NATIONAL CENTER 

For HEALTH STATISTICS 

VITAL and HEALTH STATISTICS 

DATA FROM THE NATIONAL V~~L =ATISTICS SVSTEM 

Divorce 

Statistics 

Analysis 

United States � 1962” 

An analysis of the national divorce statistics for 

1962 and of the personal characteristics of husbands 

and wives divorced in Hawaii, Iowa, Tennessee, and 

Wisconsin during the years 1960 and 1961. 

Washington, D .C. December 1965 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

HEALTH, EDUCATION , AND WELFARE Public Health Service 

Wi Iliam H. Stewart 

John W. Gardner 

Secretary Surgeon Genera I 
— .—— .—. 

I 

-,! ;,*+ Public Health Service Publication No. 1000 -Series 21-No. 7 

For s:lle by tl]e S[ll>c,]itlt,)]rl,,l][ of I)O,III,I(IIIS, I-.s. (;t)I~,IIIIIIt.111 l’lilltillgofti(e 

TV:tsllillgtoil, 1).( ’., 211+(E I’l,ice 4(I [+IIIS 
NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS 

FO~ E. LINDER, PH. D., Director 

THEODORE D. WOOLSEY, Dqwty Director 

OSWALD K. SAGEN, PH. D., /fHkztzt D&tor 

WALT R. SIMMONS, M.A., stathtical Adw”sor 

ALICE M. WATERHOUSE, M. D., ktidical Adohor


JAMES E. KELLY, ‘D.D.s., h%tal Adoirof


LOUIS R. STOLC’IS, NM,, kwutive Ojicer


DIVISION OF VITAL STATISTICS 

ROBEItTD. GROVE, PH. D., Chief 

ANDERS S. LUNDE, PH. D., Amkant Chtif 

Public Health Service Publication No. 1000-Series 21-No. 7 

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 65-62270 
-----------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTENTS 

Introduction ----:


Data Analyzed


Representativeness of Available Data ---------------------------------


Totals and Rates


National Totals and Rates


~Divorce Trend


Divorces by Region, Division, and State


J’,Annulments


#Age at Time of Decree


Data for l962------------------------------------------------------


Age-Race-Specific Divorce Rates


Age at Time of Decree by Color


Age at Time of Decree by Number of This Marria$e


Age of Husband by Age of Wife --------------------------------------


Age of Divorced Persons at Time of Marriage


Data for l962------------------------------------------------------


Age at Time of Marriage and Likelihood of Divorce


Age of Husband at Time ofMarriage byAgeof Wifeat Time of Marriage- ­


Age at Time ofMarriage by Color and Marriage Order


-Color or Race


Data for l962------------------------------------------------------


Color-Specific Divorce Rates


Interracial Divorces


..’ ‘Marriage Order


Data for l962------------------------------------------------------


Marriage Order and Likelihood of Divorce


Marriage Order by Age ad Color


Number of This Marriage


Number of This MarriageofHusband byNumberof This Marriage of Wife- ­


.Residenc;------------------------------------------------------------

Residence of Defendants in 1962--------------------------------------

Detailed Statistics on -Residence---------------:---------------------

Page 

1 

1 

2. 

2 

2 

3 

4. 

5 

5 

5 

6 

7 

7 

8 

8 

8 

8 

10 

10 

11 

11 

12 

12 

13 

14 

14 

16 

16 

17 

18 

18 

18 
------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTENTS—Coq 

Page 

Birthplace 19


State of Birth andStateofDecree 19


Birthplace-Specific Divorce Rates 21


Birthplace and Place of Residence 21


Birthplace and Place ofMarriage


Marriages of DivorcedCouples


Place of Marriage


Divorces by ~rationofMarriage


Median Duration ofMarriage


Children of Divorced Couples


Divorces by Number of Children Reported


Number of Children Involved in Divorce Cases


Legal Variables


lLegal Grounds for Decree


~Plaintiff---------------------------------------------:-------------


Party to Wom Decree Granted


References 

Detailed Tables


Appendix. Sources and Quality of Data ----------------------------------


Sources of Data ----------------------------------------------------


Sample Desiq


Estimating Procedures---------------------------------------:-----


Sampling Errors of Esttiates


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


22 

23 

23 

23 

24 

25 

25 

2fj 

28 

28 

29 

29 

30. 

31 

47 

47 

49 

50 

51 

53 
-----------------------

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

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

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

---

THIS REPORT COVERS the annual divovce and annulment statistics foy 

the divoyce-yegistyation avea fov 1962 and data on personal chavacte~­

istics of persons divo~ced in Hawaii, Iowa, Tennessee, and Wisconsin 

in 1960 and 1961. 

In 1962,413,000 divorces weve gyanted in the United States, and 1,363,000 

husbands, wives, and child~en weve involved in divovce cases. The divoyce vate was 2.2 per 1,000 population; this was the 8Uzyeav in which 

the rate was in the ~ange between 2.1 and 2.3. The vate was 0.9 in the 

NoYtheast Region, 2.1 in the NoYth Centval, 2.7 in the South, and 3.6 in 

the West. Among the States, the vate was lowest in New YoYk (0.4) and 

highest in Nevada (26.9), 

In the fouv selected States the divorce vate declined with the age of 

husband and wife.For white pe~sons the vate was highest among teenagevs, and it was highest fov nonwhite pexsons in theiv 20’s. Husbands 

and wives who had been mavvied move than once divorced move often 

than those who had been mav~ied only once. The divoyce rate was lowev 

foy peysons born in the State where they we~e divo~ced than fov pezsons 

bow outside that State; in move than half of the cases both husband& 

wife were bom in the State of divovce, and in over 80 pevcent eithev 

husband o~ wife or both were bona in that State. 

Dwing recent yeavs the duyation of marriage at time of divorce has 

been comparatively stable; the median duration fov the divorce- vegis ­

tration area was 7.3 yearn in 1962 and 7.1 in 1960 and 1961. 

The numbe~ of children involved in divoyce cases is incv~asing rapidly. 

The annual estimate for the United States was 537,000 in 1962, 463,000 

in 1960, and 330,000 in 1953. The average numbe~ of childven pev divovce foy these yeans was, respectively, 1.30, 1.18, and 0.85. The vate 

pey 1,000 persons undev 18 yeazs of age was 8.0 in 1962, 7.2 in 1960, 

and 6.4 in 1953. 

SYMBOLS 

Data not available 

Category not applicable . . . 

Quantity zero 

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

Figure does not meet standards of 

* reliability or precision 
DIVORCE STATISTICS ANALYSIS


Alexander A. Broel-Plateris, Ph.D., Division of Vital Statistics 

INTRODUCTION 

Data Analyzed s 

This report includes a discussion of two 

related topics—the regular annual divorce and 

annulment statistics for the United States for 

1962 and the personal characteristics of husbands 

and wives divorced in 1960 and 1961 infour selected States—Hawaii, Iowa, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. Originally it was planned to prepare two 

separate reports, but when the data were tabulated, it was decided to merge them into one 

report because the detailed data on personal 

characteristics for the four States” are an extension of the less detailed information for all 

States that participate in the divorce-registration 

area (DRA). Though the two topics covered in 

this report do not refer to the same period of 

time, it is believed that only minor changes 

occurred in the four selected States between 

1960-61 and 1962 and hence that the two sets 

of data are comparable. 

The 1962 annual statistics include national 

totals and rates for divorce and annulment decrees granted, State totals and rates based on 

total counts of events, national estimates of the 

number of children involved in divorce cases, 

and percentage distributions and measures of 

central tendency for other selected variables 

based on probability samples received from the 

States participating in the DRA during the data 

year—Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, 

Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, 

Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, 

South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. (Sample specifications are 

discussed in the Appendix. Frequencies are shown 

in Section 2, Volume III, Vital Statistics of the 

United States, 1962’.) A” new State, Ohio, - was 

added to the DRA in 1962. The Virgin Islands 

also participates in the DRA, but its data are not 

covered by this report. 

Divorces and annulments that occ&red in the 

DRA in 1962 constituted 35.6 percent of the 

national total, compared with 30.2 percent in 

1961, 23.9 percent in 1960, 22.8 percent in 

1959, and 19.5 percent in 1958, the year the 

DRA was organized. This growth is primarily 

due to increase in the number of States included 

in the DRA from 14 to 21. (Criteria required 

for a State to participate in the DRA are listed 

in the Appendix. ) The statistical information for 

the DRA and each participating State is limited 

to major demographic and legal variables with 

very few cross-classifications. This is due to 

the incompleteness of data obtained from many 

States and particularly to the incompleteness 

of reporting of personal characteristics of the 

divorced spouses. 

The inclusion in this report of the analysis ‘ 

of personal characteristics obtained from the 1960 

and 1961 probability samples in the four selected 

States is intended to fill the gap left by the incomplete information received from most other States. 

(Since 1960 additional States have achieved the 

level of completeness observed in that year for the 

four selected States.) Some personal characteristics analyzed in this report, such as data on 

birthplace and residence of husband and wife, 

became available for the first time from sample 

transcripts of the four States, and most crosstabulations prepared for the four States were not 

available for earlier years. Data for 1961 were 

combined in each cell with data for 1960 in order 

to minimize sampling variability. 

1 
Representativeness of Available Data 

There is some question about the repre ­

sentativeness of the selected four States. In order 

to find a tentative answer to this question, 

data by age, color, and marriage order for these 

States were compared with figures for the DRA 

(table 1). Values for the four States combined were 

similar to the corresponding values for the registration area. Seven out of 12 medians and quartiles 

of age of husband and of wife at time of decree 

and at time of marriage fell between the corresponding DRA values for 1960 and 1961 or were 

identical with one of these values, while the 

remaining five differed by 0.8 or less from the 

corresponding DRA figures for 1960 or 1961. 

In the four States combined the proportion of 

divorces of white husbands and wives was slightly 

lower than in the entire DRA and that of nonwhite 

persons correspondingly higher, but these differences were small: 1.4 percentage points for 

husbands and 1.8 for wives when compared with 

the DRA data for 1960 and 1.2 and 1.5 percentage 

points, respectively when compared with the 1961 

data. However, in the four States the distribution 

of the nonwhite group by race was ,quite different 

from that for the whole DRA: About 6 out of 7 

nonwhite persons divorced in the DRA were 

Negroes, but only about 2 out of 3 were Negroes 

in the four States. This difference was due to an 

overwhelming majority of divorces granted in 

Hawaii to nonwhite non-Negro persons. 

The proportion of divorced persons married 

only once was a little lower in the four States than 

in the DRA, but the largest difference was only 

about thee percentage points. It also was due to 

an atypical situation in Hawaii, where more than 

a third of the divorced persons had been married 

more than once. 

The similarities found in table 1 be”tween the 

DRA and the four States indicate that findings 

based on data for the four States combined are not 

very different from those that would be obtained 

for the total DRA if data were available. However, 

exceptions such as the comparatively high percentage of non-Negro nonwhite persons should be 

kept in mind. 

Are data for the DRA or for the four States 

representative of the United States? This question 

is impossible to answer because personal characteristics of the divorced husband and wife are not 

available on a nationwide basis. For 1960, the only 

year for which national figures were tabulated, the 

tabulations were limited to three variables: duration of marriage to divorce, number of children 

reported in divorce cases, and the State where 

marriage was performed, corresponding figures 

for these variables were available for boqh the 

United Mates and the’ DRA.l” 

In 1960. the median duration of ,marriage for 

the DRA, 7.1 years, was similar to the, national 

value, 7.2 years. The ratio of the estimated number of children reported in divorce cases to. the 

total number of decrees grantedwas also similar: 

1.20 for the DRA and 1.18 for the United States. 

The proportion of the childless among all divorced 

couples was slightly higher for fhe United States 

than for the DRA-43.3 percent as compared with 

39.9. The proportion of divorces granted, in the 

same State where marriage was performed was 

57.5 for the United States and 56.9 for the DRA. 

Hence it seems that in 1960 for all “variables for 

which national data were available the values for 

the DRA States combined were not very different 

from the national data. 

Only 18 States were included in the DRA in 

1960, and data for the 21 States participating in 

1962 may bear quite a different relationship to the 

national figures, especially since 52,837 divorce 

decrees, or 12.8 percent of the national total, were 

granted in 1962 in the three States added to the 

DRA since 1960—Michigan, Missouri, and Ohio. 

TOTAL(S AND RATES 

National Totals and Rates 

The estimated total of divorces and annulments granted in the United States in 1962 was 

413,000, the second highest annual total since 

1947. This was a decline of 0.2 percent from the 

previous year but an increase of 5.1 percent over 

the total for 1960, 4.6 percent over that for 1959, 

and 12.2 percent over that for 1958. The national 

divorce rate per 1,000 total population was 2,2, 

slightly smaller than the 2.3 rate for 1961, equal 

to the rates for 1960 and 1959, and slightly larger 

than the 1958 rate of 2.1 The divorce rate per 

1,000 married females 15 years of age and over 

2. 
----

was 9.4 in 1962 as compared with a rate of 9.6 

for .1961, 9.2 for 1960, 9.3 for 1959, and 8.9 for 

1958, The increase of this rate indicates that the 

growth of the divorce total during the last few 

years is partly due to factors other than increase 

in the number of married persons. Since two persons are involved in each divorce case, 826,000 

persons were divorced in 1962—4.4 persons per 

1,000 total population-and one decree was granted 

per 455 individuals, or per 106 married women. 

As couples divorced in 1962 had 537,000 children 

under 18 years of age, a total of 1,363,000 persons 

were intimately involved in divorce cases, or 7.3 

per 1,000 total population. 

During 1962, 814,500 families were broken by 

death 570,090 by death of husband and 244,410 

18 

16 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

by death of wife (Monthly Vital Statistics Report, 

Vol. 11, No. 13, table G). Adding these figures to 

the 413,000 families broken by divorce gives a 

total of 1,227,500 families broken during the year 

by death and judicial decree combined. During the 

same period of time 1,577,360 marriages took 

place, increasing the total number of married 

couples in the United States by approximately 

350,000. 

Divorce Trend 

The present divorce trend differs considerably from that prevailing before the end of 

World War II (fig. 1). Before the alltime peak of 

1946 the trend showed a general tendency to in­

. . 

. 

Per 1,000 married female population 

15 years of age and over 

. 

4 /%� S 

,4 ‘* Per 1,000 total population 

-+* L


***
 ----9 . ..--a--­
 ,--n
 * * 2 .*----

--9..* ..** -**--- -**m -**---

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 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 

Figure 1. Divorce rates: h i ted States, 1920-62 

,, 

# 

3 
., 

crease; this tendency was accelerated by warand 

reversed by economic depression. After 1946 the 

rate declined and gradually leveled off at about 2.2 

persons per 1,000 total population. From the 1920 

level of 1.6, which was the post-World War I high, 

the crude rate declined to 1.4 in 1922 and then 

rose to 1.7 in 1928 and 1929. With the onset of the 

great depression the rate declined to 1.3 in 1932 

and 1933 and thereafter resumed its upward trend, 

which was accelerated by World War II, and 

reached the alltime high of 4.3 per 1,000 population in 1946. Subsequently the rate declined to 2.8 

in 1948 and to 2.3 in 1955. Since then it has varied 

between 2.1 and 2.3. 

v 

HAW 

Very high[3.7 or 

HIQh (2.5 -3.61 

Medium (1,9 - 2.4) 

m Low (1,2-1.8) 

very 1,. (!.1 m 1$ ,ss 1

Not .Vr,lloble 

Divorces by Region, Division, and State 

The divorce rate in 1962 varied widely among 

regions and States (table 2 and fig. 2). The lowest 

rate was 0.9 per 1,000 population in the Northeast 

Region, followed by 2.1 in the North Central,. 

2.7 in the South, and 3.6 in the West. Thus the 

divorce rate in the West was 4 times as high as 

that in the Northeast. These rates were affected 

by migration and the age distribution of the population. 

The divorce rate by divisions and States 

showed a tendency to increase from the Northeast 

to the Southwest. A line drawn from South Carolina 

Figure 2. !livorce rates per 1,000 population: each State, 1962. 
to Nebraska divided the predominantly low- and 

medium-divorce areas from the predominantly 

high-divorce areas (fig. 2). The Middle Atlantic 

Division had the lowest divorce rate (0.7 per 1,000 

population), followed by New England (1.3). In the 

divisions of North Central and South Regions 

(except the West South Central) rates were similar 

to or identical with the national rate—between 2.0 

and 2.8 per 1,000 population. The highest rates 

were found in the Mountain Division (4.8 per 1,000 

population), in the Pacific Division (3.2), and in the 

reporting States of the West South Central Division 

(4,6, 3.6, and 3.4). 

Annual divorce and annulment totals for 1962 

were available for all 50 States and the District 

of Columbia. The totals were larger than comparable figures for 1961 in 34 cases and smaller 

in 17; however, in 6 States (Iowa, Nebraska, North 

Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, and West Virginia) 

these changes were very small— 1.0 percent 

or less in either direction. The largest increases, 

over 1,000 decrees in each State, were found 

in California (2,367 decrees), Texas (1,578), 

Michigan (1,281), Nevada (1, 192), and Colorado 

(1,100), while the largest declines took place 

in Illinois (7,153 decrees) and Alabama (5,415). 

The percentage change ranged from an increase of 21.0 percent in New Hampshire and 

19.6 in Colorado to a decline of 30.6 percent in 

Alabama and 27.5 percent in Illinois. 

The divorce rate per 1,000 total population 

increased in 19 States between 1961 and 1962, 

declined in 13 States, and remained unchanged in 

17 States and the District of Columbia. The rate 

was not available for Louisiana. The change in the 

divorce rate was more than 0.5 points in 3 States 

only: It-increased from 25.9 to 26.9 in Nevada and 

declined from 5.3 to 3.7 in Alabama and from 2.6 

.to 1.9 in Illinois. 

As usual, the highest divorce rate was found 

in Nevada: 26.9 per 1,000 population; this is more 

than 12 times greater than the national rate. Other 

States that had a rate of 4.0 or more per 1,000 

were Arizona (5.2), Oklahoina (4.6), Florida (4.1), 

and Wyoming (4.0). The rate for Alabama was the 

second highest in the Nation both in 1960 and 1961, 

but in 1962 this State had a rate of 3.7 and shared 

the sixth place with Alaska and New Mexico. 

This decline was due to changes in judicial interpretation of State laws which regulate the residence 

requirements for persons applying for divorce. 

The lowest divorce rates were found in New York 

(0.4), New Jersey (0.8), and Rhode Island and . North Dakota (1.0). 

Annulments 

Of the 413,000 decrees of divorce or annulment 

granted in the United States in 1962, 12,692 were 

reported to be annulments. This figure is incomplete, as three States. did not report annulments 

granted in some local areas and one State did not 

report annulments separately from divorces; in all 

these cases annulments were included in the 

number of divorces and annulments combined. The 

reported annulments constitute 3.1 percent of the 

national divorce and annulment total. About twothirds of all annulment decrees (8,315) were 

granted in two States, California and New York, 

and reported annulments constituted, respectively, 11.1 and 35.6 percent of the State totals. 

On the other hand, these percents were lowest in 

Vermont (0.2), Ohio (0.3), ~ssissippi (0.3), and 

Nevada (0.4). These variations were due in part to 

differences between the legal regulations in individual States. 

AGE AT TIME OF DECREE 

Data for 1962 

The age of husband and of wife at the time 

when the decree was granted was reported for 

about 57 percent of all divorces that occurred in 

the DRA in 1962. (Information about the completeness of reporting of age by individual States is 

shown in table 111in the Appendix.) 

For the DRA the median age at decree was 

34.5 years for husbands and 31.0 years for wives 

(table 3); the first quartiles were 27.2 and 24.1 

years and the third quartiles 44.1 and 40.2 years, 

respectively. For individual reporting States the 

median age of husbands varied between 31,8 years 

in Utah and 40.0 years in Wyoming, and for wives 

the extreme values were 28.3 years in Alaska and 

34.7 years in Wisconsin. In all States the median 

age of husband at time of divorce was slightly 

higher than the median age of wife. For the DRA 

the difference between the two medians was 3.5 

years. In this respect divorced persons do not 

5 
seem to differ to any appreciable degree from the 

total married population. 

