Data from the

NATIONAL VITAL STATISTICS SYSTEM

Selected

Vital and Health Statistics

In Poverty and Nonpoverty Areas

Of 19 Large Cities

United States, 1969-71

A descriptive and analytical study of differentials in seIected vital

and health statistics measures associated with residence in poverty

and nonpovert y areas within 19 of the largest cities in the United

States for the years 1969-71. Discusses characteristics of births

(including birth weight, legitimacy status, prenatal czu-e, and

educational attainment of the mother), infant and fetal mortaIity,

and deaths due to tuberculosis and to violent causes. Race or

ethnic group is used as a control vanabIe in the analysis.

DHEW Publication No. (HRA) 76-1904

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

Public Health Service

Series 21

Number 26

Health Resources Administration

National Center for Health Statistics

Rockville, Md. November 1975
.

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Ventura, Stephanie, J.

Selected vital and health statistics in poverty and nonpoverty areas of 19 large cities,

United States, 1969-71.

(Vital and health statistics: Series 21, Data from the National Vital Statistics System;

no. 26) (DHEW publication; no. (HRA) 76-1904)

Includes bibliographical references.

Supt. of Dots. no.: HE 20.6209:21/26

1. United States–Statistics, Vital. 2. Hygiene, Public–United States-–Statist its. 1.

Taffel, Selma M., joint author. II. Spratley, Ernell, joint author. III. Title. IV. Series: United

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

the National Vital Statistics System, Data in natality, marriage, and divorce; no. 26. V.

Series: United States. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare. DHEW publication; no.

(HRA) 76-1904. [DNLM: 1. Vital statistics–United States. 2. Health surveys–United

States. 3. Poverty. W2A N148vu no. 26]

HA211.A3 no. 26 [HA217] 312’.1’73s [301.32’9’73]

ISBN 0-8406 -0049-6 75-619224

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Prlntlng Office, Washtigton, D. C. 20402. Price $1,40
NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS

HAROLD MARGULIES, M.D., Acting Director

ROBERT A. ISRAEL, Acting Deputy Director

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

ELIJAH L. WHITE, Associate Director for Data Systems

EDWARD E. MINTY, Associate Director for Management

PETER L. HURLEY, Acting Associate Director for Operations

JAMES M. ROBEY, Ph.D., Associate Director for Propam Development

ALICE HAYWOOD, Information Officer

DIVISION OF VITAL STATISTICS

JOHN E. PATTERSON, Director

ALICE M. HETZEL, Deputy Director

ROBERT J. ARMSTRONG, M. S., Chief Mortality Statistics Branch

ROBERT L. HEUSER, M. A., Chief Natality Statistics Branch

MICHAEL J. ZUGZDA, Chief Statistical Resources Branch

Vital and Health Statistics-Series 21-No. 26

DHEW Publication No. (HRA) 76-1904

Library of Congress Card Catalog Number 75-619224
Page

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

Background Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

DefinitionsofPovertyAreas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Racidmd Income Characteristics of the Population in Lmge Cities . . . . . . . .

Factors Affecting Intercity Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary of GeneraI Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Specific Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Birth and Fertility Rates.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Crude and Standardized Death Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Low Birth Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Illegitimate Births . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lackof Prenatal Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Births to Mothers with Less than 12 Years of Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Infant Mortality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fetal Mortality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Deaths from Tuberculosis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Violent Deaths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Vital Statistics for the Spanish-heritage Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Listof Detailed Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix I. Technical Notes.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Allocation of Unknown Data.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Indirect Standardization of Infant MortaIity Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Direct Standardization of Death Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendix II. Maps of Selected Low-Income Areas of Cities Under Study: U.S. Bureau

of the Census, 1970 Census of Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

List of Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

1

2

2

3

4

5

8

8

9

10

12

13

14

14

15

18

19

20

21

23

24

37

37

37

37

39

39

...

Ill
SYMBOLS

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

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

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

Quantity morethan Obutless than0.05---- 0.0

Figure does not meet standards of

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

*
SELECTED

VITAL AND HEALTH STATISTICS

IN POVERTY AND NON POVERTY AREAS

OF 19 LARGE CITIES

Stephanie J. Ventura, Selma M. Taffel, and Ernell Spratley, .ZXviskm of Vital Statistics

INTRODUCTION

The principal purpose of this report is to

present an analysis of the differentials in selected vital and health statistics measures associated with residence in poverty and nonpoverty

areas within 19 of the largest cities in the United

States. Since there is a close relationship between race and residence in poverty or nonpoverty areas, race or ethnic group is used as a

control variable throughout this discussion, but

the principal focus of the report is on differential associated with residence in poverty and

nonpoverty areas. This analysis is based on 11

significant indexes of natalit y and mortality,

tabulated by census tract or other small area of

residence and race or ethnic group, for the

3-year period 1969-71. Areas of residence were

classified as poverty or nonpoverty on the basis

of U.S. Bureau of the Census definitions. The

1969-71 period was selected so that pubfished

population data from the 1970 census could be

used to compute various rates for poverty and

nonpoverty areas. Frequencies of annual vital

statistics for these areas may show random

fluctuations because of the small number of

events in some cases. Thus, the 3-year period

was used in computing rates, ratios, and percents

in order to minimize the effect of such fluctuations on the findings of the report. (See appendix I for a description of methods used in the

computation of statistics.)

The basic items tabulated for this report

include the following: total live births and

deaths; births by birth weight, Legitimacy status,

prenatal care, and educational attainment of the

mother; infant and fetal deaths; and deaths due

to tuberculosis and to violent causes (accidents,

suicides, and homicides). These items were

selected because the data were readily available,

and it was felt that they would have considerable significance in measuring the health and

social status of the population. Included in the

tabulations by race or ethnic group are data for

the Negro population and, in three of the cities,

for persons of Spanish heritage.

SOURCES OF DATA

Data for 16 of the 19 cities p@icipating in

this study are based on tabulations provided by

city (or county) hezdth departments; data for

the remaining three cities were made available

by their respective State health departments. In

most cases the tabulations were submitted following a standard format supplied by the Division of Vital Statistics of the National Center for

Health Statistics. Because it was not possible to

obtain special tabulations, an effort was made to

request tabulations that would be readily available in the health departments of as many of

these cities as possible. As a result, the tabulations were limited to frequencies of each item

by race or ethnic group and by census tract or

other smaI1 area of residence. Thus, no crossclassifications of any of the variables, either with

one another or with such demographic charac1
teristics as age and sex, were prepared. This

report is therefore necessarily more descriptive

than analytical in nature. It should also be

remembered that this report attempts to analyze

differences by the poverty status of whole areas

of residence rather than of individuals.

The definitions of poverty areas are discussed

in detail in the next section. Briefly, however, a

census tract was defined as a poverty tract if 20

percent or more of its residents had inadequate

incomes according to certain specified criteria.

Thus, a poverty tract can have up to 80 percent

of its population with incomes above the poverty level, and a nonpoverty tract may have up

to 20 percent of its population with incomes

below the poverty level.

Data were submitted on an annual basis for

the 3 years 1969-71, with one exception: 1971

data for Los Angeles could not be made available in time for this report. Analysis of Los

Angeles data, therefore, is limited to the years

1969 and 1970.

The original plans for this study included the

25 largest cities in the United States according

to the 1960 census, but a variety of problems in

data collection limited the number to only

19 –Atlanta, Baltimore, Buffalo, Chicago,

Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Memphis, Minneapolis, New

York City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, San Diego,

San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, D.C.

The National Center for Health Statistics

(NCHS) gratefully acknowledges the assistance

and information provided by staff members of

the Bureau of the Census and of the State and

local health departments from which data for

the study were obtained.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Definitions of Poverty Areas

In 1960 the U.S. Bureau of the Census

identified tracts within large cities with largescale concentrations of poor people by means of

five equally weighted socioeconomic factors:

proportion of families with low income, percent

of housing that was substandard, percent of

adults with low educational attainment, proportion of unskilled male laborers in the civilian

labor force, and percent of children in broken

homes. Also taken into consideration when

low-income areas were being identified was the

judgment of local officials and contiguity of the

tracts.

A less subjective measure of poverty in urban

areas was subsequently developed by the Bureau

based on data obtained from the 1970 Census of

Population and by using criteria formulated by

Mollie Orshansky of the Social Security Administration.a Individuals having less than adequate

incomes were identified by means of a poverty

index which takes into account 124 separate

cross-classifications of factors such as family

size, sex and age of family head, farm-n onfarm

residence, and income. One of the basic tenets

of the index is that income should be sufficient

to provide for an adequate diet. For example, it

was determined that in urban areas an average

family of four required a minimum income of

$3,743 to meet basic nutritional needs. It was

decided to classify any census tract as a poverty

area when 20 percent or more of its residents

had inadequate incomes according to these

criteria. It was determined that this classification

system would identify areas of poverty generally

approximating those designated as low income

under the previous definitional Appendix II

contains maps provided by the Bureau of the

Census that identify poverty or low-income

areas within each city as they are used in this

report.

The current Bureau of the Census definition

of a poverty tract was adopted for this report to

allow for the computation of vital and health

indexes from published 1970 census population

data for poverty areas in large cities. Tracts in

which 20 percent or more of the population had

low incomes were combined and considered the

poverty area in a given city. The remainder of

the city was considered the nonpoverty area.

New York City and Chicago do not classify vital

statistics data according to census tract: in New

York City the smallest geographic unit of

classification is the “health area,” and in Chicago it is the “community area.” In both cities

these areas are combinations of individual census

a For a detailed explanation of the Social Security definition

of poverty, see Current Population Reports, Series P-60, No. 98,

“Characteristics of the Low-Income Population, 1973.”

2
tracts. The poverty status of each health or

community area was determined by the proportion of area residents with low incomes, in

conformity with the criteria applied to individual tracts. Since the maps of New York City

and Chicago (appendix II) show individual poverty tracts rather than health or community

areas, there may not be complete correspondence between the poverty areas designated in the

maps and those designated in the text and

tabulations of this report because it is likely that

some of the individual census tracts that are

included in health or community areas designated as poverty are not themselves poverty

tracts.

The current definition does not require contiguity of tracts within a poverty area, and

consequently there are a number of isolated

poverty tracts within generally higher-income

areas.

One problem in classifying vital statistics data

by the poverty status of individual tracts was

due to changes in tract boundaries and annexation of territories during the 1969-71 period

because of redefinitions of 1960 tracts based on

information from the 1970 census. For some

cities, 1969 data were received classified by

1960 census tract boundaries, and 1970 and

1971 data were classified by 1970 boundaries;

other cities sent both 1969 and 1970 and in

some instances 1971 data classified by 1960

boundaries. Comparable poverty areas for the

3-year period were determined with the assistance of the Bureau of the Census, which

compiled Iists of 1970 low-income tracts and the

equivalent tract groups according to 1960

boundaries.

In interpreting the data the reader should

keep in mind that in the present system of

classification an entire tract or other small area

is identified as poverty or nonpovert y. Variations in poverty level by race, ethnic group, or

any other classification within a tract are obscured. For example, in the nonpoverty areas of

these cities, 6 to 10 percent of the white

population had incomes below the poverty level

compared with 12 to 25 percent of the population of all othe#’ races (table A). In addition,

bAs used throughout this report the term “ail other” refers

to the combined grouping of all races other than white.

information for pockets of poverty within areas

classified as nonpoverty is also lost. Despite the

problems and caveats noted above, the present

system of classification does make possible the

comparison of certain indexes reflecting the

health status of areas of different income levels.

Racial and Income Characteristics of the Population in Large Cities

For all cities in this study except Denver,

Minneapolis, San Diego, San Francisco, and

Seattle, well over half of the people residing in

poverty areas were of races other than white

(table B). For the 19 cities as a group, 37

percent of the residents in poverty areas were

white and 63 percent were of races other than

white.

The imbalance in race was far more pronounced in the higher-income areas of these

cities. On the average, 83 percent of the people

living in nonpoverty areas were white. In only

three cities, Atlanta, Baltimore, and the District

of Columbia, did the population of all other

races comprise more than 25 percent of the

population in nonpoverty areas.

For the 19 cities in this study, a much smaller

proportion of the white population than the

population of alI other races had incomes below

the poverty level (table A). This was true in both

the poverty and nonpoverty areas of the cities,

but the relative difference in incomes was far

more pronounced in higher-income areas. In the

low-income areas, between 29 and 42 percent of

the population of aI1 other races had incomes

below the poverty level as compared with a

range of 20 to 32 percent of the white population. As was noted above, 6 to 10 percent of the

white population in the nonpoverty areas had

incomes below the poverty level as compared

with 12 to 25 percent of the population of all

other races.

