,


,, 

, 

Page 

37


38


39


40


41


$2


44


45


46


47


47


48


49


50

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

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

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

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

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

-------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 1. Number of divorcesand annulmentsand rate per 1,000 populationwith percent changes


from precedingyear: United States,1920-65


~t;o{er


Percent Rate per ?er~ent nakied ?ercent


Year 

Number ~hange of L,000total :hange zomenL5 :hange
 in
 decrees number )opulation in rate yearsof in rate


age and
 over


1965---------------------------------- ;::: 450,000 -I-5.1 2.4 %: 10.0 +4.2 

.- 428,000 i-3.6 -44.5 9.6 +2.1 

1962---------,- $13,000 -0.2 R -4.3 9.4 -2,1 

$14,000 +5.3 2.3 +4.5 9.6 +4.3 

:;%: . . . . . . . . .- 393,000 -0.5 2.2 9,2 -1.1 

. . . . . . . . -------- . . . . . . . . -------- 395,000 +7,3 2.2 ‘+-4.; 9.3 +4.5 

1958 368,000 -3.4 2.1 -4.5 8.9 -3.3 

1957 ....-.-. 381,000 -0.3 -4.3~ 9.2 -2.1 

1956 .-s----- 382,000 +1.3 ::: . 9.4 +1.1 

1955-----------------------------”----;;;,;:; -0.5 2.3 -4.2 9.3 -2*1 

;;;:--------------”---”” -2.8 2.4 -4”0 9.5 -4.0 

479,000 +6.4 2.5 10.6 +-6.o


1961----------------------------------


390;000 -0.5 2.5 -2.0


1952----------------------------------
 392,000 -I-2.9 2.5 1;:? +2.0


1951	 381$000 -1.1 2.5 -3.8 9.9 -3.9


1950----------------------------------
 385,144 ~;.: 2.6 -3.7 10.3 -2.8


1949----------------------------------397,000 2.7 -3.6 1.o.6 -5.4


1948----------------------------------
 408,000 -15:5 2.8 -17.6 U*2 -17.6

1947------------”---”	 483,000 -20.8 -20.9 13.6 -24.0


1946----------------------------------610,000 -1-25.8 M -I-22
 .9 17.9 +24 .3


1945----------------------------------485,000 -I-21.3 3.5 -!-20. 7
 14.4 +20, o


1944--------------------”-------------
 400,000 +11.4 2.9 -I-11.5 12.0 +9.1


1943----------------------------------
 359,000 +11.8 2,6 +8.3 11.0 +8.9 

1942.--------.........--------- 321,000 +9.6 2.4 +9.1 10.1 +7.4 

1941---...............----------------293,000’ +11.0 2,2 +:;,: :.: +6.8 

1940--------------” 264,000 +5.2 2.0 . � +3*5 

1939----------------------------------251,000 -42.9 +-1.2 

1938 .......------------ 244,000 -2.0 . $; -3.4 

1937.........-------------------------249,000 +5.5 +5.6 +4.8


1936----------------------------------
 236,000 +8.3 +5.9 8:3 +6.4


1935 218,000 +6.9 L.7 +6.3 +4. o 

;;;:--------” 204,000 +23.6 1.6 +2’3 .1 ::! -!-23� o

.--..-----..-..” 165,000 +0.6 1.3 6.1 

1932 .. 164,241 -12.6 1.3 -13.3 6.1 -14.1 

1931----------------------------------
 188,003 -4.1 1.5 -6.2 7.1 -5.3


1930------.-- 195,961 -4.8 1.’6 -5,9 7*5 -6.2


1929 .........----------------205,876 +2.8 1.7 ;,: -!-2,6


1928---.---k ---0-----
 -. 200,176 -!-2.0 1.’7 +6.; � 

1927----------------------------------
 :;:,:;: +6.3 1.6 7.8 +4..0 

1926---------------------------------- +5.3 1.6 +6.7 7.5 +4.2 

1925 175:449 -?-2.6 1.5 7.2 

1924 170,952 -!-3=5 1.5 7.2 +1.4 

1923 .------- 165,096 -!-10.9 1.5 -?-7.1 -1-7.6


1922----------------------------------
 148,815 -6.7 1.4 -6.7 ::: -8.3


1921 159,580 -6.4 1.5 -6.2 7.2 -10.0


1920 170,505 +20.5 3.6 +?.3.1 8.0 ...


18

-- ---------

--- --- --

. . 

Per cent 

Number of change


persons in


number


. 

l965-R----------...=-Y----.-----.-.---.----.=--.-.=..--.-------s. li588,000 +5.0 

1964-..-“me--F+. a----.----rm-----*-----m9---~. -=--------=.-----,---e 1,513,000 7%7

19631W....m-..-----.=-.=.--n--=-----.n-e--==7--.--.-=.-=.-----..7 1;418,00(3 +4.4 

19621“-..---”,””.? r---m--a----Ee-t .-.._ --=-,?.-~~--~. -=s-=-e=-sm. -!?-
..=..? l;358,@10 +1.!)

19611-.------.----r----m”=-====*--- -“!?
q--- e--pa”~,-e -,.
s---- 1>344,000 +7’,6


1960-=----.--------.---.=.-.----..--3--
 --.= -~-----~.~_.= .s----.=
?--- 1,249;000 =0.7


l959-=-------.-------.---...=m.--.=.-=.---.-=.-----=--==-=--.==-­
 1,258,000 +10.9


1958....-.-...?..-.-7.R.---..-"-.?--------=--.--..--r-=-==------­
 1,134,000


l957r.=..-.-...--..=..=.---.-=-----.-.---=r-==-7-..--=.=.?--=.=-F
 1,141,000


1956..-.......----.=-=--.-..T-..--.===--===.=.=.=---.==.=-.-=.===
 1;125,000


1955m-n-r-=“---------=-e=--e==e----.. e=---.--.-.-e .-*
-a.r--s- ~.­
.-=- 1;101,000


1954v-”.e..-.m7-m.-.-m?F=mm--m?F=mm--v=*=F77.... --==??=
 ~--Y?
R-P---~-- 1;099,000


1953--..-”--”F.?F.F-?--=e*--F-=e?=%F=,7-?=%-=,..
 ~Fe~_---er.-.-e--.= 7
 1,110,000


lRevi*ecl, 

. 

-(3.6


+1.4


+2.2


yg


p


,..


.- . 

Courlcry 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 

. .. .. . . . .. .. 

“Rateper 3,000 population


%.35 2,27 2,22 2.18 2.24 2,12


2,14 2,11 2,03 2.50 2.40 2,43


1.95 1.82 1.7!3 1.66 2,20 1,51


$,86 1.92 2.04 2.01 1,69 1,96


1.!47 1,30 1,3 1.3 %.. 1 1,1


3,51 1,33 1.36 1,34 1,32 1,26 

1,37 1,38 1.38 ~,,46 ~,42 1,46 

1,20 %.22 1.20 1,32 1.15 1,18 

2,20 1.*2 1.17 %.20 1,1s 1,17 

1,16 1,14 5,12 1,13 1,20 I*I7 

0,99 o.9~ Q,82 0.83 Q;83 0.$s 

0.83 0.82 0,$3 (),87 ().89 0,85 

0,75 O,jj 0.75 0.74 Q,78 (3,81 

11,72 0,67 0,61 0.51 0.52 0.49 

0.71 0.68 0,67 ;.:$ !2.73 0,70 

0,,69 0.63 0,65 0,6(5 0,71

0.58 0,56 0,51 (3:5Q !3,48 0.47 

g,:: 0,50 !),47 0,43 0.46 (3.41 

0,43 0,39 0,35 ().32 0.34 

j~$ 0.49 0.48 .Q.49 0,49 13,&7 

0.43. 0.36 0.39 0,37 Q,,37 

0;25 0;25 O*2Z 0.25 0,23 L),~Q - - - -
---------------------------------------

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

Table 4. Number of divorces and annulments and rate per 1.000 Population: United States. each


region, division, and St~te, 1963-65-


Region, diviaion, and State


United StatesL--------------------------------


Region:


Northeast----i------------------------------------


North Central ------------------------------------


South2--------------------------------------------


West1---------------------------------------------


Northeast:


New England---------------------------------------


Middle Atlantic-----------------------------------


North Central:


East North Centralt-------------------------------


West North Central--------------------------------


South:


South Atlantic------------------------------------


East South Central--------------------------------


West South Centra12-------------------------------


Weat:


Mountain1-----------------------------------------


Pacific-------------------------------------------


New England:


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


New Hampshire-------------------------------------
 Vermont-------------------------------------------


Maasachusetta-------------------------------------


Rhode Island--------------------------------------


Cmnecticut


Middle Atlantic:


New"York------------------------------------------


New Jersey


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


East North Central:


Ohio---i------------------------------------------


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


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


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


Wisconsin-----------------------------------------


Weat North Central:


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


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


See footnotea at end of table.


I I


1965 1964 1963 1965 1964 1963


Number of decrees Rate per 1,000


population


479,000 450,000 428,000 2.5 2.4 2.3
 _ _


48,000 45,000 41,000 1.0 0.9 

128,000 120,000 114,000 N 2.2 

176,000 166,000 161,000 M 2.8 

128,000 119,000 112,000 4.0 3.8 ::: 

17,469 16,384 14,421


30,397 28,517 26,215 M ::2 M


94,491 86,906 82,038 2.5 2.3 2.2


33,407 33,074 31,801 2.1 2.1 2.0


273,332 65,769 63,429 22.6 2.3


36,185 35,386 35,502 2.8 $:: 2.8


64,432 63,913 60,907 9< * 7’<


38,095 39,182 ~37,059 5.0 14.9


89,892 79,100 74,851 3.7 3.; 3.2


2,521 ;>;;; 2,207 2.6 2.2 

1,573 1,373 2.3 ;:; 2.1 

601 ‘608 501 1.5 1.5 1.3 

7,848 7,093 6,066 1.5 1.3 1.1 

1,193 1,100 1,055 1.3 1.2 1.2 

3,733 3,737 3,219 1.3 1.3 1.2 

8,187 7,093 6,312 0.5 0.4


5,632 5,285 5,114 0.8 ::2 0.8


16,578 16,139 14,789 1.4 1.4 1.3


25,780 25,053 23,731 2.5 2.4


18,520 15,949 15,145 R 3.3 3.2


24,654 21,290 20,765 2.0 2.0


20,305 19,400 17,479 ::: 2.4 2.2


5,232 5,214 4,918 1.3 1.3 1.2


4,893 5,157 4,636 1.4 1.5 1.3


5,258 5,091 5,003 1.9 1.8 1.8


20

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 4. Number of divorces and annulments and rate per 1,000 population: United States, each 

region, division, and State, 1963-65—Con. 

Region, division, and State 1965 1964 1963 ZzE!!IE 

Number of decrees Race per 1,000 

population 

West North Central-Con. 

Missowi 13,185 12,785 12,,:;; 2.9 2.9 2.9 

North Dakota 720 758 1.2 

South Dakota 1,015 951 953 ::: ;:; Nebraska------------------------------------------ 2,520 2,519 2,436 1.7 H 

Kanaas 5,816 5,813 5,432 2.6 2.6 H 

South Atlantic: 

Delaware 740 662 621 1.3 1.3 

Maryland 

District of Columbia------------------------------ 1,328 1,190 1,214 

Virginia------------------------------------------ 8,889 8,580 8,101 H 2:2 H 

West Virginia------------------------------------- 3,852 3,826 3,769 2.1 2.1 2.1 

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

South Carolina------------------------------------ 11,150 7,225 

2,520 

7,308 

2,535 

2.3 1.5 1.5 

6,978 6,,697 6,402 ;:; 1.9 1.9 

Georgia------------------------------------------- 21;:;:! 11,312 10,569 2;:; H ;:: Florida------------------------------------------- 25,334 23,757 22>910 4.4 4.2 4.1 

Eaat South Central: 

Kentucky 8,276 7,942 7,139 2.5 2.3 

Tennessee 11,143 10,725 10,345 H 2.8 2.8 

Alabama 11,036 11,088 12,566 3.2 3.2 3.7 

Mississippi 5,730 5,631 5,452 2.5 2.5 2.4 

West South Central: 

Arkansas 6,622 26,059 26,483 3.4 23.1 23.4 

Louisiana2--------------r-------------------------4,623 4,704 3,415

Oklahoma 11,864 12,308 11,790 4.: 5.: 4.: 

Texas 41,323 40,842 39,219 3.9 3.9 3.8 

Mountain: 

Montana 2,002 1,981 1,909 2.8 

Idaho 2,874 2,876 2,798 ;:: ::: Wyoming 1,414 1,411 1,359 ::: 4.2 4.1 

Colorado1-----------------------------------------6,700 6,100 6,700 3.4 3.2 3.5 

New Mexico2---------------------------------------3>662 3,280 3,470 3.6€

Arizona 8,575 8,790 8,482 5.4 5.; H€

Utah 2,872 2,895 2,659€

Nevada 9,996 11,849 9>682 2::: 2;:; 2::;€

Pacific: 

Washington 11,518 10,864 19,953 3.9 3.7 ‘3.4 

Oregon 6,219 6,486 6,180

California 69,926 59,094 56,274 ;:; ;:: ;:: Alaska 1,118 966 929 ;.; 3.9 3.8 

Hawaii 1,111 1,690 1,515 . 2.4 2“.2 

IData are estimated. 

‘Data are incomplete. 

21 
------------

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

--------

---------

-----

---------

---------

-------

--------

-----------

-----

------

---------

----

--------

----------

------

-------

----

---------

---------

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

--------

-----------

----------

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

--

-------

--------

----------

------

--------

--------

-------

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

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

-------

-----

------

----

--------

--------

------

---------

------

--------

--------

---------

--------

-----------

--------

--------

--

---------

--------

-------

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

----------

-----------

------

----------

-------

------

----------

--------

Table 5, Divorce rates per 1,000 population: standard metropolitan statistical areas, 1960 and 1965


~h\S.4’s asdefinedin
1960.SLa@economioareasusedinNe!vFnglnnd]


Standard metropolitan


statistical area


Abilene, Tex-----------


Akron, Ohio


Albany, Ga-------------


Albany-Schenectady-


Troy, N.Y-------------


Albuquerque, N. Mex----


Allentown-Bethlehem-


Easton, Pa. -N.J-------


Altoona, Pa


Amarillo, Tex----------


Ann Arbor, Mich


Asheville, N. C


Atlanta, Ga------------


Atlantic City, N.J-----


Augusta, Ga.-SAC-------
 Austin, Tex------------


Bakersfield, Calif


Baltimore, Md----------


Baton Rouge? La--------


Bay City, Mlch


Beaumont-Port Arthur,


Tax-------------------


Billings, Mont


Binghamton, N.Y--------


Birmingham, Ala--------


Boston-Lowell-


Lawrence, Nassl


Bridgeport-Stamford -


Norwalk, Conn2--------


Brockton, Masss


Brownsville-Harlingen-


San Benito, Tex-------


Buffalo, N.Y-----------


Canton, Ohio


Cedar Rapids, Iowa


Champaign-Urbana, Ill-­


Charleston, s.c--------


Charlestonj W. Va


Charlotte, N.C
 Chattanooga, Term. -Ga--


Chicago, Ill-----------


Cincinnati, Ohio-Ky


Cleveland, Ohio


Colorado Springs, Colo -


Columbia, S.C


Columbus, Ga. -Ala


Rate per


1,000


population


1965 1960


3.8
 2:: 2.8


4.3 2.0


$; :::


1.4 1.4


:;: :::


3.0


3,4 ::;


3,0 2.6


::: ;:?