Data for the DRA indicate that 16 percent of 

divorced husbands and 29 percent of divorced 

wives were under 25 years of”age and 7 percent 

of wives were still in their teens; on the other 

extreme 8 percent of husbands and 4 percent of 

wives were 55 years of age and older. The modal 

age at divorce was 25-29 years for husbands and 

20-24 years for wives; these two age groups 

included about 20 percent of the divorced spouses. 

The percentage for husbands was higher thanthat 

for wives in all age groups above 24 years. 

Because of the incompleteness of reporting, 

age data for the DRA were not cross-classified 

with other variables, and all detailed tabulations 

were limited to the four selected States. 

Age-Race-Specific Divorce Rates 

Age-specific divorce rates were computed 

for the four selected States using as numerators 

means of data for 1960 and 1961 and as denominators the 1960 census figures for all married 

persons and for nonwhite married persons classified by age. 2 Because population data for 

white persons were not published by the U.S. 

Bureau of the Census, they were computed by 

subtracting frequencies for nonwhite persons from 

frequencies for the total married population. 

The rates indicate that in the four States combined young husbands and wives had a higher 

incidence of divorce than those who were older 

and that divorces declined consistently with age 

(table 4 and fig. 3). For teenage husbands the 

incidence of divorce was more than 3 times as 

high and for teenage wives almost 4 times as high 

as that for the total population. Age-specific rates 

for both sexes showed the same pattern for each 

of the three continental States—Iowa, Tennessee, 

and Wisconsin—despite differences in the magnitude of these rates. For Hawaii this pattern was 

slightly different: The age-specific rates were 

highest, not for teenage married persons but for 

married persons 20 through 24 years of age, and 

they declined, as in the other States, for each 

successively higher age group. Thus, despite 

its peculiarities, the rate pattern for Hawaii 

supported the generalization that young married 

RATE PER 1,000 POPULATION 

35 

— White husbmd 

30 — White wife 

,,,,,, ”,,,,,, Nonwhitehusband 

. . ......... Nonwhitewife 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 I 1 I I I I I 

Under 20 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50+ 

AGE IN YEARS 

Figure 3. Age-specific divorce rates by color and 

sex: total of four selected Sta’tes, 1960-61. 

persons are more subject to divorce than older 

ones. 

In all four S,tates the variation of the divorce 

rate was more strongly associated with the age of 

the wife than with the age of the husband; for young 

wives the rate was higher, and for wives in older 

age groups it was lower than the comparable rates 

for husbands. The influence of age on divorce was 

least pronounced in Wisconsin, followed by Hawaii, 

Iowa, and Tennessee in that order. 

The age-specific divorce rate for the white 

population had a pattern similar to that for the 

total population except that in the continental 

States the extremes were more pronounced: The 

rates for younger people were higher and for 

older people lower than those for the total 

population (table 4); thus the range for white 

Tennessee wives varied between 41.3 and 2.0 

per 1,000. In Hawaii the range for white’ persons 

was less wide than it was for the total population. 

6 
For the four States combined, the divorce 

rate was bigher for white than nonwhite persons 

in the young age groups—those under 25 years— 

but lower thereafter.. The rates for teenage 

husbands, both white and nonwhite, were lower than 

those for teenage wives but bigher for most of the 

remaining age groups. The same general pattern, 

with some variations, was observed for each 

reporting State. 

The pattern of age-specific divorce rates for 

the nonwhite population differed considerably from 

that for the white (table 4). The age when highest 

rates for nonwhite persons were observed varied 

among States and sex groups, but in all cases it 

was found in an age group under 35 years of age. 

In later years of life the nonwhite rates declined 

consistently in the same manner as those for 

white persons. The age-specific rates for the total 

population of Hawaii were similar to those of the 

nonwhite population of that State because the majority of divorces were granted to nonwhite and 

racially mixed couples. However, even the rates 

for white persons in that State conformed to the 

pattern set by nonwhite persons, with the modal 

rate for both husbands and wives falling in the age 

group 20-24 years of age; this maybe partially 

due to a high proportion of racially mixed couples. 

The association between age and incidence of 

divorce was considerably stronger among white 

husbands and wives than nonwhite in the four States 

combined and in the three continental States, but 

the contrary was true for Hawaii; this is shown by 

the extent of the difference between the highest and 

lowest age-specific rates. For the four States 

combined, the highest and lowest rates were 26.6 

and 2.3 per 1,000 white husbands and 17.6 and 

5.4 per 1,000 nonwhite husbands; the comparable 

figures were 30.7 and 1.6 for white wives and 

18.1 and 4.2 for nonwhite wives. 

Age at Time of Decree by Color 

The percentage distribution of divorces by 

age at decree differed markedly between the white 

and nonwhite husbands and wives in the four 

selected States, with most white persons divorcing 

at earlier ages than nonwhite (table 5). The median 

age of husbands at divorce was 32.8 years for 

white males and 36.8 for nonwhite males, while for 

wives these medians were 29.6 and 32.8 years, 

respectively (table 6). A similar pattern can be 

observed for divorced persons of the two color 

groups who were married once and for those who 

were married more than once. . 

The difference between the two color gr’oups 

was very pronounced in Tennessee, where the 

median ages were 31.4 and 39.1 years for husbands 

and 28.1 and 35.0 years for wives. This difference 

was less pronounced in Iowa and Hawaii, and the 

relationship between the color groups was reversed in Wisconsin, where median ages were 

bigher for white persons than nonwhite; in this 

State medians for white persons were much higher 

than in the remaining three States, but this was 

not true as far as the medians for nonwhite persons 

were concerned. 

Nonwhite persons who were divorced in the 

four selected States differed in racial and cultural 

background. All nonwhite persons divorced in 

Tennessee and Iowa were Negroes, and so were 90 

percent of nonwhite persons divorced in Wisconsin; in Hawaii the nonwhite persons were 

almost exclusively non-Negro and a comparative y 

large proportion of marriages were interracial. 

However, differences in age medians were most 

pronounced between the southern Negroes in 

Tennessee and the northern Negroes in Iowa. 

Medians listed in table 6 indicate that the age of 

nonwhite persons in Iowa was more similar to that 

in Hawaii and Wisconsin than to that in Tennessee. 

This indicates that age of nonwhite persons at 

decree depends primarily on factors other than 

race. 

Age at Time of Decree by 

Number of This Marriage 

The influence of the number of marriages on 

age at time of decree seems very strong when 

median ages of persons married once are compared with those of persons married twice (30.4 

and 40.7 years for husbands and 27.2 and- 36.1 

years for wives); but &is influence is much less 

pronounced when median ages of persons married 

twice are compared with those of persons married 

three or more times (40.7 and 43.9 for husbands 

and 36.1 and 40.0 for wives) ( table 6). Differences 

in the latter set of medians would be still smaller 

7 
if data for husbands and wives married four, 

five, or more times were tabulated. (This could 

not be done because of small frequencies and high 

sampling errors. ) Thus, as far as age at decree 

is concerned, the classification of divorced 

persons into two categories, those married once 

and those married more than once, is satisfactory 

in most cases. 

Spouses who were married only once divorced 

to a large extent when they were in their 20’s. In 

the four States combined, 45.8 percent of husbands 

and 47.4 percent of wives married once divorced 

during that decade of their lives (table 7). For 

husbands and wives married twice and for those 

married three times or more, the 10-year 

modal age group were in their 30’s at time of 

divorce. 

The proportion of persons married twice or 

three times or more increased with the age of the 

divorced spouses. In the four States combined, 

persons married once comprised about 95 percent 

of husbands and wives who were under 20 years of 

age at time of the decree; persons married twice 

comprised about 5 percen~ and those married 

three times or more, less than 0.05 percent. In 

ever y succeeding age group the proportion of persons married once declined and of those married 

twice or three times or more it increased until at 

the age of 50 or more years husbands and wives 

married once were in the minority (43.3 and 41.1 

percent), those married twice constituted 40 

percent for both sexes, and those married three 

times or more comprised 16.8 percent of husbands 

and 18.8 percent of wives. 

Age of Husband by Age of Wife 

Age of the husband at decree was crossclassified by the age of the wife at decree (table 8), 

and median ages as well as percentage distributions of husbands and wives were computed for 

each age group of their spouses. The data substantiated the generalizations that divorced husbands are slightly older than their wives irrespective of the age at decree. In the four States 

combined, as well as in each selected State, 

each median age of the husbands was above the 

midpoint of the age group of their wives, and in 

most cases it was above the upper limit of this 

age group. Conversely the median age of the wives 

was usually below the lower limit of the husbands’ 

age interval, and in all cases it was below its 

midpoint. 

For all age groups of husbands and wives the 

majority of their spouses were concentrated within 

comparatively narrow age intervals (table 8). As 

both husbands and wives were classified into six 

age groups, the cross-tabulation comprised 36 

cells; 12 of these cells included 84.3 percent of 

husbands and wives divorced in the four States 

combined, 85.6 percent in Iowa, 83.8 in Tennessee, 

and 86.5 in Wisconsin. Only in Hawaii was this 

proportion lower, i.e., 77.2 percent. 

AGE OF DIVORCED PERSONS 

AT TIME OF MARRIAGE 

Data for 1962 

Information about the age at marriage was 

available for 56 percent of husbands and of wives 

divorced in the registration States in the year 1962. 

Most divorced persons were married before they 

reached their “middle 20’s, and many were married 

while still in their teens: 18 percent of divorced 

husbands and 46 percent of divorced wives were 

married before their 20th birthdays, and 58 

percent of husbands and 74 percent of wives 

were married under the age of 25 years. At the 

time of marriage the median age of husbands 

divorced in the DRA was 24.0 years and that of 

wives 20.7 years (table 3). For husbands the 

lowest median age was 23.3 years, found in 

Marylan@ the highest was 26.7 years, found in 

Alabama and Alaska. For wives the range of the 

medians lay between 19.8 years in Alabama and 

22.9 years in Hawaii. 

Age at Time of Marriage and 

Likelihood of Divorce 

The widely asked question of whether or not 

young age at marriage is associated with high 

prevalence of divorce cannot be answered definitely from the available data because divorce 

rates by age at marriage comparable to the rates 

by age at decree could not be computed since 

statistics were not available about the total 

married population by age at marriage. 

8 
---------------------------

Some indication of the relationship between 

age at marriage and the probability of divorce is 

given in the comparison of percentages of divorced husbands and wives who were married in 

their teens with the percentages of persons of the 

same age group married during the data years 

and earlier. Such a comparison could be made for 

a uniform group of 15 States for which marriage 

data by age were available for the years 1957-

62 and data on the age of divorced persons at 

marriage for the years 1960-62. The following 

States were included in the group: Alabama, 

Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Montana, 

Nebraska, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, 

Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming. In 

1962, 87,408 divorce decrees were granted in these 

15 States combined, or 21.2 percent of the national 

divorce total and 59.4 percent of all divorces 

granted in the DRA. 

Percentages of teenage marriages for husbands and wives who were married and for those 

who were divorced are shown below. 

These figures indicate that persons married 

at very young ages are somehow overrepresented 

among the divorced. However, this statement must 

be qualified in two respects. Less than half of the 

persons divorced in 1962 were married during the 

years 1957-62, and the distribution by age of those 

married during the latter period may not be 

representative for the population subject to divorce in 1962. To tfiis objection it may be answered 

that percentages of teenagers married during the 

years 1957-62 increased consistently each year 

and therefore these percentages were probably 

even smaller in years before 1957. Data from a 

different group of 16 States indicate that the percentage of teenage marriages was increasing at 

Year 

1962 ----------------------------------------- 1961 ----------------------------------------- 1960 ----------------------------------------- 1959 --------------, 1958 ----------------------------------------- L957-----------------------------------------

least since 1951.34 Hence the persons married 

in their teens would probably seem even more 

overrepresented among the divorced if data for 

earfier years were available. 

A second objection is more serious. Information on age at marriage was not stated on a very 

large proportion of divorce records received from 

most of the 15, States included in the comparison. 

For the 15 States combined, age at marriage was 

not stated in 39 percent of cases, and the percentages of teenage marriages among the divorced 

are correct only if it is assumed that in the 15 

States the proportion of persons married in their 

teens among those divorced during 1962 was the 

same as or similar to the distribution of the cases 

for which age was given. There is no way to 

ascertain whether such an assumption is correct. 

Some additional information may be obtained 

by analyzing the data for the only two’ States 

included in the group where the reporting of age 

was satisfactory, namely, Iowa and Tennessee. 

For these two States marriage’ statistics are 

available for all years beginning with 1952. In 

Tennessee the proportion of grooms under 20 

years of age increased from 12.2 percent in 

1952 to 17.3 percent in. 1960 and that of teenage 

brides from 35.7 to 44.3 percent, The proportion 

of persons married in their teens and divorced 

in 1960-61 was 22.1 percent for husbands and 50.3 

percent for wives. In Iowa the proportion of 

teenage grooms increased from 14.8 percent to 

17.4 and that of teenage brides from 39.2 percent 

to 43.3, with a peak of 43.9 percent in 1958 and 

44.6 percent in 1959. The proportion of divorced 

persons that were married in their teens was 18.0 

percent for husbands and 43.4 for wives. These 

data indicate that persons married in their teens 

I I 

Husbands I Wives I 

Married Divorced Married Divorced r 

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 ... 

9

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

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

were considerably overrepresented among those 

divorced in Tennessee and slightly overrepresented among the divorced Iowa husbands, butthe 

percentage of Iowa brides married in their teens 

in 1958 and 1959was higher than the percentage 

of divorced wives who were married before their 

20th birthday; however, only one wife in five 

divorcedin 1960and 1961 in Iowa wasmarriedin 

the years 1958and 1959. 

It can be seen that the availabledata strongly 

indicate the possibility of an association between 

early age at marriage and high incidence of 

divorce, but this association does not seem to be 

as clear-cut as that between the probability of 

divorce and age at decree. The discrepancy 

between the probability of ,iivorce of persons who 

are young at time of marriage and of those who 

were young at time of decree may disappear when 

more detailed information becomes available, e.g., 

when population Eases are obtained for the computation of age-at-marriage-specific rates. If the 

pattern as it seems to emerge from the scanty 

data available today is not changed by future 

research, the situation may be subject to various 

explanations. One possible way to explain the discrepancies is to assume that in some States many 

individuals who were married young divorce while 

stili young but that those who do not divorce at an 

early age have a very low divorce rate; this 

counterbalances the extremely high rate of the 

group that has divorced and yields a moderate 

rate for all the young married group. 

Relative ages of spouses 

Age of Husband at Time of Marriage by 

Age of Wife at Time of M“arriage ‘ ‘“ : 

Tabulations of data collected from the four 

selected States include some previously unavailable information about the age of divorced persons 

at marriage. 

As a rule, the age of divorced husbands was 

slightly higher than that of their wives. For the 

four States combined, information about age at 

marriage is available for 36,754 divorced couples, 

and age of husband is cross-classified by age of 

wife at marriage (table 9). In 48.7 percent of the 

cases husbands belonged to an older age group 

than that of their wives, in 7.1 percent of the 

cases wives belonged to an older age+&oup, and in 

44.2 percent both spouses were in the same age 

group. 

The distribution of persons divorced in the 

four States by age at marriage is very similar to 

comparable distributions of persons who were 

married during the same years shown in the table 

below (identical age groups were used in all three 

cases). Hence there is no reason to assume from 

the available data that the relationship between the 

ages is associated with the incidence of divorce; 