The pattern of greater disadvantage for races

other than white is further illustrated by income

data for the Negro and white populations

derived from the 1970 Census of Population for

the 50 largest cities in the United States.1 There

was a significantly higher proportion of Negro

than white families living in poverty areas of

large cities (62 percent compared with 13

3
Table A. Percent of the population with income below the poverty level, by poverty status of area of residence and race for 19

selected cities: United States, 1970

City

Average, 19 cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Atlanta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Baltimor e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Buffalo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chicago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cincinnati . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cleveland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dallas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Denver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Indianapolis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LosAngeles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Memphis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Minneapolis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NewYork City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Philadelphia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pittsburgh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SanDiego . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Francisco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Seattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Washington, D.C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Poverty areas

Total

31.8

38.1

34.3

29.6

32.4

35.9

34.6

32.5

31.0

29.0

29.5

38.4

30.8

30.8

32.5

33.5

27.2

26.8

31.4

28.8

White

28.4

29.6

24.1

24.8

24.6

29.6

27.3

24.1

29.0

24.3

26.4

19.8

28.5

31.8

26.0

26.0

25.2

23.5

32.0

20.3

All other

Tots I

33.8

39.9

37.3

32.3

34.7

40.1

36.9

35.2

39.7

32.3

31.5

42.1

40.6

29.9

35.3

38.3

30.1

30.4

30.5

29.4

Negro

34.1

40.0

37.3

32.4

34.9

40.1

37.0

35.2

41.9

32.3

32.5

42.2

43.7

30.0

35.4

38.4

30.2

35.8

34.2

29.4

Non poverty areas

II

Total White

9.1 8.3

10.7 8.3

9.7 8.4

11.1 10.4

8.7 7.9

9.2 8.4

10.7 9.2

7.1 6.5

8.5 8.1

6.9 5.9

9.1 8.7

7.1 6.1

8.8 8.5

9.0 8.4

9.4 8.0

10.5 9.4

10.1 9.7

10.6 10.0

8.8 8.2

11.1 9.2

All other

Total

13.4

15.2

12.5

18.6

12.0

14.3

15.3

14.0

13.0

14.1

12.3

25.1

16.6

13.4

14.4

20.8

16.7

12.4

13.9

12.1

Negro

13.7

15.3

12.5

18.2

12.0

14.2

15.4

13.7

13.5

14.3

13.6

25.9

14.6

13.6

14.3

21.0

16.5

14.8

18.1

12.1

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. Census of Population: 1970. Subject Reports. Final Report PC(2) -98, Low-/ncome At-easin

Large Cities, Tables 1 and 6, Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973.

percent). Additionally, Negro families hadgenerally lower incomes than white families, regardless of income area of residence. The median

income in poverty areas of these cities was

$6,532 forwhite families and$5,794 for Negro

families, a difference of more than $700. The

median income in nonpoverty areas of these

cities for white families was $10,939, $1,700

more than the median income of $9,232 for

Negro families. Almost 13 percent of the Negro

families living in poverty areas had incomesof

Iessthan half the poverty threshold, in contrast

with 8 percent of the white families.

When comparison of white and Negro family

income is limitedto families in low-income areas

with incomes below the poverty level, the

pattern of deeper poverty for Negro familiesis

still evident. Halfofthe white familiesneededat

least $l,350in additional income to raise them

above the poverty mark, while the deficit for

half the Negro families was $l,6130r more.

Factors Affecting lntercity Comparisons

Several factors can affect any comparisons

that might be made of the various vital statistics

measures among the 19 cities. Two ofp.articular

relevance to this study are (1) variations in the

percent of the population living in poverty areas

(see basic data intabIe l), and(2) vmiationsin

the racial composition of the cities (table B). A

city with a high proportion of its population

living in poverty areas will probably have a less

favorable health status than a city with a

relatively low proportion of its population living

in poverty areas. Similarly, a city with a high

proportion of persons of all other races will

probably have, for example, a higher proportion

of babies born of low birth weight than a city

with a low proportion of persons in these racial

groups. This is because variations in low birth

weight appear to be greater by race than by

socioeconomic status.

4
Table B. Percent distribution of population by poverty status of area of residenceand race for 19 selected cities: United States, 1970

City

Average, 19 cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Atlanta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Baltimore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Buffalo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chicago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cincinnati . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cleveland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dallas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Denver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Indianapolis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LosAngeles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Memphis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Minneapolis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NewYork City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Philadelphia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pittsburgh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Diego . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Francisco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Seattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Washington, D.C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Source: Based on table 1.

lData for Dallas refer to Negro population.

2Atierageof 12 cities.

Another important factoris the differencein

the definitionsof some of the variables usedby

city health departments. For example, while

most cities provided fetaI death statistics for

fetal deaths occurring after 20 weeks ofgestation, two cities provided statistics for gestation

periods of 16-17 weeks and Ionger, and three

cities provided data for aU fetal deaths regardless

of period of gestation. Clearly, under such

circumstances, comparisons of fetal death statisticsmust be made cautiously.

Measures such as the crude birth and death

rates can be greatly affected by a fourth

factor–variations in the population composition

by such characteristics as age and marital status.

For exampIe, a city with a young population

will likely have a lower crude death rate than a

city with an oIder population. This topic is

discussed in greater detaiI in the section on

crude and standardized death rates.

This report does include some comparisons of

data by city in the text and in the tabulations.

Total

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Poverty areas

White

37.0

~

19.7

22.7

38.1

22.6

40.5

25.2

25.8

81.5

42.0

39.9

16.1

82.3

48.0

31.0

42.0

62.5

52.5

66.0

7.8

All other

Total

80,3

77.3

61.9

77.4

59.5

74.8

. . .

18.5

58.0

60.1

83.9

17.7

52.0

69.0

58.0

37.5

47.5

34.0

92.2

Negro

=55.0

. . .

76.6

. . .

75.8

59.1

,..

74.2

15.3

57.7

54.1

. . .

12.1

48.6

. . .

. . .

30.9

29.0

20.9

. . .

Nonpoverty areas

Total

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

I Ailother

White

r

Total

83.3 116.7

64.7 35.3

68.6 30.4

91.2 8.8

79.7 20.3

86.5 13.5

75.2 24.8

92.2 . . .

91.3 8.7

87.5 12.5

86.9 13.1

95.4 4.6

95.9 4.1

86.5 13.5

77.8 22.2

90.3 9.7

93.2 6.8

76.6 23.4

89.3 10.7

37.3 62.7

Negro

212.0

. . .

29.8

. . .

18.6

13.1

. . .

7.8

7.3

12.2

8.4

. . .

2.8

11.6

. . .

. . .

3.8

9.2

5.9

. . .

However, these comwu-isons are tiven more to

suggest t-he range of”wdues for a-given variable

than to identify specific cities with these va.lues.

The reader should be extremely cautious in

making comparisons of this type and drawing

conclusions.

SUMMARY OF GENERAL FINDINGS

There arewide differences inthe health status

of the populations Iiving in poverty and nonpoverty areas of ourlargest cities. There areaIso

substantial differences in theheahhstatusof the

white population and that of the population of

all other races. In general, the health condition

of persons of races other than white is less

favorable than that of the white population,

regardless of residence in poverty or nonpoverty

areas (table C and figures 1-1 O). Thus, according

to the measures of health in this report, living in

a nonpoverty area is associated with higher

5
Table C. Vital statistics measures for the United States, and by poverty status of area of residence and color for a total of 19 selected

Vital statistics measure

Crude birth rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(per 1,000 population)

Fertility rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(per 1,000 women 1544 years)

Crude death rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(per 1,000 population)

Low birth weight* (2,500 grams or less) . .

(per 100 live births)

Illegitimate births’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(per 100 live births)

Lack of prenatal carez (Live births to

mothers with no care) . . . . . . . . . . .

(per 100 live births)

Education of mother3 (Live births to

mothers with less than 12 years of

education) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(per 100 live births)

Infant mortality rate . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(per 1,000 live births)

Fetal death ratio4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(per 1,000 live births)

Death rate for tuberculosis . . . . . . . . .

(per 100,000 population)

Death rate for violent causes . . . . . . . .

(per 100,000 population)

1Percents based on 18 cities.

2 Percents based on 12 cities.

3 Percents based on 6 cities.

4 Ratios based on 14 cities.

United

States,

1969-71

17.9

85.5

9.5

7.9

10.7

1.7

31.1

20.0

13.9

2.5

76.4

cities: 1969-71

Total, all cities

Total

17.9

84.3

10.9

9.9

22.3

2.8

39.1

23.2

18.3

4.7

75.3

White

15.6

76.6

11.8

7.4

10.3

1.9

32.7

18.6

13.6

3.5

65.8

All

other

23.9

101.1

8.9

13.9

41.6

4.2

‘50.5

30.7

25.7

7.5

98.6

Poverty areas

Total

23.5

105.2

12.0

13.1

40.8

5.0

58.5

30.2

23.5

9.5

115.5

White

21.6

103.7

14.6

9.3

23.7

4.2

54.8

24.2

17.4

8.7

112.7

All

other

24.5

106.0

10.5

15.1

48.5

5.3

60.4

33.4

25.9

10.0

117.1

Nonpoverty areas

Total

16.1

77.0

10.6

8.3

13.1

1.8

29.9

19.7

16.0

3.0

61.9

White

14.7

72.4

11.3

7.0

7.3

1.5

28,1

17.4

13.0

2.8

59.0

All

23.1

95.6

6.7

12.4

30.9

2.8

36.2

27.0

25.4

4.3

75.7

health status of persons of all other races relative white women in poverty areas. This finding was

to their countefiarts in poverty areas, but still in

each case this group is at a definite disadvantage

relative to the white population. Some of the

specific findings are summarized below.

Fertility and birth rates. –While fertility rates

for white women averaged 43 percent higher in

poverty than in nonpovert y areas ( 103.7 compared with 72.4 births per 1,000 women aged

15-44), fertility rates for all other women in

poverty areas were only 11 percent greater than

for their counterparts in higher income areas

(106.0 compared with 95.6). On the average, the

fertility rate for all other women in poverty

areas was only 2 percent greater than that for

partly a reflection of the fact that in poverty

areas of New York and Los Angeles, fertility

rates for all other women were 16-17 percent

lower than those for white women. In nonpoverty areas, fertility of all other women exceeded

the fertility of white women by about one-third.

Birth rates for the white population were 47

percent greater in poverty than in nonpoverty

areas. For the population of all other races birth

rates in poverty areas exceeded those in nonpoverty areas by only 6 percent. Disparities

between racial groups in poverty and nonpoverty areas were more pronounced for birth rates

than for fertility rates. Birth rates for the

6
population of all other races in poverty areas

were 13 percent higher than for the white

population (24.5 compared with 21.6 births per

1,000 population). Birth rates for the population of all other races in nonpoverty areas were

more than half again as high as for white persons

(23.1 compared with 14.7).

Crude and standardized death rates. –People

living in poverty areas experienced far higher

crude death rates (5 O to 100 percent higher

generally) than people living in higher income

areas, regardless of race. This was true in spite of

the generalIy younger population in poverty

than in nonpoverty areas. Age-standardized

death rates by race indicated a substantially

higher level of mortaIity (up to 46 percent

greater) for the poptdation of all other races

than for the white population in most cities.

Low birth weight. –The proportion of infants

of low birth weight (2,500 grams or less, or 5

pounds 8 ounces or less) was considerably higher

in poverty areas than in nonpoverty areas for

each racial group. Among white babies, the

incidence of Iow birth weight was 33 percent

higher in poverty areas than in nonpoverty areas

(9.3 compared with 7.0 percent). The differential by poverty status of area of residence was

somewhat less for all other infants, with the

incidence of low birth weight 22 percent higher

in poverty areas than in nonpoverty areas (15.1

compared with 12.4 percent). Regardless of

poverty status of area of residence, the proportion of infants of low birth weight was substantially higher among all other infants than among

white infants. The differential was 62 percent in

poverty areas and 77 percent in nonpoverty

areas.

Illegz”timate births. –There was a large differential in the incidence of illegitimacy between

poverty and nonpoverty areas. The proportion

of infants born to unmarried mothers was

slightly more than three times higher in poverty

areas (40.8 percent) than in nonpoverty areas

(13.1 percent). Although absolute levels of

illegitimacy were considerably lower for white

infants than for infants of aII other races,

differences by poverty status of area of residence were much Iarger for white infants than

for infants of aIl other races. Among white

infants, 23.7 percent in poverty areas and 7.3

percent in nonpovert y areas were illegitimate;

among infants of aIl other races, the comparable

proportions were 49.5 percent and 30.9 percent.

Overall, the incidence of illegitimacy in poverty

areas was twice as high for infants of aIl other

races as for white infants; in nonpovert y areas

the incidence was more than four times as high

for all other infants as for white infants.