4.9 3.8


3.6 3.2


2.2 1,9


2,1


2.0 ::;


4.h 3.8


3.4 4.0


0.7 0,8


3,8 3.5


1.3 1.0


1.0 0.9


1.6 1,2


::; ;:;
 2.4 2.5


2,7 2.4


2.2 1.8


2.1 1.7


2.4 2.1


1.3


::! 3.3
 2.3 2.1


2.5


;:: 2.2


4.1 3.5


1.6 1.8


5,1 5.0


Standard metropolitan


statistical area


Columbus, Ohio


Corpus Christi, Tex--
 Dallas, Tex----------
 Davenport-Rock Island


Moline, Iowa-Ill
 Dayton, Ohi@---------


Decatur, Ill


Denver? Colo


Des Moines, Iowa
 Detroit, Mich


Dubuque, Iowa


Duluth-Superior,


Minn. -Was


Durham, N. C


El Paso, Tex---------


Erie, Pa
 Eugene, Oreg


Evansville, Ind. -Ky


Fall River-New


Bedford, Mass


Fargo -Moorhead,


N. Dak. -Mien


Flint, Mich


Fort Lauderdale-


Hollywood, Fla------


Fort Smith, Ark------


Fort Wayne, Ind


Fort Worth, Tex------


Fresno, Calif


Gadsden, Ala---------


Galveston-Texas City,


Tax-----------------


Gary-Hammond-East


Chicago, Ind


Grand Rapids, Mich---


Great Falls, Mont----


Green Bay, Wis


Greensboro-High Point,


N.C


Greenville S.C------
 Hamilton -M;ddletown,


Ohio


Harrisburg, Pa


Hartford-New Britain-


Bristol, Conn4------


Honolulu, Hawaii


Houston, Tex---------


Huntington-Ashland,


W. Va, -Ky-Ohio


Huntsville, Ala------


Indianapolis, Ind


Rate per


1,000


population


1965 1960


3.6


::: 

5.4 :::


3.0


::! 3.1


2.6	 2,2


3.1


;:;


2.5 ::;


1.1 0.9


::$ ;:;


3.1 $.;


;:: 3:3


3.2 2.6


1.6 1.2


1,5 1.5


3.1 2.7


4.0 3.1


3.9 3,0


2.9


5.6 ~:~


::: 3:9


4.4 5.0


5.9 2.8


;:: ;:;


1.0 0.6


3,3 2.1


2.6 1.9


3.2 3.1


1.9 1.7


0.4 0.9


::; :::


3,2 52.8


2.9 3.2


3.7 3.2


Rate per


1,000


Standard metropolitan population


statistical area


Jackson, Mich


Jackson, Miss


Jacksonville, Fla----


Jgrsey City, N.J-----


Johnstown, Pa--------


Kalamazoo, Mich


Kansas Ci.ty,
Mo. -Kans-


Kenosha, Wis


Knoxville, Term


Lake Charles, La-----


Lancaster, Pa


Lansing, Mich


Laredo, Tax----------


Las Vegas, Nev-------
 Lawton, Okla


Lexington, Ky


Limaj Ohio


Lincoln, Nebr


Little Rock-North


Little Rock, Ark----


Lorain-Elyria, Ohio-­


Los Angeles-Long


Beach, Calif


Louisville, Ky. -Ind


Lubbock, Tex---------


Lynchburg, Va--------


Macon, Ga------------


Madison, Wis


Manchester, N.H6-----


Memphis, Term


Miami, Fla-----------


Midlandj Tex---------


Milwaukee, W,is


Minneapolis-St. Paul,


Mien


Mobile, Ala


Monroe, T.a


Montgomery, Ala


Muncie, Ind
 Muskegon -Musl*:on
 Heights, Micli


Nashville, Term


Newark, N.J


N,ewn~en-Waterbury,
 -.----


Essex County.


1960


—


i::


::;


0.8


2.7


3.4


;::


1.9


;:2


$;


3,2


2.4


2.5


5,3


1.9


3.4


:::


i::


1.3


1.8


::2


3.8


1.3


i::


2.2


3,7


4,1


2.5


3,0


0,8


0.9


lRates for Massachusetts State Economic Area C: the 1965 rate excludes


ZRates for Connecticut State Economic Area A.


aRates for Massachusetts State Economic Area D.


4Rates for Connecticut State Economic Area C.


5Rate for 19fjcIincludes Boyd CountY, KY.


‘Rates for New Hampshire State Economic Area A.


7wtes for Connecticut State Economic Area B.


22 
------------

------

----------

------

-------

-------

-----------

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

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

--------

--

------

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

-------

--

---------

------

-------

---------

-------

-----

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

-------

---

-----------

--------

-----------

-----------

-----------

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

---------

----------

--------

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

Table 5. Divorce rates per 1,000 population: standard metropolitan statistical areas, 1960 and 1965—Con.


[SMSA’sasdetinedin 4960.Stateecomomic
areasusedinNew E@a~dl


Standard metropolitan


statistical area


~e~ orlea~s, La8-------

Newport News-Hampton,
 Va--------------------


New York, N.Y----------


Norf o~k-Port smouth,
 Va--------------------


Odessa, Tex------------


Ogden, Utah
 Oklahoma City, Okla----


Omaha, Nebr. -Iowa


Orlando, Fla-----------


Paterson-Clifton-


Passaic, N.J----------


Pensacola, Fla---------


Peoria, Ill------------


Philadelphia, Pa. -N.J--


Phoenix, Ariz


Pittsburgh, Pa---------


Pittsfield, Massg


Portland, Maine10


Portland, Oreg. -Wash---


Providence, R.Ill-------


Provo-Orem, Utah


Pueblo, colo


Racine, Wis


Raleighj N. C-----------


Reading, Pa------------


Reno, Nev--------------


Richmond, Va-----------


Roanoke, Va------------


Rochester, N.Y---------


Rockford, Ill----------


Rate per
 1,000


population


1965 1960


2.3 1.4


2.4 2.1


0.3 0.3


2.7 2.6


6.1 6.1


3.2
 ::;
 N
 2:1 1.7


0.8 0.5


5.0 4.4


3.0 2.6


1.3


6.7 :::
 1.5 1.3


1.2
 :::


3.3 N
 1.3


2.4 k:;


2.6
 ::; 1.3


2.6 1.4


3$! 4:::


3.0 3.1


ii: ::+
 3.3 2.7


Standard metropolitan


statistical area


Sacramento, Calif


Saginaw, Nich


St. Joseph, Me


St. Louis, Mo. -Ill----
 Salt Lake City, Utah-­


San Angelo, Tex-------


S.anAntonio, Tex------
 San Bernardino-River­


side-Ontario, Calif


San Diego? Calif


San Francisco-Oakland,


Calif


San Jose, Calif


Santa Barbara, Calif


Savannah, Ga----------


Scranton, Pa----------
 Seattle, Wash


Shreveport, La--------


Sioux City, Iowa


Sioux Falls, S. Dak---


South Bend, Ind


Spokane, Wash


Springfield, Ill------


Springfield, Me


Springfield, Ohio


S~~~;i~ld -Holyoke,


Steubenville-Weirton,


Ohio-W. Va-----------
 Stockton, Calif


Rate per


1,000


population


1965 1960


3.4


:::


HI


3.4


3.7


2.5


3.4


3.1


2.6


$:


R


2.3”


H


3.5


2.5


3.7


3.3


1.3


;::


J


Standard metropolitan


statistical area


Syracuse, N.Y----------


Tacoma, Wash


Tampa-St. Petersburg,


Fla-------------------


Terre Haute, Ind
 Texarkana, Tex. -Axk----


Toledo, Ohio


Topeka, Kans


Trenton, N.J-----------
 Tucson, Ariz


Tulsa, Okla


Tuscaloosa, Ala--------


Tyler, Tex-------------


Utica-Rome, N.Y--------
 Waco, Tex--------------


Washington, D.C.-Md. -
 Va--------.-----------


Waterloo, Iowa
 West Palm Beach, Fla---


Wheeling, W. Vs. -Ohio-­


Wichita, Kans


Wichita Falls, Tex-----


Wilkes -Barre -Hazletoi,


Pa--------------------


Wilmington, Del. -N.J---


Winston-Salem, N. C-----


Worcester, l.fass


York, Pa---------------


Youngstown-Warren,


Ohio


6Mte for 1960 excludes,rjt.
 Bernard Parish; rate for 1965 excludes Jefferson Parish.


‘Rates for Massachusetts State Economic Area F.


10wte5 for Maine State Economic Area A.


l%stes for Rhode Island State Economic Area A.


12wtes for Massachusetts State EcOnomic Area A.


Source: Population bases from Current Population Reports, Series, P-25, No. 271.


Rate per


1,000


population


1965 1960


‘w H 

4.1
 ::; N 4.8


2.7


::2 4.0


0.9
 ;:: 3.7
 . 6.8


::2 “;::
 0.4 0.6


3.8 3.1


1.8 1.4


2.3


3.6 $;


1.9 1.5


;:; R


0.9 0.7


H i :
 1.7


2.2 N


2.3 2.1


23 
-------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 6. Divorce rates per 1,000 population for metropolitan and rmnmetropolitanareas: United States, each division, and State,
 1960 and 1965


MSA’sasdefinedin 1960. State eoozxomic areas .sedin
NewEngland.]
 ..


1965 1960


Geographic division and State Metropolitan counties Non- A1l]\ Mecrop.litancO~ti.ee 

All metrO- mess. With 

Total centra1 Other 

politan areas A.i:i, counties Total cities II II.-.—.- 1 

Rate per 1,000 population in each area 

United Statesl 2.5 - - 2.6 =2 1,6 2.2 2.2 2.3 — — _ _ 2.5 1.4 2.1 

Geographic d&ision: New England 

Middle Athntic---i East North Central 

1.6 

0.8 ::2 ::? ::: ii:: ;:; 2.1 2.2 2.1 2.3 ;:: 

2.4 

0.9 

0.6 

2.1 M 

1.s West North Centrall ::: ::: 2.5 2.7 1.9 South Atlanticl---------------------- 2.6 3.0 ;:! ;:: $:: 2.5 2.9 ;.; ;:: East South Central!, 3.5
 West South Centrall ::; ::; 3:6 ~:; ::: 2:8 ::! 2:7 2.7
 MountainI 6.2 2.9 4.2 5.4 5.9 2.3 3.1
 Pacific ::; 3.8 2.5 3:3 3.1 3.2 3.3 2.8 2.8


New England: Maine 2.6 2.9 2.5 2.2 2.6 2.6 2.1 New Hampshire 2.3 2.1 ;:; 2.4 1.8 1.8 L.S 1.9 Vermmt 

Massachusetts 

1.5 1.; 1.; ~:; 

1.2 

1.1 0.9 1.2 

Rhode Island ;:2 1.3 1.4 ::; 1.1 ;:; ;:: 1.3 ::: Comecticut 1.3 1.3 1.3 1:6 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.3 

Middle Atlantic: New York 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.6 New Jersey ::; ::: ::: 0.7 ::: ::: 0.8 0.9 ;.: Pennsylvania 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.4 

East North Central:
 Ohio 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.1 Indiana 3.s ::: ::; ::: ;.; i:; 

Illinois 2.3 2.k 2.7 1.s 2.2 ;:; ::: ;:: I.fichiganl 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.4 2:0 2.3 2.3 2.0 Wiscmsin 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.1 ::; 1.2 1.3 0.8 

West North Central: Minnesota 1.4 2.0 2.7 0.5 1.0 Iowa ::: 2.8 1.4’ ::: $;:’ ::; 2,4 

MissouriI ;:; 3.3 3.8 ;:: 2.4 ;.; 3.6 1.9 North Dakota 1.1 1,5 1.1 0:9 1.9 South Dakota 1.5 ;:2 1.3 1.2 2:0 2.0 Nebraska 2.5 ;:: 1.4 Kansas ;:; 3.4 3.9 2.6 ;:: ;:; ;:; $: 

south Atlantic:


Maryland 

District of Columbia 

::: ::: 

1.7 2; 

1.7 1.; 1.9 ;:; ;:; 

2.6 

1.5 1.; 1.4 

Virginia ;:: 2.: 1.; 2.2 1.5 West Virginia 2.1 ;:: ;:; 1.9 i:; 2.2 ;:! 1.5 North Carolina 2.3 2.9 2.9 ;:; 1.3 1.7 1.7 South Carolina 1.9 2.1 0.8 1.8 Georgia?-?--------------------------- ;:: 3.9 ;:; $: 3.1 3:: i:: Florida 4.4 ::? 4.2 4.2 ::: 3.9 3.s 3,8 3.4 

Delaware 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.3


East South Central: Kentucky!--:------------------------- Tennessee 

12.6 

2.9 ::: ::: 2.1 2.4 

2.8 2.8 

2.5 2:1 2.9 3.2 

2.2 2.8 

Alabam 3.2 3.5 3.4 2:: 2.9 5.3 3.4 ::! 8.5 i:; Mississippi 2.5 3.0 3.0 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.4 

West ScmthlCentral: Arkansas i--------------------------- 3.4 4.7 4.7 ;.; 3.4 4.8 4.8 3.0 Louisiana ‘1.8 2.2 2.3 1.4 Oklahoma 4.8 i:: 4:2 j:; ;:; ::: 3.8 TexasI 3.9 2:: 2:? 3.7 2.8 4.2 4.2 2.6 

Mountain: Montana 3.2 3.2 2.7 3.0 3.4 

Idaho ::: 3.3 3.3 4.3 3.s ::$ 

Wyoming 4.3 4.3 ::: Colorado 3.4 2.; 2.5 2.7 2.5 New Mexicol-------------------------- $; 3.3 ::: ::: Arizona ::! 6.0 ~:~ 3.7 ;SJ ;.: Utah--------------------------------- 2.9 

Nevada 23.0 2;:: 13:9 2;:! 35:5 35:5 

Pacific:


Washington 

Oregon 

3.9 

3.2 3.s 

3.2 :.: h.. 

2.3 4.1 

3.2 

3.3 

3.2 

3.4 

3.6 ;:$ 2: California 3.9 4:2 2.5 3.2 3.3 2.8 

Alaska ?:: ::;. ::; 

Hawaii 1.6 1.; 1.; 0.8 2.0 2.; 2.i 

o


lReparting counties only; population of counties failing to report the number of divorces is excluded.


Source: Populaticm bases from Current Population Rep.rts, Series P-25, No. 371.


24 
-----

------

------

---------

---------

---------

---------

---------

---------

---------

---------

---------

------

------

---------

---------

---------

---------

---------

---------

---------

---------

Table 7. Numhar and percent	 cltstribution of divorces and annulments, by age at decree of husband “and


wife: 10 selected registration States, 1965


[Ba.edo.smnpledzts.The.eStitesreported ageatdecreewithacompIsteness of85perce.t
orhigl,e~


Registration States


Age at decree of ?0tal
 husband and wife


Hawaii Iowa Kans. No. Mont. Nebr. Pa. Term. Va. Wis.