the minor differences in distributions may be due 

to differences between the four selected States 

and the more than 30 States comprising the 

marriage-registration area. , 

The median age at marriage was 24.0 ,years 

for husbands and 20.8 years for wives divorced in 

Percentage of spouses 

the four se­

~~~c=’sHusband in older age grcmp 48.7 45.2 46.3


Wife in older age group 7.1


Both in the same age group 44.2 4;:: ,.42:;


10 
the four States combined. Medians for each 

selected State are found in table 10, and percentage 

distributions of divorces by age of husband cross. 

classified by age of wife and median ages of husbands and wives by age group of their spouses 

are shown in table 9. 

Age at Time of Marriage by Color 

and Marriage Order 

Age at marriage of the divorced couples 

where both husband and wife were white may be 

compared with the corresponding medians for all 

other couples, including those where the color of 

either or both spouses was nonwhite or not stated. 

The median ages at marriage for the two groups 

are shown in table 10. 

The number of divorce records with color 

not stated for one or both spouses was very small 

in the selected four States, and the number of 

mixed white-nonwhite couples was also very small 

except in Hawaii. Hence the “other” couples in 

Iowa, Tennessee, and Wisconsin were nonwhite 

couples almost without exception. In Iowa and in 

Tennessee all nonwhite persons divorced in 1960 

and 1961 were Negroes, and in these two States 

median ages at marriage for divorced white 

couples were lower than for nonwhite couples. 

In Wisconsin, where about 90 percent of nonwhite husbands and wives divorced in 1960 and 

1961 were Negroes and the remainder belonged 

to other races, the median age at marriage for 

divorced white couples was also lower than that 

for the others, but the difference was small— 

less than 0.5 years. In Hawaii, where nonwhite 

persons were almost exclusively non-Negroes and 

where a large proportion of divorced couples were 

racially mixed, couples in which both spouses were 

white had higher median ages at marriage than the 

remaining couples. Thus from the available data 

the ages at marriage can be compared for divorced 

husbands and wives belonging to the three major 

racial groups— white, Negro, and other nonwhite; 

this age was lowest for non-Negro nonwhite 

persons, slightly higher for white persons, and 

highest for Negroes. 

Age of the divorced spouses at marriage, 

depends also on their marriage order (table 10). 

As expected, the median age at marriage is lowest 

when both husband and wife were married only 

once (22. 1 and 19.1 for the four States combined) 

and highest when both have been married more 

than once (36.8 and 31.9 years). In the four States 

the differences between the comparable medians 

of the two mariage order groups varied between 

12 and 16 years. When one spouse was married 

once and the other more than once, the values of 

the medians were intermediate. The median age 

at marriage was associated not only with the 

marriage order of a given group of persons but 

also with the marriage order of their spouses, 

e.g., for wives who were married once, median 

age was higher when their husbands were remarried and lower when their husbands were also 

married once. The influence of the marriage 

order of the spouse was especially pronounced 

in the case of husbands divorced in Iowa, where 

first-married husbands with remarried wives had 

a slightly higher median age at marriage than remarried husbands who had first-married wives 

(26.6 and 26.3 years, respectively). When the 

husbands were married once and the wives more 

than once, median ages of wives at marriage were 

lower than those of husbands in Iowa and Wisconsin, but in Hawaii and Tennessee median ages 

of remarried wives were higher than the ages .of 

their first-married husbands. 

COLOR OR RACE 

Data for 1962 

Color or race of persons divorced in 1962 

was reported by 20 States participating in the DRA; 

in one State, Ohio, the reporting of this variable 

was not required. This information was available 

for 62 percent of all husbands and wives divorced 

in the divorce-registration States combined, but 

this percentage increased to 73.5 when data were 

limited to the 20 States where color was reportable. In 1961 in the same 20 States the reporting was 70.3 percent complete. 

Eighty-nine percent of all divorces granted in 

the DRA for which information on race was 

available’ were granted to white husbands and 

wives; the remaining 11 percent were granted to 

nonwhite persons, predominantly Negroes but also 

Indians, Orientals, Hawaiians, and members of 

other nonwhite races. The highest proportions of 

nonwhite persons were found among persons divorced in Hawaii (over 50 percent), Virginia (23 

percent), Alabama (18 percent), and Alaska (18 

11 
percent for wives but only 11 percent for husbands). This percentage wasover 10inthree other 

States—Georgia, Tennessee, and Michigan. The 

smallest percentages of nonwhite persons among 

persons divorced in 1962—2 percent or less— 

were found in Idaho, Iowa, Nebraska, Utah, and 

Wyoming. 

Col.or-SpecFfic Divorce Rates 

In the four selected States the incidence of 

divcirce shows considerable variation as to the 

race or color of husband and wife. Differences in 

family patterns between various racial groups 

have been observed by the scholars, andthenumber of divorces as well as the characteristics of 

husband and wife at divorce reflects these patterns. Differences between white and nonwhite 

persons in age at divorce and at marriage have 

been discussed in the sections “Age at Time of 

Decree” and “Age of Divorced Persons at Timeof 

Marriage. ” 

The divorce ratewas higher forwhitepersons 

than for Negroes in Tennessee but about 4 times 

higher for Negroes than for white persons in both 

Iowa and Wisconsin (table 11). The high divorce 

rate for Negroes in the two Midwestern States may 

be related to the urbanization of the Negroes in 

those States: 99 percent of Negroes were urban 

dwellers in Wisconsin, 96 percent in Iowa, but 

only 72 percent in Tennessee. s Moreover a high 

proportion of Negroes migrated comparatively 

recently into the Northern States; for example, 

in Wisconsin the number of Negroes increased 

from 28,000 in 1950 to 75,000 in 1960. Urbanization and mobility led to a pattern of divorce 

which was greatly different from that in Tennessee, where the percentage increase of the Negro 

population during the 1950-60 decade was similar 

to that of the white population— 11 and 8 percent. 

The divorce rate for non-Negro nonwhite 

persons in Hawaii was lower than that for white 

persons. Hawaii is the only State where this 

nonwhite group constituted the majority of the 

total population and of the persons involved in 

divorces. However, due to the high proportion of 

mixed white-nonwhite divorces (21 percent of the 

total for this State in 1960 and 22 percent in 

1961) divorce rates by color had different implications in Hawaii than in other States, where the 

number of interracial divorces was very small. 

Divorce rates per 1,000 males and 1,000 

females 15 years of age and older were computed 

from 1960 data of the three basic racial groups— 

white, Negro, and non-Negro nonwhite. These 

rates for each racial group varied considerably 

among the four selected States (table 11). In the 

three continental States the rates for white husbands were higher than those for white wives, 

while in Hawaii the contrary was true; the highest 

rate, 8.8 per 1,000 white females in Hawaii, was 

more than 3 times as high as the lowest rate, 

2.5 per 1,000 white females in Wisconsin. For 

Negroes rates were computed from data for the 

three continental States— Iowa, Tennessee, and 

Wisconsin— where they ranged between 5.6 per 

1,000 females in Tennessee and 19.8 per 1,000 

males in Iowa; in all three States the rates for 

men were higher than those for women. The rates 

for Hawaii are of little value because of the small 

number of decrees granted to Negroes: During 

1960-61 only 34 Negro men and 8 Negro women 

were divorced in that State. The rate for other 

nonwhite persons was available only for Hawaii 

and for Wisconsin, though rates for the latter 

State were computed from a very small number of 

decrees (30 for males and 40 for females). No 

record of a decree granted to a nonwhite person 

other than a Negro was included in the samples 

from Iowa and Tennessee. Thus it can be seen 

that for the same racial group the rates varied 

considerable y by State and rates for the SMWS 

State varied by race. The available data indicate that divorce rates for Negroes varied particular y between northern and southern States. 

Interracial Divorces 

Information about the color of both husband 

and wife was given for 37,948 couples divorced 

in the four States. In 32,832 cases both husband 

and wife were white, in 4,446 cases both were 

nonwhite, and in the remaining 670 cases one 

spouse was white and the other nonwhite, as 

shown in table 12. Figures referring to nonwhite 

persons include couples with both spouses belonging to the same nonwhite race as well as 

those with the husband a member of one nonwhite 

race and the wife of a different one. Tabulations 

of divorces by race prepared by the Hawaii 

12

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

-------

--------

Department of Health for the years 1960 and 1961 

give data on husbands and wives for nine racial 

groups, seven of which are nonwhite (Hawaiian, 

part-Hawaiian, Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean and Negro). 6 7 These-data indicate thatfor 

1960 and 1961 in Hawaii 71.1 percent of all 

nonwhite divorced couples belonged to the same 

race and 28.9 percent of nonwhite couples were 

racially mixed. All nonwhite couples divorced in 

Tennessee and Iowa were Negroes; those divorced 

in Wisconsin were predominantly Negroes but included a small ‘number of other nonwhite persons. 

One of the spouses was white and the other 

nonwhite in 670 divorces granted in the four 

States combined, or in 1.8 percent of the total. 

Most of the interracial divorces were granted to 

white husbands and nonwhite wives (63.0 percent). 

The overwhelming majority of the interracial 

divorces, 91.0 percent, occurred in Hawaii, and 

hence most of the nonwhite spouses belonged to 

races other than Negro. In Hawaii 21.6 percent 

of all decrees were granted to white-nonwhite 

couples, but this percentage was only 0.6 percent 

in Wisconsin, 0.1 percent in Iowa, and none in 

Tennessee. The absence of interracial divorces 

in Tennessee may be due to laws prohibiting 

marriages between whites and Negroes; no such 

legal limitations exist in Iowa and Wisconsin, but 

still the number of white-nonwhite divorces is 

minimal. 

When interracial divorces are compared with 

interracial marriages, an interesting difference 

can be observed: The majority of interracial 

divorces are granted to couples where the husband 

Color 

is white and the wife nonwhite, but the majority 

of interracial marriages include couples where 

the husband is nonwhite and the wife white. 

The available data are not sufficient to 

support a statement that interracial couple; with 

the husband white and the wife nonwhite are 

subject to a higher incidence of divorce than those 

with the husband nonwhite and the wife white, 

Further research on this subject is desirable. 

The areas reporting marriages differ from those 

reporting divorces, and the number of States 

in both the NIRA and the DRA increased between 

1960 and 1961. Hence the available statistics are 

not quite comparable. On the other hand, Hawaii, 

the State with the largest proportion of interracial marriages and divorces, was included in 

both registration areas during both years. 

MARRIAGE ORDER 

The term “marriage order” denotes the 

classification of married persons into two categories: those married once and those married 

more than once. The same term refers to the 

classification of all marriages into first marriages and remarriages. On the other hand, the 

term “number of this marriage” refers to the 

actual number of times a person has been 

married, and the group married more than 

once is divided into those married twice, three 

times, and so forth. In the present study the 

latter classification was limited because of sampling variability to three categories: married 

once, married twice, and married three times or 

Divorces Marriages in the 

In four In the DRA 

selected 1960 1961 

States 1960 1961 

Total 670 492 651 ‘ 3,916 4>806 

White male, nonwhite female- 422 275 394 1,893 2,141 Nonwhite male, white female 248 217 257 2,023 2,615 

73 
more. The same terminology is being used elsewhere in this report as well as in other statistical reports dealing with marriage and divorce 

data. 

Data far 1962 

Marriage order of divorced husbands and 

wives was reported by 19 of the 21 States that 

participated in the DRA in 1962; in Virginia 

and Nebraska this variable was not included 

on the divorce record. Marriage order was reported with less completeness than most other 

items of statistical information: On 44 percent of 

the divorce records received from all registration 

States combined, marriage order was not stated; 

for the 19 States that require the reporting of this 

item, this percentage was 40. 

The available information indicates that about 

72 percent of divorced husbands and wives were 

married once, while 28 and 29 percent, respectively, were married more than once. The proportion of persons married once was comparatively high—70 percent or more—in most northern and border States but under 70 percent in 

the remainder of the South Region and in the 

West. Highest proportions of persons married 

once—over 80 percent—were found in Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Maryland; lowest 

percentages—60 or less—in Alaska, Oregon, and 

Alabama. The proportion of first-married persons 

was higher for divorced husbands than for 

divorced wives in 15 reporting States; this proportion was higher for wives in 3 States (Tennessee, Wisconsin, and Wyoming), and both percentages were equal in Georgia. 

Marriage Order and Likelihood of Divorce 

The likelihood of divorce is higher for remarried husbands and wives than for those 

married only once. As the great majority of 

remarried persons in the general population have 

been previously divorced, this indicates that 

people who have been divorced in the past are 

more prone to divorce than those who have not 

previously experienced divorce. 

Marriage-order-specific divorce rates could 

not be computed because population bases were 

not available. Two other methods were used to 

investigate the differential likelihood of divorce 

for husbands and wives married once and those 

married more than once: (1) Proportions of 

persons married more than once among those 

who were divorced in 1961 and 1962 were compared with similar proportions among brides and 

grooms married during the years 1956-62, and 

(2) ratios were computed between the number of 

husbands and wives classified by marriage order 

and certain categories of the population married 

once and married more than once. 

If marriage order were not associated with the 

incidence of divorce, the proportions of persons 

married once and of those married more than 

once among the population divorced in 1962 

should be the same as in the population married 

in the years preceding 1962. These two distributions were compared for a uniform group of 

nine States—Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, 

Michigan, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and 

Utah— where 68,458 divorce decrees were granted 

in 1962, 17 percent of the national total and 47 

percent of the total for the DRA. The pattern 

obtained is shown on the next page. 

These figures indicate that persons married 

o~ce were underrepresented among those divorced in both 1961 and 1962 and persons married 

more than once were overrepresented. Hence the 

likelihood of divorce was slightly higher for husbands and wives married more than once, and 

it must be noted that the great majority of 

persons who were married more than once 

have been divorced prior to their last marriage. 

The value of the comparison was limited by 

two factors: Marriage order was not stated in 24 

percent of the divorces from the nine States 

included in the computation, and over half of the 

divorces occurring in 1962 were granted to couples 

married before 1956. 

Data for the group of nine States could be 

considered inadequate to prove that remarried 

persons divorce more frequently than those 

married once if they were not strongly supported 

by a set of ratios computed for the four States. 

Though divorce rates by,marriage. order could 

not be computed for the four selected States because of the unavailability of population bases 

(namely, of the total currently married population 

classified by marriage order), somewhat similar 

14 
.,. 

Males Females 

I 

Year of event Tots 1 

Married once Married more 

than once 

Divorces 

1962---------- 100.0 72.5 27.5 71.4 28.6 

1961---------- 100.0 73.2 26.8 72.4 27.6 

Marriages 

1962---------- 100.0 78.7 21.3 79.1 20.9 

1961---------- 100.0 78.4 21.6 79.1 20.9 

1960---------- 100.0 79.3 20.7 78.7 21.3 

1959---------- 100.0 79.3 20.7 78.6 21.4 1958---------- 100.0 79.8 20.2 79.2 20.8 1957---------- 200.0 80.4 

1956---------- 100.0 80.2 

ratios were computed on the basis of data given 

in tables 105 of the State volumes of U.S. Census 

of Popidatiorz 1960. This table includes statistics for the currently married population with 

spouse present married once and for the total 

ever-married population married morethanonce. 

Rates for the population married once would 

be computed on the basis of figures for thetotal 

currently married population married once, including married persons with spouse absent and 

separated persons. Populationbasesfortheratios 

included only the currentIy married population 

with spouse present (excluding those with spouse 

absent and those who were separated). Hence the 

population bases used for the ratios weresmaller 

tianthe bases necessary for computingthe rates, 

and therefore the ratios are larger than the 

rates wouId be. On theotherhandr the population 

bases used for computing ratios for remarried 

persons included not only those who were currently married but also the widowed andthedivorced, while for computing rates, only the 

figures for the currently married would beused. 

Hence, divorce ratios for the remarried are 

smaller than the rates would be. 

If, in spite of the fact that ratios for the 

first-married were larger than rates and that 

ratios for the remarried were smaller. the 

29.6 79.7 ::.: 19.8 79.4 . 

latter ratios were larger than the former, the 

likelihood of divorce would then be higher for 

husbands and wives who are remarried. On the 

other hand, if ratios for the remarried were 

smaller than those for the first-married, no 

inference could be made. Actually in almost all 

cases ratios for the remarried are larger than 

the comparable ratios for the first-married, 

as shown on the next page. 

These ratios indicate that in all four States 

the likelihood of divorce is considerably greater 

for remarried persons than for first-married 

persons. In the four States combined as well as 

in Iowa, Tennessee, and Wisconsin (not in Hawaii) 

the difference between the remarried and the firstmsrried is more pronounced for husbands than 

for wives. This is particularly significant in 

view of the fact that in the total population the 

proportions of the married with spouse absent, 

the divorced, and the widowed are higher among 

wives than among husbands; therefore for wives 

larger differences between the ratios could be 

expected. 

The likelihood of divorce among the remarried persons of both sexes is higher for 

white persons than for nonwhite in Hawaii and 

Tennessee but for nonwhite persons in Iowa and 

Wisconsin (where their number is very small). 

15 
-----------

-----------

-----------

-----------

Area and marriage order 

Total, four selected 

States 

Married once 

Married more than onceHawaii 

Married once 

Married more than once1- owa 

Married once 

Married more than onceTennessee 

Married onc’e----------- Married more than onceWisconsin 

Married once 

Married more than onceHusbands Wives 

Total White Nonwhite Total White Nonwhite 

11.4 10.3
 1%; 12; 11.5 12:: 13.0 

9,8 12.1


21.6 25.5 1%:


5.2 19.3 18,6 

20.9 2::: 34.0 23.7 

13.1 11.0 

1::2 2$: 9.6 10.4 

15.3 3.6 13.4


1::; ;:: 16.8 8.6 15.5


Marriage OrderbyAge and Color 

The marriage order of divorced husbands 

and wives was closely associated with their 

age at decree (table 13). The proportion of 

first marriages was highest among the youngest 

age groups and declined consistently with age. 

(One exception was found among the nonwhite 

wives; it may be due to sampling variability.) 

Within each age group pronounced variations existed among sexes and races: The proportionof 

first marriages was higher among husbands than 

wives and among nonwhite persons than white; 

thus percentages of persons married once were 

lower among all age groups of white husbands 

when compared with nonwhitehusbands andhigher 

when compared wi,th white wives. There were 

several exceptions to this generalizationwhenthe 

distribution of nonwhite wives was compared with 

both nonwhite husbands and white wives. The 

highest percentage of first-married persons was 

95.5 for nonwhite husbands under30 years ofage 

and the lowest 27.4 percent for white wives 55 

years and older. 

When percentages of the first-married and 