Lack of prenatal care. –Among mothers of

both raciaI groups, those in poverty areas had

markedly less prenatal care than those in nonpoverty areas, as shown by data for 12 of the

cities. For the white population, on the average,

nearly three times the proportion of mothers in

poverty than in nonpoverty areas Iacked prenatal care (4.2 percent compared with 1.5

percent). AIthough differences by poverty status

of area of residence for women of aIl other races

were not as great as those observed for white

women, there was stiIl a definite pattern of less

prenatal care in poverty than in nonpoverty

areas. Overall, in poverty areas the proportion of

mothers of all other races who had no prenatal

care was 5.3 percent as compared with 4.2

percent of white mothers. The race differential

was larger in nonpoverty areas: 2.8 percent of

mothers of aU other races had no prenatal care

as compared with 1.5 percent of white mothers.

Births to mothers with less than 12 years of

education. —Data on births by the educational

attainment of mothers were available from only

six cities. For these cities there was a very Iarge

difference by poverty status of area of residence

in the proportion of births to women who had

completed less than 12 years of schooling. On

the average, 58.5 percent of the mothers in

poverty areas did not complete 12 years of

schooIing, compared with 29.9 percent of the

mothers in nonpoverty areas. Differences by

race within poverty areas were smaIler-54.8

percent of white mothers, compared with 60.4

percent of mothers of all other races, failed to

complete high schooI. The comparable proportions in nonpoverty areas were 28.1 percent for

white women and 36.2 percent for women of alI

other races.

Infant mortality .–Among infants of both

racial groups, mortality rates for infants residing

in poverty areas were considerably higher than

those for infants residing in nonpoverty areas.

The differential by poverty status of area of

residence was 39 percent for white infants (24.2

7
deaths of infants under 1 year of age per 1,000

live births in poverty areas as compared with

17.4 in nonpoverty areas). Among infants of all

other races, the infant mortality rate was 24

percent higher in poverty areas (33.4) than in

nonpoverty areas (27.0). Infant mortality rates

were standardized for differences in birth

weight, a factor which is considered especially

critical in determining an infant’s chances for

survival during the first year of life and for

which there are large race differentials. This

standardization showed that reduced levels of

low birth weight would have resulted in lower

rates of infant mortality, particularly for infants

of all other races.

Fetal mortality .–Data on spontaneous fetal

deaths showed a definite pattern of increased

risk among white women in low-income areas as

compared with white women in higher income

areas. Overall, fetal death ratios (number of fetal

deaths per 1,000 live births) for the white

population were 17.4 in poverty areas compared

with 13.0 in nonpoverty areas. Fetal death ratios

for the population of all other races were nearly

the same in poverty and nonpoverty areas, 25.9

versus 25.4. These ratios were computed from

data for 14 cities and exclude Atlanta, Buffalo,

and New York City, three cities where the

liberalization of abortion laws in the late 1960’s

and early 19 70’s is reflected in somewhat higher

fetal death ratios. In New York City in 1971,

there were 520.9 induced abortions per 1,000

live births in poverty areas and 508.2 per 1,000

live births in nonpoverty areas. In that city, the

highest incidence of induced abortions, regardless of poverty status of area of residence, was

for Negro women; generally the lowest was for

Puerto Rican women.

Deaths from tuberculosis. –Rates of death

from tuberculosis were considerably higher for

poverty area residents than for residents of

nonpovert y areas in all cities studied (overall,

9.5 compared with 3.0 deaths per 100,000

population). For the white population, the rates

for persons residing in low-income areas were

three times those for higher income area residents (8.7 compared with 2.8). Rates for persons of all other races were slightly more than

twice as high in low-income areas (10.0) as in

higher income areas (4.3). Differentials by race

within poverty status groups were much wider in

nonpoverty than in poverty areas.

Violent deaths. –Five percent of all deaths of

white persons and 10 percent of all deaths of

persons of all other races were from violent

causes (deaths from accidents, suicides, and

homicides). While violent death rates were generally higher in the poverty areas than in the

nonpoverty areas for all race and color groups,

the levels of these deaths were lower for the

white population than for the population of all

other races in both poverty and nonpcwerty

areas in most cities. For the white population,

the rate in poverty areas averaged 112.7 violent

deaths per 100,000 population as compared

with 59.0 for the population in nonpoverty

areas. The comparable rates for the population

of all other races were 117.1 and 75.7, respectively.

SPECIFIC FINDINGS

Birth and Fertility Rates

Birth rates (births per 1,000 population)

shown in this report should be used only as a

general measure of the impact of fertility on the

growth of the different population groups.

Because of their dependence on the age-sex

composition of the population to which they

refer, these rates provide poor comparisons of

the rate at which women bear children. A more

valid index is the general fertility rate, defined as

the number of births per 1,000 women aged 15

to 44 years, which is far less sensitive to variance

in age composition.

Birth rates have been computed for all 19

cities in this study, but fertility rates for only 18

cities (see figures 1 and 2). It was not possible to

compute fertility rates for Memphis; population

data that would be geographically comparable

with the vital statistics data by poverty status

could not be obtained because of census tract

boundary changes in 1969.

Fertility rates for white women were higher in

poverty areas than in nonpoverty areas in all but

two cities, Minneapolis and Philadelphia (table

3). The average excess in fertility for white

women living in poverty areas was 43 percent

(103.7 compared with 72.4 births per 1,000

women aged 15-44). In contrast, the fertility

rate for women of all other races in poverty

areas was only 11 percent greater than that for

8
25

n

Total city Poverty areas Nonpovetty areas

POVERTY STATUS OF AREA OF RESIDENCE

❑ lwhi’e RI“’0’’”

Figure 1. Birth rates, shown by poverty status of area of

residence and color, for a total of 19 selected cities: United

States, 1969-71 average.

Total city Poverty areas Nonpovew areas

POVERTY STATUS OF AREA OF RESIDENCE

n “’” s “’”’’”

Fiaure 2. Fertilitv rates. shown by Doverty status of area of

residence and color, for a total of 18 selected cities: United

States, 1969-71 average.

their counterparts living in higher income areas

(106.0 versus 95.6); in only one city (New

York) did the fertility rate in the nonpoverty

area exceed the rate in the poverty area.

Although fertility rates for women of all

other races were generally higher than for white

women in poverty areas, in two of the largest

cities, New York and Los Angeles, rates for all

other women were 16 to 17 percent lower. In

these cities, a substantial portion of the white

births in poverty areas were to women of

Spanish heritage (65 percent in New York City

and 78 percent in Los Angeles); this may

account for the unexpected variation. Overall,

the fertility rate for all other women in poverty

areas was only 2 percent greater than for white

women in poverty areas (106.0 compared with

103.7), a reflection of the low rates for aIl other

women in New York and Los AngeIes.

A much more consistent pattern of racial

differences was found in the higher income

areas. In all but one city (Cleveland), rates were

substantially Iower for white women. On the

average, fertility of all other women in these

areas exceeded the fertility of white women by

about one-third (95.6 compared with 72.4). The

magnitude of the disparity between rates for

white and all other women in nonpovert y areas

closely approximates differences found in national fertility data for the average of the years

1969-71, but the general level of fertilit y rates in

nonpovert y areas was 11-14 percent 10wer than

nationally.

Birth rates for the 19 cities in this study

exhibited the same general pattern of racial

differences within poverty and nonpoverty areas

noted for fertifity rates (table 2). However, the

birth-rate disparities found by race were generally far more pronounced, a reflection of the

varying age and sex compositions of these racial

groups. Birth rates for the population of races

other than white in poverty areas were 13

percent higher than those for the white population in poverty areas (24.5 compared with 21 .6),

and in nonpoverty areas the rates were more

than half again as large as those for the white

population in nonpoverty areas (23.1 compared

with 14.7).

Crude and Standardized Death Rates

The level of mortality in an area provides an

important measurement of the general health

status of its population. Basic data on deaths by

census tract and race were readily avaiIable from

all cities in the study, permitting the calculation

of crude death rates (deaths per 1,000 population) by race within poverty and nonpoverty

areas. However, the magnitude of a crude death

rate is greatIy affected by the age structure of

the population. A population with a high proportion of older persons will show a higher

crude death rate than a population with a

smaller proportion of older persons.

9
Substantial differences were evident in the age

compositions of the populations living in poverty and nonpoverty areas, and even greater

disparities were observed between age structures

in the white population and those in the

population of all other races. These can be

illustrated by a comparison of the median age

and percent of the population under age 25 in

poverty and nonpoverty areas of the 50 largest

U.S. cities in 1970.1 Comparable data by color

for’ the 19 cities included in this report show

them to be quite representative of the 50 cities

with respect to the following characteristics of

the age distribution:

I

Median age

I

Percent of population under age 25

The median age of the white population in

large cities was 25 to 30 percent higher than the

median age of all other races in both poverty

and nonpoverty areas. Additionally, regardless

of race, the population in poverty areas was

younger than that in the nonpoverty portions of

the cities.

Despite these differences in age composition,

in 18 of the 19 cities in this study, people living

in poverty areas experienced far higher crude

death rates than people living in areas with more

adequate incomes. Regardless of race (with the

exception of the white population in New York

City), death rates for persons living in poverty

areas were generally 50 to 100 percent higher

than in nonpoverty areas for most individual

cities (table 4). For the 19 cities as a group,

however, the death rate in poverty areas was

12.0 as compared with 10.6 in nonpoverty areas.

Rates for the white population were 14.6 in

poverty areas and 11.3 in nonpoverty areas; and

for the population of all other races, the rates

were 10.5 and 6.7, respectively.

An examination of the patterns of deaths

from specific causes such as deaths from tuberculosis and deaths from violent causes again

reveals consistently higher levels in poverty

areas. These will be discussed in further detail in

subsequent sections.

Although information was not available to

adjust death rates for varying age structures

within income areas, it was possible to do so for

all income areas combined for all but four cities,

thus obtaining a more valid basis for comparing

death rates by race. Standardized death rates for

the white population and the population of all

other races were computed using the 1970

average age structure of the 19 participating

cities as the standard population. Although the

unadjusted death rates for the white population

were consistently higher than the unadjusted

death rates for the population of all other races

in both poverty and nonpoverty areas, this

relationship was reversed after adjustment and

the rates for the population of all other races

were as high or substantially higher (up to 46

percent greater) than for the white population in

alI but one city, San Francisco (see table 5).

These findings are consistent with the mortality experience for the United States as a whole.

In 1970 the crude death rate of the white

population in the United States was about 1

percent higher than that for all other races.

However, after standardization to eliminate the

effect of age differences, the adjusted rate for

the white population was 30 percent less than

the rate for all other races. The fact that death

rates at each age level, except for the very

elderly, are consistently lower for the white

population than for the population of all other

races is reflected in the drop in rates for the

white population after standardization.

Low Birth Weight

The incidence of low birth weight babies, that

is, those born weighing 2,500 grams or less (5

pounds 8 ounces or less), has been directly

10
related to a number of factors, including maternal nutrition and health status, poverty status,

and access to prenatal care.z These are considered the principal variables determining the

incidence of low birth weight in addition to any

possible genetic factors. Low birth weight, in

turn, has very serious consequences. Among

them are higher rates of infant mortality, mental

retardation, and birth defects.

The relationship between low birth weight

and infant mortality is shown dramatically in

table D, which is based on data from the

National Natality and NationaI Infant Mortality

Surveys of 1964-65.3 Data from the same survey

also show an inverse association of low birth

weight with family income. Thus the interrelationships among poverty, low birth weight, and

infant mortality are strong. Additionally, the

relationship between low birth weight and problems in the infant’s subsequent growth and

development have been well documented.A Very

small infants continue to lag in both height and

weight growth after infancy. These infants also

have a higher incidence of respiratory and skin

diseases in the first year of life. They are more

likely to be admitted to the hospital and to

remain there for longer periods in the first 2

years of life. AIso, the incidence of conditions

such as cerebral pak.y and other mental and

physical defects is notably higher among infants

of low birth weight.

Data on birth weight were made available for

use in this report by 18 cities. For these cities, it

was clear that poverty status of area of residence

made a difference in the proportion of low birth

weight babies for all racial groups within all

cities except for white births in Los Angeles

Table D. Estimated number of infant deaths per 1,000 legitimate live births, by birth weight and race: United States,

1964-65

Birth weight All races White Negro

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.5 21.0 40.7

2,500 grams or less . . . . . . . . . 185.5 184.0 ‘f88.7

2,501-3,000 grams . . . . . . . . . 19.4 18.2 24.6

3,001-3,500 grams . . . . . . . . . 7.3 6.8 11.3

3,5014,000 grams , . . . . . . . . 6.6 5.9 14.0

4,001 grams or more . . . . . . . . 9.2 7.7 –

(table 6 and figure 3). Babies born to mothers

residing in poverty areas were more likely to be

of low birth weight than babies born to mothers

residing in nonpoverty areas. This was true for

white, all other, and Negro babies. However,

apparently even larger than the differential by

poverty status of area of residence was the

differential by race. That is, infants of races

other than white were far more Iikely to weigh

2,500 grams or less than were white infants,

regardless of poverty status of area of residence.