Number


All divorces and


annulments 71,879 1,110] 5,282 5,826 13,235 2,003 2,536 16,580 11,175 8,880 5,252


Husband Percent distribution


All ages 100.0 100.C 100.0 100.0 100.0 100. c 100.0 100.0 100.0 LOO.O 100.0 

Under 20 years 1.4 ().2 1.8 1.6 1.7 1.C 1.5 0.8 2.2 1.2 0.6 

20-24 years 16.9 12.6 20.3 19.1 18.0 18.: 21.0 13.1 20.9 13.8 13.5 

25-29 years 19.6 17.1 19.5 19.2 18.8 18.E 21.1 20.3 20.1 18.9 21.0 

30-34 years 15.1 15.9 13.1 14.0 14.0 15.6 13.2 16.4 15.0 16.3 15.7 

35-39 years 13.5 16.6 13.4 13.3 13.2 14.2 14.3 13.4 12.2 15.6 13.3 

40-44 years 11.6 12.1 10.0 11.6 12.2 10.1 10.0 12.9 9.4 12.4 12.2 

45-49 years 8.6 8.9 8.7 8.6 7.8 8.: 7.4 10.0 6.7 9.8 8.7 

50-54 years 6.2 7.2 5.7 5.6 6.0 5.7 5.0 7.5 5.6 5.8 6.8 

55-59 years 3.4 5.C 4.3 3.4 3.4 3.6 2.5 3.2 3.3 2.9 .4.4 

60-64 years 1.8 2.6 1.6 1.2 2.3 1.6 1.7 1.3 1.9 2.1 1.8 

65 years and over--- 1.9 1.7 1.6 2.4 2.5 1.8 2.3 1.1 2.7 1.0 2.0 

Wife


All ages 100.0 100.c 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.c 100.0 100.0 100.0 Loo:o 100.0 — 

Under 20 years 6.6 2.9 7.4 8.6 7.5 6.$ 7.5 4.0 10.5 5.2 2.5 

20-24 years 23.9 19.7 27.3 25.2 24.8 26.3 27.5 21.5 25.8 21.1 22.5 

25-29 years 18.3 18.9 17.5 16.0 16.3 17.2 19.1 19.7 18.2 19.9 20.3 

30-34 years 13.3 15.3 12.1 13.1 13.9 13.8 11.6 13.4 12.7 13.8 13.4 

35-39,~ears 12.0 13.7 10.9 11.8 11.5 11.9 10.6 13.7 9.4 13.8 13.1 

40-44 years 10.3 12.2 9.9 10.1 10.0 9.6 10.3 10.8 9.2 11.2 10.5 

45-49 years--------- 7.3 8.7 7.1 6.3 6.7 6.5 5.3 8.9 6.1 7.8 8.3 

50-54 years 4.3 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.3 4.0 4.2 4.8 3.9 3.7 4.8 

55-59 y$ars 2.1 2.5 2.2 1.9 2.4 2.1 1.5 1.9 2.0 1.7 2.7 

60-64 years 1.1 1.5 0.8 1.1 1.3 0.9 1.4 0.9 1.2 1.0 0.9 

65 years and over--- 0.8 0.5 0.8 1.3 1.2 0.8 1.1 0.4 1.0 0.6 0.9 

25

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

Table 8. Estimated number and rate of divorces and annulments, by age of husband and wife at


decree: United States, 1965


[For methQd of estimating, see appendix] 

Under


20-24


25-29


30-34


35-44


45-54


55-64


Age at decree


Husband


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


65 years and over-----------------------------------------------------


Wife


Total


Under 20 years--------------------------------------------------------


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


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


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


35-44 years-----------------------------------------------------------


45-54 years-----------------------------------------------------------


55-64 years-----------------------------------------------------------


65 years and over-----------------------------------------------------


Number late per 1,000


of population


divorces in each age-sex


group


479,000 10.8


6,700 27.1


81,000 28.8


93,900 21.7


72,300 15.7


120,200 11.7


70,900 7.5


24,900 3.7


9,100, 1.6


479.000 10.6


31,600 30.6


114,500 26.0


87,700 17.7


63,700 12.6


106,800 9.7


55,600 6.0


15,300 2.6


3,800 1,0


Source: Population data from Current Population Reports, Series P-20, No. 1444


26

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

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

Table 9. Percent distribution of the total married population of the United States by age and of


husbands and wives divorced in 10 selected registration States, by age at decree: 1965


[Formethod ofestimating,
 seeappendix]


Married Persons Ratio


divorced between
 Age population in 10 the
 of Us.
 States percents


Husband Percent distribution


Total 100.0 100.0 1’0 

Under 20 years--------------------------------------------------- 0.6 1.4 2.3 

20-24 years------------------------------------------------------ 6.4 16.9 2.6 

25-29 years------------------------------------------------------ 9.8 19.6 2.0 

30-34 years------------------------------------------------------ 10.4 15.1 1.5 

35-44 years 23.3 25.1 1.1 

45-.54yearS---------------------------d-------------------------- 21.5 14..8 0.7 

55-64 years------------------------------------------------------ 15.3 5.2 0.3 

65 years and over------------------------------------------------ 12.7 1.9 0.1 

Wife


Total------------------------------------------------------ 100.0 100.0 1.0 

Under 20 years---------------------------------------------------- 2.3 6.6 2.9 

20-24 years------------------------------------------------------ 9.7 23.9 2.5 

25-29 years------------------------------------------------------ 11.0 18.3 1.7 

30-34 years------------------------------------------------------ 11.2 13.3 1.2 

35-44 years------------------------------------------------------ 24.3 22.3 0.9 

45-54 years------------------------------------------------------ 20.4 11.6 0.6 

55-64 years------------------------------------------------------ 13.0 3.2 0.2 

65 years atidover------------------------------------------------ 8.1 0.8 0.1 

‘Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana,Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia,and wis­


consin. Data for the 10 States based on sample.


Source: Data for the married population of the United States from Current Population Reports, 

Series P-20, No. 144. 

. 

27

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

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

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

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

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

Table 10. Median age of all married persons in the United States and the highest and lowest State


median age at decree in the divorce-registration area: 1959-65


[State mediams for 1960-65 basedorI sample
dat~

Area 1965( 19641 19631 19621 19611 19601 1959


HUSBAND


United States Median age


Total married population------------------------- 44.8 44.7 4407 44.6 44.6 44.2 44.1
 -


Divorce-registration area
 + 

Highest State median 36.2 36.1 37.0 40.0 35.9 36.7 35.9


Lowest State median 29.0 31.1 31.5 31.8 31.9 27.5 32.0


WIFE


United States


Total married population 41.6 41.3 41.4 41.3 41.1 40.9 40.6


Divorce-registration area


Highest State median 32.8. 34.5 33.5 34.7 33.4 33.5 32.5


Lowest State median T26.1 27.8 26.4 28.3 26.7 L 23.6 29.0


Source: Median age of all married persons from CurrenC Population Reports, Series P-20.


28

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---------

Table 11. Percent distribution of divorces and annulment!,by ageof divorced husbands and wives at


marriage: 10 selected registration States, 1965


[Based on sample data. These Stitesreported 

State


Husband


Total


Hawaii


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


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


Missouri


Montana


Nebraska----------------­
----------.---=-


Pennsylvania-----------------------k----


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


Virginia


. Wisconsin


Wife 

Total-----------------------:-----


Hawaii


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


Kansas


Missouri------------------------.------­


lfontana


Nebraska----------.------------.--------


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


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


Virginia------------------,--------------


Wisconsin -.----:-.-4------..----


ageatmarfiage with acompleteness of85percent orhighe~ 

Age at marriage


All Un;er 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45+


ages years years years years years years years


Percent distribution


100.0 19.3 8.2 5.0 3.1 5.7 — — — — ==+= 

100.0 8.1 39.2 21.1 11.7 7.9 3.9 8.1 

100.O 20.1 41.2 15.2 8.2 5.2 T3.3 6.7


100.0 16.3 41.7 17.1 7.5 5.9 4.C 7.L


100.0 19.7 37.5 15.7 8.4 6.1 4.: 8.1


100.0 11.6 42.0 17.7 9.4 7.1 4.7 7.5


100.0 16.6 46.6 16.0 6.9 4.4 3.4 6.0


100.0 17.5 46.2 18.7 8.4 3.9 2.1 3.2


100.0 25.9 38.3 14.8 7.6 4.4 3.2 5’.9


100.0 21.2 44.6 15.8 8.5 .4.7 1.7 3.5


100.0 14.9 47.3 17.1 7.5 4.7 2.4 6.2


100.0 47.8 =4== 4.8 3.9 — 2.5 3.8 

= 

100.O 25.2 35.1] 15.7 10.2 6.1 4.4 3.2 

100.0 49.0 27.2 8.3 4.5 3.7 2.7 4.5 

100.0 45.6 27.2 9.1 5.6 4.2 2.8 5.5 

100.0 46.5 24.3 9.4 6.2 4.9 3.2 5.6 

100.0 40.2 30.0] 10.0 6.4 4.6 3.5 5.4 

100.0 45.1 32.2 8.4 4.4 3.0 2.1 5.0 

100.0 46.8 31.7 9.6 4.3 3.6 2.2 1.9 

100.0 53.2 23.3 9.8 4.0 3.5 2.4 3.7 

100.0 52.9 25.4 10.9 3.6 3.4 1.5 2.3 

100.0 43.5 4.8 3.2 2.3 4.3 Y-u 

29


1 
-----------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

----------

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 12. Medians and quartiles of age of divorced husbands and wives at marriage: 10 selected


registration States, 1965


[Basedo. sampledata.These Statesreported
ageatm.rfiagewithacompletenessof85percento,highe~


— 

Inter-
 First Third
 State quartile Median quartile quartile


range


Husband


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


Hawaii


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


Kansas


Missouri


Montana


Nebraska---------------------------------------------------


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


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


Virginia


Wisconsin


Wife


Total------------------------........---------.------


Hawaii


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


Kansas--,------- ---------....................------


Missouri


Montana


Nebraska


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


Tennessee


Virginia


Wisconsin


Age at marriage


20.7 23.6 29.1 8.4 

22.2 25.6 32.8 10.6 

20.6 23.6 29.5 8.9 

21.0 24.0 30.0 9.0 

20.7 24.0 31.3 10.6 

21.6 24.6 32.0 10*4 

20.9 23.6 28.7 7.8 

20.8 23.5 28.0 7.2 

19.8 23.2 28.7 8.9 

20.4 23.2 27.9 7.5 

21.1 23.7 28.7 7.6 

~, 

17.1 20.4 24.9 7.8 ‘ 

19.9 23.5 29.7 9.8 

17.1 20.2 24.8 7.7 

17.3 20.8 26.2 8.9 

17.2 20,7 27.2 10.0 

17.7 21.6 27.4 9.7 

17.3 20.8 24.6 7.3 

17.2 20.5 24.4 7.2 

16.8 19.6 24.7 7.9 

16.8 19.7 24.4 7.6 

17.5 21.0 24.8 7.3 

30


i 
---

---

---

---

---

---

Table 13. Percent of brides and grooms and of divorced husbands and wives married under age 20:


15 selected registration States,l 1957-65


[Based cm sample data for 1960 and later years] 

I 

Husband I Wife


Year


Married V:;;ed Married V::;ed


l965-----------------------------------------------------------


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


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


l962-----------------------------------------------------------


1961-----------------------------------------------------------


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


l959-----------------------------------------------------------


l958-----------------------------------------------------------


l957-----------------------------------------------------------


Percent


15.3 20.0 40.0 48.9


14.0 20.2 38.2 49.3


14.1 19.7 38.6 47.4


15.3 18.9 40.5 47.4


14.3 20.0 40.4 47.8


14.0 16.4 40.3 46.0


13.2 39.1


12.9 39.0


12.0 37.8


lAl~bama, @orgi~, Idaho, I~~a, Kansas,, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, ore~on,penn~Y~vania, sou~h 

Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming. 

31

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

----

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Table 14. Median age of husband and wife at decree: divorce-registrationarea and each registration


State, 1959-65


[Basedon sampledatafor1960andlater
years]


State 1965” 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959


Husband Median age at decree


Divorce-registrationarea 34.1 34.0 34.8 34.5 34.0 34.1 134.2


_


Alabama ----------------------------------------------------- 35.8 34.6 35.5 35.0 31.9 27.5
 ALaska ------------------------------------------------------ 34.1 33.6 35.6 34.6 ;:.: 32.8 35.5


Georgia 33.0 31.9 33.0 32.1 32.9


Hawaii 36.2 34.7 35.8 36.3 34:9 33.8 1;;::


Idaho 33.0 32.7 32.4 34.0 33.5 33.0 34.1
 Iowa 33.2 32.8 33.0 33.9 33.2 32.2 32.9


Kansas 33.6 33.3 33.5 34.0 33.7 34.3 33.6


Maryland ---------------------------------------------------- 34.5 34.5 36.4 34.6 34.4 34.7 -..


Michigan ---------------------------------------------------- 34.4 36.1 32.5 33.3 33.2


Missouri ---------------------------------------------------- 34.1 34.2 34.9 34.1 35.1
 Montana ----------------------------------------------------- 33.6 33.3 35.1 33.4 34.0 34.5 34.1


Nebraska 32.4 33.6 33.6 ;:.; 34.0 33.9 33.9


Ohio 35.2 34.0 37.0 

OregOn 34.8 34.7 35.3 35:4 35.9 34.6 35.9 

Pennsylvania 34.8 35.3 35.5 36.1 34.9 36.2 35.4 

Rhode Island 34.9 35.4 35.0 

South Dakota 29.1 32.3 32.3 36.1 34.3 36.4 

Tennessee 32.3 32.9 34.2 34.5 32.4 32.4 32.9 

Utah - 31.1 31.1 31.6 31.8 31.9 31.8 32.0 

Virginia 34.9 34.1 34.9 34.2 34.0 33.1 

Wisconsin 34.8 35.0 35.4 37.5 35.3 36.7 35.3 

Wyoming 32.3 32.5 31.5 40.0 33.3 35.0 

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


Wife


Divorce-registrationarea-----------------------------30.5 30.6 31.3 31.0 30.8	 30.9 130.9
 -


Alabam 32.1 34.5 31.3 31.3 26.7 23.6


Alaska------------------------------------------------------
 29.8 29.0 30.2 28.3 29.7 28,5 31.0


Georgia 29.4 28.7 29.8 29.0 30,4 30,0


Hawaii 32.8 31.3 32.6 32.8 31.4 31.3 1:::$


Idaho 29.2 28.9 28.6 30.4 29,6 29.8 29.6


Iowa 29.4 29.4 29.8 30,5 29.5 29,3 29.4


Kansas 30.1 29.7 30,1 30.6 30.4 31,1 30.4 

Maryland ---------------------------------------------------- 30.5 31.1 33.0 31.6 32.0 31,9 

Michigan ---------------------------------------------------- 30.8 32.4 33.2 29.8 30.0 

Missouri ---------------------------------------------------- 30.5 30.7 31.1 30.4 31.4 Montana ----------------------------------------------------- 29.9 29.3 30.9 29.9 30.8 30.7 29,8 

Nebraska 29,0 29,8 29.8 31.2 30.9 30.8 30.6


Ohio 31.6 31.6 33.5 31.7 

Oregon 31,8 31.4 31.5 32.6 33.4 31.8 32.4 

Pennsylvania 31.8 32.0 32.3 32.2 31.9 32.9 32.4 

Rhode Island 32.4 32.7 32.7 

South Dakota 26.9 27.8 28.1 31.4 28.6 33.1 Tennessee-------------------------"-------------------------- 28.8 29.4 30.1 29.7 28.8 29.3 29.6 Utah 28.0 27.8 28.6 28.7 28.5 28.2 29.0 

Virginia ---------------------------------------------------- 31.3 30.8 31.8 30.8 31.1 29.7 

Wisconsin --------------------------------------------------- 31.8 31.8 32.2 34.7 32.2 33.5 32.5 

Wyoming ----------------------------------------------------- 27.0 28.2 26,4 32.5 28.9 29.1 

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


lData for Hawaii not included in the DKA total for 1959.