of the remarried husbands and wives were cornputed for sex and color groups but not crossclassified by age, no pattern could be observed. 

In Iowa and Wisconsin the percentages of persons married once were higher among white 

persons and in Hawaii among nonwhite persons, 

but in Tennessee the proportionof first-married 

was higher for nonwhite husbands andhigher for 

white wives. 

NumberofThis Marriage 

About7 out of lOpersonsdivorcedinthe four 

States were married once, 2were marriedtwice, 

and less than 1 was married three times or 

more; the remaining small tiaction was married 

more than once, but the number of the marriage 

was not given (table 14). Despite geographic 

proximity, differences in the distribution ofdi16

vorced persons by mnnber of the marriage 

were most pronounced between Iowa and Wisconsin. In the former State only about 65 percent of husbands and wives divorced in 1960-

61 were married once, and in the latter 76 

percent; percentages for Tennessee and Hawaii 

fell between these two figures. The proportion 

of persons married twice varied between 18.6 

percent for husbands in Wisconsin and23.6 percent for those in Iowa, while persons who were 

married three times or more comprised 7 percent of wives in Hawaii and 4 percent of husbands 

in Wisconsin. In the three continental States the 

comparable percentages for husbands and for 

wives were very similar, but in Hawaii wives who 

were married once were more numerous (74.0 

percent) than husbands (70.4 percent). 

Number of This Marriage of Husband by 

Number of This Marriage of Wife 

Information about divorces classified by 

the number of this marriage of husband crosstabulated by the number of this marriage of wife 

became available for the first time from data for 

the four States (table 14 and fig. 4). 

Both husband and wife were married once 

in 60.8 percent of all divorces in the four 

States combined; this percentage was 54.0 in 

Iowa, 61.1 in both Tennessee and Hawaii, and 

68.9 in Wisconsin. In about 10 percent of all 

divorces the husband was married once and the 

wife more than once. The same proportion of 

decrees was granted to first-married wives and 

remarried husbands. Both parties were remarried 

in 19.7 percent of alI divorces; this percentage 

ranged between 15.5 in Wisconsin and 25.1 in 

Iowa. The 19.7 percent consisted of three groups: 

both husband and wife marrieci twice (10.8 percent); both married three times or more (1.8 

percent); and one spouse married twice and the 

other three times or more (7.1 percent). In 

almost three-fourths of all decrees the number of 

this marriage of the husband was the same as the 

number of this marriage of the wife, in 12 percent 

the number of marriage of the husband was higher 

than th~” of the wife, and in 15 percent the wife’s 

number was higher. 

The similarity between husbands and wives 

was even more pronounced when the distribution 

PERCENT 

80


[ Wife married once 1 70 - Wife married twice 

1-1 wife nmrrie, +,ree+ 

. 60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Once Twice Three + 

NUMBER OF TIMES HUSBAND MARRIED 

Figure Y, Percent d i stri but ion of d ivorces and 

annulments by number of t imes husband married 

according to number of times wife married: 

total of four selected States, 1960-61, 

by marriage order instead of that by number of 

this marriage was used; the marriage order was 

the same for the husband and the wife in 81 

percent of all the cases. Eighty-six percent of 

husbands who had married once had wives who 

had also married once, and 67 percent of husbands 

who were remarried had remarried wives (table 

14). Tle modal number of both husbands and 

wives who had married once and of those who had 

married twice had spouses w%h the same number 

of marriages. This did not hold for persons who 

had married three times or more, as their 

modal number (43 percent of husbands and 50 

percent of wives) had spouses who had married 

twice and less than 30 percent of the spouses had 

also married three times or more. 

17

RESIDENCE 

Residence of Defendants in 1962 

The plaintiff in a divorce case must be a 

resident of the State where the decree was 

granted because legal residence in the State, 

and in some States also in the county, is a 

prerequisite for filing an application for a divorce 

decree in all States. In a limited number of 

States it is very easy to acquire legal residence, 

and many out-of-State persons establish residence 

solely for the purpose of taking advantage of permissive divorce laws; such plaintiffs usually 

return to their former States of residence as 

soon as a decree is granted. 

For 1962 the information about the residence 

of the defendant was available for 77 percent of 

all divorces granted in the DRA. Reporting of 

this item was not required in one State, Kansas. 

In the remaining 20 registration States combined, 

86 percent of defendant husbands and 76 percent 

of defendant wives were residents of the States 

where the decrees were granted, 7 percent of 

husbands and 9 percent of wives lived in other 

States of the same region, and 7 and 14 percent, 

respectively, lived outside the region. tie proportions of defendants who were residents of the State 

were concentrated within a comparatively narrow 

range in the great majority of the reporting areas. 

For husbands this range was found between 85 and 

90 percent in 13 reporting States, and the percentage was less than 85 in 6 States and more 

than 90 in 1. For wives the percentage of resident 

defendants varied between 67 and 79 in 14 States, 

3 States had percentages below 68, and 3 had 

percentages above 78.” The lowest percentages 

of defendants living in the State where the decree was granted were found in Idaho (73 percent for husbands and 53 percent for wives) 

and the highest in Michigan (92 and 96 percent, 

respectively). The proportion of defendant husbands living in the State was higher than that of 

defendant wives: For the DRA the percentages 

were 86 and 76, and a similar pattern was 

found in all reporting States except Michigan. 

As plaintiffs always live in the State of 

divorce, both spouses live in the same State 

more often when the wife is the plaintiff and the 

husband the defendant than when the roles are 

reversed. Traditionally the wife is permitted to 

file the complaint even in cases where she is at 

fault; when the couple follows this norm, there 

is probably less hostility between the spouses 

than when the husband sues for divorce, and 

after separation i.t is less likely that one or 

both spouses leave the State where they formerly 

lived together. This observation is supported 

by detailed data on the residence of husband 

and of wife tabulated for the four selected, 

States. It would appear that the distance covered 

by postseparation migration is associated with 

whether or not the usual practice of letting the 

wife be the plaintiff is adhered to by the husband. 

Detailed Statistics on Residence 

Much of the detailed information about the 

residence of husband and wife tabulated for the 

four States is available for the first time. 

Over 80 percent of husbands and wives divorced in 1960-61 in the selected States combined were residents of the county where the 

decree was granted, and over 90 percent were 

residents of the State (table 15). In 97.5 percent of divorces, either the husband or the wife 

or both lived in the county where the decree 

was granted, and in only 2.5 percent of divorces 

did both parties live outside of that county. For 

individual reporting States this latter percentage 

varied between O.4 in Hawaii and 2.8 in Tennessee. 

For all States combined, the percentage of husbands and wives who lived in the same region 

where the decree was granted but in a different 

State was smaller than the percentage of persons living in a different region. These figures 

seem to indicate that the majority of the small 

number of spouses who after separation leave 

their former State of common residence tend 

to migrate to distant areas rather than to settle 

in neighboring States and that in cases when both 

separated spouses leave their State of residence 

they usually do not migrate in the same general 

direction. 

Since in three out of four divorces the wife 

was the plaintiff, the number of wives living in 

the State of occurrence was larger than that of 

husbands. However, about 90 percent of defendant 

18

husbands and over 80 percent of defendant wives 

lived in the State where divorce was granted 

(fig. 5). Hence the difference was small between 

the total numbers of husbands and of wives who 

lived in the State of divorce. For the four States 

combined, these figures were 32,924 for husbands 

and 35,702 for wives, or 92.2 and 95.7 percent, 

respectively. 

The percentage of defendant wives living in 

the county where the decree was rendered was 

smaller than that of defendant husbands (69.2 

compared with 79.8’ percent), but the proportion 

of defendant wives living in other counties of the 

same State was slightly larger than the proportion 

of husbands (12.0 and 10.0 percent). Thenumbers 

of defendants living outside the State of occurrence 

� Resident of county where � f?e~;::otherc.o”nty, 

decree granted 

� Resident of othar Slate, Resident of other region 

some region !l%zl or foreign country 

ERCENT 

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

PlOintlff Defendant PlOlntif f Defendant 

, 

HUSE IANO Wlf ‘E 

Figure 5. percent distribution of husbands and 

wives as plaintiffs and defendants, by place of


residence: total of four selected States, 1960-


61.


were small, but the proportions of defendant 

wives Iivingin other States of thesarneregion and 

in States outside the region (7.2 and 11.5percent, 

respectively) were almost twice as Iargeas the 

comparable percentages of thedefendanthusbands 

(3.5 and 6.8 percent). These percentages indicate 

that the distance between the place of residence 

of the defendant and the place where the decree 

was granted tended to be larger for defendant 

wives than for defendant husbands and that the 

distance between the place cf residence of the 

husband and the place of residence of the wife 

was greater when the husband was the plaintiff. 

These data suppmt the observation made earlier 

in this section that when the generally accepted 

pattern of Iettbg the wife be the plaintiff was 

abandoned the postseparation mobility tended to be 

more pronounced. The marriage order of husbands 

and wives had little influence on the residence 

of the defendant. Slightly larger proportions of 

first-married rather than remarried husbands 

and of remarried rather than first-married wives 

lived in the county of divorce and in other counties 

of the same &.Ste; hQwever, the differences were 

small, ad the pattern varied from State to State. 

BIRTHPLACE 

Divorce statistics by place of birth of husband 

and of wife were compiled for the first time for 

the study of personal characteristics in the four 

selected States. (Comparable data are not available for other years and areas.) Because of 

sampling variability the actual State or county of 

birth could not be tabulate~ the place of birth 

was defined k relation to the State when the decree was granted or where the parties resided, 

whether in the same State, in another State of 

the same region, or outside the region. The 

final category included persons born outside the 

United States. 

State of Birth and State of Decree 

The great majority of husbands and wives 

are divorced in or near their States of birth. This 

may be due to continuous residence in the area 

or to the return of some separated persons to their 

area of origin. Most divorced persons belong to 

the former category, as in more than half of the 

19 
...

cases both husband and wife were born in the 

divorce State and it does not seem probable that 

in many cases both spouses would move after 

separation to the same State from the area where 

the y lived before separation. Since none of the 

four selected States attract many in-migrants 

and in all cases the proportion of the population native to the State was 75 percent or more 

in 1960, the selected States may not be representative of the”country as a whole. 

About 70 percent of husbands and wives 

divorced in the four States combined were born 

in the State where the decree was granted, while 

over 19 percent were born in a different State 

of the same region, and over 10 percent were 

born outside the region (table 16). Information 

about the place of birth of both husband and wife 

was given on 36,026 divorce records. In 19,426 

cases, or 53.9 percent, both spouses were born 

in the divorce State, while in over 80 percent 

of all couples either one or both were native to 

the State (fig. 6). 

In almost the same proportion of cases 

(81.6 percent) both husband and wife were born in 

the region where the decree was granted; this 

percentage included 7.8 percent who were born in 

the region but outside the divorce State. Only 

4.9 percent of the divorced couples were born 

outside the region where divorce occurred, and 

conversely in 95.1 percent of the cases either 

one spouse or both were born in the region. 

In Hawaii the distribution of divorces by place 

of birth of husband and wife differed considerably 

from that found in the three continental States 

(table 17). This distribution was very similar in 

Iowa and Tennessee; values for Wisconsin fell 

between those for Hawaii and those for the two 

other States. In the four States a larger proportion 

of wives than husbands were born in the State 

where the decree was granted, and a larger proportion of husbands were born outside the region; 

the comparative size of the proportions of husbands and wives born in the same region but in 

a different State varied among the four reporting 

States. The proportions of divorced persons born 

in all States of the region were lower for persons 

divorced in Hawaii than for those divorced in the 

other States, while in Hawaii a much higher proportion of the divorced spouses were born in a 

differ&t region or abroad. Percentages of hus -

PERCENT


60 ~


I 

50


40


30


20


10


0


Bo?h Only Only Both One born Both 

husband hus:; l): wife born In In othor born 

and wife born In other State ou:; lde 

born in dlv orce divorce state, of same divorce state state some regl on; region 

S*.ate ceglon	 other out 

of region 

,. 

Figure 6. Percent d istri but ion of:, d’i;orces and


annulments by place of bi rth of hustknd and of


wife: total of” tour selected States, 1960-61.


,, .


,, .:,


bands and wivek born in the divorce. ,State were 

very similar. for Iowa, Tennessee, and Wisconsin; 

however, percentages of persons born in other 

States of the same region were higher k Tennessee 

than in Wisconsin, and the percentages of those 

born outside the region wer~ “considerably higher 

in Wisconsin than in Tennessee. In all cases the 

percentages for Iowa were.,found between those 

for Tennessee and those for Wisconsin. 

In 43 percent of divorces granted in Hawaii, 

both husband and wife were born in the State, 

while for the other three States these percentages 

fell between 54 and 56. The percentage of couples 

with both spouses born in any State of the region 

was 50 for Hawaii, 75 for Wisconsin, and over 

80 for both Iowa and Tennessee. On the other hand, 

the percentages of couples born outside the region 

(including those born abroad) were 21 for Hawaii, 

8 for Wisconsin, 3 for Iowa, and 2 for Tennessee. 

20 
----------------

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

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

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

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

Because of its geographic location the regional factor was much less important in Hawaii 

than in the other States; this is reflected in the 

distribution of both the divorced persons and the 

total population. In the total population the percentage of persons born in other States of the 

same region was only 5 in Hawaii but from 11 

to 16 in the three other States, while the proportion of those born outside the region was 20 

percent in Hawaii but less than 10 in the three 

other States. There was comparatively little 

difference in the proportion of residents who were 

native to the State: 75 percent of the total population in Hawaii, 78 in Tennessee, 81 in Iowa, 

and 82 in Wisconsin. 8 

Birthplace-Specific Divorce Rates 

The population born in the State where the 

decree was ,granted had a lower incidence of 

divorce than the population born outside the 

State. This is shown below for all four States 

by birthplace-specific divorce rates, which are 

computed per 1,000 males and females 15 years 

of age and older. 9 

As population data on birthplace crossclassified by marital status were not available, 

the birthplace-specific rates were not based on 

the population at risk, and thus they are comparable to the crude rates. Differences between 

the divorce rates for the population native to the 

State and those for the nonnative population 

indicate a positive association between the probability of divorce and interstate mobility. 

Birthplace and Place of Residence 

SlightIy more plaintiffs than defendants were 

born in the State where they had their residence 

at the time of divorce, but the difference between the two groups was small—about 2 percentage points in the four States combined (table 

17). As plaintiffs must by law be residents of the 

divorce State, 71.4 percent of plaintiff husbands 

and 74.3 of plaintiff wives were born, resided, and 

were divorced in the same State. None of the 

four selected States possesses particularly permissive divorce laws, which would make migratory divorces attractive, and hence there is 

no reason to think that the State of residence 

claimed by. a plaintiff in a divorce suit was not 

the State where he or she was actually living. 

When plaintiffs and defendants were classified by marriage order, in all subcategories the 

proportion of wives born in their States of 

residence was higher than that of husbands. It 

was also ~gher among persons married once 

than among those married two or more times. 

Hence the proportion of residents of their States 

of birth was largest among plaintiff wives married 

once and smallest among defendant husbands 

married more than once—76. 1 and 63.3 percent, 

respectively. Persons born outside their States 

of residence were more numerous among those 

married more than once than among those married 

once; this applied both to persons born in a 

different State but in the same region and to those 

born outside their regions of residence. 

I Husband born I Wife born 

Area 

In State Out of State In State Out :of State 

I I 1 1 

Tots 1, four selected 

States 4.8 6.7 4.8 5.5 

Hawaii, 6.7 8.4 

Iowa 2:; 6.9 ::: 5.6 

Tennessee 7.0 8.1 

Wisconsin ;:; ::: 2.7 3.7 

I I 1 I 

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

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

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

The proportion ofplaintiffs born in the State 

of residence was higher than the proportion of 

defendants in all cases shown in table 17 except 

husbands divorced in Hawaii and wives divorced 

in Tennessee. Theproportionof plaintiff husbands 

and wives residing in the State of birth was 

similar in all four States; it fell between 71.3 

and 75.5 percent in all cases except one. Comparable percentages for defendants had a much 

broader variation. 

In the four States combined, theproportionof 

persons Imrn in a different State of the region 

where they w~re living was about 18 percent and 

that of persons living outside the region where 

they were born was about 10 percent. The percentages for each selected State classified by 

sex of plaintiffs and defendants are shown in 

table 17. 

When the percentages in table 16 are compared with those in table 17, it may seem that 

slightly more persons were born in the State of 

residence than in the State of decree. Actually 

such an inference would be misleading; the two 

sets of percentages are not comparable because 

table 16 shows only one variable and table 17 

three and each variable has a small number of 

not stated cases. Naturally, the number of cases 

with information available was slightly smaller for 

tabulations from which percentages shown in 

table 17 were prepared, and this tended to inflate the percentages slightly. 

Birthplace and Place of Marriage 

The comparison between the place of birth 

of persons divorced in the four States and the 

place of marriage yields interesting results. 

State where decree granted 

During the years 1960-61 in the four States combined, 20,496 divorced couples out of a total of 

38,544 were divorced in the same State where 

they were married,l” llwhile 24,810 divorced husbands and 26,178 divorced wives were born in the 

divorce States. Thus the numbers of divorced persons born in the State were larger than the 

number of persons married in the State where divorce was granted. This is true for the four States 

combined as well as for Iowa, Tennessee, and Wis ­

co?lsin; but in Hawaii divorced persons married 

in the State were more numerous than those native 

to the State. 

Percentages obtained for the reporting States 

are shown below. These figures could be explained 

by comparatively larger numbers of residents of 

their States of birth being married in other States, 

particularly in those where marriage laws were 

permissive. Crossing the State line for the purpose of marriage was easy for couples from Iowa, 

Tennessee, and Wisconsin but difficult for those 

from Hawaii; this is reflected in the percentages. 

An alternative explanation based on a higher proportion of persons born outside the State living in 