The lowest incidence of low birth weight was

observed for white infants in nonpoverty areas,

for whom the 18-city average was 7.0 percent.

This compares with a Ievel of 9.3 percent for

white infants in poverty areas. The national

average for all white babies was 6.8 percent for

the period 1969-71. The 18-tit y averages for

infants of all other races were 12.4 percent

(nonpoverty areas) and 15.1 percent (poverty

areas). The 1969-71 national average proportion

low birth weight for babies of races other than

white was 13.2 percent.

As shown in table 6, differentials by race are

very large, regardless of poverty status of area of

residence. Within both low-income and higher

income areas, the incidence of low birth weight

for Negro infants was from 29 percent to 132

percent greater than for white infants. Some

investigateors have observed this race differentizd

and have noted its persistence even after adjustments were made for such maternal characteristics as age and parity, socioeconomic status,

Total city Poverry areas Nonpoverty areas

PoVERTY STATUS OF AREA OF RESIDENCE

❑ “’’” N “’”’her

Figure 3. Percent of live births weighing 2,500 grams or less,

shown by poverty status of area of residence and color, for a

total of 18 selected cities: United States, 1869-71 average.

11
and cigarette smoking—factors which do account

for some of the differentials Y6It is possible that

the differential persists because, compared with

white mothers, mothers of all other races have

less prenatal care, poorer nutrition, and generally less favorable circumstances even within

separate socioeconomic status groups. In addition, there may be some genetic factors which

account for part of the race differential.

I Illegitimate Births

In a report on national trends in illegitimacy

published in 1968 by the National Center for

Health Statistics (NCHS),7 it was shown that

illegitimate children are more likely than legitimate children to be of low birth weight. This is

true for both white infants and infants of all

other races although the gap between legitimate

and illegitimate babies was wider for white

births than for births of all other races. Recent

NCHS data show that unmarried mothers receive

less prenatal care than married mothers, and

other datas show that the risk of death during

infancy is higher for illegitimate than for legitimate babies.

When discussing patterns of illegitimacy, it is

usually preferable to relate illegitimate births to

the population at risk to have such births, i.e.,

unmarried women of childbearing age (usually

defined as 15-44 years). It was not possible to

compute this measure, known as the illegitimacy

rate, because the relevant population figures

were not available. For this reason, the analysis

of illegitimacy in this report is based on numbers

of illegitimate births and the illegitimacy ratio.

The illegitimacy ratio–the number of illegitimate births per 1,000 total live births—is a

measure of the proportion of infants who are

illegitimate and who, as a result, are more likely

to be at a disadvantage with respect to their

physical development at birth and their subsequent health.

Illegitimacy data were available for 18 of the

19 cities included in this study. For 10 of these

cities,c illegitimacy statistics were based on

responses to an item on the birth certificate

cChicago, Dallas, Denver, Indianapolis, Memphis, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Seattle, and Washington, D.C.

asking for the child’s legitimacy status. Since the

birth certificates in use in the remaining eight

cities do not include this particular item, legitimacy status for these cities was inferred from

other information on the certificate, principally

the presence or absence of the father’s name.

Evaluations of reported and inferred legitimacy

status data carried out at NCHS7 J9 showed that

the two methods of determining legitimacy

status yielded results that were remarkably

consistent with one another, with a slightly

higher level of illegitimacy resulting from the

inferred method. Hence it is felt that comparisons of the incidence of illegitimacy based on

the two sources can be properly made.

An examination of table 7 and figure 4 shows

poverty status of area of residence to be an

important variable associated with the level of

illegitimacy. This was true for both white infants

and infants of all other races. In addition, levels

of illegitimacy differed greatly by race, irrespective of poverty status of area of residence.

Regardless of race, the average proportion of

illegitimate births to mothers residing in poverty

areas of the 18 cities was 40.8 percent, slightly

more than three times higher than the level of

13.1 percent in the higher income areas. The

differential by poverty status of area of residence was much larger for white infants than for

those of all other races. The proportions of

illegitimate white infants in poverty and ncmpov50

n

Totsl city Poverty aress Nonpoverty areas

POVERTY STATUS OF AREA OF RESIDENCE

❑ White

R

All other

Figure 4. Percent of live births that are illegitimate, shown by

poverty status of area of residence and color, for a total of 18

selected cities: United States, 1969-71 average.

12
erty areas were 23.7” and 7.3 percent, respectively; and the comparable proportions of all

other babies were 49.5 and 30.9. Thus among

babies of all other races in nonpoverty areas, the

proportion born illegitimate was 30 percent

higher than the corresponding proportion among

white babies in poverty areas. This pattern is

observed for all but 2 of the 18 cities (San

Francisco and Seattle).

Many theories have been advanced in an

effort to account for the persistence of the race

differential in illegitimate fertility, even after

controlling for socioeconomic status. One hypothesis is that differences in the timing of

marriage after discovery of conception account

for an important part of the differences between

the incidence of illegitimacy for white women

and that for women of all other races. White

couples may be more likeIy to marry prior to

the birth of the child than are couples of all

other races. 10 Another hypothesis suggests that

the race differential may be due to differences in

access to knowledge and availability of contraception, the degree of difficulty in obtaining an

induced abortion, and financial ability to establish a family. Clearly more thorough research on

this topic is needed before the validity of these

or other hypotheses can be established.

Lack of Prenatal Care

For pregnant women, the adverse effects of

chronic states of illness induced by such diseases

as syphilis, tuberculosis, and diabetes, or resulting from poor nutritional status can be mitigated

if these conditions are identified and treated

during early pregnancy. Other adverse conditions such as preeclampsia and placenta praevia

may develop later in pregnancy or immediately

before labor. For these reasons, the initiation of

prenatal care in early pregnancy and the continuous medical supervision of the pregnant

woman throughout the gestational period are

needed to ensure both the optimum development of the fetus and the well-being of the

mother.

It has also been observed that the absence of

medical supervision is associated with a greatly

increased risk of an unfavorable outcome of

pregnancy. A number of studies involving large

groups of births for recent years show a highly

significant association between inadequate prenatal care, numbers of low birth weight infants

and the rate of infant morta.Iity.l 2‘15

Only 14 of the 19 cities could provide

information on mothers with no prenatal care,

the definition of inadequate care chosen for this

study. Two of these cities, Philadelphia and

Washington, D.C., could not provide the data in

the requested form.

If we look at the 12 cities for which we have

generalIy comparable data (excluding Philadelphia and Washington, D.C.), prenatal care was

markedIy less utiIized in poverty than in nonpoverty areas for zdl racial groups (table 8 and

figure 5). For the white population, there were 2

to 4 times as many mothers in poverty areas

having no medical care during pregnancy as

mothers living in nonpoverty areas. In poverty

areas the percent of white mothers who lacked

prenatal care averaged 4.2 percent; only 1.5

percent of their counterparts in higher income

areas lacked care. For women of all other races,

the level of inadequate prenatal care was also

consistently higher in poverty than in higher

income areas, but the differences were not as

great as those observed for white women. The

proportion of women of aII other races who

received no care averaged 5.3 percent in poverty

areas, and 2.8 percent in higher income areas of

these cities.

Regardless of poverty status of area of residence, the pr~portion of all other women who

had no prenatal care was generally greater than

: 15

a

z

g 10

i

$

t-5

z

UI

Q

~

n o

Total city Poverty areas Nonpoveny areas

PoVERTV STATUS OF AREA OF RESIDENCE

❑ “’” R “’”’her

Figure 5. Percent of live births to mothers lacking prenatal care,

shown by poverty status of area of residence and color, for a

total of 12 selected cities: United States, 1969-71 average,

13
that of white women. However, in low-income

areas of four cities—Cleveland, Dallas, San

Diego, and San Francisco–relatively more white

women than women of all other races received

no care. In higher income areas, racial disparities

were far greater than those found in low-income

communities. In seven cities the proportion of

all other women receiving no care was 2 to 4

times as great as for white women; and in only

one city (San Francisco) was there a greater

percent of white mothers than mothers of all

other races receiving no care.

Births to Mothers with Less than 12 Years of

Education

Items pertaining to the educational attainment of mothers and fathers have recently been

added to birth certificates in many States, to

provide an indication of socioeconomic status.

However, information on educational background for this study was obtainable from only

six cities. The number of birth certificates

lacking this information did not exceed 2

percent of all certificates in any city, and was

generally 1 percent or less.

For the cities providing information on educational attainment, more than half (58.5 percent)

of the births to poverty area residents during

1969-71 were to women who had completed less

than 12 years of schooling. The comparable

proportion for nonpoverty area residents was

29.9 percent, about half as great as that noted in

poverty areas. There were similarly large differences in the proportions of mothers who had

completed high school within each race group

by poverty status of area of residence. Among

white mothers giving birth during 1969-71, 54.8

percent of poverty area residents and 28.1

percent of nonpoverty area residents did not

have the equivalent of a high school diploma.

The comparable proportions for all other

women were 60.4 percent for poverty area

residents and 36.2 percent for nonpoverty area

residents (tables C and 9 and figure 6).

Infant Mortality

The infant mortality rate of a community has

long been regarded as one of the most sensitive

indicators of the general health of the popula70

t

60

10

r)

Tota I city Poverty areas Nmpwerty areas

POVERTY STATUS OF AREA OF RESIDENCE

❑ “’” N “’”the’

Figure 6. Percent of live births to mothers having less than 12

years of education, shown by poverty status of area of

residence and color, for a total of 6 selected cities: United

States, 1969-71 average.

tion and of the effectiveness of prevailing

medical care. It can also be viewed as an indirect

measure of the adequacy of prenatal ca~e programs.

All 19 cities included in this study were able

to provide data on infant mortality by race and

census tract or other small geographic area.

Rates in poverty areas for both racial groups

were considerably higher than those in the

nonpoverty areas of most cities. Additionally,

for these cities, levels of infant mortality were

almost always lower for white infants than for

infants of all other races. This relationship was

true in both poverty and higher income areas.

White infants in nonpoverty areas had the

greatest chance of surviving the first year of life.

Infant mortality rates in this group averaged

17.4 infant deaths per 1,000 live births, compared with 24.2 for white infants in poverty

areas. Infants of all other races living in poverty

areas had the poorest prospects of survival: The

lowest rate, 20.9 (Denver), still exceeded the

highest rates for white infants in nonpoverty

areas; the highest rate, 39.4 (Pittsburgh), was 28

percent above the 19-city average of 30.7 for

babies of all other races in all income strata. The

14
19-city average for babies of all other races in

poverty areas was 33.4 compared with arateof

27.0 in nonpoverty areas (see tables C and 10

and figure 7).

Past investigations 716‘18 have clearly identified birth weight as one of the criticaI variabIes

determining an infant’s chance of surviving the

first year of life. A national study of matched

birth and infant death certificates for infants

born in 196018 showed that infants weighing

2,500 grams or less at birth had an infant

mortality rate 17 times higher than that for

infants weighing 2,501 grams or more. The rates

for the two birth-weight categories were 190.3

and 11.2 infant deaths per 1,000 live births,

respectively. In the United States a much smaller

percentage of white infants than infants of all

other races are born weighing 2,500 grams or

less. In 1970, for example, 6.8 percent of white

babies had low birth weights, compared with

13.3 percent of babies of all other races. Since

this racial difference in birth weight is especially

evident in many poverty areas, an attempt was

made to determine what the levels of infant

mortality would have been for a given povertycolor group if the proportion of low birth

weight were the same as in a selected standard

population. Comparison of the observed infant

mortality rate with the adjusted rate suggests the

adverse effect that high Ievels of low birth

weight, such as those observed for babies of all

other races, have on infant mortality rates.

Infant mortality rates were recomputed for

the 18 cities providing birth weight information

401-

Total city Poverty areas Nonpovertyareas

POVERTY STATLJS OF AREA OF RESIOENCE

•1 ‘hit’ N “’”tier

Figure 7. Infant mortality rates, shown by poverty status of area

of residence and color, for a total of 19 selected cities:

United States, 1869-71 average.

(excludes AtIanta), using data from the 1960

matched-record study as the standmd for adjustment by the indirect method (see appendix I).