32

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 15. Median age of divorcedhusbands and wives at


each registrationState,


[Based cm sample data] 

State


Husband


marriage: divorce-registration
area snd


1960-65


1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960


Median age at marriage


Divorce-registrationsrea 23.7 23.7 23.9 24.0 23.:8	24.2
 _


Alabam 24.3 23.6 24.5 26’.7 20.8 21.9


Alaska 27.7 27.2 27.6 26.7 28.6 27.3


Georgia 23.4 23.3 ;;.; 23.9 23.6 24.2


Hawaii 25.6 24.6 25.1 24.9 25.0


Idaho 24.4 24.3 24:2 24.5 24.3 24.8


Iowa 23.6 23.6 23.7 24.0 24.0 24.3


Kansas 24.0 24.0 24.1 24.2 23.9 24.3


Maryland 23.3 23.3 23.5 23.3 23.5 23.9


Michigan 22.9 23.6 22.8 23..4 23.6 ...
 Misso=i 24.0 24.0 24.0 ;:.: 24.3 ...
 Montana 24.6 24.8 25.0 24.8 26.0


Nebraska 23.6 23.9 23.9 24:4 23.7 24.0


Ohio 24.0 23.7 24.4 2G.2 ...
 Oregon 24.5 24.3 24.9 24.5 24.7 2i:i


Pennsylvania 23.5 23.7 23.4 23.8 23.6 24.3


Rhode Island 23.2 23.7 23.6 ... ...
 South Dakota 23.0 23.8 24.0 24.2 2i:i 26.3


Tennessee 23.2 23.1 23.6 24.2 23.6 23.5


Utah 23.3 23.4 23.5 23.7 23.5 24.4


Virginia 23.2 23.5 23.6 23.8 23.3 23.5


Wisconsin 23.7 23.8 24.0 24.9 24.0 24.9


Wyoming 24.1 24.1 23.3 25.0 24.0 24.2


Wife


Divorce-registration
area	 20.4 20.4 20.6 20.7 20.6 20.9
 _ _


Alabama 19.6 21.3 22.1 19.8 18.1 18.4


Alaska 23.4 23.1 23.3 22.1 24.9 23.3


Georgia 19.9 19.8 19.9 20.3 20.2 21.3


Hawaii 23.5 22.2 22.5 22.9 22.9 22.8


Idaho 21.3 21.3 21.2 21.6 21.0 21.0


Iowa 20.2 20.1 20.1 20.3 21.2 21.2


Kansas 20.8 21.0 20,9 21.4 21.4 20.6


Maryland 19.5 19.6 19.7 20.1 20.1 20.3


Michigan 19.3 19.6 21.2 20.5 20.2 ...
 Missomi 20.7 20.7 20.2 20.4 20.6 ...
 Montana 21.6 21.8 21.7 21.4 21.9 21.6


Nebraska 20.8 20.8 20.4 21.1 19.5 20.1


Ohio 21.0 21.0 21.5 21.0 ... ...
 Oregm 21.6 21.0 21.6 22.0 23.0 22.8


Pennsylvania---------------------------T---------------------
 20.5 20.1 20.6 20.4 20.6 21.0


Rhode Island 20.6 21.4 20.9 ... ... ...
 South Dakota, 18.8 20.5 20.5 20.1 19.6 21.7


Tennessee 19.6 19.5 19.9 19.9 19.9 20.1


Utah:-- 19.9 19.8 19.8 20.6 19.8 21.4


Virginia 19.6 20.2 20.4 20.4 19.9 20.5


Wisconsin 21.0 20.8 20.9 22.0 :;.: 22.0


Wyoming 20.0 19.7 19.7 22.0 20.2


33

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

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

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

---

---

---

---

Table 16. Mediana and quartilea of age of husbands and wives: 10 selected registration Stateal,


1960-65


[Based o.sample
data]


Year First Third 

quartile ‘edian quartile 

1 1 

Husband Age at decree 

l965---------------------------------------------------------------- 26.7 34.0 43.7 

l964---------------------------------------------------------------- 26.9 34.1 43.7 

l963---------------------------------------------------------------- 27.1 34.7 44.0 

l962---------------------------------------------------------------- 27.4 34.9 44.4 

1961---------------------------------------------------------------- 27.1 34.1 43.6 

l96O2--------------------------------------------------------------- 27.1 34,4 44.0 

Wife 

l965---------------------------------------------------------------- 23.9 30.5 40.4


l964---------------------------------------------------------------- 23.9 30.6 39.9


l963---------------------------------------------------------------- 24.1 31.2 40.5


l962---------------------------------------------------------------- 24.2 31.1 40.4


1961---------------------------------------------------------------- 23.9 30.8 39.9


l96O2--------------------------------------------------------------- 23.9 31.2 40.1


Husband Age at mar age


l965---------------------------------------------------------------- 20.7 23.6 29.1 

l964---------------------------------------------------------------- 20.7 23.7 29.1 

l963---------------------------------------------------------------- 20.7 23.8 29.4 

l962---------------------------------------------------------------- 21.0 24.0 30.0 

1961---------------------------------------------------------------- 20.7 23.8 29.7 

l96O2--------------------------------------------------------------- -.. 

Wife


l965---------------------------------------------------------------- 17.1 20.4 24.9 

l964---------------------------------------------------------------- 17.1 7.0.3 24.9 

1963---------------- 17.2 20.5 25.0 

1962 17.2 20.6 25.6 

1961 17.2 20.5 25.4 

l96O2--------------------------------------------------------------- -.= 

lHawaii, Iow& Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wis­


consin.


2Nissouri was not in the Da in 1960; age at decree for that State was taken from Misaouri ‘i­


vision of Health, Vital Statistics, Missouri, 1960,table RR,but age at marriage ia not available..


3.4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 17. Percent distribution of’divorces and annulment, by race of husband and wife: 10 se­
 lected registration States, 1965


[Based on sample data. These Sbtesrepotied race \vithacompleteness of85percent orhighe~ 

State


Husband Percent distribution


Total-------------------------------------------------- 100.0 89.1 10.9 9.7 1.2 

Hawaii 100.0 51.0 49.0 1.5 47.5 

Xowa--------------------------------------------------------- 100.0 97.5 2.5 2.4 0.1 

Kansas------------------------------------------------------- 100.0 93.2 6.8 6.5 0.4 

Missomi 100.0 87.9 12.1 12.1 

Montanq ---------------------------,------- 100.0 95.7 4.3 0.8 3.5 

Nebraska----------------------------------------------------- 100.0 94.9 5.1 4.7 0.4 

Rhode Island------------------------------------------------- 100.0 96.0 4,0 3.7 0.3 

Tennessee---------------------------------------------------- 100.0 88.6 11.4 11.4 0.0 

Virginia----------------------------------------------------- 100.0 81.8 18.2 17.9 0.2 

Wisconsin 100.0 94.0 6.0 5.4 0.6 

Wife


Total-------------------------------------------------- 100.0 88.9 11.1 9.6 1.5
 — — _ —


Hawaii 100.0 45.3 54.7 0.6 54.1 

Iowa--------------------------------------------------------- 100.0 97.5 2:5 2.3 0.2 

Kansas------------------------------------------------------- 100.0 93.1 6.9 6.4 0.5 

Missouri -----------------------------------.- 100.0 87.8 12.2 12.1 0.1 

Montana 100.0 95.3 4.8 0.6 4.2 

Nebraaka----------------------------------------------------- 100.0 95.1 4.9 4.5 0.4 

Rhode Ialand------------------------------------------------- 100.0 96.2 3.8 3.5 0.3 

Tennessee---------------------------------------------------- 100,0 88.4 11.6 11.4 0.2 

Virginia----------------------------------------------------- 100.0 81.4 18.6 18.0 0.5 

Wisconsin ------------------------”--- 100.0 94.3 5.7 5.2 0.5 

35

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

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

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

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

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

Table 18. Number and uercent distribution of divorces and annulments.,bv color of husband and


‘wife: divorce-registration area,1960 and 1963-65’ “


[Based on sample data] 

Year and color
 ElE3E-2 

1965 Percent distribution


All decrees----------------------------- 164,942 1,110 163,832 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Both spouses white 86,107 420 85,687 89.4 37.9 90.0 

Both spouses nonwhite------------------------- 9,503 461 9,042 9.9 41.6 9.5 

Husband white, wife nonwhite------------------ 461 146 315 0.5 13,2 0.3 

Husband nonwhite, wife white------------------ 288 82 206 0.3 7.4 0.2 

Not stated for either or both spouses--------- 68,583 1 68,582 ... ... ... 

1964


All decrees----------------------------- 160,987 1,688 159,299 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Both spouaea white ‘83,103 613 82,490 89.3 36.3 90.2 

Both spouses nonwhite------------------------- 9,156 695 8,461 9.8 41.2 9.3 

Husband white, wife nontyhite 516 249 267 0.6 14.8 0.3 

Husband nonwhite, wife white 323 130 193 0.3 7.7 0.2 

Not stated for either or both spouaes--------- 67,889 1 67,888 ... ... ... 

1963


All decrees----------------------------- 152,594 1,514 151,080 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Both spouses white 75,873 493 75,380 89.1 33.4 90.1 

Both spouses nonwhite------------------------- 8,694 643 8,051 10.2 43.6 9.6 

Husband white, wife nonwhite------------------ 355 209 146 0.4 14.2 0.2 

Husband nonwhite, wife white------------------ 230 129 101 0.3 8.8 0.1 

Not stated for either or both spouses--------- 67,442 40 67,402 . . . ... ... 

1960


All decrees----------------------------- 94,074 1,270 92,804 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Both spousea white---------------------------- 57,124 410 56,714 88.7 32.3 89.8 

Both apousea nonwhite------------------------- 6,797 588 6,209 10.6 46.4 9.8 

Husband white, wife nonwhite------------------ 27.5 166 109 0.4 13.1 0.2 

Husband nonwhite, wife white------------------ 217 104 113 0.3 8.2 0.2 

Not stated for either or both spouses--------- 29,661 2 29,659 . . . ... ... 

lDRA included 18 States in 1960 and 22 States in 1963-65.


2percentage, exclude couples with color not stated for either or both sPouaea


36

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 19. Percent distribution of d%vorces and annulments, by number of this marriage: nine se­
 lected registration States, 1965


[Based on.mpleda.ta. These States repor@d thenumber oftiismamiage withacomple@ness of85percentor highefl 

Remarriages


State All First


marriages marriage


Husband


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


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


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


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


Missouri


Montana


Rhode Island------------------------------------


Tennessee------------------------,----+---------


Virginia----------------------d-----------------


Wisconsin


Wife


Total--------------------------------y----


Hawaii


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


Kansas


Missouri


Montana


Rhode Island------------------------------------


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


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


Wisconsin---------------------------------------


Total


t- T
 I 

Percent distribution


100.0 74.1 19.7 6.1 

100.0 70.1 29.~ 22.3 7.6 

100.0 70.9 29.1 21.3 7.8 

100.0 68.2 31.8 23.1 8.7 

100.0 72.2 27.8 19.6 8.1 

100.0 69.3 30.7 22.9 7.8 

100.0 87.0 13.0 12.0 1.0 

100.0 71.5 28.5 22..0 6.6 

100.0 82.7 17.3 15.3 1.9 

100.0 79.2 20.8 17.6 3.1 

100.0 73.2 26.8 20.2 6.6 

100.0 65.5 34.: 25.3 9.2 

100.0, 70.1 29.5 21.2 8.7 

100.0 67.3 32.7 24.0 8.6 

100.0 71.4 28.6 20.4 8.2 

100.0 65.5 34.: 25.1 9.4 

100.0 86.3 13.7 11.7 2.0 

100.0 71.8 28.2 22.0 6.1 

100.0 .81.3 18.7 15.4 3.3 

100.0 78.0 22.0 17.8 4.2 

37

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

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

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

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

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

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

-- ----

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

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

------- --

--

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

-- ------- --

Table 20. Percentdistributionof divorcesand marriages.,
by marriageorder of husbandand wife:


nine selectedregiatraticmStates,
1 selectedyears


[For 1960-65, based on sample data; for 1956.59, based on total counts] 

Husband Wife


Event and year Total Mam Led Harried


Married uwme Married Imre
 once than cmce than
 once onm


Divorces Percentdiatributicm 

1965..-..-.--...-- .-..--.+ “...-.-.--- “- 100.0 75.7 24.4 74”0 26,0 

1964-..---..- ..-----”--. .-..-.------“.-- - 100.0 74.3 25,7 73,9 26,1 

1963---.----.-- .-- ---.----. .---” .--- 100.0 74,1 25.9 73,2 26,8 

l962-------------------------------------------------
 100,0 72.5 27.5 71,4 28.6


1961 100.0 73.2 26.8 72.4 27.6


Marriages


1965 -,--- “--- “--- .-.“-.---- 100.0 78.1 21.9 78.2 21,8


1964 .-. --.-....-.-. -.-.--.---.- 100.0 78.0 22.0 78.4 21,6


1963..-
 .-- .--.-.----.--.-----..-----.----- .--.-- 100,0 78.6 21.4 78.3 2L.7


1962 .---“ .-- ., .---“--.. .----..“. 

1961 100.0 78,4 21.6 79*I 20.9 

1960 ..------.-.-.-“.----.--..-----..-..-.-- - 100.0 79.3 20,7 78,7 21,3 

1959 --.--...-.--.----.-.-.....-.-----.-.----.--...- 100.0 79.3 20,7 7!3.6 21.4 

1958-. -.-.--.-..-....-- -.---- .- -“.. 100.0 79.8 20,2 79,2 20,8 

.--.“- 100.0 78,7 21.3 79,1 20.9


.----..,. -


1957-. .----.-- .-.-- “--..-.-....-.%----.--. 100.0 80,4 19.6 79,7 20.3


l956-------------------------------------------------
 100.0 80.2 19.8 79,4 20.6


‘Idaho7 Iowa, Kanaas,Maryland,Michigan,Oregon, Pennsylvania,Tennessee,and UCah. 