Hawaii than in the other three States cannot be 

accepted because in Tennessee the proportion of 

the population not native to the State was similar 

to that observed in Hawaii, 22 percent as compared with 25,5 while the proportions of divorced 

persons who were married in the State were 

quite different—44:7 percent in Tennessee, 70.7 

in Hawaii. Another possible explanation, that 

wives after separation tend to return to their 

place of origin and start the divorce proceedings 

there, cannot be accepted because of the high 

percent of both plaintiffs and defendants, husbands and wives, residing in their States of birth. 

Married 

‘nstatek=%= I I I 

Total, four selected States 53.7 I 67..5 I 70.6 

Hawaii 70.7 51.9 62.6 

lowa 60.1 68.1 71.6 

Tanessee 44.7 69.6 72.0 

Wisconsin 61.2 67.5 69.1 

22 
Data on place of birth cross-classified by 

place of marriage are not available, and it is not 

known how many persons were born, married, 

and divorced in the same State. However, the data 

indicate tlhat in Iowa, Tennessee, and Wisconsin 

more divorced husbands and wives were born in 

the State and married outside it than were born 

outside the State and married in iq in Hawaii 

the contrary was true. Though the size of these 

two categories was not available, the difference 

between the two figures was computed (see 

Appendix). For the four States combined, the 

number of divorced persons born in the State 

but married out of State was larger than that 

of persons born out of State but married in 

the State by 4,294 husbands and 5,662 wives, 

11.1 and 14.7 percent, respectively, of the total 

divor~e figure. These differences were largest 

in Tennessee-21.6 percent for divorced husbands and 24.9 for divorced wives—and smallest 

in Wisconsin—2.3 and 4.0 percent—while in 

Iowa these percentages were 7.3 and 10.8 percent, respectively. In Hawaii the category of 

divorced husbands born out of State but married 

in the State was larger by 19.3 percent of the 

total State figure than that of husbands born in 

the State but married outside the Statq for 

divorced wives this percentage was 8.8. 

MARRIAGES OF DIVORCED COUPLES 

Place of Marriage 

The place where marriage was performed 

was reported for 89.5 percent of divorces granted 

in the DRA. Marriages of78 ,949 divorced couples, 

or 60.0 percent of those for which the place of 

marriage was reported, were performed in the 

State where the decree was granted, and 52,665 

divorced couples (40.0 percent) were married 

in a different State. These percentages varied 

considerably among the registration States. In 

Oregon only 35.9 percent of divorces were granted 

in 1962 to couples married in the State; in five 

additional States (Alaska, Idaho, Tennessee, Utah, 

and Wyoming) this proportion was less than 

half. The highest percentage of couples married 

in the divorce State, 76.2, was found in Georgia, 

while in Maryland and Michigan this percentage 

was also above 70.0. The proportion of divorced 

couples married outside the State where the decree was granted tends .to increase slightly from 

east to west. The proportion of divorced couples 

married in the State where the decree was granted 

was 60 percent or more in 5 out of 9 registration 

States situated east of the Mississippi River but 

only in 3 States out of 12 situated west of the, river. 

Divorces by Duration of Marriage 

Duration of marriage at time of decree was 

computed by subtracting the date of marriage 

from the date of decree. The date of decree is 

available on all divorce records, and the date of 

marriage is reported with a high degree of completeness: For 1962 it was available for 97.5 

percent of all divorces granted in the 21 registration States combined. 

In all registration States combined, 36.2 “‘ 

percent of divorces were granted after less than 

5 years of marriage, and 61.5 percent of marriages 

of divorced couples lasted Iess than 10 years; 

on the other hand, 13.2 percent of divorces were 

NUMBER 

In thousands) PERGENT 

145,000 — 100 

116,600 80 

6B,200 60 

5B,600 40 

29,400 20 

0 0 

0 10 20 30 40+ 

DURATION OF MARRIAGE IN YEARS 

Figure i’. Cumulative distribution of divorces 

and annulments by duration of marriage in years: 

d i vorce-reg i strat i on area, [962. 

23 
granted after 20 years or more of marriage (table 

i8 and fig. 7). ‘The modal duration at ‘divorce 

was 1 year, when 8.6 percent of all decrees 

were granted, followed by the duration of 2 years 

with 8.3 percent of decrees and of 3 years with 7.6 

percent. Except for one single variation the percentage declined with each added year of duration 

as shown in table 18. 

One divorce out of 20 was granted after less 

than 1 year of duration; since a part of the 

period between marriage and decree was taken 

by legal proceedings, the duration of marriage 

was very short at the time when the divorce 

petition was filed with the court. Data for earlier 

years indicate that about half of all annulments 

were granted within 1 year after marriage. 1213 

The numbers of decrees granted less than 1 year 

after marriage was performed depend to a large 

extent on legal regulations of individual States, 

and they vary between less than 1 percent of the 

annual totals in Maryland and Virginia to more 

than 10 percent in Idaho and Wyoming. These 

percentages tend to be high in the West and low in 

the North and the East. 

Variations in the duration of marriage between the reporting States for periods over 1 

year of duration are less pronounced than those 

found for marriages which lasted less than 1year. 

The proportion of divorces granted after 20 years 

of marriage or more tended to be higher in the 

East than the West; the proportion was lowest in 

Wyoming (8.4 percent) and Utah (8.8 percent) 

and highest in Maryland (15.9 percent) and 

Pennsylvania (17.4 percent). 

Median Duration of Marriage 

The median duration of marriage at decree 

in the 21 registration States in 1962 was 7.3 

years. This median depends to a considerable 

extent on the States included in the registration 

area because variations between individual States 

were pronounced and the medians ranged from 

5.3 years in Wyoming to 9.6 years in Pennsylvania 

(fig. 8); medians in 16 States were lower than 

the median for the DRA, and in 5 States they 

were higher. The first and third quartiles of 

duration of marriage for the DRA were 3.4 

and 14.5 years, respectively. 

The duration of marriage at time of decree 

was closely associated with the number of children 

under 18 years of age reported by the divorced 

couple. As expected, the median duration increased as the number of children increased, 

but’ some exceptions to this rule were found. 

In all States the median duration of marriages 

when three children or more were reported was 

longer than the duration of marriages with two 

children, and the duration of marriages of couples 

with two children was longer than that of those 

with either one child or no children. In 15 States 

the duration for couples with one child was longer 

than for childless couples, but in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin the contrary 

was true. In Hawaii and Michigan both medians 

were identical. These irregularities were due to 

the composite character of the category’ ‘divorced 

couples reporting no children, ” which included 

three subcategories: (1) couples married a short 

time and no children born as yet, (2) childless 

couples of various durations of marriage, and 

(3) couples of which all children were over 18 

years of age and hence not reportable in divorce 

suits. 

For the DRA the median duration of marriage 

was 5.0 years when no children were reported, 

6:0 years when there was one child, 8.9 years 

when there were two children, and 12.3 years 

when the number of children was three or more. 

The larger the number of children reported, 

the less variation among the States in the duration 

of marriage to decree. ‘This variation was most 

pronounced when no children were reported; it 

ranged from 2.7 in Wyoming to 9.8 in Penns ylvania. 

However, the width of this range declined with 

each additional child. For couples reporting three 

children or more, median duration varied between 

10.2 years in Utah and 14.0 in Alabama. 

For the DRA the median duration of marriages 

was 7.1 years in 1961 and 7.3 years in 1962. 

Thus the duration increased slightly due to the 

inclusion in the DRA of a new State, Ohio, with 

an above-average median duration (7.7 years), 

and to the increase of median duration in 11 

registration States with a total of 62,796 decrees 

granted. However, this median declined in 7 

States, where 47,440 divorces took place, and did 

not change in 2 States with 13,610 divorces. 

24 
o	 2 4 YEARS ‘6 8 10 

I I 1 I 

DRA 

PENNSYLVANIA 

MARYLAND 

VIRGINIA 

MICHIGAN 

OHIO 

WISCONSIN 

ALABAMA 

HAWAII 

SOUTH DAKOTA 

OREGON 

TENNESSEE 

ALASKA 

lOWA 

MISSOURI 

NEBRASKA 

GEORGIA 

KANSAS 

MONTANA 

IDAHO 

UTAH 

WYOMING 

Figure 8. Median duration of marriage prior to divorce: divorce-registration area and each registration 

State, 1962. 

CHILDREN OF DIVORCED COUPLES 

Divorces by NumberofChildren Reported 

Information about the number of children 

reported in divorce suits in 1962 was available 

on 136,163 divorce records, or 93percent ofall 

decrees granted in the DRA. The standard clefinition of children includes all own and adopted 

children and stepchildren under the age of 18 

years. However, in nine States the definition 

differed slightly from the standard, as shownin 

table-19. 

About 60 percent of divorced couples reported 

onechild or more, and about 40 percent reported 

that they had no children under 18 years of age 

(table 19 and fig. 9). In all registration States 

over half of the divorced couples had children; 

the proportion of childless couples was largest 

in Alaska and Tennessee (about 44 percent) 

and smallest in Utah (28 percent). Slightly over 

50 percent of all divorced couples reported 

one, two, or three children, and about 8 percent 

reported four children or more. In two-thirds 

of all registration States the percentage of comparatively small families, those with one to 

three children, ranged between 48.0 and 55.0; 

the percentage of comparatively large families, 

those with four children or more, was between 

6.0 and 10.0 in 17 registration States (table 19). 

25 
NUMBER 

In thousands] 

‘“~ 

I


80 

60 

L 

WNhoul children I n reported I 

ALL OIVORCES I 2 3 4 5 

or more 

NUMBER OF CHILOREN REPORTED 

Figure 9. Divorces and annulments by number of 

children reported: divorce-registration area, 

1962. 

The numberofchildren reportedisassociated 

with the duration of marriage at decree. For the 

DRA States combined, themedian number ofchildren for all decrees granted in 1962 was 1.44. 

This median was 0.58 when the duration of 

marriage was less than 1 year, 0.85 when the 

duration was 1-2 years, 1.28 when the duration 

was 3-4 years, 1.87 for 5-9 years, 2.41 for 

10-14 years, and .1.69 for 15 years or more. 

The decline in the median for the group with the 

longest duration of marriage can be explained 

by the fact that divorced couples with children 

18yearsof ageor older and hence not reportable 

in divorceproceedings wereincluded inthisgroup. 

The decline in the median number of children for 

the group with the longest duration ofmarriage 

corresponds to the comparatively long duration 

of marriage found for childless couples in some 

States. 

NumberofChildren Involvedin 

Divorce Cases 

From divorce data classified by the number 

of children reported, numbers of children involved in divorce cases in 1962 were estimated 

for each registration State, the DRA, and the 

United States. The method used for estimating 

the number of children is discussed in the 

Appendix. The total number of children involved 

in 1962 in divorces granted in the United States 

was 537,000, the second annual figure to go above 

half’ a million (the total was 501,000 in 1961). 

For the DRA States combined, the total was 

189,300. The ratio between the number of children involved and the number of decrees was 

1.30 for the United States and 1.29 for the DRA; 

it varied for individual States between 1.14 in 

Maryland and 1.71 in Hawaii (fig. 10). When 

compared with 1961 data, this ratio increased for 

the United States (1.21 in 1961), for the DRA 

(1.24 in 1961) and for 14 reporting States; it 

declined in 5 States (Alabama, Hawaii, Iowa, 

South Dakota, and Wisconsin) and did not change 

in 1 State, Tennessee; the 1961 figure was not 

available for Ohio. 

The 1960 Census of Population indicates that 

58,996,894 children under 18 years of age were 

living with parents who were subject to the risk 

of divorce, that is, either with both parents or 

with one married parent, including children living 

with a separated parent. 14 The number of married 

persons was enumerated as 42,630,422 males 

and 42,905,285 females ,15 and there were 1.38 

children per each married man or women. This 

figure is only slightly larger than the ratio of 

children per divorce in both 1961 and 1962. 

It indicates that children cannot be considered 

deterrents to divorce to any appreciable degree. 

The number of children involved in divorce 

cases increased considerably in the United States 

26 
.. 

0 0.5 I .0 1.5 2.0 

I I I I 

UNITED STATES 

DRA 

Hawaii 

Utah 

South Dakota 

I Owo 

Kansas 

Montana 

Pennsylvania 

Nebraska 

Wyoming 

Idaho 

Oregon 

Wisconsin 

Michigan 

Ohio 

Alabama 

Alaska 

Missauri 

Georgia 

Virginia 

Tennessee 

Maryland 

o 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 

1-

Figure 10. Ratio of number of children reported ger total number of decrees: divorce-registration area 

and each registration State, 1962. 

during the 10-year period 1953-62 for which this 

information was estimated (table 20)–from 

330,000 in 1953 to 537,000 in 1962, an increase 

of 63 percent. During the same time fluctuations 

of the national divorce totals were comparatively 

small: The total increased 6percentfrom390,000 

in 1953 to 413,000 in1962 (fig. 11). The national 

ratio of children per divorce increased during 

this decade from 0.85 to 1.30, and the rateof 

children involved in divorce cases per 1,000 

total children under 18’years of age grew from 

6.4 in1953 to8.O in 1962.16 The increase involvement of childrenin divorce cases, both in 

absolute mwnbers and in their relationshipto the 

number ofdecrees granted, was due primarilyto 

the growth in the reporting States of the proportion of divorces with children from 45.5 percent in1953t060.2in1962 and,to alesser degree, 

to the increase in these States of the ratio of 

children per divorce with children involved from 

1.86 in 1953 to 2.14 in 1962. Both these trends 

are shown on the next page. 

27 
Ratio of 

Number of Percent of children per 

Year 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1954------------------------------------------

1953-----------------------------------------­

‘“”’o”o~


500,000 

400,000 

0 I I I I I I I I 1953 1954 1955 1936 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 196: 

Figure Ii. Number of divorce decrees granted and 

number of children reported: United States, 

[953-62. 

report ing de::;;;r:;th divorce with 

States involved children 

involved 

60.2 2.14 :: 60.3 2.06 

50 56.7 2.08 

16 59.1 . 2.00 

12 55.1 1.96 

23 50.9 1.95 

22 48.9 1.93 

22 48.1 1.92 

22 47.8 1.88 

22 4.5.5 1.86 

LEGAL VARIABLES 

Legal GroundsforDecree 

Legal grounds for divorce and annulment < 

are specified in State statutes. There aremarked 

differences among States in the grounds available and in the definitions of individual grounds. 

A distinction must be made between legal 

grounds for a decree and the underlying causes 

of the divorce or annulment. In some cases decrees are obtained on the ground that is least 

unpleasant to claim and easiest to establish in 

legal proceedings. 

Almost three out of five divorces (81,422) 

granted inthe2 l registration States weregranted 

on the grounds of cruelty, including indignities 

and mental suffering. These related grounds 

were alleged in the majority of divorces granted 

in 16 of the registration States. There were 

only five exceptions—Alaska, Kansas, Maryland, 

Ohio, and Virginia. The percentage of decrees 

granted for cruelty and related grounds ranges 

from none in Virginia and less than’0.5 percent 

in Maryland to more than 90 in Idaho and Iowa. 

Desertion, including abandonment, absence, 

and combinations of desertion withothergrounds, 

was alleged in about one out of five cases 

in the registration States (26,202) and represented the majority of decrees granted in 

28 
one State, Virginia (88.6 percent), as well as 

more than a third of the decrees granted in three 

States–Alabama (37.0 percent), Maryland (42.6), 

and Tennessee (23.9 percent). 

One out of five decrees (25,868) were granted 

for nonsupport or nonsupport combined with 

cruelty, but divorces granted on this ground represented about .75 percent of those that occurred 

in I<ansas and over 80 percent of those granted 

in Ohio. 

Less than 2 percent of all divorces were 

granted for adultery (including infidelity) and 

adultery combined with other grounds, and in 

only one State, Maryland, did these divorces 

represent more than 10 percent of the State 

total. 

All the remaining legal grounds were alleged 

in only 5 percent of the cases (6,629). The situation 

was unusual in Alaska, where incompatibility was 

given as grounds in more than 90 percent of the 

divorces, and in Maryland, where 35 percent of 

/ decrees were granted because of voluntary separation. 

The distribution of divorces and annulments 

by legal ground for decree depends in part on 

coding rules; these rules are particularly important for cases where the decree was granted 

on two or more grounds but only one ground 

could be tabulated. The coding rules used for the 

1962 data were the same as those used for 1960 

and 1961 figures. As each State uses its own 

coding system, the figures given in this report 

may differ from the same distribution published 

by a State agency. 

Plaintiff 

Divorce data for 1962 include information 

about plaintiffs in suits of divorce or annulment. 

In the divorce-registration area in 71.2 percent 

of all divorces the plaintiff was the wife, and in 

28.8 percent it was the husband. 

Party to Whom DecreeGranted 

The divorce decree was granted to the wife 

in 70.9 percent of cases and to the husband in 

26.5 percent. A comparatively small number of 

decrees—9 ,321, or 6.6 percent of the total—were 

granted by the court to a person or persons other 

than the plaintiff. The decree was granted to the 

wife in 10.0 percent of divorces where the husband was plaintiff, and in 1.8 percent of cases 

where the plaintiff was the wife, the decree was 

granted to the husband. Moreover, 3,741 decrees, 

or 2.7 percent of the total, were granted to a 

person other than the husband or wife or to husband and wife jointly; all except 81 such decrees 

were granted in two States, Alabama and Georgia. 

29 
REFERENCES


lNational vital stati~tic~Division: v~j~z~j~~.i~$~~~ of the 

United Mates, 1960, Vol. III. Public Health Service. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964. tables 3-D 

through 3-J and 4-1, -7, -8, and -9. 

2U. S. Bureau of the Census: U.S. Census of Population, 

1960. Vol. I, Chamzctetistics of the Population, tables 105 in 

Parts 13, 17, 44, and 51. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963. 

3National Vital Statistics Division: Op. cit. table l-T. 

4National Vital Statistics Division: Vital Statistics of the 

United States, 196??, Vol. 111. Public Health Service. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1965. table 1-13. 

5U.S, Bureau of the Census: Op. cit., tables 15 in Parts 

13, 17, 44, and 51. 

6Department of Health, State of Hawaii: Annrd RwTL 

1960. Statistical Supplement. Honolulu. table 51. 

7Department of Health, State of Hawaii: Annua7 Report, 

1961. Statistical Supplement. Honolulu. table 54. 

8u. s. Bureau of the Census: Op. cit., tables 98 in Parts 

13, 17, 44, and 51. 

‘Ibid. 

10National Vital Statistics Division: Vita? Statistics of the 

United States, 1960, Vol. III. Public Health Service. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964. table 4-1. 

llNational Vital Statistics Division: Vitai Statistics of the 

United States, 1961, Vol. 111. Public Health Service. Washington. U.S. Governnient Printing Office, 1965. table 4-1. 

12National Office of Vital Statistics: Vita2 Statistics of the 

United States, 2958, Vol. I. Public Health Service. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1960. table 23. 

13National Office of Vital Statistics: Vital Statistics of the 

United States, 1959, Vol. I. Public Health Service. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1961. table 23. 

14u. S. Bureau of the Census: U.S. Census of Population, 

1960. Vol. I, Characteristics of the Population. Part 1, United 

States Summay. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, 

1964. table 281. 

151bid., table 176. 

16 Population bases given in table 1 of U.S. Bureau of the 

Census, “Estimates of the Population by Age, for States and 

Puerto Rico, July 1, 1962, ” Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 280, Washington, D. C., 1964. 

17Walker, H, M., and Lev, J.: Statistical Inference. New 

York. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1953. pp. 154-157. 

000 

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

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

Table 1.


2.


3.


4.


5.


6.


7.


8.


9.


10. 

11. 

12.


13.


14.


--.,- . .. . . . . . . . . Utl AILtU lA15Lt5 