For the 18 cities as a group the observed and

birth-weight-adjusted infant mortaJity rates were

as follows:

Area and color Observed Adjusted

Poverty areas

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.2 21.8

Another . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.5 22.0

Nonpoverty areas

White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.4 18.4

Another . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.0 20.3

The adjusted rates shown above and in table E

approximate what the rates of infant mortality

would have been if each poverty-color group had

experienced a rate of low birth weight of 7.8

percent, the percent observed in the United

States in 1960. For example, if the percent low

birth weight for births of all other races in

poverty areas had been 7.8 instead of the

observed 15.1, then the infant mortality rate

would have been 22.0 instead of the actual 33.5.

The actual levels of low birth weight were higher

than 7.8 percent for all groups except for the

white nonpoverty group. It is apparent then that

Iower levels of low birth weight for both color

groups in poverty areas and for births of all

other races in nonpoverty areas would have

resulted in lower rates of infant mortality.

Fetal Mortality

Seventeen of the 19 participating cities were

able to provide information on fetal deaths.

However, requirements for reporting vary

widely. For the majority of cities, fetaI deaths

are reported to heahh departments ordy when

the gestation period is 20 weeks or more, thus

effectively excluding most therapeutic abortions. Two cities (Philadelphia and Pittsburgh)

include fetal deaths with shorter gestation

periods; and three cities (Atlanta, Buffalo, and

New York City) require the reporting of all fetal

deaths, regardless of gestation period.

Due to the Iiberzdization of the abortion law

in New York State in mid-1970 and in Georgia

in 1967, the number of reported fetal deaths in

15
Table E. Observed and birth-weight-adjusted infant mortality rates, by poverty status of area of rasidence and color for 18 selected

cities: United States, 1969-71 average

[Rates are infant deaths per 1,000 live births. Adjusted rates computad by indirect method]

City

Baltimore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Buffalo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chicago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cincinnati . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cleveland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dallas’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Denver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Indianapolis . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LosAngelesZ . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Memphis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Minneapolis . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NewYork City . . . . . . . . . . . .

Philadelphia . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pittsburgh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Di~go . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Francisco . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Seattle . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Washington, D.C. . . . . . . . . . .

Poverty areas

White

Observed

rate

25.5

30.8

23.0

22.7

23.8

20.1

19.3

28.2

20.6

26.9

26.3

25.5

24.6

31.1

21.8

20.0

22.2

33.8

Adjusted

rata

21.0

31.0

23.0

21.1

19.8

18.5

15.4

24.7

24.2

24.2

23.1

21.9

21.2

28.0

23.0

20.1

20.3

28.3

All other - .

Observed

rate

31.3

34.1

38.8

32.1

31.1

33.7

20.9

37.4

28.2

26.1

25.1

33.3

36.9

39.4

28.5

23.1

32.9

31.6

Adjusted

rate

20.0

24.0

25.3

23.7

20.1

22.3

12.6

25.5

20.9

17.4

17.8

21.5

22.4

23.5

23.0

17.7

26.6

20.8

Nonpoverty areas

White

Dbsarved

rate

20.0

19.3

20.0

17.0

19.4

1&2

18.1

18.3

16.4

14.9

19.3

16.0

17.5

17.1

?6.2

15.6

16.8

18.7

Adjusted

rate

19.4

20.8

21.1

18.9

19.1

19.2

17.3

19.8

18.6

15.8

19.8

16.8

17.6

16.9

19.1

17.3

18.5

20.2

Al I other

Observed

rate

27.2

26.8

28.7

20.4

28.1

25.6

19.2

25.8

21.9

25.8

25.9

25.5

33.8

32.3

26.2

14.9

29.0

29.1

Adjusted

rate

18.7

23.3

21.2

17.0

19.6

17.7

14.5

21.1

19.2

21.4

21.2

19.6

23.2

22.3

24.8

13.5

22.4

21.3

‘White category includes all races other than Negro. “All other” category represents Negro only.

Intercitv comparisons of fetal death ratios

2Averageof 1969and 1970.

Buffalo, New York City, and Atlanta increased

sharply after 1969. However, the 1970 data

obtained from these cities do not distinguish

between induced abortions and spontaneous

fetal deaths. Although this distinction is made

for 1971 New York City data, it was not

possible to compute a 3-year fetal death ratio

(number of fetal deaths per 1,000 live births)

exclusive of therapeutic abortions for any of

these cities. Fetal death ratios shown in table 11

for these three cities are therefore based on

1969 data only. It should be borne in mind,

however, that even the 1969 ratios do not fully

exclude therapeutic abortions.

Fetal death ratios published in this report

should ‘be’ used with caution since the extent of

underreporting, although not known, may be

significant. Additionally, variations in completeness of reporting are probable among these

cities. ~~tively high fetal death ratios may be

in~icatwe of better reporting in an area rather

than of poorer health status of residents or of

inferior medical care.

16

.

would lead to spurious conclusions due to

differences in gestational reporting periods and

to variations in the completeness of reporting.

However, for the cities in this study there

emerges a definite pattern of greatly increased

risk of spontaneous fetzd death among white

women in low-income areas (figure 8). Excluding the cities of Atlanta, Buffalo, and New York,

ratios averaged 17.4 fetal deaths per 1,000 live

births for white women in poverty areas, compared with 13.0 for white women in higher

income areas (table C). It has been noted that

suboptirnal nutrition during the reproductive

period is a major contributing factor in the

causation of spontaneous fetal d~ths.1 6*19,20

This premise appears t~ be borne out by the

pattern of greater risk for poverty-area women,

who are less likely to obtain an adequate diet

and who have less access to experf’ medical

advice than women living in higher income areas.

Fetal deaths in New York Cityin 1971.–The

greatly liberalized abortion law for New York
Total city Poverty areas Nonpoverty areas

POVERTY STATUS OF AREA OF RESIDENCE

•1 White ❑ All other

Figure 8. Fetal death ratios, shown by poverty status of area of

residence and color, for a total of 14 selected cities: United

States, 1869-71 average.

City went into effect on JuIy 1, 1970. The law

permits abortion virtually upon request up to

the 24th week of pregnancy when performed by

a licensed physician.z 1

The New York City Health Department published separate statistics by heahh area for the

year 1971 on spontaneous fetal deaths and

induced abortions, permitting the calculation of

ratios separately for spontaneous fetaI deaths

and induced abortions by poverty status of area

of residence of mother (table F). During 1971,

there were slightly more than half as many

pregnancies terminated spontaneously or therapeutically as there were live births (a combined

total of 576.8 fetal deaths per 1,000 births). The

combined fetzd death ratio of 590.7 for women

in low-income areas was 4 percent higher than

that of 569.1 for women living in nonpoverty

areas.

. Spontaneous fetal deaths. —The incidence

of spontaneous fetal deaths in New York

City in 1971 was 14 percent greater among

poverty area women than among those

living in nonpoverty areas (69.7 spontaneous fetal deaths per 1,000 births compared

with 60.9). By race, the disparity in ratios

was greatest for women of races other than

white (79.6 fetal deaths per 1,000 births in

poverty areas compared with 72.8 per

1,000 in nonpoverty areas) and least for

Puerto Rican-born womend (55.9 com-

‘For information on the classification of the Puerto Mars

PoPtiationseesection, “Vital Statistics for the Spanish-heritage

Population.” Data for Puerto Rican women are included as a

subgroup of data for white women.

●

pared with 54.9 fetal deaths per 1,000

births).

Within the poverty and nonpoverty

areas, there were notable differences in

fetaI death ratios among racial and ethnic

groups. Among women in low-income

areas, the ratio for Negro women was 35

percent higher than that for white women

(81.0 fetal deaths per 1,000 births compared with 60.1). The ratio for Puerto

Rican women was 7 percent less than the

overall ratio for white women. Approximately the same racial and ethnic patterns

were evidenced in nonpovert y areas: the

ratio for Negro women exceeded that for

white women by 37 percent and the ratio

for Puerto Rican women was about 5

percent less than the ratio for all white

women.

Induced abortions. –The number of reported induced abortions increased dramatically from mid-1970 through 1971.21

During 1971, 22,970 therapeutic abortions

were performed for poverty area residents,

and 40,462 for nonpoverty area women. In

this time period, the corresponding numbers of live births in poverty and nonpoverty areas were 44,094 and 79,617, respectively; and corresponding induced abortion

ratios were, respectively, 520.9 and 508.2

per 1,000 live births. The incidence of

induced abortions varied widely from

borough to borough (equivalent to

“county” data in table F) and by race

within the defined poverty and nonpoverty

areas. The highest ratios, irrespective of

borough of residence or poverty status of

area of residence, were for Ne~o women;

generally, the lowest were for Puerto Rican

women. The low ratios observed for Puerto

Rican women have been attributed in part

to the high frequency of contraceptive

sterilization among Puerto Rican women

and the Catholic-Hispanic tradition of rejecting abortion as a means of family

pkmning.z 1

Although there was little variation by

poverty status of area of residence in

induced abortion ratios for white women

(which include data for Puerto Rican

women), Puerto Rican and Negro women

living in nonpovert y area-s had 29 percent

17
Table F. Spontaneous fetal death and induced abortion ratios, by poverty status of area of residence and race or ethnic group: New

York City, 1971

[All periods of gestation. Ratios are fetal deaths or abortions per 1,000 live births in specified group]

County of residence

New York City . .

Bronx County . . . . .

Kings County . . . . .

New York County . .

Queens County . . . .

Richmond County . .

New York City . .

Bronx County . . . . .

Kings County . . . . .

New York County . .

Queens County . . . .

Richmond County .

Total area Poverty areas I

Nonpoverty areas

White All other White All other White All other

1Puerto Total Total Negro ] Puerto Total

Rican

Total Negro Tota I ‘ ;::: Total

Rican

Negro

58.2

48.0

66.6

52.2

53.2

82.9

439.7

361.0

367.8

853.2

3%4.0

292.7

55.6

51.8

67.1

38.2

51.9

50.6

76.5

47.0

94.0

77.8

62.9

92.0

L

336.1 667.0

316.2 572.2

293.6 608.6

473.4 874.0

366.4 731.1

392.4 552.2

Spontaneous

80.2 60.1 55.9

47.8 54.6 54.8

96.4 72.7 65.4

86.6 37.0 32.6

67.9 159.1 ●

88.2 . . . . . .

tat deaths

79.6

49.2

90.9

85.8

57.9

. . .

Induced abortions

1--1

694.9 436.5 309.2 607.9

584.8 354.7 286.3 522.6

623.8 401.0 284.0 544.9

953.7 664.2 434.9 841.2

B02.4 “ * 684.9

581.3 . . . . . . .

81.0

49.6

91.6

91.3

58.0

. . .

618.6

525.0

550.5

896.8

686.0

. . .

57.5

43.1

63.1

59.6

53.0

82.9

54.9

44.8

73.0

49.2

52.5

50.6

L

440.8 398.9

365.7 386.4

348.7 327.4

945.4 547.9

381.4 369.4

292.7 392.4

72.8

44.1

99.8

62.8

63.5

92.0

738.1

639.9

727.3

934.8

736.4

552.2

79.0

45.3

105.9

76.2

69.3

88.2

796.1

672.5

767.8

1,080.9

818.2

581.3

more induced abortions than their counterparts in poverty areas. Racial and ethnic

differences were clearly evident within the

poverty areas. The ratio for Negro women

was 42 percent higher than for white

women (618.6 induced abortions per 1,000

live births compared with 436.5). The ratio

for Puerto Rican women (309.2 induced

abortions per 1,000 live births) was 29

percent lower than the overall ratio for

white women; in contrast, the difference in

spontaneous fetal death ratios for these

two groups in poverty areas was only 7

percent (55.9 spontaneous fetal deaths per

1,000 live births for Puerto Rican women,

compared with 60.1 for white women).

Racial differences were even more

marked among nonpoverty area residents,

where the induced abortion ratio of 796.1

for Negro women was 81 percent higher

than the ratio of 440.8 for white women.

The substantial drop in the total number

of live births, illegitimate births, and infant

] Based on information for women born in Puerto Rice.

deaths between 1970 and 1971 in New

York City is probably a partial reflection of

the concomitant increase in induced pregnancy terminations during 1970 and 1971.

It is difficult to estimate the precise effect

of the increased number of legal abortions,

since an unknown percent of these abortions would have been obtained without

legal sanction. In addition, other factors in

operation during this period—e.g., the widespread availability of contraceptives and

family planning services, better health services to the newborn, and a universal drop in

the birth rate–would have tended to lower

the number of infant deaths and illegitimate and legitimate births.

Deaths from Tuberculosis

The malnutrition, overcrowding, and poor

sanitation so often prevalent in urban poverty

areas is conducive to the contraction and spread

of infectious disease, particularly tuberculosis.