38

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 21. Percent distributionof divorcesand annulments,by color, age of husband and wife, and


marriage order: five selectedregistrationStates,l1963


[Based cmsample dati] 

Husband Wife


Age and marriage order II I


Total White ~~e Total


-e


AGE AT DECREE


All decrees Percentdistribution


All ages 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Under 25 years” ...- 17.4 18.4 30.1 31.5 19.1


25-34 years 34.1 34.5 3?:; 31.5 31.0 35.7


35 years and over -----.--- 48.6 47.2 58.8 38.4 37.5 45,1


First marriage


All ages, 100.0 100.c 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


Under 25 years----.,--- 22.4 23.7 12.6 37.6 39.4 24.3


25-34 years 38.2 38.5 35.6 32.8 32.2’ 37.6


35 years and over.-------------------------=----------
 39.5 37.8 51.8 29.6 ,28.3 38.1


Remarriage


All ages 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


Under 35 years 27.6 28.8 18.4 39.2 39.7 32.6


35-44 years 32.8 32.5 37.2 31.6 31.8 31.4


45 years and over 39.6 38.7 44.4 29.2 28.5 36.0


AGE AT MARRIAGE


All decrees


All ages 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
 —


Under 20 years-..---..” 19.5 19.8 17.8 ;;.; 49.6 ;;.; 

20-24 years 39.4 40.1 34.6 24.0 

25 years and over 41.1 40.1 47.6 27;1 26.4 32;2 

First marriage


All ages 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Under 20 years 26.3 26.8 22.6 63.8 65.7 50.7 

20-24 years 48.3 49.3 41.8 25.3 24.6 30.2 

25 years and,over--------------, ---.----- 25.3 23.8 35.6 LO.9 9.7 19.0 

Remarriage


All ages 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
 ,.


Under 25 years 17.3 18.1 11.3 30.7 31.5’ 23.8


25-34 years 37.3 36.6 45.4 34.3 33.3 42.3


35 years and over 45.4 45.3 43.3 35.0 35.2 33.9


lHawaii, Iowa, ~~sso<ri, !krmeasee, and Wisconsin. 

39

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

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

Table 22. Pe:can;ediatribution of divorces and annulmenta,by resident status of defendant husband
 : divorce-registration area and 12 selected registration States, 1965


[Based on sample data. These StaLesreported residence with acompleteness of85percent or higher] 

1( I I 

Area and State


Defendant husband


Divorce-registration area---------------------------


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


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


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


Maryland--------------------------------------------------


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


Montana---------------------------------------------------


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


Pennsylvania


Rhode Ialand----------------------------------------------


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


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


Wisconsin-------------------------------------------------


Defendant wife


Divorce-registration area--------------------------


Alabam --------------------------------------------------


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


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


Maryland-------------------------------------------------


Missomi -------------------------------------------------


Montana--------------------------------------------------


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


Pennsylvania


Rhode Island---------------------------------------------


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


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


Wisconsin------------------------------------------------


Resident Resident


of State of other Not


Tota1 where State, resident


decree same of region


granted region


Percent distribution


100.0 86.1 6.5 7.4
 —


100.0 88.9 6.6 4.5


100.0 81.7 8.6 9.7


100.0 88.3 6.4 5.3


100.0 77.4 12.9 9.7


100.0 88.7 4.6 6.7


100.0 84.8 9.7 5.5


100.0 90.0 1.7 8.3


100.0 85.8 5.5 8.7


100.0 84.9 8.6 6.6


100.0 88.0 5.5 6.5


100.0 71.8 15.5 12.6


100.0 89.3 5.7 5.0


100.0 75.4 9.4 15.2


100.0 76.7 10.2 13.1 

100.0 57.9 16.0 26.1 

100.0 77.7 7.8 14.5 

100.0 74.3 11.4 14.3 

100.0 76.6 7.5 15.9 

100.0 70.9 17.9 11.2 

100.0 79.3 3.1 17.5 

100.0 77.7 6.8 15.5 

100.0 71.0 15.7 13.3 

100.0 74.5 10.1 15.4 

100.0 68.7 15.6 15.7 

100.0 77.5 10.2 12.6 

40

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 23. Percent distribution of divorces and annulments, by place of marriage: divorce-regis­


tration area and each registration State, 1965


[Based on sample data] 

State


Divorce-registration area-----------------------------------


Alaba~-----------------------------------------------------------


Alas~------------------------------------------------------------


Georgia-----------------------------------------------------------


Hawaii


Idaho-------------------------------------------------------------
 Iowa--------------------------------------------------------------


tinsas 

Maryland


Michigan


Missouri


Montana


Nebraska


Ohio


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


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


Rhode Island------------------------------------------------------


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


Tennessee---------------------------------------------------------
 Utah--------------------------------------------------------------


Virginia


Wisconsin


Wyoting


Place of marriage


I I 

Other


Total Same State, Not in


State same region


region


Percent distribution


100.0 60.9 20.9 18.2 - — 

100.0 

100.0 

64.0 

47.9 

29.o 

26.7 z;<: 

100.0 69.4 22.8 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

63.2 

$;.; 

. 

14.1 

37.3 

29.6 

2;:; 

13.3 

10.6 

100.0 ;;.: 11.9 3;.; 

100.0 19.8 

100.0 69:5 14.2 16:3 

100.0 63.2 13.6 23.2 

100.0 58.9 27.5 13.6 

100.0 63.0 21.2 15.8 

100.0 59.4 12.0 28.6 

100.0 39.8 46.9 13.2 

100.0 65.4 28.7 

100.0 73.8 12:: 10.3 

100.0 57.4 23.8 18.8 

100.0 50.6 42.5 

100.0 46.7 44.2 

100.0 55.5 33.3 1;: ; 

100.0 62.1 26.1 11.9 

100.0 48.8 25.2 26.0 

I 1 41 

6.9 
------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 24. Percent distributionof divorces and annulments, by durationof marriage:divorce­


registrationarea and each registrationState, 1965


[Based on mmple data] 

Durationof marriage


State


-


Percentdistribution


Divorce-registration
area 100,0 5,3 9.3 8.6 

Alabama ----.---- 100.0 

Alaska 100.0 

Georgia 100.0 

HawaLi-----------------------*-------------------------------------
 10Q,o
 Idaho 100.0


Iowa -.------ 100.O


Kansas 100.0


Maryland 100.0


Michigan 100,0


Missouri .- .- .-- 100,0


Montana 100.0


Nebraska 100.0


Ohio 100.0


Oregon 100.0


Pennsylvania 100,,0


Rhode Island 100.0


South Dakota -.-------- 100.0 

Tennessee 100.O 

Utah ..------- 100.0 

Virginia 100.0 

Wisconsin 100.0 

Wyoming 100;0 

11.7


10.2 ‘H 

11,4 

10.8 H 

13.0 11.0


11.6 9.7


11.5 10.3


2.5 6.9


~::: 8.’2


11.2 1:::


9,5 10.9


8.3


l!:i 9.9


6..%


4.7 ;::


~;:; 9.7


13.2 $ ;
 5.9 8,1


7,.5


1[:$ 10,4


42

Table 24. Percefikdistributionof divorces and annulments, by ‘durationOf marriage:divorceregistxationarea and each registrationState, 1965--Con. 

[Based O. sample datsj 

Durationof nwrriage


5 6 7 8 9 10-14


years years years years years years


Percent distribution


-8.0 5.9 5.1 4*5 4.2 13.7 — — — 

5,2 13.4 :.; ;:: 14.1 

4.2 12.5 

6:6 5.5 11.2 

6.1 

6.4 ::: 1?:; 

6.3 4.2 11.5 

6.9 5.1 16.6 

4.9 :.: 13.6 

11.8 

U 6:8 12.8 

;.: 4.4 13.1 

H 4.9 M. 7 

8:7 :.; 12.6 

7,9 z:: 15.3 

6.4. 6:6 5*3 16.8 

7’.0 3,9 :;.: 6.4 

7.8 N 12:2 

5.9 4.8. 16,8 

6.5 4.8 15.8 

6,4 4.2 11.2 

15-19 20-24 25-29 30+


years years years years


il.2 6.5 “3.6 3*1
 — — — —


8.3 4.3 5.4 

8.2 ;:; 2,1 0.6 

9.3 ;.; 9.0 5:1 . ;:: 5.4 2.0 

1:;2 5*5 ;:; 2,5 

10.2 3.0 

13.0 ;:! 4.4 $; 

1.2,6 . 3.8 3.7 

2.8 

N ::: N 1.5 

11.8 5.6 2.4 

12.9 6,4 ::: 2.2 

.5.7 

1%2 ::$ H 

14.0 ;:2 4.3 2.9 

10.3 5.2 3,2 3.4 

9.2 5.4 3.8 3.4 

1::; ::; ;:; H 

12.0 8.0 2.7 

9.1 5*2 2:7 2.0 
--------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 25. Medians and auartiles of duration of marriage at decree: divorce-registration area and€

each registration St=te, 1965€

[Based cmsample€data]€

Duration of marriage€

State€

First Third€ Median€ quartile quartile€

Divorce-registration area€

Alabam€

Alaska€

Georgia--------------------------------------------------------------€

Hawaii€

Idaho----------------------------------------------------------------€

Iowa-----------------------------------------------------------------€

Kansas---------------------------------------------------------------€

Haryland-------------------------------------------------------------€

Michigan€

Missouri€

Montana€

Nebraska€

Ohio€

Oregon---------------------------------------------------------------€ Pennsylvania---------------------------------------------------------€

Rhode Island---------------------------------------------------------€

South Dakota---------------------------------------------------------€

Tennessee------------------------------------------------------------€

Utah-----------------------------------------------------------------€

Virginia€

Wisconsin€

Wyoting€

3.2 7.2 14.8€ — 

n 

2.5 6.6 14.9 

2.8 6.0 11.6 

6.1 13.5 

;:; 5.8 13.2 

2.1 5.1 12.2 

2.7 5.9 13.5 

5.9 13.6 

;.; 16.5 

3.5 15.9 

2.6 5:8 13.0 

2.5 5.8 12.3 

6.3 13.8 

7.8 15.0 

5.9 12.7 

16.7 

R 16.8 

6.3 13.9 

6.1 13.7 

5.2 11.4 

9.0 16.5 

4:,0 15.5 

2.3 %: 12.3 

\ 

44€
------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Table 26. Median durationof marriageat decree: each registrationState, 1954.65


[For 1960-65, based on simple data; for 1954-59, based m total counts] 

State 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 

Median duration in years


Alabama 6.6 6.9 7.5 7.1 7.3 7.: 7.6 7.L 17.1 6.7 6.2 6.3


Alaska 6.0 6.0 6.8 6.: 6.3 6.> 6.0


Georgia 6.1 6.4 .6.3 5.5 6.6 6’.- 6.1 5.5 16.1 16.0 15.6 16.7


Hawaii 5.8 6.7 7.2 7.0 6.3 6.3


Idaho 5.1 5.1 5.0 5.6 4.7 4.8 4.2 4.6 4.7 4.2 4.2 4.7


Iowa 5.9 ‘5.0 6.1 6.2 5.5 5.7 5.4 5.6 5.3 5.1 5.0 5.0


Kansas 5.9 6.3 6.5 5.9 6.5 5.8 6.3 6.2 6.1 5.7 5.7


Maryland 9.2 9.8 10.3 9.4 9.4 9.0


Michigan 7.9 ‘8.0 8.0 8.0 7.6 7.5 7.4 17.2 17.1


Missouri 5.8 6.1 6.9 6.1 6.6 16.1 15.9 15.9 15.9


Montana 5.8 5.6 5.9 5.9 5.2 5.1 5.1 5.4 5.2 5.i 4.8 5.1


Nebraska 6.3 6.5 6.7 6.1 6.5 6.3 6.0 5.9 6.1 26.0 5.6 5.5


Ohio 7.8 7.7 7.7 7.7 6.7 6.5 6.4 6.4


Oregon 5.9 6.6 5.8 6.5 6..4 5.9 6.0 5.9 5.7 5,6 5.1 5.1


Pennsylvania 8.9 8.6 8.7 9.6 8.6 9.2 9’.1


Rhode Island 9.1 9.0 9.0


South Dakota 6.3 6.9 6.3 6.6 6.3 6.i 6.2 5.9 5.9 5.1 5.7 5.7


Tennessee 6.1 6.6 6.6 6.4 6.1 6.3 6.1 15.7 5.5 5.6 5.6 5.5


Utah 5.2 5.1 5.1 5.5 5.2 4.7 5.4 5.4 5.0


Virginia 9.0 8.9 9.2 8.6 8.6 8.3 8.7 8.5 8.5 8.1 7.9 7.7


Wisconsin 8.2 8.3 8.1 7.2 8.4 8.2 7.4


Wyoming 5.5 5.1 5.3 5.3 G.8 5.4 5.1 5.4 5.0 15.4 4.7 15.1


lData are incomplete.


2Data include 16 decrees of separatemaintenance.


45

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

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

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

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

Table 27. Median and quartile duration of marriage at decree, by marriage order and color: five


selected States,l1963


[Based on sanple data] 

— 

I Nonwhite and interracial


comlea


All
 Marriage order and duration :ouples
 ‘sF=F=T=@ 

All marriages Duration of marriage in years 

Firat quartile---------------------------------- 2.9 2.8 4.3 4.6 3.6 

Median------------------------------------------ 7.1 6.8 9.0 9.5 7.6 

Third quartile---------------------------------- 14.0 14.1 15+ 15+ 13.9 

First marriage for both 

First quartile---------------------------------- 3.6 3.4 4.8 5,1 4.1 

Median------------------------------------------ 8.2 8.0 9.6 10.0 8.6 

Third quartile 15+ 15+ 15+ 15+ 14.8 

Remarriage for either or both 

Firat quartile 2.1 2.1 3.1 3.3 2.6 

Median 5.1 4.8 7.3 7.9 5.7 

Third quartile 11.4 11.0 13.2 13.7 10.7 

lHawaii, Iowa, Missouri, Tennessee, and Wisconsin.


26 116 nonwhite persons af both sexes were divorced in 1963 in the four States; 6,039 of them,


or 98:7 Dercent, were Negroes, while 77, or 1.3 percent, had white spouses.


31 64$ nonwhite perso~s of-both sexes were divorced in Hawaii in 1963; 22 of them, or 1.3 percent,’were Negroes, while 3387 or 20.5 percent, had white spouses. 