REPRESENTAIYWHTESS OF AVAILABLE DATA


Selected characteristics of husband and wife: divorce-registration area and four


selected States, 1960-61--------------------------------------------------------


ANNUAL TOTALS


Number and rate of divorces and annulments.’United States and each region
 sion, and State, 1958-62-------------_----:-----------_--_--------_-_-_-_:_?!-::


AGE AT TIME OF DECREE AND AT TIME OF MARRIAGE


Median ages of divorced husband and wife at time of decree and at time of mar­


riage: divorce-registration area and each registration State, 1962--------------


Divorce rates by age of husband and of wife at time of decree and color: four


selected States, 1960-61--------------------------------------------------------


Percent distribution of divorces and annulments, by age of husband and wife at


time of decree according to color: total of four selected States, 1960-61-------


Median age of husband and of wife at time of decree, by color and number of this


marriage: four selected States, 1960-61-----------------------------------------


Percent distribution of divorces and annulments, by number of marriages of hus­


band and of wife according to age at time of decree: total of four selected


States, 1960-61-----------------------------------------------------------------


Percent distribution of divorces and annulments, by age of husband according to


age of wife at time of decree and median age: total of four States, 1960-61-----


Percent distribution of divorces and annulments, by age of husband at time of


marriage according to age of wife at time of marriage: total of four selected


States, 1960-61-----------------------------------------------------------------


Median age at time of marriage of divorced husbands and of wives, by color and


marriage order: total of four selected States, 1960-61--------------------------


COLOR OR RACE AND MARRIAGE ORDER


Divorce rates per 1,000 males and females, 15 years of age and over, by race:


four selected States, 1960


Number and percent distribution of divorces, by color of husband and wife: four


selected States, 1960-61


Percent distribution of white and nonwhite husbands and wives, by age,at decree


and marriage order: total of four selected States, 1960-61----------------------


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


husband by number of this marriage of wife: total of four selected States 1960-


6l-----------------------------------------------------------------------t------


Page


33


34


36


36


37


37


38


38


39


39


40 

40 

41 

41 -

31

DETAILED TABLES—Con,


Page


RESIDENCE AND BIRTHPLACE


Table 15.	 Percent distribution of divorces and annulments, by residence of husband at de­


cree, by residence of wife at decree: total of four selected States, 1960-61---- 42


16.	 Percent distribution of divorces and annulments by birthplace of husband and of


wife: total of four selected States, 1960-61------------------------------------ 42


17.	 Percent distribution of plaintiffs and defendants, by birthplace and State of


residence: four selected States, 1960-61---------------------------------------- 43


DURATION OF MARRIAGE AND CHILDREN INVOLVED IN DIVORCES


18.	 Percent distribution of divorces and annulments, by duration of marriage: di­


vorce-registration area and each registration State, 1962----------------------- 44


19.	 Percent distribution of divorces and annulments, by number of children reported:


divorce-registration area and each registration State, 1962--------------------- 46


20.	 Estimated number of children involved in divorces and annulments: United Statea, 

l953-62------------------------------------------------------------------------- 46 

32

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 1. Selected characteristics of husband and wife: divorce-registration area and four selected


States, 1960-61


[Byplace of occurrence. Based on sample data. For lower limits of open-ended intervals, see Appendix] 

Divorce-regis- Selected States
 tration area


Characteristic


1960 1961 Total Hawaii Iowa Tennessee Wisconsin


AGE AT TIME OF DECREE 

Husband Age in years 

First quartile-------------- 26.9 27.0 26.5 28.0 26.2 25.8 28.1 

Median 34.1 34.0 33.4 34.3 32.8 32.4 35.9 

Third quartile-------------- 43.7 43.2 43.9 42.9 43.3 42.9 46.4 

Wife 

First quartile-------------- 23.8 23.9 23.3 25.3 23.0 22.7 24.7 

Median 30.9 30.8 30.0 31.3 29.4 29.0 32.7 

Third quartile-------------- 39.7 39.6 39.6 38.8 39.5 38.4 42.2 

AGE OF TIME OF MARRIAGE


Husband


First quartile-------------- 21.1 20.7 20.8 21.8 20.9 20.4 21.4


Median 24.2 23.8 24.0 25.0 24.1 23.6 24.4


Third quartile-------------- 30.4 29.7 30.0 32.0 30.6 29.6 30.6


Wife


First quartile-------------- 18.7 18.6 18.7 19.3 18.7 18.5 18.9


Median 20.9 20.6 20.8 22.6 21.1 20.0 21.5


Third quartile-------------- 26.1 25.5 25.5 27.7 25.6 25.0 25.8


COLOR


Husband Percent distribution 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

White 89.1 88.9 87.7 46.0 97.3 86.6 93.6 

Nonwhite 10.9 11.1 12.3 54.0 2.7 13.4 6.4 

Wife 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

White 89.0 88.7 :3.; 39.8 97.4 86.5 93.5 

Nonwhite 11.0 11.3 . 60.2 2.6 13.5 6.5 

MARRIAGE ORDER


Husband


Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Married once---------------- 73.2 73.6 70.6 74.0 64.5 70.7 76.7


Married more than once------ 26.8 26.4 29.4 26.0 35.5 29.3 23.3


Wife


Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Married once---------------- 72.2 73.0 70.3 70.4 64.5 70.9 76.3


Married more than once------ 27.8 27.0 29.7 29.6 35.5 29.1 23.7


33

-----

----------

-----

------

------

-----

------

------

---------

-------

------

------

-----

---

---

---

---

---

---

Table 2. Number and rate of divorces and annulments: United States and each region, division, and


State, 1958-62


[Byplaceofocc.me.ce. Dataare coun&ofdecrees gmntedsupplied by States exeept asnoted. Totals for Utited Shtes, \VestRegion, and Pacific Division include Alaska beginning 1959, and Hawaii, 1960. Rates per 1,000 population in each area, enumerated as of ADril 1 for 1960 

and estimated as of July 1 for another years] 

Region, divi­


sion, and State


United


Statesl--


Regions:


Northeast


North Central-


South---------


West


Northeast:


New England---


Middle


Atlantic


North Central:


East North


Central


West North


Central


South:


South


Atlantic


East South


Central------


West South


Central


West:


Mountain


Pacific-------


New England:


Maine


New Hampshire-


Vermont


Massachusetts-


Rhode Isla,nd--


Connecticut---


Middle Atlantic:


New York


New Jersey----


Pennsylvania-­


East North


Central:


Ohio----------


Indiana-------


Illinois------


Michigan


Wisconsin


Number Rate


1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958


413,000 414,000 393,000 395,000 368,000 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.1


239,000 39,000 20.9 11::$:: ll;:;::: 1106,000 1108,000 ll;;$:; 1::! 1;:; 12.1 1;:: 1;:: 

1155,000 1160,000 1152,000 1153,000 12.7 12.8 12.8 12.8


1108,000 1102,000 296,000 195,000 189,000 13.6 13.5 23.4 13.4 13.3


14,156 13,349 212,842 12,917 12,371 1.3 1.3 21.2 1.2 1.2


26,190 25,124 26,255 26,028 25,229 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8


179,566 184,162 177,639 274,408 273,662 12.2 12.3 12.1 * *


30,533 229,647 228,533 28,755 2.27,001 2.0 21.9 21.9 1.9 21.8”


60,802 59,264 55,526 255,237 250,758 “2.2 2.2 2.1 22.2 22.0


34,532 239,718 239,138 236,176 2.8 ‘23.3 * 9<


158,411 257,659 255,000 158,039 * ?< * 7’<


135,851 132,402 228,846 131,275 130,631 14.8 14.5 24.2 14.7


172,289 269,494 66,395 63,601 158,155 13.2 23.2 3.1 3.; 13.0


2,092 2,027 22,168 1,977 1,884 2.1 2.2 2.1 2.0 

1,363 1,126 1,119 1,049 991 ;:; 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.7 

452 487 487 502 1.3 1.3 1.3 

6,312 5,836 25,% ;,;:; 5,587 ::: 2::; 1.1 1.1 

921 1,040 954 946 1.0 ::; 1.1 1.2 1.1 

3,016 2,833 2,546 2;897 2,461 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.0 

6,555 6,394 7,235 7,691 8,670 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5


5,319 5,124 4,591 4,446 4,316 0.8 ::: 0.8 0.7 0.7


14,316 13,606 14,429 13,891 12,243 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.1


l:;::;? 22,429 

115,241 

22,960 

112,794 

22,655 

28,228 2:;;;:; 1;:: 1;:; 1;:; 

2.3 2.2 

18,820 25,973 21,809 ’222,700 20,719 1.9 2.6 2.2 22.; 2.; 

17,500 16,219 16,416 16,168 14,040 2.2 2.0 2.1 

4,5471 4,300 3,660 4,657 4,499 1.1 1.1 ::; 1.2 ;:? 

See footnotes at end of table.

-----

------

------

------

------

------

-------

-------

-------

------

-----

---------

-------

-------

------

-------

----------

--------

--------

--------

--------

---

---

---

---

Table 2. Number and rate of divorces and annulments: United States and each region, division, and


State, 1958-62-Con.


[By place of occurrence. Data arecounts ofdecreesgrrmted eupplied by States except as noted. Totals for United States, WestRegion, snd Pacific Division include Alaska beginning 195~ and Hawaii, 1960. Rates per 1,000 population in each area, enumerated as of April 1 for 1960 

and estimated ae of July 1 forallother yeare] 

Kegion, divi­


sion, and State


West North


Central:


Minnesota


Iowa----------


14issouri


North Dakota-­


South Dakota-­


Nebraska


Kansas--------


South Atlantic:


Delaware


Maryland


District of


Columbia-----


Virginia


West Virginia-


North Carolina


South Carolina


Georgia


l?lorida


East South


Central:


Kentucky------


Tennessee-----


Alabama


Mississippi---


West South


Central:


Arkansas


Louisiana


Oklahoma------


Texas


Mountain:


Montana


Idaho--------­


tJyoming


Colorado


New Mexico----


Arizona


Utah


Nevada


Pacific;


Washington----


Oregon


California----


Alaska


Hawaii


Number Rate


1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958


4,536 4,227 4,139 3,820 3,881 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.2 

12,069 211,633 21:: ;;: 11,824 210,747 2.8 2;:; M 2.8 2;:: 

631 633 596 590 515 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.8 

871 854 794 763 641 1.2 1.2 1.2 

2,357 2,373 2,151 2,201 2,129 1.6 1.5 H ::: 5,330 5,150 4,810 4,963 4,789 2.4 H 2.2 2.3 2.2 

4,739 4,777 4,594 4>299 1.7 1.7 

555 593 693 617 573 :.; 1.3 1.6 1.4 

6,022 5,296 5,140 5,319 5,040 . 1.7 1.7 1.7 H 

1,174 1,140 1,142 1,230 1,148 1.5 1.6 1.5 

7,674 

3,814 

7,559 

3,837 

7,368 

3,574 2;:$; 6,690 

23,577 

1.8 

2.1 

::2 

2.1 ;:; 2;:: 2::; 

6,863 6,440 6,047 6,369 ;,;;; 1.5 1.4 1:3 1.4 1.2 

2,681 3,178 3,068 3,034 1.3 1.3 1.2 

9,841 9,539 8,940 8,609 7:975 ;:: H 

22,178 21,682 19,554 19,550 17,604 4.1 ::: 3.9 ::: ::: 

7,243 27,467 27,528 ‘26,888 2.3 22.4 *


9,522 9,323 9,053 9,205 8,808 2.;


12,300 17,715 17,320 14,975 12,311 ::: H 5.3 ::; ::;
 5,467 5,213 5,237 5,108 5,016 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4


25,872 25,377 25,617 24,948 3.4 23.3 * 23.2 22.9 

2:$:: 25,142 24,142 23,666 Ill ,194 111,305 10,749 113,133 112,466 14.; 14.; 4.: 15.; 15.5 

36,918 235,340 34,732 35,623 33,678 3.6 23.6 3.6 3.8 3.6 

1,932 2,034 2,006 2,062 2,023 2.8 3.0


2,547 2?685 2,592 2,652 2,372 ::8 %: ::; 3.7


M


3,645 23,220 2;:;;; 22,093 22,771 3.7 23.3 23; 2’3.1 

7,788 6,973 4;780 16,503 15,910 ;.; 4.9 3.7 15.; 15.0 

2,480 2,360 2,166 1,336, 1,259 

9>415 8,223 8>455 9,509 9,409 26:9 2;:; 2;:: 3::; 3::2 

19,829 29,355 9,341 9,341 19,003 13.3 23.2 3.3 3.3 ‘3.2 

6,074 6,023 5,720 6,009 5,452 3.4 ;.; 54,011 51,:;; 49>276 47,:;; 43,700 M ::: ;:? 3.1 

904 788 560 3.7 3.9 ;.; 3.0 2:5 

1,471 1,556 1,270 1,378 1,228 2.1 2.4 . 2.2 2.,0 

1;;;;; 15,600


1,307 1,308 1$;;: 1;:;;: 13.5 1::: 4.0 1::: 1;:: 

lData are estimated.


2Data are incomplete.


35

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

l!able3. Median ages of divorced husband and wife at time of decree and at .timsof marriage: divorce-registration area and each registration State, 1962 

1% yeofocgpmm. Bamdon yunpk dritsJ 

I

Median age of husband Median age of wife Percent of 

cases of age 

Area of husband not 

At time of At time of At time of At time of stated at time 

decree marriage decree marriage of decree 

Divorce-registration area----------------- 34.5 24.0I 31,0 I 20.7 43,4 

I I 

Alabsms----------------------------------------- 96.4 Alaska 83,0 

Georgia----------------------------------------- 64,3 mwaii 

2::: Iowa 

Kansas 2::: Maryland---------------------------------------- 35.7 Michigan 63,5 Missouri----------------------------------------

Montana $; Nebraska 

Ohio 76:1 Oregon 27.3 Pennsylvania 16.4 South Dakota 90,2 Temessee 

Utah-------------------------------------------- 1::: Virginia 3:,: 

Wisconsin 

Wyming----------------------------------------- 92:5 

Table 4. Divorce rates by age of husband and of wife at time of decree and color: four selected States, 1960-61


[Byplace ofoc.meuo..Basedonsampledata] 

Selected States 

Age of husband and of Total Hawaii Iowa Tennessee Wisconsin wife at time 

of decree 

J!otal white $&e Total, white :g;e Total white :g;e Total white ~;e Total white ‘On- white 

Husband 

Total- 7.5 7,1 10,7 

Under 

20 years--- 24.S 26.6 20-24 years- 23-~9 ysare- 22.0 

15.5 22.3 

15.2 J:; 

17.6 30-3.4year8- 35-39 years- 10.2 9.5 

6.8 16,0 

13.3 40-44 pars- ;:; 6.5 11.4 45-49’years- 5,6 5.4 7.2 50+ years---T2.5 2.3 5,4

Total- 7.5 7,1 10.7 

Under 

20 yaara--- 20-24 year.s- 29.0 

18.9 30.7 1S.8 13.4 18.1 25-29 years- 11.1 10.7 14,6 30-34 years- 9,0 8,3 13,1 35-39 years- 6.8 9,.9 40-44 years- ;:; 5.6 S.5. 45-49 ysars- 4.2 3.9 50+ years--- Ir1.8 1.6
 i::

lThe rate for the total population 

bands and wivee for whom color was not 

Sates per 1,000 married population amnnerated in 1960 

10,5 13,3 8.9 7.0 6.9 23,2 111.0


10,9 13,1 9.S 7,0 6.9 20,3 110,8 _ _ . 

;:.; 11,6 20.7 28.7 29.2 16.9 26,2 21.s 21.1 6::; 24,5 15:0 16.3 14.3 10,6 10.4 29.3 ;:.; 13,4 15,5 1:.$ S,2 8.2 12.3 10,1 13,3 6.3 6.2 12.9 9:8 7,1 6:2 17,3 7,1 

5,3 1::: 3.2 R ::: 1s,2 5,3 3.2 6.0 2.2 1,4 1.4 3,5 2,4 

2::: 1::: 2::; 2S,5 

22.3 2S,8 22.5 1?:: 31,4 

30.s 16.4 15,5 17,3 16,6 1$.: 53,7 22,4 14.7 16.8 13.3 ;.: . 45.2 1;.; 10.4 12.6 ;,: 28.7 9,3 12.1 6:2 ::: 25.4 9:s 8,3 1:,: 6:3 5.2 5.2 0.0 7.2 3.s 3.2 2.2 2.2 11.3 3.5 1[37,5

is slightly higher 

J--L than that for each color group stated. 

4,3
 _
 J+=== 34.2 11,1 12.4 12.9 32.6 12,1 11,5 11.5 1%$ 23.0 17,4 7,6 10.9 14.1 13.6 ;:: 29.7 8.9 16.1 4.6 ?; 17.2 9.2 14.0 4.4 4,-2- 12.6 6.9 

3.0 ::: 4.1 

1,8 

4,0 

1,7 1:.j 

. 

I 

10,7 10.2 4,3


+- 1 

41.3 10.8 14,7 14.5 17.2 26,4 11.3 10,4 10,1 16.4 16,3 13.6 6,0 5.6 15,9 1:.: 13.4. 15.7 10,9 R 2:: 10.5 -“8.8 4,3 ;.; 1s.3 %; 13.9 2,0 %+ ?;; 1:3 7,4 

because total figures include hus26 
------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---------

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

---------

---------

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

---------

--------

--------

Table 5. Percent distribution of divorces and annulments, by age of husband and wife at time of decree accord­


ing to color: total of four selected States, 1960-61


k
-.. placeof occurrence. Basedonsampledakl 

I 

Age at time of decree 

Total II White Nonwhite Nonwh2te 

* 

Percent distribution 

Total 100.0 100,0 100,0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Under 20 yeara 2.0 2.2 0.5 9.4 10.3 3.5 

20-24 years 17.1 18,3 7.9 23.5 24.4 16.6 

25-29 years 20.3 20.9 16.5 17.0 16,8 19.1 

30-34 years 15,8 15.4 19.0 15.0 14.4 19.4 

35-39 yeara 12.3 11,7 16.9 12.3 12.1 13.9 

40-44 years 10.8 10.5 13.1 9.3 9.2 10.0 

45-49 years 8.5 8.5 7.9 6.1 5.9 7.2 

50t years 13.3 12.5 18.2 7.4 7.0 10.1 

Husband Wife


Table 6. Median age of husband and of wife	 at time of decree, by color and number of this marriage: four se­
 lected States,1960-61


[By place of occurrence. Based on sample da~ 

SelectedStates


Color and number of
 Total 14awaii Iowa Tennessee Wisconsin
 this marriage


Husband Wife Husband Wife Husband Wife Husband Wife ‘Husband Wife


Median age at time of decree 

TOtal 33.4 30.C 34.3 31.3 32.8 29.4 32.4 29.0 35.9 32.7 — — — —

Color 

White 32.8 29,6 33.7 32.0 32.7 29.5 31.4 28.1 36.1 32.7 

First marriage 29.8 27.3 30.7 28.7 29.4 26.8 28.6 26.6 34.0 29.9 

Remarriage 40.6 36.5 40.5 36.0 39,2 36.9 39,7 34.6 45,6 41.7 

Nonwhite 36.8 32.8 34,9 31.0 33.8 28,0 39.1 35.0 34.2 32.0 

First marriage 34.7 29.9 34.0 28.9 29.0 25.8 36.0 32.5 34,0 27.9 

Remarriage 44.7 38.6 41.2 36.0 43.8 43.8 47.5 39.6 38.1 40.0 

Number of this


marriage


First merriage 30,4 27.2 32.4 29.1 29,5 25.8 29.4 26.4 33.4 29.8 

All remarriages 41.0 36.7 40.6 36.0 39,3 36.4 40.9 35.4 44.7 41.3 

Second merriage 40,7 36.1 39.9 35.2 39.8 35.5 40.4 34.9 43.8 40.7 

Third msrriage or more-- 43.9 40.0 43.6 39.6 43.3 41.7 42.5 37.5 49,4 44.0 

37

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 7. Percent distribution of divorces and annulments, by number of marriages of husband and


of wife according to age at time of decree: total of four selected States, 1960-61


[Byplace ofoccurrence. Basedons,ample
 data]


Number of marriages


Age at time of decree Husband I Wife 

I 

1 2 3+ 1 2 3+ 

Percent distribution


Total------------------------------------------- 100.0”	 — 

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Under 20 year----------------------------------------- 20-24 years------------------------------------------- 2$:; 

;.; 

1.9 

12.7 

29.2 5: 3.; 

25-29 years------------------------------------------- 23.6 11:9 18.2 15.7 

30-34 years------------------------------------------- 16.3 15.1 l::i 13.3 19.0 1;:: 

35-39 years 11.2 14.9 17.7 10.6 16.6 17.8 

40-44 years------------------------------------------- 9.6 14.1 12.4 13.7 14.9 

45-49 years------------------------------------------- 6.5 14.3 11.9 ;:: 11.9 

50+ years--------------------------------------------- 7.9 23.5 35.3 4.3 1;:; 23.0 

Table 8. Percent distribution of divorces and annulments, by age of husband according to age of


wife at time of decree and median age: total of four States, 1960-61


[BYplace ofoccurrence. Basedonsample
datal


II Age of wife at time of decree


Age of husband at time of decree Total


Urttr .20-24 25-29 30-34 35-44 45+
 Median


years years years years years years


Percent distribution


Total---------------------------- 23.5 17.0 15.0 21.6
 _


40-49 veals---------------------------- 100.0 I 0.4 4.8 13.3 60.8 1;:: 40.0 

50+ years 100.0 0.6 ;:: 1.4 5.9 21.8 70.0 47.9 

=+=== 

Under 25 years 53.5 20.8 

25-29 years 48.4 3::: +:; %: R 24.6 

30-34 years 16.5 36.9 34.9 10.3 0.4 29.4 

35-39 years---------------------------- 5.7 T13.2 36.0 41.9 34.3

1 

II Age of husband at time of decree 

Age of wife at time of decree Total


Uger 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-49 50+ ;Median


years years years years years years


Percent distribution


Total 20.3


+== 

Under 20 years------------------------- 100.0 85.8 11.1 

20-24 years---------------------------- 100.0 43.5 41.4 

25-29 years---------------------------- 100.0 3.8 45.7 

30-34 years---------------------------- 100.0 

35-44 years---------------------------- 100.0 ;:2 ::; 45+ years------------------------------ 100.0 0.0 0.0 I I I I 

38

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 9. Percent distributionof divorces and annulments,by age of husband at time of marriage according to age of wife at
 time of marriage: total of four selected Statea, 1960-61


[Byplnceofoc.unmce.
 Bmedonmimpbdrta] 

I II 

. Age of wife and h.aband at time of marrisge 

Percent Age of husband and of wife at time of marriage dlatribution Under 20-24 25-29 30-39 40+


< 20 years years years years years


Husband Wife


Total


Under 20 years
 20-24 years
 25-29 years F~
 30-39 years
 40+ yesrs


I Husband 

Total 

-1 18”4! 3’”6! “o’! 14.5! .10.6 Under 20 yeara 100.0 35.6 49.0 11.1 0.8 20-24 years 25-29 years 100.0 

100.0 7.8 ;;.: 23.7 

33.9 J:: 

36.0 21 

9k 30-39 yeara !100.0 ::1. 4:9 13.4 44.9 36.6 40+ yeara 100.0 0.6 2.3 13.0 84.0 

Table 10. Median age at time of marriage of divorced husbands and of wives, by color and marriage order: total of four se­
 lected States, 1960-61


[B, -. ,1...
of omurrenoe. Based m ,armla dad .J 

Selected States 

Color and marriage order of husband and of wife Tots1 

Hawaii Iowa Tennessee Wisconsin


Total Median age at tima of marriage


Husband 24.C 25.C 24.1 23.6 24.4
 Wife----------------------------------------------------------- 20.$ 22.6 21.1 20.0 21.5


-r


Both white


Husband 23..6 25.2 24.1 23.3 24.4
 Wife----------------------------------------------------------- 20.6 23.4 21.1 19.8 21.4


“thsr1


Husband 

Wife----------------------------------------------------------- 24.5 

22.? 24.9 

22.2 25.0 

21.5 25.0 

22.5 24.8 

21.8 

First marriage of both 

Husband-----------------,-------------------------------------- 22.1 23.2 22.0 21.7 2J..8 Wife----------------------------------------------------------- 19.1 20.3 19.0 18.9 19.7 

Remarriage of either or both 

Husbsnd 30.2 31.6 30.2 29.6 31.3 Wife----------------------------------------------------------- 25.7 28.3 25.2 25.0 26.8 

marriage of wife, remarriage of husband 

Husband 28.3 31.3 26.3 28.5 29.3 Wife----------------------------------------------------------- 21.7 23.1 21.0 21.8 22.0 

First marriage of husband, remarriage of wife 

Husband 24.9 26.6 26.6 23.2 28.9 Wife----------------------------------------------------------- 24.4 28.0 24.4 23.5 26.5 

Remarriage of both 

Huaband 36.8 Wife----------------------------------------------------------- 31.9 35.4 

32.3 35;2 31.1 37.2 

31.2 39.0 

35.L 

lIn~l~deaCoupIeS tith bOth or either spouse nonwhite ~ nOt stated. 

,Fi.rat


.39

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

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

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

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

--------

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

--------

--------