18
Moreover, poorly nourished people have less

ability to resist disease organisms; their infections tend to be more severe and there is more

Likelihood of a fatal outcome than for wellnourished individuals.z 2~z3

For the 19 large cities in this study, death

rates for tuberculosis for the white population

living in low-income areas were three times as

high as those for white people in the remaining

areas of the cities (8.7 compared with 2.8 deaths

per 100,000 population), and slightly more than

twice as high for people of all other races living

in poverty areas as for their counterparts in

higher income areas (10.0 compared with 4.3

deaths per 100,000, table C). In aIl cities

studied, poverty area residents experienced a

notably higher incidence of death from tuberculosis than people living in areas where more

adequate incomes prevailed (table 12 and figure 9).

Racial differences in rates for these cities

should be interpreted with caution since the

median age of the population of all other races is

substantially lower than that of the white

population in large cities. (For further details,

see section on the crude death rate.) The overall

death rate for tuberculosis would tend to be

depressed in populations with a younger age

structure since the incidence of this disease is

fairly low for younger age groups, but it rises

rapidly after middle age. A1though information

was not available to adjust observed tuberculosis

death rates to eliminate the effect of differences

in age composition, age-specific death rates for

tuberculosis in the United States during 1970

15

8

~-lz

eQlo

Cc$

:-l

~2

~05 &m

u

n

o

Total city Poverty areas Nonpoverty areas

POVERTY STATUS OF AREA OF RESIDENCE

❑ ‘“t’ is“’”’her

Figure 9. Death rates for tuberculosis, shown by poverty status

of area of residence and color, for a total of 19 selected

cities: United States, 1969-71 average.

are shown in table G and can be used as a

general indicator of the very large racial disparities in rates at all age levels. It can be seen that

rates for the population of all other races are

from 2 to 11 times the rates for the white

population.

Violent Deaths

Deaths from violent causes are a combination

of deaths from accidents, suicides, and homicides as these causes are defined in the Eighth

Revision of the International Classification of

Diseases, Adapted for Use in the United States,

1965 (ICDA).

For San Diego there was a break in the

continuity of violent death statistics during

1969-71. During 1969 these deaths were classified according to the seventh revision of the

ICDA and for 1970-71, according to the eighth

revision. A notable difference in these two

coding procedures is reflected in the lower

number of suicides occurring in 1970 than in

1969. It is likely that this drop was at least

Table G. Death rates for tuberculosis by 5-year age groups and

color United States, 1970

Age

Total, all ages . . . . . . . . . .

Under l year . . . . . . . . . . . . .

l-4years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5-9years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10-14 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15-19 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

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

35-39 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4044years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

45-49 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

50-54 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

55-59 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

60-64 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

65-69 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

70-74 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

75-79 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

80-84 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

85 years And over . . . . . . . . . .

Total White All other

Death rates per 100,000

population

2.6

0.5

0.3

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.4

0.9

1.5

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.5

7.0

9.5

10.8

15.6

17.6

20.9

2.1

0.2

0.2

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.1

0.2

0.5

0.8

1.0

1.9

2.7

4.2

5.9

8.2

8.9

14.1

16.3

19.5

6.0

1.8

1.0

0.1

0.1

0.2

1.0

2.2

4.2

6.6

10.0

12.6

15.2

17.1

17.6

21.7

31.6

35.1

34.7

35.1

19
partially a result of the shift in classification

according to the stricter rules of the eighth

revision. Under the eighth revision, a portion of

the deaths which would have been assigned to

the suicide category under the seventh revision

were assigned to unknown causes.

Differences in the number of accidents and

homicides between 1969 and 1970, however,

were negligible, although comparable changes in

coding procedures for these causes of death also

occurred between the seventh and eighth revisions.

Information regarding the comparability between the seventh and eighth revisions for

national data for selected causes of death is

shown in Vital and Health Statistics, Series

20-No. 16.24

Deaths from violent causes accounted for a

notable proportion of all deaths for each of the

racial groups in all of the cities. Examination of

the incidence of deaths from these causes is

important in that human wastage as a result of

these causes is, in theory at least, preventable.

An average of 6.1 percent of all deaths

occurring in the 19 cities studied were due to

violent causes. The contribution of violent

deaths to totaI mortality was greater in the

poverty areas, where the proportion of violent

deaths averaged 8.5 percent compared with 5.2

percent in nonpoverty areas.

Violent deaths for the white population were

a higher proportion of all deaths for this group

in poverty areas than in nonpoverty areas in all

except two cities (Memphis and San Diego) .For

all other races, however, violent deaths were of

higher proportions in the nonpoverty areas in

the majority of cities. In addition, of all deaths

the proportion that were violent deaths was

greater for all other races than for whites in both

poverty and nonpoverty areas.

Thus far, this section has dealt with the

proportions of violent deaths among total deaths

in an effort to determine the relative influence

of violent deaths on total mortality. In order to

examine these deaths as they are related to the

population of a specified income area or racial

group, the remainder of this section deals with

violent death rates (tables C and 13 and figure 10).

Death rates for violent causes were generally

higher in poverty areas than in nonpoverty areas

—

Total city Poverty areas Nonpoverty areas

POVERTY STATUS OF AREA OF RESIOENCE

❑ White133

All other

Figure 10. Death rates for violent causes, shown by poverty

stetus of area of residence and color, for a total of 19

seIected cities: United States, 1969-71 average.

for all racial groups. The rates in poverty areas

averaged 115.5 deaths per 100,000 population

as compared with 61.9 in nonpovert y areas. This

pattern may be influenced by a higher incidence

of homicides and accidents, especially among

the generally younger poverty population. In 17

of the cities the average death rate for violent

causes was higher for the population of all other

races than for the white population.

Comparison of the rates for each color group

by poverty status of area of residence shows that

there was greater disparity between the rates for

violent deaths of the white population than was

true for the population of alI other races. Rates

for the white population in poverty areas, which

averaged 112.7 violent deaths per 100,000 population, were 91 percent higher than in nonpovert y areas, where rates averaged 59.0. The rates

for the population of all other races residing in

poverty areas averaged 117.1, or 55 percent

higher than the 75.7 average rate for this group

in nonpoverty areas.

Vital Statistics for the Spanish-heritage Population

Classification of Spanish-heritage population. –As was noted in the introduction to this

report, vital statistics data were collected for the

Spanish-heritage population in three of the

cities—Dallas, Los Angeles, and New York City.

Considerable interest has been expressed in the

relative health status of this ethnic group, and it

20
was hoped that this study would provide some

useful information.

One problem that had to be faced in compiling data was that each city health department

defined its city’s Spanish-heritage population

somewhat differently. For Dallas the data refer

principally to Mexican-Americans, and this population is identified by the surname of the father

or mother for births and fetal deaths and that of

the decedent for deaths other than fetal. Data

for Los Angeles refer to persons with “SpanishAmerican” surnames. In both Dallas and Los

Angeles, the Spanish-heritage populations are

identified by using lists of typical Spanish

names. Data for New York City refer to the

Puerto Rican population. This population is

determined from the mother’s nativity in the

case of a birth, fetal death, or infant death and

the decedent’s nativity in the case of a death

other than fetal or infant. Vital statistics data

for the Spanish-heritage population in aI1 three

cities are considered a subgroup of the data for

the white population. In New York City, persons who are both Negro and of Puerto Rican

nativity are included in the category Negro and

not included in the Spanish-heritage category.

Because of comparability y problems with published census data, it was not possible to

compute rates. Ratios and percents have been

computed, however, and comparisons are based

on these measures. Data for the Spanish-heritage

population are available on low birth weight,

illegitimacy, infant mortality, and fetal mortality for all three cities, and on prenatal care for

Dallas ordy.

Summay of findings. –Although there was no

consistent pattern in the levels of the various

measures considered in this report for the

Spanish-heritage population residing in the three

cities, there was a discernible pattern in the

relationship of the white and Spanish-heritage

populations within poverty and nonpoverty

areas of the cities. These data show that in

poverty areas the health status of the white

population was relatively less favorable than that

of the Spanish-heritage population, with only

few exceptions. The incidence of low birth

weight, illegitimacy, infant mortality, and fetal

mortaIity was almost always greater for the

white population than for the Spanish-heritage

population. The only exceptions were for low

birth weight and illegitimacy in New York City

and mothers lacking prenataI care in Dallas,

where the situations were reversed. Conversely,

in nonpoverty areas, the data indicate that the

health status of the Spanish-heritage population

was generally less favorable than that of the

white population in nearly every case. The only

exceptions were for low birth weight and illegitimacyy in Dallas; infant mortality in Los Angeles,

where the positions of the two groups were

reversed; and low birth weight in Los Angeles,

where the incidence was equal in both population groups.

CONCLUSION

Data described in this report document the

relatively unfavorable health status of persons

living in poverty areas compared with those

residing in nonpoverty areas. The generally less

fortunate health status of persons of all other

races compared with the white population is also

clear. It is apparent that there are interrelationships between poverty status of area of residence

and race which sometimes strengthen and sometimes reduce the differentials observed when

only one or the other factor is considered. We

have noted how the structure of the population

with respect to age, income level, and race can

affect the overall rates. It has also been suggested that current income level may not be the

most critical factor contributing to differentials

in health status. Lifelong patterns of heahh care

probably are very important in accounting for

some of the differential observed.

Although the differentials by both poverty

status of area of residence and race are wide for

all variables considered in this study, there were

some interesting patterns noted for each variable

considered separately. It appears that for three

of the variables-the proportion of births to

mothers with less than 12 years of schooling, the

death rate for tuberculosis, and the death rate

for violent causes–controlling for poverty status

of area of residence reduces the race differential

considerably. Thus, most of the race differential

in these variables is accounted for by poverty

status of area of residence. In contrast, controlling for poverty status of area of residence does

not at alI reduce the race differential in the

21
proportion of low-birth-weight infants. This

proportion remains much higher for babies of all

other races than for white babies, even when

poverty status of area of residence is examined

separately.

For six of the remaining seven variables in this

study, the conclusions are less clear cut, but

there is a consistent pattern for the six

variables-crude birth rate, fertility rate, illegitimacy ratio, proportion of births to mothers with

no prenatal care, infant mort ality rate, and fetal

death ratio. While the race differential in these

measures is not very large in poverty areas, it is

quite considerable in nonpoverty areas. In other

words, in poverty areas the race differential

appears to be diminished to some extent; in

nonpoverty areas there is virtually no change in

the race differential. While it has not been

possible to explain this pattern fully, one factor

noted earlier in this report probably accounts, at

least partially, for the persistence of the race

differential in nonpoverty areas. A fairly large

proportion (12 to 25 percent) of the population

of all other races residing in nonpoverty areas

actuaIly had incomes beio w the poverty level in

contrast to only 6 to 10 percent of the white

population.

However, it is apparent that in the nonpoverty areas particularly, and to a much lesser

extent in the poverty areas, there is an additional factor or factors as yet unexplained which

operates to help maintain the wide race differential. Further research is needed to account for

the persistence of the race differential in health

status that is observed irrespective of the poverty status of area of residence.

000

22
1U.S. Bureau of the Census: 1970 Census of Population: Subject Reports. Final Report PC (2)-9B, LowIncome Areas in Large Cities. Washington. U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, 1973.

2Sttif Report of Select Committee on Nutrition and

Human Needs–United States Senate: To Save The

Children-Nuti”tional Intenxntion Through Supplemental Feeding. Washington. U.S. Government Printing

Office, 1974.

3National Center for Health Statistics: Infant mortality rates: Socioeconomic factors, United States. Vital

and Health Statistics. Series 22—No. 14. DHEW Pub. No.

(HSM), 72-1045. Health Services and Mental Health

Administration. Washington. U.S. Government Printing

Office, Mar. 1972.

4Harper, P.A., and Wiener, G.: Sequelae of Low Birth

Weight. Annu.Rev.Med. 16:405-420, 1965.

5National Center for Health Statistics: Natality statistics analysis, United States, 1965-1967. Vital and

Health Statistics. PHS Pub. No. 1000-Series 21-No. 19.

Public Health Service. Washington. U.S. Government

Printing Office, May 1970.

6Penchaszadeh, V. B., et al.: Growth and development in an “inner city” population: An assessment of

possible biologiczd and environmental influences, IL The

effect of certain maternal characteristics on birth weight,

gestational age and intra-uterine growth. Johns Hopkins

Med.]. 131: 11-23, July 1972.

7Nation~ Center for Health Statistics: Trends in

illegitimacy, United States, 1940-1965. Vital and Health

Statistics. PHS Pub. No. 1000-Series 21-No. 15. Public

Health Service. Washington. U.S. Government Printing

Office, Feb. 1968.