46

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

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

----------

-----------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---------

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

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

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

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

Table 28. llediandurationof marriage of alL divarced,couplesatidof couplesmarried in the State


wheze divorced;each registra~ion“State,~963


[Based onsample
 data]


Married and


State Efz!!!T State Jivorced divorcedirl


in State State


Median duration
 Median duration


Alabama


Alaska


‘ -“--_,---


~:~i:-----------------
 ------.--


Iowa


Kansas


Maryland


Michigan


Missouri


Wntana


in years


6.3 

;: 2 ‘3.6 

6.3 6.1 

7.2 ;:;


6.o


6.2


9.3


6.6 

::; 

Nebraska


Ohio


Oregon


Pennsylvania


Rhode IsIand


South Dakota---------;---


Tennessee


Utah----------,


Virginia


Viscoflsin


Wyoming


in years


6.7


H3


::;


6.3


6.6


5;1


9,2


;.;


4 

Table 29, Number and percent distributionof divorcesand annulments, by ntmber of childrenre.
 ported: divorce-registration
area, excludingPennsylvaniaand Rhode Island, 1964-65


[Based cmsample
 data]


Number of children
 JE._PNumber of divorces


7!otal,--
 ........- 143,740 147,174


None-----.---.----------s---.-­
-------”----.------------. 50,807


One---.---- -.--.,...,­
 .----- 30,872


Two---------------..--.----.---------...-...--&---------­
 24,025


Three 14,392


Four-..-.-....”--------- “--------------.-­
---.--”- 6,979


Five-------------.---.------.----.-.---.---&----------.-e
2,919


Six-----------------------------------.-----d----&------­
1,104


Severe 542


Eig’nt ....--”--’ -------.-
-.----.-” 193


Nine-,-------­
.------- 113


10 or more---------------.---.-----.----ti.-.-----.----+.- 67


Not stated 11,727


55,994


31,781


24,852


14,135


7,000


2,753


1,124


595


216


77


57


8,590


1964 1965 I 

Percent


distribution


100.0 100.0 

38.5 40.4


23.4 22,9


18.2 17.9


10.9 10.2


5.3 5.1


2.2 2.0


0.8 0.8


0.4 0.4


0.1 0.2


0.1 0.1


0.1 0.0


... ...


47

Table 30. Number ofchildren involved in divorces and annulments and rate per 1,000 children under


18 years of age: United States, 1953-65


[For 1960-65, based on sample data; for 1953-59, based on total counts. For method of estimating, see appendix] 

Year


l965-----------------------------------------------


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


l9631----------------------------------------------


l9621----------------------------------------------


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


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


l959-----------------------------------------------


l958-----------------------------------------------


l957-----------------------------------------------


l956-----------------------------------------------


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


l954-----------------------------------------------


l953-----------------------------------------------


lRevised.


All Estimated Mean Rate per 

divorces number of number of 1;000 

and children children children 

annulments involved per decree under 18 

479,000 630,000 1.32 8.9


450,000 613,000 1.36 8.7


428,000 562,000 1.31 8.2


413,000 532,000 1.29 7.9


414,000 516,000 1.25 7.8


393,000 463,000 1.18 7.2


395,000 468,000 1.18 7.5


368,000 398,000 1,08 6.5


381,000 379,000 0.99 6.4


382,000 361,000 0.95 6.3


377,000 347,000 0.92 6.3


379,000 341,000 0.90 6.4


390,000 330,000 0.85 6.4


48

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----------

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

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

Table 31. Numberof children involvedin divorces and annulments and rate per 1,000 children under


18 years of age: divorce-registration area and each registration State, 1964-65


[Based onsample data.Fcmmethods ofestimating,
 seeappendix]


State


Divorce-registration area


Alabati


Alaska'1------------------------------------------------


Georgia------------------------------------------------


Hawaii2------------------------------------------------


Idaho3-------------------------------------------------


Iowa-------.­
-----.--------------------,-----


Kansas4------------------------------------------------


Maryland


Michigan


Missouri


Montana


Nebrasb3----------------------------------------------


Ohio


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


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


Rhode Island-------------------------------------------


South Dakota


Tennessee5---------------------------------------------


Utah


Virginiac ~-----------------------------..-----


Wisconsin


Wyoting


‘Number of children under 21 affected.


2Number of children under 20.


3NWber of children affected by decree.


4Number of children.


5Nu&er Of children under 18 of this !Wrriage.


Number of Mean Rate per


children number of 1,000


childrefi children
 involved per decree under 18


1964 1965 1964 1965 1964 1965


219.200 212,700 1.36 1.29 8.3 8.0


15,100 13,000 1.36 1.19 11.2 9.7


1,200 1,600 1.24 1.43 10.9 13.9


13,500 13,900 1.19 1.15 8.0 8.2


3,100 1,500 1.84 1.35 11.1 5.3


3,600 3,700 1.25 1.30 13.1 13.6


7,800 7,700 1.52 1.46 7.7 7.7


8,500 8,200 1.46 1.41 10.5 10.1


8,600 8,800 1.26 1.24 6.6 6.7


26,900 26,900 1.39 1.33 8.5 8.4


14,900 15,400 1.17 1.16 9.5 9.9


2,900 2,800 1.46 1.40 10.5 10.3


3,600 3,700 1.42 1.46 6.7 6.9


34,300 34,500 1.37 1.32 9.1 9.1


9,400 8,200 1.45 1.32 13.9 12.1


23,500 20,500 1.46 1.24, 5.9 5.2


1,800 1,700 1.64 1.43 6.0 5.7


1,600 1,700 1.66 1.67 5.8 6.3


13,800 13,400 1.27 1.20 9.9 9.6


4,800 4,900 1.66 1.71 11.3 11.6


10,400 10,800 1.21 1.22 6.4 6.6


8,100 8,200 1.62 1.56 5.2 5.3


1,900 1,800 1.34 1.28 14.4 14.1


‘Item on form was changed on July 1, 1964, from “Number of minor children affected” to “Number


of children under 18, affected by decree.”


49


1 
------------------------ -------- --------

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

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

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

Table 32, Percent distribution of divorces and annulments, by legal grounds for decree: divorce. 

registration area, 196A-65 

[Sinm two or more gwmd, acecm.wionaily mentioned
 h thesamedivorce, the percentage “ofall grounds is over 100.0] 

Legal ground
 F 

Percent distribution


All decrees.“-------.!----------------------------..-?,---“...--,..-””
-.,- 100,0 100,0 

--e------------------------.“-------*--* 114,5 113.f5 

cruelty .--,----- ----”--- --..---” -R--

52,8 52.!3 

Neglect and nonsupport .........------------------.-..--”- 18,8 , 18,7 

Indignities----------“-------.-”-----------.-.”--”-------“e---”-------p---- 16,8 16.$” 

Desertion or abandonment---------.--------.-----y,.--.---”------.-------m.”- 16.4 ,13*B 

All grounds..--------..-.-,-----

Voluntary separation and absence 3.0 3.6


Adultery-----------------e-.--------.-------.-------.--+-----------q------- 1,6 1.4


Dwtienness-------------.----.-.---..-.----.-`------------------------------ 0,8 .0.3 

Bigamy and fraud---------..-.---,. -----.------.-------.------------.-----e--- 0.7 ,0,s

Incompatibility,---------- ----------.”---------”-” 0.6 0,7 

Conviction of crime-------------------------------------------------------- 0.5 0.5 

Other grounds----.---------“--.--.---------------“------------------------- 2.4 5.1 

50 
APPENDIX


SOURCES AND QUALITY OF DATA


Definitions 

The term “divorce,” as used in this report, denotes 

absolute &Norces and annulments of marriage. The 

numbers of annulments are small—they represent 

only 3 percent of the national total. Divorces are reported by the place where the decrees were granted. 

The plaintiff must be a resident of the State, and in 

some States he or she must also be a resident of the 

county where application is made for divorce, hence, 

data can be considered to be tabulated by “residence of 

the plaintiff. However, in some cases, divorce seekers 

become residents of a State with permissive divorce 

laws for the sole purpose of obtaining the decree, and 

leave that State after @e decree is granted 

Daw for the United States include Alaska beginning 

with 1959 and Hawaii beginning in 1960. Data for Puerto 

Rico, as well aa for the Virgin Islands and other American possessions, are not included in the national totals 

and are not discussed in this report. 

Rates shown in this report are computed per 1,000 

persons in the total population of an area or in a 

specified category of that population. The population 

was enumerated as of January 1 for 192.0 and as of 

April 1 for 1930, 1940, 1950, and 1960, Populations for 

all intercensal years were estimated by the Bureau of 

the Census as of July L A.U population figures exclude 

Armed Forces abroad, except for the years 1941-46. 

Populations of standard metropolitan statistical areas, 

used for computing 1960 rates shown irI tables 5 and 6, 

were rounded to the nearest 1,000. Rates for countries 

listed in table 3 were taken from the Demographic 

Yeavbwk of the United Nations. 

Sources of Data 

This report is based on frequencies published in 

Vital Statistics of the United States, 1964 and 1965, 

Volume III, Section 2. Data for earlier years are taken 

from the appropriate annual issues of the same publication and from unpublished tabulations for 1963,. A 

comparable analysis of divorce statistics was published 

for 1962 and 1963 in the Vitu2 and Health Statistics, 

Series 21, Numbers 7 and 13, and inthe Vital Statistics 

of the United Sfutes for 1961 and earlier years. 

Two methods for che collection of final divorce 

statistics have been used since 1960. The total counts 

of divorces and annulments granted during a year are 

received from officials of the 50 States. the District of 

Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Data for 

some counties of Kentucky aqd New Mexico and some 

parishes of Louisiana were received.from local officials. 

In States that do not maintain statewide central files of 

divorce records, State officials conduct special surveys to obtain county totals. Altogether, annual divorce 

and annulment totals are obtained for more than 3,000 

counties or equivalent areas, No totals were reported 

for 23 counties in 1964 and 29 counties in 1965, 

The natiorial annual divorce totals are obtained 

from the reported State figures and estimates for nonreporting areas, which included in 1964 and 1965 

several parishes of Louisiana. These estimates are 

prepared on the assumption that the divorce rate for 

nonreporting areas of a State is the same as that for 

reporting areas. Totals and rates for regions, divisions, States, and standard metropolitan statistical 

areas (tables 4, 5, and 6) are also based on State reports. Totals for some States may differ slightly from 

Those shown in table 7 and subsequent tables, because 

the latter totals were estimated from probability samples, 

The detailed statistics are estimated by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) from samples 

of transcripts of divorce or annulment records received from 22 States and the Virgin Islands which belong to the divorce-registration area (fig. I). Information for the Virgin Islands is not included in the present 

report, but is presented in vitul Stutisiics of the 

United States, Volume HI. 

The divorce-registration area (DRA) was established in 1958 to promote the collection of uniform, 

regular, and complete statistics, following the pattern 

of mortality, natality, and marriage-registration areas. 

States and independent registration areas were admitted 

to the DRA when they met the following four criteria: 

1.	 Central statewide files of divorce and annulment 

records are maintained. 

2.	 A statistical report form which includes the required items of reformation is use~ 

51 
v~ 

HAwAII 

- Porti


- Mdnt.inlng ce.trol Mes,b”t not in the DRA RICO


Figure 1. Divorce-registrationarea and other States maintaining central fi1w, of divorce and annuIment records: 1965.


52

3.	 The reporting from local areas to the State office and business or industry, though included in the Standis regular, timely, and complete; ard Record, are not obligatory, and several other ex4. The State office agrees to test the completeness ceptions have been made in individual States, as disand accuracy of registration, in cooperation with cussed in the following section. 

NCHS. 

The item$ of information that must be included on Completeness of Data 

the divorce form of a State that participates in the Completeness of reporting is one of the most 

DRA are listed in the Standard Record of Divorce or important factors which produce nonsampling errors 

Annulment (fig. II). Items on place of birth, occupation, in divorce statistics. Table I shows for tlge DRA and 

rw Wmavm 

(stat.) DEPARTMENT OF ‘PUBLIC HEALTH non alxlEAum. *8-R547 

slam! rl M no. ,. OF VITAL STATISTICS 

fDdwd~~-) ~cOL!ulY STANDARD REC6RD OF LCCAL F lLE MO. I fl OIVOilCE on n ANNLLMENT 

HUSSSSD 

1.	 llA~ � . (First) b. (# AddI.> c (U. t) 2. DATE (month) <8.,> (r..,> 

OF 

mlnnl 

‘. 

s. USUAL RES IDUICE . . [ci trj b. [c--r> e. {S*. *.) 4. � LACE fSt. t* . . fOr. id., c0u8trr>— 

OF 

� llrll 

,. Illnncn or ,. *ACE 0“ COLOR 70- USUAL OCCUPAT80M 7b. *IUD OF WS!MESS OR Iolousrnv 

THIS WRIAGE 

: w lTC WWRO OTHER 

z 

. 

. � •1 c1 (..cif,)_

: 

: 

< 

: 

: 

< 

2 WIFE 

� . INIDCM � AME � . (FI, s,t J b. (Illddl.} c . (L.. t) � . OATS (MC+ th) (D.Y) (l%.,) 

. OF 

, ml m+ 

z ‘< 

10. USUAL RESIDENCE . . (CA C,) b. (--IV> c . (St. teJ 18. PLACE {$t. t. or f.r. ien c... tryJ— 

: or 

: mlnm 

2 

< ,* . MUM* OF t S. cOLC4 OR MACE }4.. USUAL OCCUPATIW ,’b. 1(, !ID OF ,us IMESS OR ,MOUSTW 

i ‘“ ‘*’”= MI17C MEG*O OrHEn 

: 

: 

=.. ., :. 

Cl 0 � (a/-cirY)_ . . 

E 

. . : 

. IS. � LAcE OF ,. (COU. tVJ b. (St@, o, f.r.dam cc..ntr,> 16. DATE OF (M.wthJ (D=?’) (Tear) s THIS UARRIACE 

~. *, Aa 

: 

: 17. -OCR OF !s. �LA IMTIFF IS. DECREE GRANTED TO 20. LECAL GROWDS FOR DCCREE 

: - t~oncrn 

HUSMUD WIFE WSOAND WIFZ : ~o~~ t~ � 0 00” —.— .—. 

.* DATC OF {Mnath> <D*Y} (I%*,) 

? I Iwaby certify thatthaabove @mth) (D.Y> < ?..,) RCCO~l NC 

. pr8rn8 were divomad m: . —.. — 

$ Sl=~TURE OF COURT OFFICIAL TITI. E CF CCUW OFF <. *L 

s 

& 

: , ., 

,. -1 

Figure 11. Standard Record of Divorce or Annulment. 