--- ---

---

--- ---

---

Table 11. Divorce rates per 1,000 males and females, 15 years of age and over, by race: four 

selected States, 1960 

[Byplaceof occurrence. Based on sample data. Population bases given in C/ii, C’enws of Population, 19/?/), Volume I, tables 96 in part?, 13, 17, 

44, and 51] 

Selected States 

Sex and color 

m 

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

White€

Negro€

Other nonwhite---------------------------€

Female 

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

White 

Negro------------------------------------

Other nonwhite 

lComPuted from less than 100 divorces. 

Total 

Hawaii Iowa Tennessee Wisconsin 

Rates per 1,000 males and females, 15+ years 

5.1 5.6 4.9 7.7 2.8 

4.9 7.2 4.8 7.8 2.6 

7.4 15.3 19.8 6.4 11,9 

4.7 4.8 15.2 

4.9 6.7 4.7 7.1 2.7 

4.7 4.5 7.3 2.5 

6.5 1;:; 17.0 5.6 11.0 

5.8 5.8 17.8 

Table 12. Number and percent distribution of divorces, by color ofhusband and wife: four selected 

States, 1960-61 

[By place of 0CC2U,,,”C,. Based on sample data] 

Color of husband and wife 

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

Both white--------------------------€ Both nonwhite-----------------------€

Husband white, wife nonwhite--------€

Husband nonwhite, wife white€

Not stated for either or both-------€

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

Both white--------------------------€

Both nonwhite€

Husband white, wife nonwhite€

Husband nonwhite, wife white€

Selected States 

Total 

Hawaii Iowa Tennessee Wisconsin I I 

Number 

38,544 2,824 9,360 18,420 7,940 

32,832 902 9,060 15,560 7,310 

4,446 1,306 240 2,420 480 

422 392 30 

248 218 10 20 

596 6 50 440 100 

Percent distribution 

+1 100.0 I 100.0 I 100.0 I 100.0 I I I 

86.5 32.0 97.3 86.5 93,2 

11.7 46.3 2.6 13.5 

13.9 ;:: 

::+ 7.7 0.1 0.3 

lExcludes color not stated fof either or both. 

40 
----------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 13. Percent distribution of white and nonwhite husbands and wives, by age at decree and


marriage order: total of four selected States, 1960-61


[Byplace ofoccurrence. Basedonsample
dati]


White Nonwhite


Age Total


Remar- Remar-
 First First
 riage riage


Husband Percent distribution


Total


Under 30 years


30-39 years


40-54 years


55+ years i m


Wife


Total----------------------------------- 100.0 70.5 29.5 69.2 30.8


L1


Under 30 years 100.0 84.4 15.6 89.8 10.2


30-39 years 100.0 61.6 38.4 61.3 38.7


40-54 years 100.0 53.0 47.0 48.8 51.2


55+ years 100.0 27.4 72.6 61.2 38.8


Table 14. Percent distribution of divorces and annulments, by number of this marriage of husband by number of this marriage of wife: total of four selected states, 1960-61 

@y place of occurrence. Basedonsampledatal


Number of times married


Percent I 11 

Number of times married distribution
 ‘e i ‘Otall 11 

E I

Husband Wife


Total--------------------------------- 1===1 70”31 2’-7!! 22+21 601 

Total


-

&A1---------------------------------------

Two-----------------------------------------

Three+--------------------------------------

one----------------------------------------- 100.0’ 86.1 13.9 12.2 

ona+l-_ 100.0 32.7 67.3 46.2 1::; 

Two----------------------------------------- 100.0 35.9 64.1 49.8 13.8 

Three+-------------------------------------- 100.0 26.3 73.7 42.7 28.8 

Wife Husband h1 timm 11 I II I 

lIn~ludes persons married more than once but number of this marriage not stated. 
------------------------------

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

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

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

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

-----------

Table 15. Percent distribution of divorces and annulments, by residence of husband at decree,


by residence of wife at decree: total of four selected States, 1960-61


by place of occurrence. Based on samde data 

Residence of wife


Residence of husband Total C:how; Different Different Dif5erent


county, State, region or


decree same same outside


k granted State region Us.


II 

Percent distribution


Total------------------------------ 100.0 89.1 6.6 1.7 2.6 

County where decree granted-------------- 100.0 88.7 3.4 

Different county, same State------------- 100.0 79.6 12:: ::; 

Different State, same region------------- 100.0 99.0 1.0 

Different region or outside U.S---------- 100.0 98.9 i.1 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

County where decree granted 83.1 82.8 72.3 95.3 100.0 

Different county, same State------------- 9.1 8.2 26.9 3.1 

Different State, same region------------- 3.1 1.6 

Different region or outside U.S---------- ::; 5.9 0.9 ,. 

Table 6. Percent distribution of divorces and annulments, by birthplace of husband and of wife:


total of four selected States, 1960-61


[13y place
of ocxxrrence. Based o“ sample data] 

State where decree granted


State of birth of husband and wife Total


Hawaii Iowa Tennessee Wisconsin


Birthplace of husband Percent distribution


Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

State where decree granted--------- 67.5 51.9 68.1 69.6 67.5 

Other State, same region----------- 19.5 7.4 21.8 22.3 L4.8 

Outside of region where 

decree granted 13.0 ,40.7 10.1 8.2 17.7 

Birthplace of wife


Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

State where decree granted--------- 70.6 62.6 71.6 72.0 69.1 

Other State, same region 19.2 7.0 19.1 22.4 16.4 

Outside of region where 

decree granted-------------------- 10.1 30.4 9.3 5.5 14.4 

42

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 17. Percent distribution ofplaintiffs and defendants, by birthplace and State of residence:


four selected States, 1960-61


[Syplace ofoccurrence. Basedonsample
.dat~


State where decree granted, birthplace,


and State of residence


Four selected States Percent distribution 

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Born in State of residence 71.4 69.0 74.3 72.5


Born in another State, same region 18.8 17.9 18.7 16.7


Born outside of region of residence 9.7 13.2 7.0 10.8


.. . .


Hawaii


Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Born in State of residence 59.4 66.2 75.5 62.2 

Born in another State, same region 9.7 8.1 7.1 8.1 

Born outside of region of residence 30.9 25.7 17.4 29.7 

Iowa


Total------------------------------------- 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Born in State of residence 73.0 69.8 75.1 69.1 

Born in another State, same region 17.0 21.9 17.8 18.2 

Born outside-of region of residence 10.0 8.3 7.0 12.7 

Tennessee


,, Total--------------------—--------------- 100.0 100.0 100.0 10000 

Born in State of residence 71.3 68.1 74.2 76.7 

Born in another State, same region 22.7 18.2 21.6 17.6 

Born outside of region of residence 6.0 13.7 4.2 5.7 

Wisconsin ,.


Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Born in State of residence 74.8 70.8 73.2 70.9 

Born in another State, same region 14.5 15.1 16.5 16.9 

Born outside of region of residence -10.7 14.1 10.2 12.2 

43
 . 
------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 18. Percent distribution of divorces and annulments,by duration of marriage: divorce-regis­


tration area and each registration State, 1962


[By place of wc.rrenwa Wised cm sample da~ 

Area


Divorce-registration area-­


Alabama


Alaska


Georgia------------------------


Hawaii


Idaho--------------------------


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


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


Maryland


Michigan


Missouri


Montana


Nebraska


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


Oregon


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


South Dakota


Tennessee


Utah---------------------------


Virginia


Wisconsin


Wyoming


Duration of marriage


Total 1-4 years


Under I


1 year L


Total 1 year 2 years 3 years 4 years


Percent distribution 

100.0 5.1 31.1 8.6 8.3 7.6 6.6 

100.0 7.8 30.5 9.3 7.5 7.1 6.6 

100.0 6.5 35.8 8.6 10.5 8.9 7.8 

100.0 7.2 37.2 11.8 9.8 8.8 6.8 

100.0 7.0 32.8 7.9 9.3 7.8 7.8 

100,0 10,6 35.3 11.3 9.2 8.4 6.4 

100.0 4.2 37.4 13.0 9.4 8.2. 6.9 

100.0 7.6 36.3 12.9 8.9 8.3 6.2 

100.0 0.7 25.0 3.5 6.6 7.9 7.1 

100.0 4.1 27.4 7.2 8.9 5.8 5.5 

100.0 7.5 33.8 11.8 8.0 6.3 7.7 

100.0 6.7 38.4 13.4 10.1 8.8 6.1 

100.0 6.2 37.6 8.7 11.4 9.9 7.6 

100.0 4.1 3C.3 7.6 7.9 7.6 7.2 

100.0 7.8 33.2 9.3 10.7 7.1 6.1 

100.0 1.4 24.5 4.8 5.3 8.6 5.8 

100.0 6.2 35.2 10.9 10.4 7.7 6.2 

100.0 6.8 35.5 11.0 9.7 7.6 7.2 

100.0 8.2 38.3 11.5 11.2 9.7 5.9 

100.0 0.8 24.9 4’.5 6.5 7.6 6.3 

100.0 4.3 31.3 7.3 7.9 10.0 6.1 

100.0 10.6 37.6 12.1 10.3 8.7 6.4 
Table 18. Percent distributionof divorcesand annulments,
by duration of marriage: divorce-rezis­


tration area and each registrationState, 1962-Con. –


) 

[f3y place of occurrence. Based on snmple data] 

Duration of marriage


5-9 years


10-14 15-19 20+ Median


years years years


Total 5 years 6 years 7 years 8 years 9 years


Percent distribution


25.3 7.0 5.1 4.9 4.4 3.7 15.1 10.3 13.2 7.3


24.8 6.5 4.8 4.3 5.0 4.3 11.4 11.3 14.2 7.1


24.9 6.8 5.3 5.9 3.3 3.7 14.4 9.2 9.2 6.2


23.0 6.4 4.5 4.5 4.3 3.3 11.5 8.2 12.9 5.9


22.4 5.3 5.1 4.5 3.8 3.7 16.3 10.4 11.2 7.0


22.7 6.7 4.2 4.7 4.1 2.9 12.6 8.1 10.6 5.6


23.4 7.7 4.2 4.0 3.8 3.8 12.8 9.6 12.6 6.2


22.1 7.0 4.2 3.8 4.3 2.8 13.8 9.8 10.4 5.9


27.3 7.4 5.2 5.4 4.7 4.7 18.8 12.3 15.9 9.4


27.8 7.7 4.9 6.0 5.2 4.0 15.0 10.9 14.7 8.0


26.5 8.0 6.3 3.7 3.3 4.7 12.5 10.1 9.7 6.1


22.8 5.7 6.3 3.8 4.0 2.9 13.9 8.9 9.2 5.9


20.1 5.8 4.7 3.8 3.5 2.3 14.7 8.9 12.6 6.1


25.8 6.6 5.5 5.2 4.7 3.7 17.6 9.3 12.9 7.7


23.1 6.8 4.8 4.3 4.6 2.6 15.4 10.9 9.6 6.5


25.9 7.7 4.2 4.8 4.2 4.9 17.9 12.9 17.4 9.6


23.2 6.0 4’.6 4.8 4.2 3.6 14.0 8.9 12.5 6.6


22.8 5.9 4.0 5.5 4.0 3.4’ 14.0 9.3 11.6 6.4


24.4 6.5 6.1 4.6 2.9 4.3 12.1 8.2 8.8 5.5


30.4 8.2 7.2 6.5 4.1 4.3 18.3 9.8 15.8 8.6


22.9 7.0 6.6 4.5 2.5 2.3 16.8 10.4 ‘ 14.3 7.2


22.0 6.3 4.0 4.2 4.0 3.4, 11.7 9.7 8.4 5.3


45

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 19. Percent distribution of divorces and annulments, by”number of children reported: di­


vorce-registration area and each registration State, 1962


[Byplace of occurrence. Based on sample data. Data relate tochildren uder 18years ofageexceptasnoted]


II Number of children reported 

Area Total


None 1 2 3 4 5+


Percent distribution 

Divorce-registration area--------- 100.0 39.8 23.3 18.9 10.2 4.5 

Alabamal 100.0 40.9 22.5 19.6 10.7 

Alaska2--------------------------------- 100.0 44.9 19.9 16.5 10.1 ::: 

Georgia--------------------------------- 100.0 40.2 26.2 18.3 9.0 3.1 

~awaiis--------------------------------- 100.0 29.7 22.5 21.1 13.1 7.8 

Idaho4---------------------------------- 100.0 39.5 20.9 19.3 11.7 5.3 

Iowa------------------------------------ 100.0 38.7 19.5 18.8 13.9 5.1 

KansasS--------------------------------- 100.0 36.5 26.0 16.9 10.7 5.5 

Maryland 100.0 36.6 29.1 22.7 

Michigan 100.0 41.5 19.9 18.0 1;:: ::; MissouriS 100.0 43.4 20.4 18.9 5.2 

Montana 100.0 38.9 22.1 16.4 J:; 

Nebraska4------------------------------- 100.0 36.6 26.4 17.7 11.2 %; 

Ohio 100.0 42.5 21.4 18.3 9.2 4.8 

Oregon---------------------------------- 100.0 :;.; 20.7 20:0 6.8 

Pennsylvania---------------------------- 100.0 30.5 22.8 1::$ 

South Dakota T 100.0 37:8 20.4 17.2 13.9 H

TennesseeC 100.0 44.3 23.2 17.4 4.0 

Utah------------------------------------ 100.0 28.2 25.7 22.4 1;:; 

Virginial 100.0 40.0 27.2 17.6 8.5 ::: 

Wisconsin 100.0 41.4 24.0 16.4 8.3 4.0 

Wyoming 100.0 38.1 23.0 17.7 12.2 5.4 

lNumber of minor children affected.


~Number of children under 21 affected.


Number of minor children.


4Number of children affected by decree.


5Number of children.


6Number of children under 18 years of this marriage.


Table 20. Estimated number of children involved in divorces and annulments United Sta~es, 1953-62


~atri
refer only to events occurring within the United States. For 1960-62 estimated from frequenci;sbased on sample, for other years estimated 

from total count. For method of estimation, see Appendixl 

Estimated Ratio of Rate per
 All divorces number of children per 1,000 children
 Year and


annulments children total decrees under 18 years


involved of age


1962------------------------------- 537,000 1.30 

1961------------------------------- 501,000 1.21 

1960------------------------------- 463,000 1.18 7.2 

1959------------------------------- 468,000 1.18 7.5 

1958------------------------------- 398,000 1.08 6.5 

1957------------------------------- 379,000 0.99 6.4 

1956------------------------------- 361,000 0.95 6.3 

1955------------------------------- 347,000 0.92 6.3 

1954------------------------------- 341,000 0.90 6.4 

1953------------------------------- 390;000 330,000 0.85 6.4 

46

APPENDIX 

souRcEsAND QUALITY 5FD-2KA 

Sources of Data 

This is the first analysis of annual divorce statistics to be published in Vital and Health Statistics, 

Series 21. Frequencies on which the analysis of 1962 

annual divorce data are based were published in Section 2, Volume III, Vital Statistics of the United States, 

1962. Comparable analyses for earlier years are to be 

found in the appropriate annual issues of Vital Statistics of the United States, and for years prior to 

1958 they are also in the Vital Statistics-Special 

Repoyts series. 

hs this report particukyr attention is paid to personal characteristics of divorced husbands and wives. 

The detailed statistics are for the combined years 

1960-61 and are limited to four States—Hawaii, Iowa, 

Tennessee, and Wisconsin—where the reporting of personal characteristics for these 2 years was considerably 

more complete than in the other States. The proportion 

of divorces with a variable not stated was in no case 

bigher than 10 percent and in most cases considerably 

lower. Since 1960 other States have reached a level of 

reporting completeness comparable to that of the four 

selected States. 

Detailed tabulations of personal characteristics 

of the divorced spouses for the year 1960 were 

thought to be highly desirable for both the United States 

and the divorce-registration area (D%). However, the 

unsatisfactory reporting of these variables from many 

areas made it necessary to limit the tabulations to the 

four States. In order to reduce sampling variabil~ty, 

1960 data were combined with the corresponding 1961 

figures. Tabulations of these data were prepared by 

the U.S. Bureau of the Census from punchcards provided by the National Center for Health Statistics 

(NCHS). Later it was decided to merge the report on 

personal characteristics with the regular annual analysis of 1962 divorce statistics. 

Two methods were used for collecting final divorce 

statistics for 1960, 1961, and 1962. Most of these statistics were estimated by NCHS from samples of 

transcripts of divorce and annulment records. The 

annual divorce totals for States shown in table 2 were 

provided by State and local officials, 

~ 

In order to promote regular, timely, and complete reporting, a divorce-registration area comparable 

to the registration areas developed for the collection 

of natali~, marriage, and mortality statistics was 

established in 1958. The DRA is made up of those 

States and independent &reas which meet the following 

criteria: 

1.	 They have established central files of divorce 

records. 

2.	 They have adopted a statistical report form that 

includes the required items of information on 

the Standard Record of Divorce or Annulment 

(fig. 12). 

3.	 They maintain a system based on regular and , 

timely reporting hy all local areas. 

4. They have agreed to carry out tests of ti”vorce 

registration completeness and accuracy in cooperation with NCHS. 

By 1962 21 States and the Virgin Islands were participating in the DRA (fig. 13). As Ohio was included in 

tie DRA on Jani.mry 1, 1962, DRA data for 1962 

cover a larger area than those for 1961 and earlier 

years. 

In 1960 a nationwide probabili~ sample program 

was initiated for collecting divorce statistics; they had 

been compiled for earlier years from predesigned tables 

submitted by the States. The 1960 program was continued 

for 1961 and 1962 ,but these programs were limited to 

States in the DRA. Hence national and regional statistics 

baaed on data &om samples of records are not available 

for 1962 except for the national total number of children 

involved in divorce cases, which has been estimated 

by methods explained below. AU other data are limited 

to the registration area and the individual registration 

States. Virgin Islands is excluded from the analysis; 

data for this area are published in Section 3, Volume 

III, Viti.z? Statistics of the United states, 1962. 

Variables shown in the 1962 tabulations appear on 

the divorce or annulment record forms of all registration States with the following exceptions: Kansas secured no data on residence of husband and wife; Ohio, 

on race or color, Nebraska, on the party to whom detree was grante~ and Nebraska and Virginia, on the 

number of times parties to the divorce had been mar47 
u.S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH EDUCATION, AND 

Public Health 

WELFARE 

Service 

(Stat.) 

OF VITAL STATISTICS STATE FILE X0. 

<DIw1*Jo.> 

:O”lirv STANDARD RECORD OF LOCAL FILE .0. 

1 n DIVORCE OR n ANNULMENT 

HUSBAND b) , . “,”E . . (Fir.t) b (Wddl.> c (La. t > 2. DATE (Mont(b-) (Y.., ) 

n I“lk 

1. USUAL .E%1OEMCC � . (Citv) b ,CO.J”,,) c . (St. t.) 4. PLACE (St. t. 0, for. i,n CC.II”tr, )— 

B1% 

,. NGU8ER OF S. RAcE OR COLOR 7.. USUAL OCCUP6TION ,b. K WI. Or OUSl HESS OR t .DUSTRV 

,“! , UARM 1AG6 

Sll lTE llEC#O OT.’2R 

� � � (. F+cllYJ_ 

Ill FE 

8. MAt DEX IIA.E . . (rl,.fj b (Hldd J.) c. (L.. t, S. DATE (w..,.+) (D. “J (V... ) 

� 1%11 

10. USUAL REsl Dmc E ., (Clw) b. (Cw.,,) . . (St.,.) t t. PLACE [Stat. Or f... dd. .W. trY>— 

01:18 

12. .~n~w of 1s. cam on ,,CE $4.. USUAL OCCU*ATIG+ ,.b. X,”O w BUS#NESS OR I“O”ST.Y 

1“1,	 M&, RI ACE 

W I,C NEGRO OTHER 

� � � (.pacifY)_ 

1,. PLACE OF . . (C.u” t,> b. (St~t. m f-. ddn CO.”tr, ) IS. LMIE OF (if- th) (Da,) (Yea,) 

T“,, 194M 1AGS 

MARRIA= 

,,. N“”,ER 0, ,,. �L&, ”T, FF ,s. DECRCE MAMTED TO 20. LEGAL GRWNOS FOR � ECREE 

CHILDREN 

““DE. I 8 ““%W”D WIFE .“*UMD ., FE 

� D � ID 

I hereby certify that the above [Month) (D.,) (!...,) *~&~= (mea th> (D.,) (Y..,) 

m.- W-We ffiv.r.=+ -

SIG+ ATUnE 0, COURT OFFICIAL ? t TII OF CO”.? OVFICI AL 

Figure 12. Standard Record of Divorce or Annulment.


ried. The remaining variables available on all records obtained from surveys of local officials conducted by


were date and place where the decree was granted, NCHS. In 10 States which did not maintain central files


age or date of birth of husband and of wife, date and of divorce records (Arizona, Indiana, Minnesota, Ne-~


place of marriage (date of marriage was used for vada, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Texas, Wash-


computing duration of marriage to time of decree), ington, and West Virginia), State officials conducted


number of children involved, legal grounds for the de- special surveys to obtain county totals. The annual


tree, and which party was the plaintiff. Several ad- divorce and annulment totals thus obtained cover 3,090


ditional items of information are found on the divorce counties or equivalent local areas of the United States;


forms of a number of States, and information about no totals were obtained for 25 counties.


birthplace and residence of husband and of wife was The total number of divorces and annulments


tabulated for the four selected States. For these States granted in the United States in 1962 was prepared from


various cross - tabulations not available for all regis- the State totals; estimates for the nonreporting counties


tration States were also prepared. of Kentucky and New Mexico and parishes of Louisiana


In 1962, total counts of divorces and annulments were included in the national figure. These estimates 

were received from State officials of 49 States and the were based on the assumption that the divorce rate in 

District of Columbia (table 2); data for Colorado, as the nonreporting areas of the State was identical with 

well as for some counties of Kentucky, Missouri, and that for the reporting areas of the State. 

New Mexico and for some parishes of #Louisiana, were 

48 
—, 

WR61R 

ISLANDS 

,,mtJm-?.

RI00 

PARTICIPATING IN THE DIVORCE-REGISTRATION AREA 

MAINTAINING CENTRAL mLES OF DIVORCE RECORDS, BUT NOT 

m PARTICIPATING IN THE REGISTRATION AREA

Figure 13. Areas part icipa+.ing in the divorce-registration area and those maintaining central fi les:.


Un ited States, 1962.


Sample Design


Records to be sampled referred tosll decrees of 

annulment and absolute divorce which were granted 

during a data year. The only exception to this was 

Utah, where the records referred to decrees which 

became final during the year. In States where interlocutory divorce decrees aregranted, decrees granted 

during the latter part of 1961 became final in 1962, 

and decrees which had been granted late in 1962 becarne final in 1963. It is possible that some interlocutory decrees never become final because of death 

or reconciliation, but it is believed that thenumbei of 

such cases is very small. In all these States except 

Utah divorce records are filed in the State office of 

vital statistics when decrees are granted and not when 

they become final. Inmost cases such decrees become 

final automatically after the lapse of a certain period 

of time. 

Information about the structure of the samples is 

shown in table I. The divorce sample was designed 

to yield estimates of area totals as well as frequency 

distributions and estimates of their parameters. These 

estimates were to be made for the DRA and for each 

State in the registration area. 

A sampling rate was selected for each State so 

that the resulting sample would be at least400 records, 