8National Center for Health Statistics: Infant mortality rates by legitimacy status: United States, 1964-66.

Monthly Vital Statistics Report. DHEW Pub. No. (HSM)

72-1125, Vol. 20, No. 5, Supplement. Public Health

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

Aug. 2, 1971.

9Levintow, Michael: National Estimates of Illegitimate Births. Unpublished report, 1972.

10pratt, W.: Preman”talPregnancy in a Metropolitan

Community. (Paper presented at the 1965 meeting of

the Population Association of America.)

11 Skim, J. ~d Berkov, B.: me effects of le@

abortion on legitimate and illegitimate birth rates: The

California experience. Stud.Fam.Plann. 4(11) 281-292,

Nov. 1973.

121ba, B. Y., Niswander, J. D., and Woodville, L.:

Relation of prenatal caxe to birth weights, major

malformations, and newborn deaths of American Indians. Health Services Reports 88(8): 697-701, Oct.

1973.

13Wiener, G., and Milton, T.: Demographic correlates

of low birth weight. Am. J.Epidemiol. 91(3): 260-272,

Mar. 1970.

14Rosenwaike, I.: The influence of socioeconomic

status on incidence of low birth weight. HSMHA Health

Reports 86(7): 641-649, July 1971.

15Kessner, D. M., et al: Contrasts in Health Status,

Volume I, Infant Death: An Analysis by Maternal Risk

and Health Care, Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences. Washington. 1973.

16Montagu, A.: Prenatal Influences. Springi3eld, 11-

Iinois. Charles C. Thomas, 1962.

17Hearings Before the United States Senate Select

Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs: Maternal,

Fetal, and Infant Nubition, Part I–Consequence of

Malnutrition Corrected Stenographic Transcript, June 5,

1973.

18National Center for Health Statistics: A study of

infant mortaIity from linked records by birth weight,

period of gestation, and other variables, United States.

Vital and Health Statistics. Series 20-No. 12. DHEW

Pub. No. (HSM) 72-1055. Health Services and Mental

Health Administration. Washington. U.S. Government

Printing Office, May 1972.

19Williams, R. J.: Nutrition Against Dhease: Environmental Protection. New York. Pitman Publishing Corporation, 1971.

20Stearns, G.: Nutritional state of the mother prior

to conception. J.A.M.A. 168(12): 1655-1659, Nov. 22,

1958.

21 Tietze, C.: TWO Years’ Experience with a Liberal

Abortion Law: Its Impact on Fertility Trends in New

York City. Fam.Plann.Perspect. 5(1) 3641, Winter

1973.

22Crofton, J., and Douglas, A.: Respiratory Diseases.

Oxford and Edinburgh. BlackwelI Scientific Publications, 1969, p. 183.

23Murdoch, J. McC., and Gray, J. A.: “Patterns of

infectious diseases in developed countries in relation to

environmental factors,” in G. M. Howe and J. A.

Loraine, eds., Environmental Medicine. London. Wdliam

Heinemann Medical Books, 1973. pp. 128-139.

24National Center for Health Statistics: Mortality

trends for leading causes of death, United States

1950-69. Vital and Health Statistics. Series 20-No. 16.

DHEW Pub. No. (HRA) 74-1853. Health Resources

Administration. Washington. U.S. Government Printing

Office, Mar. 1974.

23
LIST OF DETAILED TABLES

Table 1. Number of persons residing in 19 selected cities, by poverty status of area of residence and race: United

States, 1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2. Birth rates by poverty status of area of residence and race for 19 selected cities: United States, 1969-71

average . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3. Fertility rates by poverty status of area of residence and race for 18 selected cities: United States,

1969-71 average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4. Crude death rates by poverty status of area of residence and race for 19 selected cities: United Statesr

1969-71 average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . .

5. Standardized death rates by color for 15 selected cities: United States, 1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6. Percent of live births weighing 2,500 grams or less, by poverty status of area of residence and race or

ethnic group for 18 selected cities: United States, 1969-71 average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7. Illegitimacy ratios by poverty status of area of residence and race or ethnic group for 18 selected cities:

United States, 1969-71 average . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8. Percant of live births to mothers lacking prenatal care, by poverty status of area of residence and race

or ethnic group for 14 selected cities: United States, 1969-71 average . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . .

9. Percent of live births to mothers having less than 12 years of education, by poverty status of area of

residence and race for 6 selected cities: United States, 1969-71 average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10. Infant mortality rates by poverty status of area of residence and race or ethnic group for 19 selected

cities: United States, 1969-71 average . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11. Fetal death ratios by poverty status of area of residence and race or ethnic group for 17 selected cities:

United States, 1969-71 average . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12. Death rates for tuberculosis, by poverty status of area of residence and race for 19 selected cities:

United States, 1969-71 average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13. Death rates for violent causes, by poverty status of area of residence and race for 19 salected cities:

United States, 1969-71 average. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

32

33

34

35

36
Tablel. Numberof persons residing in19selected cities, bypove~s@tus ofareaof residenm and race: United States, 1970

City

Atlanta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Baltimore . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Buffalo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chicago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cincinnati . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cleveland . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dallas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Denver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Indianapolis . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LosAngeles . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Memphis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Minneapolis . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NewYorkCity . . . . . . . . . . .

Philadelphia . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pittsburgh . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Diego . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SanFrancisco . . . . . . . . . . .

Seattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Washington, D.C. . . . . . . . . .

Total

180,444

321,271

108,216

833,425

143,081

213,435

217,089

120,241

95,461

583,598

253,623

73,474

2,031,586

505,880

119,163

97,244

152,435

43,988

246,191

Poverty areas

White

35,590

73,084

41,186

188,180

57,879

53,860

55,907

98,051

40,064

233,137

40,732

80,462

974,462

156,619

50,032

60,826

80,022

29,016

19,130

All other

Total

144,854

248,187

67,030

645,245

85,202

159,575

. . .

22,190

55,397

350,461

212,891

13,012

1,057,124

349,261

69,131

36,418

72,413

14,B72

227,061

Negro

. . .

246,213

. . .

631,692

84,528

. . .

161,162

18,344

55,037

315,608

. . .

8,894

986,358

. . .

. . .

30,007

44,226

9,185

. . .

Total

316,529

584,488

354,552

2,533,532

308,443

537,468

627,332

394,437

649,163

2,232,483

281,473

380,926

5,863,276

1,442,729

400.954

588,291

563,238

486,843

510,319

Nonpovertyareas

White

204,913

406.753

323,181

2,019,587

267,515

404,224

578,256

360,136

567,838

7,940,463

268,492

345352

5,074,379

1,122,088

362,248

558,483

431,164

434,854

190,142

Al I other

Total

111,616

177,735

31,371

513,945

41,928

133,244

. . .

34,301

81,325

292,000

12,981

14,974

788,897

320,631

38,706

40,808

132,075

51,989

320,177

Negro

. . .

173,997

. . .

470,928

40,542

. . .

49,076

28,667

79,283

187,998

. . .

10,111

681,757

. . .

. . .

22,941

51,852

28,683

. . .

Source: Based on data from U.S. Bureau of the Census: Census of Population and Housing: 1970 Cerrsus Tracts, Final Report

PHC(I ) Individual SMSA Reports, Tables P-1 and P-4. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1972.

25
Table2. Birth rates bypoverty status of area of residence andrace for19 selected cities: United States, 1969-71 average

[Rates per 1,000 population in specified group enumerated asof April l,1970. Population data notavailable tocompute rate$ forthe

Spanish-heritage population]

Citv

Atlanta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Baltimore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Buffalo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chicago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cincinnati . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cleveland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dallas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Denver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Indianapolis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LosAngelesz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Memphis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Minneapolis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NewYork City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bronx County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kings County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NewYork County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Queens County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Richmond County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Philadelphia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pittsburgh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Diego . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Francisco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Seattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Washington, D. C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

White

14.6

13.6

15.2

16.3

18.2

18.5

‘ 17.8

17.9

17.6

17.5

16.0

16.6

15.0

17.3

16.5

12.9

13.0

16.4

14.4

12.1

16.1

12.5

13.7

9.1

Total

All other

Total

24.0

21.8

24.5

27.4

22.7

23.1

...

23.7

24.2

22.6

25.9

33.6

22.8

22.4

26.9

17.7

21.3

22.8

22.3

22.4

25.4

21.8

25.3

23.1

Negro

--

21.6

--

27.8

22.6

.-

28.2

24.4

24.3

23.7

.-

29.4

23.7

23.8

27.8

18.3

21.3

23.4

...

.-.

25.0

24.5

27.9

--

Poverty areas

White

16.2

16.3

13.9

23.0

21.4

17.4

127.9

23.8

17.1

28.0

16.1

14.1

24.8

27.7

25.8

19.2

14.3

. . .

14.3

10.5

18.9

16.4

10.8

9.3

All other

Total

23.4

22.4

24.5

29.3

23.4

23.5

-.

25.2

24.8

24.1

25.7

34.7

22.7

22.7

26.5

17.1

21.4

. . .

22.2

22.1

27.0

24.1

25.0

23.4

Negro

...

22.3

.-.

29.6

23.5

.-

28.8

25.9

24.7

24.5

-.

30.1

23.8

24.5

27.2

17.7

21.6

. . .

.-

..-

26.2

26.8

28.9

-.

N onpoverty areas

W bite

14.3

13.2

15.4

15.7

17.5

18.7

‘ 16.9

16.3

17.6

16.2

16.0

17.1

13.1

13.4

31.7

11.2

13.0

16.4

14.4

12.3

15.9

11.7

13.9

9.1

All other

Total

24.7

21.0

24.6

24.9

21.1

22.7

.-

22.7

23.8

20.9

28.9

32.7

22.9

22.1

27.9

18.9

21.3

22.8

22.5

22.9

24.0

20.5

25.4

22.9

Negro

-..

20.7

...

25.3

20.7

26.3

23.5

24.0

22.4

---

28.8

23.7

22.7

29.1

19.9

21.3

23.4

-.

...

23.3

22.6

27.6

...

1 Includes all races other than Negro.

2Averageof 1969and 1970.

26
Table3. Fertility rates bypoverty status ofareaof residence andrace for18selacted cities: United States, 1969-71 average

[Rates are live births per 1,000 women aged 15-44 in specified group enumerated as of April 1, 1970. Population data not available to

computa rates for the Spanish-heritage population]

city

Atlanta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Baltimor e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Buffalo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chicago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cincinnati . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cleveland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dallas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Denver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Indianapolis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LosAngelesz ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Minneapolis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NewYork City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Philadelphia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pittsburgh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SanDiego . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Francisco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Seattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Washington, D.C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

White

67.8

73.5

81.7

B3.8

92.1

96.9

180.1

83.3

84.2

80.6

77.0

73.0

76.1

63.7

79.7

60.9

68.3

47.1

Tote I

All other

Total

100.1

95.5

105.8

116.9

104.7

100.5

105.4

111.4

95.5

151.1

93.0

98.5

104.7

114.4

90.8

112.9

95.4

Negro

-.

94.7

.-

118.2

104.5

--

119.8

107.4

112.2

102.2

13B.3

94.9

—

117.8

107.5

134.4

Poverty areas

White

92.7

87.4

85.4

117.2

118.9

100.1

‘ 145.8

113.3

99.3

129.9

59.6

106.2

74.4

64.8

118.7

86.8

69.1

55.4

All other

Total

103.6

102.5

108.9

131.3

111.1

106.7

.

123.9

121.5

107.9

158.7

88.9

103.5

105.1

132.4

109.1

124.6

102.5

Negro

—

102.1

--

131.9

111.6

—

123.6

125.1

121.4

110.9

141.3

91.0

—

.-

125.2

116.5

144.8

—

Nonpoverty areas

White

64.4

71.0

81.3

80.7

86.9

96.6

] 74.B

75.3

83.3

74.7

80.4

65.6

76.4

63.6

76.5

56.5

68.3

46.4

All other

Total

96.1

86.6

99.7

100.6

92.6

93.8

—

95.2

105.1

82.5

144.8

99.0

93.6

104.2

100.7

82.0

110.0

90.8

Negro

.-

85.3

.-

101.7

90.9

.. .

108.0

97.7

106.4

89.5

135.6

101.2

-.

108.3

99.8

131.2

--

z includes all races other than Negro.

2Averageof 1969 and 1970.

NOTE: Rates not computed for Memphis; population data geographically comparable with birth data by poverty status not

available because of boundary changes in 1969.