53

----

----

----

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

----

----

----

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

----

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

----

----

----

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

----

---

Table I. Completeness of reporting of statistical variables,expressed in percents: divorce-’regis­


tration area and registration States, 1964-65


All Age at di- ge at decree marriage I&m e 

7orces

State and year and 

mnul ­


flents usband life :usband Iusband


Divorce-registration srea----~~~~---­
 --._-


Alabama----------------------------l964----


1965----


Alaska-----------------------------l964----


1965----


Georgia------------------------------------


Hawaii-----------------------------~~~&----


Idaho------------------------------~~~~---”-


Iowa - . - .	 1964----

1965----

Kansas---------------------------.-:;;;----


Maryland .--------------------------1964----


1965----


Michigan---------------------------~~~$----


Missouri ---------------------------;;:;----


Montana----------------------------1964----


1965----


Nebraska


Ohio-------------------------------~~~j----


Oregon


Pennsylvania-----------------------l964----


1965----


Rhode Island-----------------------~$&----


South Dakota-----------------------l964----


1965----


Tennessee--------------------------~~~j----


Utah-------------------------------l964----


1965----


Virginia---------------------------~%~----


Wisconsin


Wyoming----------------------------~~~~---”


100.0 58,3 58.5 58,1 58,0 58,1 58,1 

100.0 62.1 52.1 61.7 51.7 58,7 58,7 

100.0 3.0 2.8 3,0 2.8 37,4 37.0 

100.0 2.8 2.8 2,8 2,7 34,9 34,9 

100.0 34,0 34.1 33,9 33.0 53.7 53.8 

100.0 37.8 37,.7 37.7 37.5 54,8 54”,7 

100,0 

100,0 :;.; $1,9 

. 57.8 

42.2 $0.7 

56,9 56.4 

54.8 

66,8 

54,6 

66,8 

100,0 

100.0 

;3.; 97.2 

. 95,4 

97.0 97,0 

96.4 95,3 

9969 

100,0 

99,9 

99,9 

100,0 

100.0 

74.2 74.2 

74.3 74.3 

73,4 73,1 

73.4. 73,1 

81,0 

80.6 

84,5 

85.5 

100.0 

100,0 

99,6 99.7 

99,8 99,8 

99.4 99.4 

9986 99,3 

99,6 

99*7 

’99,3 

99,8 

100.0 

100.0 

92,7 92,4 

91,5 91,2 

92,5 92,1 

91,3 90.7 

;;.: 93.9 

92,2 

100.0 45.7 46.5 45.2 45.8 ~;;: $;.: 

100,0 48.0 47.7 47.8 47,4 * 

100,0 

100.0 1;:; 1;:? 1::: 1$:; 1:;; J:; 

100.0 

100,0 

96.5 97*4 

96,5 96.f 

96,3 96,4 

96,1 95,7 

99,0 

98,6 

99,1 

98,6 

100.() 

100.0 

97.3 97.4 

97,8 97,C 

;;,: 97,0 

. 97,3 

99.8 

100.0 

99,7 

99,9 

100,0 

100,0 

89,6 89,5 

90,7 91,( 

89,6 89,7 

90.5 90,6 

90,4 

92,h 

90,4 

92,4 

100,0 

100,0 

37.0 37,( 

38.8 38.~ 

36.8 36.7 

38.6 38,3 -.. -.” 

-.P 

100.0 

100.0 

75,9 76.; 

83.4 83,; 

75,4 75,8 

82,1 81,6 

76,0 

74,6 

76.2 

74,3 

100,0 

100.0 

85.2 85,[ 

84,7 85,( 

85,1 :3;g

84,4 

80,5 

81,5 

80,4 

81,3 

100,0 

100,0 

89,3 89,: 

82.7 82,! 

87,9 87,5 

82,5 82,7 

97,4 

99,1 

96,5 

97,4 

100,0 

100,0 

8,0 8,L 

9,1 8.[ 

8,C ;,$ 

9,1 

29,3 

34,9 

‘28,9 

34,9 

100.0 

100,0 

98,C 97,; 

97.5 97.: 

97.6 ;3.; 

96.6 

99,7 

99,6 

99,6 

99.5 

100.0 

100.O 

62,6 63.( 62,2 63.; 61.4 62:0 60,$ 61.6 

65.2 

65,4 

6“4.7

64.9 

100,0

100,0 

82.6 83,[ 

97.4 97.t 

82.2 82,4

97,1 96.7 

99,9 

99.2 ;;.~ # 

100,0 

100.0 

99.E- 99,: 

99s2 99.! 

99.4 99,0 98,5 90,1 

99,C 

99,4 

99”1 

99,0 

100,0 7.4 7,1 7.4 7,3 26,t 26.6


100,0 7.2 7,( 7,2 7,5 25,f 25,3
I 

‘Percentages computed on the basis of cases where either the husband or wife was defe.ndfint;


caaes where defendant was not stated are omitted.


2Number of this marriage was included on the record form as of July 1, 1964, but not Eabulated


for that year.


54

---

---

--- ---

---

---

---

� 

Table I. Completenessof reportingof statisticalvariables,
expressedin percents:divorce-regis­


trationarea and registrationStates, 1964-65—Con.


Number Residence


of this of TO whom
 marriage defendant Place Duration Number 

of Legal decree
 of of ~rounds Plaintiff 

marriage was
 marriage children granted
 Husband Wife Husband Wife


54,7 

61,5 

54,: 

61,7 

81,5 

81,5 

80,: 

81.; 

90,7 

92,C 

96,1 

97.4 

90,3 

94*3 

95,8 

97.0 

97.1 

98.4 

’94.2 

95,1 

4.5 

4,2 

4;! 

4,1 

82,2 

86.1 

72.i 81.; 59.4 

66.2 

98.6 

99.3 

78,5 

84.7 

99,4 

99.5 

99.5 

99.7 

99,5 

99.6 

53,2 

54,3 

53.: 

54,2 

56.4 

57.4 

48.5 

53.; 

99,0 

98,7 

99,9 

99.5 

99,7 

99,3 

100,0 

100,0 

99,8 

99,8 

100.0 

99.8 

42,8 

58,2 

43.1 

58.5 

60,4 

68,4 

57*L 

fj/3,L 53,5 

60,5 

80.3 

82.9 

78.1 

82,6 

80.3 

83.9 

96.5 

95.3 

93.4 

86.9 

99,7 

99,5 

99,7 

99,5 

98.3 

96,8 

97,[

98.C 

100,0 

100.0 

99.9 

“ 99,7 

99,3 

97,8 

100.0 

100,0 

99,6 

99,8 

99,9 

99,5 

73.6 

74.1 

73.8 

74.5 

80,9 

82,1 

83,1 

85.2 

95,9 

95.6 

95,8 

95,9 

98.1 

98.5 

95,9 

95.6 

98,5 

98,8 

98,3 

98,7 

99,6 

99,7 

99,6 

99,6 

96,2 

92.1 

94,c 90,7 

98,5 

96.3 

99,6 

99*5 

96.0 

99.5 

99,8 

99,8 

99.6 

99.6 

99,8 

99.7 

91,7 

90.7 

91,1 

90,4 

99,9 

99,7 

99,7 

99.5 

99,2 

99.7 

100,0 

100,0 

99,8 

99,6 

99,8 

99.9 

47,0 

48,2 

46,8 

48,0 

95,9 

92.5 

96,9 

93.7 

99.6 

98,0 

99.1. 

99,2 

71,9 

72.4 

99.1 

98,2 

99.4 

99,5 

98.0 

98.2 

16.6 

21.6 

17,1 

22,3 

50.5 

54.8 

49,1 

51.C 

89,6 

98,3 

89.9 

99,7 

87.9 

96,3 

88.9 

98.6 

87.0 

99.0 

89.7 

99.3 

98.4 

98.1 

98.4 

98,1 

95,4 

94,4 

93.5 

94.4 

98.7 

95,7 ~ 99.3 

99.2 

98.8 

99,0 

99,1 

99.2 

98,9 

98.6 

99.1 

99,2 

98.8 

98.9 

98,4 

98,9 

97,2 

95,9 

96.7 

96.o 

99,9 

99,3 

99,5 

99,8 

99,6 

99,2 

99,1 

100,0 

99,6 

99,7 

99,1 

99,1 .-. 

--. .-” 93.8 

81,3 

92.6 

83.6 

99.7 

94,0 

;;,; � 

99,8 

99.7 

100.0 

99,8 

100.0 

100.0 

43,6 

44,1 

43.9 

44,6 

93.8 

92.7 

93.0 

94.0 

94,8 

94.9 

99,5 

99.5 

99.6 

99.7 

100,0 

99,5 

100,0 

99.8 

99,4 

99,8 

71,5 

71,9 

71,7 

71..6 

81,5 

83,2 

85,1 

81.1 

99,0 

98,6 

99,0 

98.0 

93,8 

92.2 

96,8 

94,8 

99,0 

97.7 

83.6 

80,2 

78.9 

78,0 

79,2 

78,2 ;;.; , 97,6 

97.7 

99,3 

99,0 

99.4 

99,0 

77.6 

95.5 

97,8 

97.4 

98.7 

98.9 

96,9 

97.4 

90,6 

92,3 

90,5 

91,4 

94,2 

94,8 

91,2 

92.5 

91.7 

96,0 

97.9 

99,2 

82.1 

97.6 

“99.9 

100,0 

98.4 

98.2 

97.6 

97,6 

12,2 

14,8 

12.7 

15.4 

96,0 

72.4 

98.2 

76.2 

96,4 

95,5 

98,2 

98,3 

99,8 

99.4 

99,1 

99.3 

98.5 

99,2 

99.6 

97,5 

98,0 

97.6 

97,5 

97,4 

94,0 

92.9 

89.7 

89.2 

99.0 

98.4 

98,5 

98,2 

98,7 

99.0 

99,4 

99,5 

99,3 

99,3 

99.6 

99.6 

63,0 

63,0 

63.5 

63,2 

93,2 

88,9 

94.8 

88.3 

65.2 

63,7 

65.2 

65,9 

60.4 

63.3 

57,9 

60,0 

63,2 

65.3 

43,6 

47,0

(2) (2) 86;3 87,2 99*9 98.8 98,0 99.8 99,8 97.8
 98,2 98,6 90.5 93.1 98.9 99.0 99.7 99.2 99,9 99,3


97.2 ;3.: 93.8 95.0 99,9 99.8 97.4 97.8 ;3.; 100.0


97.1 92.5 93.1 98,5 99,6 99,3 98.4 , 99,6


8,2 8;3 47,1 49.9 98,6 99,9 98.7 99,9 99.8 99,7
 8.6 8,8 44*O 48.2 97,5 99,7 98.7 99.8 99.8 99,2


55

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

for the divorce-registration States the percentages of cent;for race or color from zero to 89 percenq for


cases with various characteristics given. The lack of marriage order from O.3 to 96 percent; for duration


100-percent completeness is due to sample records of marriage from O.2 to 34 percent; and for number


which were incomplete y filled out, to items not appear- of children from O.3 to 37 percent.


ing on State record forms, or to failure of the States The completeness of reporting detailed divorce


to send to NCHS alloftheir divorce records. For the statistics has increased slightly every year. Mean per-


DRA, the sample records not received represent 1.8 centages of completeness were computed for the DRA


percent of all divorces in 1964 and 0.6 percent in 1965. and each State (table II) from data on 10 variables: age


ln all detailed divorce tables the number of not stated at decree, race, and number of this marriage of the


cases was increased in order to bring the totals up to husband, residence of the defendant husband, place and


figures representing complete samples. duration of marriage, number of children, legal grounds,


The required items of information appear on the plaintiff, and the party to whom the decree was granted. 

divorce forms of all DRA States with the following ex- In 1963, mean percentages of six States were below 70 

ceptions: Kansas does not collect the information on the and five States were over 95; in: 1964 these figures 

residence of husband and wife; Ohio on their race; were five and six and in 1965 four and eight States, 

Nebraska on the number of this marriage and on the respectively. 

party to whom the decree was granted; while Virginia 

did not collect the information on the number of mar- Sample Design 

riages until July 1, 1964, but has collected it since. 

The principal source of incompleteness in the 1964 The probability sample from which detailed diand 1965 divorce statistiw arises from failure to se- vorce statistics were estimated was limited to the 22 

cure items of personal and demographic data in the States included in the DRA. The sample was drawn 

States where these items are on the record forms. The from the records of decrees of absolute divorce and 

proportion of records on which statistical variables of annulments granted during the year in 21 registraare not stated varies among the reporting States. For tion States, and decrees that became final during the 

age at decree it ranges from less than 1 to 97 per- year in Utah. ln States where interlocutory divorce’ 

Table II. Average completeness of reporting divorce data: divorce-registration area and registration States, 1963-65 

[Figures were obtained by averaging percentages of completeness for the following 10 items: age at decree, race, and number of this marriage or 

Lhe husband; resident status of the defendanti place and duration of marriage; number of children, legal grounds, plaintiff, and parly to’whom . decree was grantedJ 

State Zz!EIE State 1965 1964 1963 

Percent complete Percent complete 

DRA-------------------- 83.8 81.7 82.0 . _ Montana 99,0 99.,0 9.2,0 Nebraska2--------------------- 75.7 77.3 69.1 

Alabama 67,7 66.2 63.4 Ohio’z ------------------------- 76.9 76.8 75.8 

Alaska ;3.; 79,6 77*3 Oregon 87.5 87.6 87i9 

Georgia ---------------------- 68,3 66.3 Pennsylvania 92,9 91,2 89.8 

Hawaii 99:0 99.4 99.2 Rhode Island 95.8 93.9 94*4 

Idaho 89.4 89.2 89.5 South Dakota 72.0 73.7 72.8 

Iowa 98.6 98.8 98,6 Tennessee 98.2 98,4 97.9 

Kansasl 87.3 87.7 82,1 Utah 64.5 64.0 68,6 

Maryland----------------”----- 80.5 80.5 82,4 Virginia~--------------------- 98.2 86*3 84.9 

Michigan 69.5 61.4 65.9 Wisconsin 98.3 98.4 98.0 

Missouri 97,9 98.3 97.9 Wyoming ----------------------- 6800 68.6 67.5 

lunsas does not report residence; ~he.average completeness of the reported items ‘as 91*2 percent in 1963, 97,4 percent in 1964, and 97,0 percent in 1965. 

‘Nebraska does not report the number of this marriage and the party to whom the decree was


granted; the average completeness of’the repotiteditems was 86,4 percent in 1963, 96,6 percent in


1964 and 94.7 percent in 1965.


Zohio does not report race; the averagecompleteness of the reported items was 84*2 Percent ‘n


1963, 85,3 percent in 1964, and 85.4 percent in 1965.


4Vir-inia did not rePOrt the numberofthis marriage for 1963 and 1964;the average cornPleteness 

:; t.~.5reporteditems was 93.6 percent in 1963 and 95.9 percent in 1964. All items were reported 

56

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

decreesaregranted,
 decreesgrantedduringthelatter


partof 1963became fi,nal
 in 1964,anddecreeswhich


had beengrantedlatein 1964becamefinal
in1965.It


ispossible thatsome interlocutory
 decreesneverbe­


came finalbecauseofdeathor reconciliation,
 butitis


believed
thatthenumber ofsuchcasesisverysmall.


Inmost casessuchdecreesautomatically
 becomefinal


afterthelapseofa certain
periodoftime.


Information aboutthestructure
ofthesamplesis


shownintableIII. The divorcesamplewas designed
to


yield estimatesofdivorces classified
 byvariouschar­


acteristics
 fortheDRA andforeachStateinthereg­


istration area.Four different
 samplingrateswere


designated
for theStatesin thedivorce-registration


area—allrecords,one outoftwo,oneoutoffive,
and


one outof 10.WhileeachState’s
 recordswere sam­


pledindeperidently,
 thatis,witha randomlyselected


number designating thefirstrecordto be selected
 in


each State,in computingthesamplingerrors,each


Table III. Divorce samplingrateand sample s~~:~d~ce-regis trationareaand registrationStates,


1964 1965


Number


of


Area, stratum,and State ?ripsry Sampling ~mber Estimated lmber Zstimated
 sampling rate of of


units ample number of Imple mmber of 

deckees decrees
 ?cQrds !corda


Divorce-registration
area-- 22 . . .	 38>797 160,987 ~9.273 164.942 — 

Stratum 1 

Total 6 111 records 8,112 8,112 7,849’ 7.849 

Alaska 1 !11 records 966 966 1,118 1,118 

Hawaii 1 111 records 1,688 1,688 1,110 1,110 

Montana 1 \ll records 1,982 1,982 2,003 2,003‘ 

Rhode Island 1 !11 records 1,097 1,097 1>188 1,188 

South Dakota 1 !11 records 965 965 1,021 1,021 

Wyoming 1 411 records 1,414 1,414 1,409 1,409 

Stratum 2 

Total 6 L2,130 24.260 .2,309 24,618 

Idaho .--------------- 1 1,441 2,882 1,425 2,850 

Iowa 1 2,563 5,126 2,641 5,282 

Kansas 2,908 5,816 :,;:: 5,826 

‘Nebraska i 1,265 2>530 2,536 

Utah 1 1,447 2>894 1:436 2,872 

Wisconsin 1 2,506 5,012 2,626 5,252 

Stratum3


Total 6 1/5 L1,387 56,935 .1,735 58,675 

Georgia 1 1/5 2,269 11,345 2,410 12.050 

Maryland 

Missouri 

1 1/5 

1/5 

1,369 

2,557 

6,845 

12,785 

1,424 

2,647 

7;120 

13,235 

Oregon------,---

Temessee 

i 

1 

1/5 

1/5 

1,299 

2,178 

6,495 

10,890 

1,243 

2,235 

6,215 

11,175 

Virginia - 1 1/5 1,715 8,575 1,776 8,880 

Stratum4 

Total 4 1/10 7,168 71,680 7,380 73,800 

Alabama 1 u 10 1,107 11,070 1,094 10,940 

Mi&igan 1 1/10 1,940 19,400 2,023 20,230 - 1 1/10 2,506 25,060 2,605 26,050 

Pennsylvania 1 l/lo 1,615 16,150 1,658 16,580 

57 
------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

group of States with a uniform sampling rate was 

treated as a stratum. 