the number required to secure estimates having less 

than predesignated maximum sampling errors. Only 

four different sampling rates were designated for the 

States in tie divorce-registration area—all records, 

1/2, 1/10, and 1/20. While each States’s records were 

sampled independently, that is, with a randomly selected 

number designating the first record to be selected in 

each State in computing sampling errors each of the 

four groups of States with a uniform sampling rate was 

treated as a stratum. Sampling errors computed using 

these four groups as straw, are likely to be somewhat 

49

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 1. Divorce samplingrates and sample size: divorce-registration
area and each registration


State, 1962, and four selectedStates, 1960-61


rBy Pk Of OCCUIT..C.] 

Number Number Estimated


Area, year, and stratum of primary Sampling >f sample number
 sampling rate records of events
 units


Divorce-registration
area, 1962---------- 21 . . . 16,706 147,106 

Stratum 1---------------------------------- 2 All records 1.786 1,786


Alaska . . . All records 904 904 

South Dakota . . . All records 882 882 

Stratum 2---------------------------------- 6 1/2 6.050 12,100


%~i----------------------------------------- . . . 732 1,464 . . . 1,274 2,548 

Montana . . . 966 1,932 

Nebraska .*. 1,178 2,356 

Utah . . . 1,230 2,460 

Wyoming . . . 670 1,340 

Stratum3---------------------------------- 7 1/10 4,418 44,180 

Georgia 

Iowa . . . . . . 1/10

1/10 

984 

479 

9,840 

4,790 

Kansas . . . 1/10 531 5,310 

Maryland . . . 1/10 597 5,970 

Oregon -------. . . . 1/10 608 6;080 

Virginia . . . 1/10 764 i’, 640

Wisconsin . . . 1/10 455 4,550 

Stratum4---------------------------------- 6 1120 4.452 89.040


Alabama . . . 1/20 619 12,380 

Michigan . . . 1/20 871 17,420 

Missouri . . . 1/20 605 12,100 

Ohio . . . 1/20 1,163 23,260 

Pennsylvania . . . 1/20 715 14,300 

Tennessee-----.-------m--- ---z-- . . . 1/20 479 9,580 

Four selectedStates,1960-61------------ 4 . . . 4,063 38-,544 

Hawaii . . . 1/2 1,412 2,824 

Iowa . . . 1110 936 9,360 

Tennessee . . . 1/20 921 18,420 

Wisconsin . . . 1/10 794 7,940 

largerthanthosetbatmightbavebeencomputedusing


eachStateasa stratum hencetheformerveryprob­


ablyhavean extrasafety marginas estimates
of vari­


ationinanystatistic
 basedonsampledata.


Estimating Procedures 

Beforedataweretabulatedand statistics
 estimated,


adjustmentswere made in orderto reconcile
totals


estimatedfrom samples receivedwith pretabulated


countsforeachreporting
 area.For 1960anydifference


betweenthe two totals
was adjustedifitwas larger


thanone skipinterval (thereciprocal
 ofthesampling


ratioforthearea),butfor1961and 1962adjustments


.50 

were made onlyifthedifference
 was 1.50percentor


more oftheannualareatotal.


Frequency distributions
 were estimatedin two


steps:


1. Each sample case and allitemstabulatedfor ,


tbatcasewereassignedaweight
 thatwastbere­


ciprocal of theprobability
 witbwhichthecase


was selected.
 Thus ifadivorcerecordwas se­


lectedfrom a Statewitha probability
 of1/10,


eachitemon thatrecordcarriedaweight.of
 10,


whereas if 100 percentof tbe,records,
 were


processedfrom aState,eachitemoneachrec­


ord carrieda weightof1.The samplingrates,


indicatingtheprobability
 withwhichdivorce

-----------

-----------

. . . . 

records of every State were selected, are 

shown in table I. 

2. Frequencies were estimated by summing the 

inflated number of cases instead of by tabulating 

the number of sample cases. Thus each frequency distribution is a sum of the weighted 

sample cases included. 

It should be noted that the wei=hts of all samrde 

records are identical within each registration area 

State. However, weights for divorce sample records 

for the DRA vary from 1 to 20: Variation between two 

or more equal subtotals in the relative proportions of 

cases with various weights results in each such subtotal having its distinctive sampling error, as discussed below. 

Percents in the analytical tables were computed 

using data which excluded estimated numbers of not 

stated cases. All rates appearing in the analytical 

tables were based on populations from the U.S. Bureau 

of the Census. These are populations present in the 

area; those for 1960 were enumerated as of Aprfi, 1, 

and those for 1961 and 1962 were estimated as of July 

1. The populations include Armed Forces stationed in 

the area but exclude Armed Forces abroad. 

Procedures for estimating the number of children 

reported in divorce suits presented a special prQblem. 

The number of children was estimated for each registration State, for the DRA; and for the United States. 

The distribution of divorces and annulments by the number of children reported was prepared for each reporting State. In order to obtain a State total, the category 

“children not stated” was first distributed proportionally over the distribution of divorces by number of 

children reported. Then the number of divorces in each 

category with a given number of children was mukiplied by the number of children per divorce (that is, 

the number of divorces involving one child was multiplied by 1, the number involving two children was 

multiplied by 2, etc.). The sum of the products is the 

estimate of the number of children reported in a given 

registration State, and the sum of State estimates for 

participating States is the estimate for the DRA. The 

national estimate was obtained by multiplying by 

5.40039 the combined estimates for 14 States (Georgia, 

Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, 

Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virqinia, 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. Data for the 14 

States were used because the remaining four States 

that participated in the DRA in 1960 were ei&er nonrepresentative of the United States or had<a very high 

proportion of divorces with the number of children not 

stated. 

Among the median ages computed for the four 

selected States, some fell into the lower or the upper 

open-ended intervals of the tabulations, and age limits 

.,. . 

had to be estimated for these intervals. This was done 

using the age distributions by single years of age 

available for years prior to 1960, when data were based 

on complete counts of events. The following limits 

were used


Husband Wife 

Age 

Lower Upper Lower :pqJe& 

limit limit Iim:t 

Age at marriage-- 18 54 16 54 

Age at first mar­ riage 18 54 16 ,49 

Age at- remarriage 21 18 

Age at divorce--- 20 6; 17 5i 

Jn the section “Birthplace and Place of Marriage” 

the difference between the number of persons born in 

the State and married out of State and that of persons 

born out of State but married in the State is discussed. 

This difference is equal to the difference between the 

number of persons born in the State and the number of 

persons married in the State; the number of persons 

born in the State but married out of State is the remainder of the subtraction of the number of persons 

both born and married in the State from the number of 

persons born in the State the number of persons born 

out of State but married in the State is the remainder 

of the subtraction of the same number of persons both 

born and married in the State from the total number of 

persons married in the State. The remainder does not 

change when the- same amount is added to the minuend 

and the subtrahend. 

Sampling Errors of Estimates 

Estimates computed from the samples (except 

statistics of States where the sample includes all 

records) are subject to sampling error since they are 

based on a sample of divorces occurring during a given 

year rather than on a complete count. Since ali cases 

in these samples were selected with kmownprobabili­

~es, the sampling error can be computed for each 

estimate. The sampling errors shown in table II are 

the amounts which, when added to and subtracted from 

the estimated percents, give the intervals which contain the actual quantities being estimated in approximately 68 out of 100 similarly selected samples. 

The sampling errors for estimated percentages 

shown in table II were computed by dividing the sampling error for the frequengy by the total number of 

1962 events reported for the area. As an example of. 

the procedures described above, suppose the percentage 

of couples reporting three children in Kansas was 10 

percent of the total for the S~te. The error shown in 

table II for this percentage is 1.2. By adding and sub51 
-------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--------

-----------

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

-----------

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

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

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

-----------

Table II. Sampling error of estimated percentages:divorce-registration area and each registration 

State, 1962, and four selected States, 1960-61 

~stimates
 for the entire DRA have distributions of sampling errors generatad by changes in contribution of cases from each stratum; for sampling 

errors in this table for the entire DRA it is assumed that these contributions are proportionate to stratum totals. Alaska and South Dakota have 

no sampling variability because all records were tahul ab~ 

Area and year 

Divorce-regis ­


tration area,


1962-------r---

Alabama


Alaska


Georgia-------------
 Hawaii


Idaho---------------


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


Kansas


HaryLand


Michigan


Missouri


Montana


Nebraska


Ohio


Oregon


Pennsylvania--------


South Dakota


Tennessee


Utah----------------


Virginia


Wisconsin


Wyoming


Four selected


States,1960-61-


Hawaii


Iowa


Tennessee


Wisconsin


Estimated percentages


All 

decrees 1 2 3 4 5 7 10 15 20 25 or or or or or or or or or or 50 8 

99 98 97 96 95 93 90 85 80 75 

147,106 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 - _ 

12,380 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.7 2.0 

904 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,840 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.3 

1,464 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.2 ::: 2,548 %2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 

4,790 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.9 ::: 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.2 

5,310 

5,,970 

0.4 

0.4 

0.6 

0.5 

0.7 

0.7 

0.8 

0.8 R 

;:: 

1.0 

1.2 

1.2 

1.5 

1.4 

1.6 

1.6 

1.8 

1.7 ::3 

17,420 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.7 

12,100 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.7 2.0 

1,932 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0,7 0.8 ;:$ 1.0 1.1 

2,356 0.2 0.3 0.3 0..4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 

23,260 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.4 ‘ 

6,080 %: 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.5 ::; 1.9 

14,300 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.8 

882 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,580 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.8 2.2 

2,460 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.8 ;:; 

7,640 0.3 %; ::2 0.7 0.7 ::?3 1.2 1.4 1,5 ::; 

4,550 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 ::: 1.6 1.8 1.9 

1,340 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.2 ?:$ 

38,544 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 

2,824 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 

9,360 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.6 

18,420 0.3 0.4 ::; 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.6 

7,940 0.3 0.5 .0.6 0.7 0.7 0.9 1.’0 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.7 

tracting1.2 from 10, one secures the interval 8.8 to 

11.2;tie chances are” about 68 out of 100 that ithe actual 

number of couples withthreecbildrenisintbis interval. 

To determine if the difference between two proportions is attributable to sampling variability or is a 

truedifference, divide the difference bythe 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 sampling 

error is less than 1 in 20. 17 For example, the proportions of divorces granted less than 1 year after 

marriage were 10.6 percent in Idaho and 4.1 percent 

in Michigan, and the standard errors of these proportions were 0.6 percsnt in both cases. 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) 

= 7.1 

/(.006)2 + (.006~ 

This value is more than 2, and therefore it is very 

unlikelythatsuch a difference could be attributed to 

sampling error alone. Hence the observed difference 

is to ahigh probabilitya true difference. 

Sampling errors of estimated percentages of1960 

and 1961 data combined for the four selected States 

are also shown in table II. As the 1960and 1961 values 

were combined, ti enumber of sample cases increased 

approximately twice in comparison with the number for 

a single year, and the sampling errors declined cor52 
despondingly. Hence the sampling errors for each 

selected State shown in the upper part of table H are 

larger than the comparable errors in the lower part. 

Estimation of the standard error of a proportion 

of a subtotal for the four States combined is accomplished by using the formula .SP= /C PxI?y(1-P,Py) in 

which C= .000498, P, is the proportion that the numerator is of the area total, and Py is the proportion 

that the denominator is of the same total. 

Completeness of Data * 

Completeness of reporting is one of the most important among the various factors in divorce statistics 

which produce nonsampling errors. It is the one factor 

for which detailed and complete estimates are available. 

Tables III and IV show for the DRA and for the four 

selected States the numbers of cases with various 

characteristics given. The lack of 100-percent completeness is due either to incompletely fil,led out sample 

records or to items not appearing on State record forms. 

For the DRA the sample records not received represent 0.3 percent of all divorces. The samples from 

three States were shorq the outstanding records represented 2.0 percent M the decrees granted in Nebraska, 

11.1 percent of those granted in Utah, and 2.2 percent 

of those granted in Wisconsin. In all detailed divorce 

tables the number of not stated cases was increased 

for these three States in order to bring their totals 

up to figures representing complete samples. 

The principal source of incompleteness in the 1962 

divorce statistics arises from failure to secure items of 

personal and demographic data in several States when 

these items are on the record forms (tables III and 

IV). The proportion of records not stating age at 

decree varies from less than 1 to 96 percenq for race 

or color the corresponding range is from O to 70 percent; for marriage order the analogous range is from 

0.4 to 96. percenC for duration of marriage the range 

is from O to 20 percent; and for number of children 

the range is from O to 25 percent. 

53. 
-----------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table III. Percent completeness of reporting of statistical variables: divorce-registration area


and each registration State, 1962


[By place of occurrence. Based on sample data] 

Age at Age-at Color or


All divorces decree marriage race


Area and


annulments


Husband Wife Husband Wife Husband Wife


Percent of cases with information available
 . 

Divorce-registration area----- 147,106 56.6 56.4 56.3 56.1 61.9 61.9 

Alabama 12,380 3.6 3.4 3.6 3.4 30.5 30.5 

Alaska 904 17.0 18.8 17.0 18.8 48.9 48;9 

Georgia----------------------------- 9,840 35.7 34.7 35.3 34.3 51.3 50.8 

Hawaii 1,464 97.0 95.8 97.0 95.8 99.9 100.0 

1daho------------------------------- 2,548 73.4 73.1 72.8 72.4 81.7 86.2 

Iowa-------------------------------- 4,790 99.8 99.2 99.6 99.0 99.6 99.8 

Kansas 5,310 75.7 75.7 75.1 75.1 77.0 77.0 

Maryland 5,970 64.3 63.8 64.0 63.5 63.7 63.0 

Michigan 17,420 36.5 36.7 36.5 36.7 61.4 62.0 

Missouri 12,100 96.7 96.5 96.4 96.%2 98.7 98.7 

Montana 1,932 52.6 52.2 52.6 52,2 78.2 77.3 

Nebraska 2,356 42.5 41.5 42.4 41.3 42.0 42.0 

Ohio 23,260 23.9 23.6 23.9 23.6 a a 

Oregon 6,080 72.7 71.9 72.2 71.4 75.7 75.2 

Pennsylvania------------------------ 14,300 83.6 82.8 82.9 82.2 81.5 81.1 

South Dakota 882 9.8 10.3 9.8 10.3 32.8 32.0 

Tennessee 9>580 96.7 96.9 95.6 95.8 98.3 97.9 

Utah 2,460 82.6 83.4 80.8 81.5 87.6 86.0 

Virginia 7,640 70.0 70.9 70.0 70.9 99.9 99.9 

Wisconsin 4,550 97.4 96.7 96.5 95.8 97.8 97.1 

Wyoming 1,340 7.5 8.1 7.5 8.1 19.9 20.4 

aItem not reportable.


54

. 

Table III. Percentcompleteness of reporting of statistical variables: divorce-registration area


and each registration State, 1962--Con.


[Byplace ofocc.mence. Basedonsample
datsl


Ma~rr;e Residence


of defendant Place Duration Number To


of of of Legal Plaintiff whom


marriage marriage children grounds divorce


Husband Wife Husband Wife granted


Percent of cases with infozn&tion available 

56.2 56.4 78.2 78.1 89.5 97.6 92.6 96.91 97.9 95.6 

I 

4.0 4.2 82.1- 74.7 48.9 97.6 79.8 99.2 99.4 99.7 ,1 

45.9 46.9 38.5 33.7 99.4 99.9 97.8 100.0 100.0 99.7 

36.4 37’.1 56.2 57.9 47.8 79.5 74.8 77.3 95.8 92.6 

99.6 99.6 97.6 96.9 100.0 100.0 98.4 100.0 98.0 99.0 

72.8 73.6 84.8 89.7 96.5 96.6 97.1 95.6 98.8 99.0 

98.1 98.1 97.5 94.8 96.9 99.8 93.3 100.0 99.0 98.5 

76.3 76.1 a a 97.9 99.6 100.0 99.8 99.6 100.0 

60.8 61.1 92.8 95.9 96.1 97.0 96.0 94.5 99.3 96.6 

62.7 62.7 42.8 37.8 98.9 99.8 99.1 99.3 94.1 99.1 . 

98.7 98.7 “ 93.6 91.9 95.7 99.3 99.0 98.7 97.0 99.2 

56.6 56.2 83.0 80.9 99,0 99.8 99.5 100.0 99.9 99.4 

a a 91.4 90.6 94.9 97.8 97.0 97.9 97.9 a 

30.5 31.4 93.3 94.5 94.0 99.9 99.4 99.8 99.9 99.8 

73.0 73.2 ’80.0 72.9 97.5 99.5 94.4 97.5” 98.2 88.0 

77.6 78.0 97.4 99.6 99.4 99.4 78.0 97.3 98.0 95.7 

14.4 13.8 67.9 76.5 97.4 99.5 99.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 

97.3 97.1 92.3 91.9 97.1 98.7 98.1 99.4 99.2 98.5 

84.8 84.8 89.9 92.5 84.7 86.7 79.8 77.3 85.4 62.0 

a a, 80.2 80.2 99.7 100.0 96.6 99.9 100.0 99.0 

92.3 92.5 90.0 94.1 95.2 96.9 92.3 95.4 97.1 96.7 

10.1 10.3 29.6 28.3 97.2 99.7 98.8 100.0 100.0 99.9 

55

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table IV. Percent completeness of reporting of personal characteristics of husband and wife:


four selected States, 1960-61


[Byplace ofoccurrence. Basedonsample
data]


Number 

State Total Age at Age at Race of Resi- Bi.rthdecree marriage marriage dence place 

Total Percent of cases with information available


Husband 38,544 97.5 97.1 98.8 96.6 92.7 95.4


Wives 38,544 97.5 97.3 99.0 96.9 96.8 96.2


Hawaii


Husbands 2,824 96.8 96.8 99.9 99.6 97.5 98.9


Wives 2,824 96.8 96.8 99.9 99.6 98.4 98.9


Iowa


Husbands 9,360 99.6 99.6 99.9 99.6 94.4 97.4


Wives 9,360 98.9 98.9 99.6 99.6 97.4 97.5


Tennessee


Husbands 18,420 96.2 95.4 98.0 96.4 90.9 94.6


Wives 18,420 96.2 95.9 98.5 96.7 95.9 95.9


Wisconsin


Husbands 7,940 98.5 98.2 99.0 92.6 93.1 93.8


Wives 7,940 98.9 98.7 99.4 92.9 97.5 94.2


56
 * U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: t 9650-792-682 
OUTLINE OF REPORT SERIES FOR VITAL AND HEALTH STATISTICS 

Public Health Service Publication No. 1000 

Sevies L 

SeYies 2, 

Se74es 3. 

Sew-es 4. 

SeYies 10. 

Series 11. 

Se7%es 12. 

Series 20. 

Seyies 21. 

SeYies 22. 

Pvogyams and collection procedures. —Reports which describe the general programs of the National 

Center for Health Statistics and its offices and divisions, data collection methods used, definitions, and 

other material necessary for understanding the data. 

Reporta number 1-4 

Rata evaluation and methods reseaych. —Studies of new statistical methodology including: experimental 

tests of new survey methods, studies of vital statistics collection metlmds, new analytical techniques, 

objective evaluations of reliability of collected data, contributions to statistical theory. 

Reports number l-I2 

Analytical studies. — 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. 

Reports number 1-4 

Documents and committee Yepovts.— 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. 

Reports number 1 and 2 

Data From the Health InteYview SuYvey. —Statistics on illness, accidental injuries, disability, use of 

hospital, medical, dental, and other services, and other health-related topics, based on data collected in 

a continuing national household interview survey. 

Reports number 1-25 

Data FYom the HeaUh Examination SuYvey.— Statistics based on the direct examination, testing, and 

measurement of national samples of the population, including the medically defined prevalence of specific diseases, and distributions of the population with respect to various physical and physiological 

measurements. 

Reports number 1-12 

Data FYom the Health Reconis Survey. —Statistics from records of hospital discharges and statistics 

relating to the health characteristics of persons in institutions, and on hospital, medical, nursing, and 

personal care received, based on national samples of establishments providing these services and 

samples of the residents or patients. 

Reports number 1 and 2 

Data cm moytality. —Various statistics on mortality other than as included in annual or monthly reportsspecial analyses by cause of death, age, and other demographic variables, also geographic and time 

series analyses. 

Reports number 1 

Data on natality, mawz”age, and divoyce. —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. 

Reports number 1-7 

Data From the National Natality and MoYtality SWveys, —Statistics on characteristics of births and 

deatha not available from the vital records, based 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. 

Reports number 1 

For a list of titles of reports published in these series, write to:	 National Center for Health Statistics 

U.S. Public Healti Service 

Washington, D.C. 20201