The sampling rates are computed in order to se­

‘~ure samples of at least 1,000 records from each registration State, All divorce records were included in 

the sample in those States with an annual divorce total 

of less than 2,000 decrees. 

Estimates From Probability Sample 

Before data were tabulated and statistics estimated, 

efforts were made to reconcile the totals estimated 

from samples received with the pretabulated count’s for 

each reporting area if the difference was 1.5 percent 

or more of the annual area total. 

Each sample case was assigned a weight that was 

the reciprocal of the probability with which the case 

was selected. Thus if a divorce record was selected 

from a State with a probability of one in 10, each item 

on that record carried a weight of 10, whereas if 100 

percent of the records were processed from a State, 

each item on each record carried a weight of one. The 

sampling rates, indicating the probability with which 

Table IV. Sampling error of estimated percentages: 

divorce records of every State were selected, are 

shown in table III. Frequencies were estimated by summing the inflated number of cases. Thus each frequency 

distribution is a sum of the weighted sample cases 

included. 

It should be noted that weights for divorce sample 

records for the DRA vary from one to 10. Variation 

between two or more equal figures in the relatiVe 

proportions of cases with various weights results in 

each such figure having its distinctive sampling error, 

as discussed below. 

Percentages were computed using data which excluded estimated numbers of not stated cases. Among 

the median ages of divorced wives at marriage, some 

fell into the lower interval of under 20 years of age; 

it waa assumed that the lower limit of this age group 

was 14, 

Sampling Errars of Estimates 

Estimates computed from the samples (except 

statistics of States where the’ sample includes all records) are subject to sampling error, Since all cases in 

divorce-registration area and each registration 

State, 1964-65 

[Sampling errors for the entire divorce-wgistration area vary with proportions of oases from each stratum included in an estimate; for the sampling 

errors in this table it is assumed that these contributions are proportionate to stratum totals. Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, Zkode Island, South 

Dakota, and Wyominghave no sampling variability because all repnrts are tabulated] 

State 

DRA----------------------

Alabama


Alaska


Georgia


Hawaii


Idaho -“-------


Iowa --.-.-.”. . . . . . . . . . ---------


Kansas


Maryland


Michigan


Missouri


Nfontana ------------------------
 Nebraska


Ohio ---------------------------
 Oregon


Pennsylvania


Rhode island


south Dakota


Tennessee


Utah --.----..-


Virginia


Wisconsin


Wyoming------------------------


Sampling error of percentage 

-----------------------Tots 1 

1 or 99 10 or 90 25 OX 75 50 

1964 1965 1964 1965 1964 196$ 1964 1964 1965 

- -

160,987 164>942 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 O*3 _ - -

11,070 10,940 0.4 0.3 0.9 0.9 1,2 1.2 1.4 1.4 

966 1,118 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � . . . . . 1~,::: 12,050 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.5 008 0.8 0.9 0.9 

1,110 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2:882 2,850 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.9 

5,126 5,282 0.1 0.1 M 0.4 0.6 “;:? 0,7 

5,816 5,826 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.4 $; 0.6 0.7 0.7 

6,845 7,120 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.7 1.2 1,2. 

19,400 20,230 0.2 0.2 0.6 ;:$ M 

12,785 13,235 0.2 0.2 0.5 ;:: 0.8 0.8 ::; M 

L,982 2,003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,. . . . 2,530 2,536 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.9 

25,060 26,050 0.2 M 0.6” 0.6 0.8 0.8 u ::; 

6,495 6,215 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.1 1.3 

16,150 16,580 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.7 1.0 1.0 ::$ 1.2 

1,097 1,188 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,. � � � 

965 1,021 . . . . . . .0. ,.. . . . . . . . . . � � � 

10,890 11,175 0.2 0.2 0,6 0.6 0,8 0.8 0.9 

2,894 2,872 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.8 ::; 0.9 

8,575 8,880 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.6 %; 0.9 

5,012 ;, :;; 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 M H 

1,414 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,, ..* 

58 
these samples were selected “withknown probabilities, 

the sampling error can be computed for each estimate. 

The sampling errors for estimated percentages shown 

in table IV were computed by dividing the sampling 

error for the estimated frequency by the estimate of 

all divorces granted in the area. These sampling errors 

are the amotmts which, when added to and subtracted 

from the estimated percents, give the intervals which 

contain the actual quantities being estimated in api?roximately 68 out of 100 similarly selected samples. 

AS an example of the procedures described above, 

suppose that couples reporting three children in Kansas 

represented 12 percent of the State’s total. The error 

shown in table IV for this percentage is about 0.4. By 

adding and subtracting 0.4 from 12, one obtains the 

interval 11.6 to 12.4; the chances are about 68 out of 

100 that the actual percent of couples with three children is in this interval. 

To determine whether a difference between two 

proportions is due to sampling variability or is a true 

,difference, divide that difference by the square root of 

the sum of the squares of their standard errors. If the 

quotient of this division is greater than 2, then the 

probability that the difference is due to sampiing error 

is less than one in 20. For example, the proportions of 

divorces granted less than 1 year after marriage were 

10.5 percent in Idaho and 4’.1percent in Michigan, and 

the standard errors of these proportions were 0.6 and 

0.4 percent respectively. Division of the difference by 

the square root of the sum of the squares of the standard 

errors results in the following equation: 

(.1- .04) 

=8.3 

/ (.006)2 + (,004)2 

This value is more than 2, and therefore it is very 

unlikely that such a difference could be attributed to 

sampling error alone. Hence the observed difference 

has a high probability of being a true difference. 

Divorces by Age 

National divorce data by age of husband and wife 

at the time of decree could not be estimated before 

1965, because of the incomplete reporting of age by 

most States. By 1965, the reporting had improved, and 

information about age was available for 94 percent of 

the husbands and wives divorced in a group of 10 States 

combined: Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, 

Nebraska, Pennsylvania. Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin, The national estimate was prepared on the 

assumption that the distribution by age of all husbands 

and wives divorced in the United States was the same 

as in these 10 States. Therefore, estimates were obtained by multiplying the national divorce total (479,000) 

by the percentage distribution of the 10 States. From 

these estimates, age-specific divorce rates were prepared. The estimated figures and rates are shown in 

table 8. 

Children Involved in Divorce 

The recommended definition csfthe number of children to be reported on divorce records is “children 

under 18 years of age, t‘ including children born to or 

adopted by the couple and children of previous marriages living with the couple before separation. Fifteen 

States follow this definition, but in seven States slightly 

different definitions are used “number of children 

under 21 affected” in Alaska; “number of children under 

age 20” in Hawaii; “number of children affected by 

decree” in Idaho and Nebraska; “number of children” 

in Kansas; “number of children under 18 of this marriage” in Tennessee; “number of children under 18 

affected by decree” in Virginia, since July 1, 1964, and 

“number of minor children affected” prior to that date. 

The rules for coding the number of children were 

revised in 1965. For 1964 and earlier years the item 

“number of children under 18” or similar items described in the preceding paragraph were coded. If a 

State divorce record had two or more iteme relating 

to children, the coders were directed to ignore other 

items. On the forms of Iowa, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, 

and Rhode I’sland the coded item is preceded by the 

question “total number of children of this marriage, ” 

The reporting of children; as coded, has been unsatisfactory in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island (77.6 and 82.1 

percent complete in 1964). The analysis of the data~ 

pointed to the likelihood that in these two States, when 

the first question was answered “none,” the codable 

question was often left blank. Hence, the coders of the 

1965 divorce data were instructed: “If on a State di. 

vorce form there is more than one question relating to 

children, and the preferred item which is usually coded 

contains no information, code the number of children 

given in the other item, e.g., ‘number of children of 

this marriage’ .“ Due to this new coding I ule, tie 

completeness of reporting of the number of children 

increased to 95.5 percent in Pennsylvania and to 97.6 

percent in Rhode Island. It turned out that, as anticipated, a high proportion of this increase was comprised 

of couples with no children-the proportion of these 

increased in Pennsylvania from 26.6 percent in 1964 

to 39.0 percent in 1965 and in Rhode Island from 24.5 

to 33.0 percent. 

Estimating Procedures for Number of Children 

The total numbers of children involved in divorce 

cases are estimated from data on divorces by number 

of children reported. For individual reporting States 

the estimating method is straightforward. me number 

of divorces with children not stated is distributed pro­

. 59 
~ortionally, and then the number of decrees with no 

children reported is multiplied by zero, the number 

reporting one child by 1, the number reporting two 

children by 2, and so on. The sum of the products is 

the total number of children involved in divorce cases. 

There is not much estimation involved in this procedure, except for the assumption that divorces with 

number of children not stated are drawn randomly from 

the population of divorces and, therefore, can be distributed proportionally. As shown in the preceding discussion, such an assumption was incorrect in the case 

of Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. 

The number of children involved for groups of 

States, including ‘the DRA, are sums of the totals for 

the respective States’, but the estimation of the national 

figures is much: ”mofe involved, and several methods 

have been used. For the years before 1960, the nationaS 

annual divorce total was multiplied by the average 

number of children per decree for the total of all States 

reporting for a given year. For 1960 the number of 

children was estimated from a nationwide probability 

sample of divorce transcripts. For the’ years 1961-

64, the national estimates were originally obtained by 

multiplying by 5.40039 the combined estimates for 14 

States—Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, I<ansas, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, 

Tennessee, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. The 

factor 5.40039 is the ratio of the 1960 national estimate 

of children prepared from the nationwide sample to the 

comparable figure for the 14 States combined. 

This method had to be abandoned for 1965 because 

Pennsylvania was one of the States included in the estimating procedures and the estimate of the number of 

children declined by 3,054 in that State due to the new 

coding rule:. As the factor was 5.40039, the national 

estimate declined by 16,493 simply because coding 

rules were changed in one of the 1.4 States used for 

estimation. The following. method was selected to estimate the number of children for 1965. The average 

number of children per decree for the total of 16 registration States that had a satisfactory reporting of 

children was computed and the national divorce total 

was multiplied by that average. Six DRA States (Alabama, Georgia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, 

and Utah) were excluded from the computation because 

they had unsatisfactory statistics on the number of 

children for all or most of the years in the recent past. 

Total numbers of children for 1961-64 were reestimated according to the new method, hence, figures for 

all years after 1960 are comparable, being estimated 

by the same method. 

National totals published in this report for the 

years 1961-64 differ from those published in earlier 

publications; the 1961 total was increased from 501,000 

to 516,000; the 1962 total was reduced from 537,000 to 

532,000; the 1963 total, from 583,000 to 562,000; and 

the 1964 total, from 634,000 to 613,000. Mean numbers 

and rates were revised accordingly. The estimated 

number of children for the total period, 1961-64, changed 

very little, from 2,255,000 to 2,223,000, or 1.4 percent. 

* U, S. GOVERNMENT PR, NTINO OFFICE - ,s., - 3.s.,.?s ,, 0, e 

60 
OUTLINE OF REPORT SERIES FOR VITAL AND HEALTH Statistics 

Public Health Service Publication No. 1000 

Series 1.	 ProgYams and collection pYoceduYes.— 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 ~nderstanding the data. 

Sew”es 2.	 Data evaluation and methods veseaych. —Studies of new statistical methodology including: experimental tests of new survey methods, studies of vital statistics collection methods, new analytical 

techniques,, objective evaluations of reliability of collected data, contributions to statistical theory. 

‘eyies 3.	 Analytical stucties.— Reports presenting analytical or interpretive studies based on vital and health 

statistics, carrying the analysis further than the expository types of reports in the other series. 

‘eyies 4. Documents and committee YepoYts.— Final reports of major committees concerned with vital and 

health statistics, and documents such as recommended model vital registration laws and revised birth 

and death certificates. 

‘kyies 10.	 Data fyom the Health InteYview Swvey. —Statistics on illness, accidental injuries, disabili~, use of 

hospitaI, medical, dental, and other services, and other health-related topics, based on data collected 

in a continuing national household interview survey. 

eyies 11.	 Data from the Health Examination Swvey. —Data from direct examination, testing, and measurement of national samples of the population provide the basis for two types of reports: (1) estimates 

of the medically-defined prevalence of specific” diseases in the United States and the distributions of 

the population with respect to physical, physiological, and psychological characteristics; and (2) 

analysis of relationships among the various measurements without reference to an explicit finite 

universe of persons. 

wies 12.	 Data porn the Institutional Population SuYveys.— Statistics relating to the health characteristics of 

persons in institutions, and on medical, nursing, and personal care received, based on national 

samples of establishments providing tiese services and samples of the residents or patients. 

wies 13.	 Data fYom the Hospital DischaYge Swvey. -Statistics relating to discharged patients in sL..rt-stay 

hospitals, based on a sample of patient records in a national sample of hospitals. 

wies 14.	 Data on health vesowces: manpower and facilities. —Statistics on the numbers, geographic distribution, and characteristics of health resources including physicians, dentists, nurses, other health 

manpower occupations, hospitals, nursing homes, and outpatient and other inpatient facilities. 

Wies 20.	 Data. on moYtality.—Various statistics on mortality other than as included in annual or monthly 

reports-special analyses by cause of death, age, and other demographic variables, also geographic 

and time series analyses. 

Yies 21. Data on nutality, mawiage, anddivoyce. —Various statistics on natality, marriage, and divorce other 

than as included in annual or monthly reports— special analyses by demographic variables, also 

geographic and time series analyses, studies of fertility. 

7ies 22.	 Data @pm the National Natality and Motiality Swveys. —Statistics on characteristics of births and 

deaths not available from the vital records, b&ed on sample surveys stemming from these records, 

including such topics as mortality by socioeconomic class, medical experience in the last year of 

life, characteristics of pregnancy, etc. 

)r a list of titles of reports published in these series, write to: Office of Information 

National Center for Health Statistics 

U.S. Public Health Service 

Washington, D.C. 20201