27
Table4. Crude death rates bypoverty status of area of residence andraca for19 selected cities: United States, 1969-71 average

[Rates per 1,000 population in specified group enumerated as of April 1,1970. Population data not

available to compute rates for the Spanish-heritage population]

City

Atlanta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Baltimore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Buffalo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chicago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cincinnati . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cleveland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dallas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Denver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Indianapolis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LosAngelesZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Memphis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Minneapolis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New York City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bronx County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kings County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NewYorkCounty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Queens County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Richmond County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Philadelphia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pittsburgh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Diego . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Francisco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Seattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Washington, D.C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Total

White

10.6

14.6

15.0

13.6

12.2

13.7

‘ 7.3

10.6

8.4

10.5

9.1

12.6

11.3

11.6

11.5

13.1

10.2

8.6

13.4

14.0

8.2

14.6

12.4

15.2

All other

Total

10.0

9.9

8.8

9.3

10.1

9.8

-..

7.3

9.4

7.2

10.3

7.1

7.6

6.5

6.8

10.9

6.1

6.1

10.5

13.1

4.6

6.5

7.9

9.8

Negro

10.0

-.

9.7

10.2

7.8

7.9

9.5

8.o

—

8.1

8.1

7.0

7.1

12.0

6.7

6.5

—

5.6

8.o

8.7

...

Poverty areas

White

16.9

19.8

25.9

18.9

18.6

19.1

111.9

15.0

18.4

17.1

16.4

15.9

9.9

7.7

10.1

12.3

26.6

. . .

18.0

20.4

11.7

22.8

22.9

26.1

All other

Total

12.7

12.0

10.4

11.4

11.5

11.7

-.

11.3

12.6

9.0

10.4

7.7

8.5

6.5

7.5

11.7

8.4

. . .

12.8

14.6

6.6

8.9

12.5

12.4

Negro

...

12.0

...

11.6

11.6

.-

8.6

12.4

12.6

9.3

.-

8.5

8.9

7.1

7.7

12.4

8.5

. . .

...

.-

7.2

8.9

11.9

Nonpoverty areas

White

9.5

13.7

13.6

13.1

10.8

12.9

z 6.9

9.4

7.7

9.7

7.9

12.1

11.6

13.0

11.9

13.3

10.2

8.6

12.8

13.2

7.8

13.1

11.7

14.2

All other

Total

6.6

6.9

5.5

6.7

7.2

7.5

4.7

7.2

4.9

8.7

6.5

6.4

6.3

5.4

9.2

5.8

6.1

8.0

10.3

2.9

5.1

6.5

8.0

.-

7.0

-.

7.1

7.3

.-

5.1

5.0

7.4

5.8

-.

7.6

7.0

6.8

5.8

11.1

6.4

6.5

-.

...

3.5

7.3

7.7

-.

‘ Includes all races other than Negro,

2 Average of 1969 and 1970.

28
Table5. Standardized death rates bycolor for15 selected cities: United Statas,1970

[Rates per 1,000 population. Computed by direct method using as the standard population the avarage age distribution of the

population of the 19 cities included in the study, enumerated as of April 1, 1970]

City

Atlantal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Baltimore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Buffalo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chicago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dallas2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LosAngeles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Memphis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Minneapolis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NewYorkCity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bronx County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kings County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NewYorkCounty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Queens County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Richmond County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Philadelphia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pittsburgh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Diego . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Francisco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Seattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Washington, D.C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

White

10.3

11.9

i 2.0

11.9

8.6

10.0

9.9

9.8

9.5

9.9

9.8

10.2

8.4

9.9

11.0

11.4

9.2

10.7

10.4

10.4

All other

15.0

14.8

13.4

14.4

11.9

10.4

13.4

12.0

11.0

10.4

11.1

12.1

9.4

11.3

14.1

14.1

9.2

9.1

10.6

14.3

lFulton County data in lieu of Atlanta. Information to compute standardized rate for city of Atlanta not available.

ZJJWhiterrcategoW includesal[ races other than Negro; “All other” category represents Negro only.

NOTE: Rates notcomputed for Clevelandr Cincinnati, or Denver; a~+~cific death *ti@i=were notavailable.
Table6. Percent of Iive births weighing 2,500 grams or less, by poverty status of area of residence and race or ethnic arOuD for 18 selected cities: -.

United States, 1969-71 average

City

Total Poverty areas Nonpoverty areas

~

White All other White All other White All other

Total Negro

Spanish

]eritage]

Spanish

heritage’

Spanish

heritage’

—

-.

--

.-

-—

8.2

.-

.-

5.4

.-

-.

10.6

10.6

10.4

11.1

. . .

.-

-.

. . .

-—

.-

Total Negro

15.2

14.5

12.2

—

14.8

15.0

12.4

12.3

13.4

14.4

14.8

14.3

15.7

12.5

14.8

-.

—

11.4

12.9

13.7

rotal

10.8

7.7

7.8

8.7

10.6

29.0

11.3

9.7

5.7

9.3

9.7

10.1

10.5

9.6

10.6

11.6

. . .

10.1

9.3

7.0

7.7

8.7

10.5

Total

15.7

13.7

15.3

12.7

15.4

..-

17.0

14.5

12.7

14.8

13.5

15.4

15.8

15.0

16.1

14.5

. . .

16.9

17.3

11.2

12.1

11.4

15.1

Uegro

15.8

—

15.4

12.7

--

15.0

18.2

14.6

13.2

. ..

15.8

15.6

15.8

15.1

16.8

14.5

. . .

12.0

13.8

11.2

Total

8.2

6.8

7.1

6.5

8.0

=7.1

8.4

6.7

6.1

7.0

7.5

7.7

7.5

7.2

7.7

6.5

7.2

7.8

7.9

5.7

6.4

6.5

6.8

Total

14.1

9.9

12.7

10.8

13.8

---

12.4

10.9

9.8

10.7

10.7

12.0

12.8

12.0

11.7

11.5

13.9

14.2

14.0

8.6

9.3

12.0

12.9

14.2

.-

13.1

11.0

.-

14.2

12.8

10.9

10.7

. ..

11.1

12.7

13.2

12.4

13.1

12.2

14.8

.-

-.

10.5

11.9

14.5

.-

Baltimore . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Buffalo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chicago . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cincinnati . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cleveland . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dallas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Denver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Indianapolis . . . . . . . . . . . .

LosAngeles3 . . . . . . . . . . .

Memphis . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Minneapolis . . . . . . . . . . . .

NewYorkCity . . . . . . . . . .

8ronx County . . . . . . .

Kings County . . . . . . . .

New York County . . . . .

Queens County . . . . . . .

Richmond County . . . . .

Philadelphia . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pittsburgh . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Diego . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Francisco . . . . . . . . . .

Seattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Washington, D.C. . . . . . . . .

8.7

6.9

7.2

6.9

8.3

27.3

9.2

6.9

6.0

7.3

7.7

7.9

8.8

8.1

8.6

6.5

7.2

8.1

8.1

5.8

6.7

6.6

7.2

15.1

12.5

14.3

12.1

14.7

. . .

14.3

12.3

11.4

14.5

12.0

13.9

14.6

14.0

14.6

11.8

13.9

15.6

16.1

9.9

10.4

11.8

13.9

-.

--

—

.-

.—

7.2

—

...

5.8

.-

—

10.1

10.0

10.1

10.4

7.7

8.6

-—

-—

—

—

—

—

--

-.

-.

-.

6.5

-.

-.

6.1

.-

8.7

8.6

9.1

8.9

7.8

8.6

—

—

-.

...

—

‘8ased on information for the Mexican-American population in Dallas, the Spanish-surname population in Los Angeles, and the Puerto Rican

population in New York City.

‘Includes all races other than Negro.

‘Average of 1969 and 1970.

30
Table7. Illegitimacy ratios bypovarty atatusof area of residence andrace orethnic group for18selacted citie$ Unitad States, 1869-71 average

[Ratios are illegitimate live births per 1,000 total live births in specified group]

Total Poverty araas Nonpoverty areas

city Whita All other White All other White All other

Total Negro Spanish

heritage’

Spanish

heritage]

Spanish

heritagel

Total Total Negro Total Total Negro Total

Atlanta . . . . . . . . . . . .

Baltimore . . . . . . . . . .

Buffalo . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chicago . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cincinnati . . . . . . . . . .

Clweland . . . . . . . . . . .

Dallas . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Denver . . . . . . . . . . . .

Indianapolis . . . . . . . . .

LosAngeless . . . . . . . .

Memphis . . . . . . . . . . .

Minneapolis . . . . . . . . .

NewYorkCity . . . . . . .

Bronx County . . . . . .

Kings County . . . . . . .

New York County . . .

Queens County . . . . .

Richmond County . . .

Philadelphia . . . . . . . . .

Pittsburgh . . . . . . . . . .

San Francisco . . . . . . . .

Saattle . . . . . . . . . . . .

Washington, D.C. . . . . .

61.3

93.4

89.9

85.5

73.7

73.0

279.4

134.9

81.3

122.0

48.3

153.9

121.0

204.6

121.6

773.5

34.0

32.1

60.9

51.0

129.2

119.8

131.5

282.7

529.9

505.6

449.9

434.0

415.7

334.9

411.7

374.0

438.3

412.8

415.1

426.1

432.2

446.9

310.1

332.2

396.8

436.7

202.1

301.6

442.8

96.8

187.3

223.8

163.8

147.5

146.6

2103.4

277.6

148.7

217.7

88.0

262.8

298.8

366.9

246.9

308.4

187.5

. . .

120.8

88.9

201.3

324.2

232.6

342.4

624.8

588.9

537.6

492.7

494.6

—

412.3

489.4

488.8

445.8

481.3

501.6

514.6

493.5

513.6

458.0

. . .

473.1

488.6

270.8

403.4

547.8

54.3

72.5

74.5

74.8

54.3

63.9

z75.6

102.0

76.7

102.1

40.0

138.2

56.6

78.6

48.4

111.4

33.7

32.1

52.6

46.5

I1O.5

lrXLl

121.1

209.3

388.5

369.0

319.9

301.5

318.0

279.5

358.5

245.6

327.7

388.1

288.9

287.1

304.1

320.4

291.0

332.2

314.7

385.7

157.8

272.8

3S8.6

—

—

—

—

72.4

—

174.4

—

307.3

338.0

293.3

314.6

78.2

100.4

—

—

—

—

—

538.0

465.2

441.4

—

385.9

366.6

416.9

440.5

—

488.1

439.4

438.1

443.4

507.1

348.0

361.3

—

—

332.4

408.5

—

—

—

71.7

—

216.6

—

355.0

399.4

315.6

358.1

87.0

. . .

—

—

—

628.7

—

543.7

494.5

—

410.1

446.2

493.0

500.3

512.4

512.9

517.0

498.8

552.6

458.9

. . .

364.5

474.3

—

—

—

—

72.9

149.9

—

187.8

177.8

208.8

233.4

78.1

100.4

—

399.6

—

341.8

316.0

—

298.7

310.5

362.4

330.8

380.9

332.7

308.1

322.1

400.1

331.6

381.3

—

300.1

=.3

‘8ased on information for the Mexican-American population in Dallas, the Spanish-surname population in Los Angalas, andthe Puefio Rican populationin New York City.

‘Includes ali races other than Negro.

‘Averagaof 1969 and 1970.

31
Table8. Percent of live births to mothers Iacking prenatal cere, bypoverty status ofareaof residence andrace orethnicgroupfor14

selected cities: United States, 1969-71 average

Total Poverty ’areas Nonpoverty areas

White All other White All other White All other City

Spanish

heritage

Spanish

heritage

Spanish

heritage

Tota I Total Negro Total Tota I Negro Total Total lUegro

Baltimore . . .

Buffalo . . . . .

Chicago . . . . .

Cincinnati . . .

Cleveland . . . .

Dallas . . . . . .

Denver . . . . . .

Minneapolis . .

Philadelphia .

Pittsburgh . . .

San Diego . . .

San Francisco

Seattle . . . . . .

Washington,

D. C.’ . .. . .

1.7

0.8

1.9

2.0

1.5

‘ 5.4

1.6

1.0

4.5

0.8

0.9

1.4

0.6

3.1

3.8

1.7

4.2

4.1

3.5

-.

3.6

4.0

18.0

2.9

1.3

1.3

2.2

8.7

3.8

-.

4.3

4.1

12.1

3.2

1.9

-.

-.

1.1

1.4

2.1

--

3.7

1.5

3.3

4.5

4.7

‘ 14.7

3.2

2.3

11.7

1.7

2.1

2.8

2.0

6.2

4.5

2.0

4.9

4.6

4.4

.-

5.8

5.2

20.7

3.1

1.6

1.8

2.7

11.0

4.5

—

4.9

4.6

.-

13.3

4.6

2.7

..-

. ..

1.4

1.6

1.8

.-

1.3

0.7

1.8

1.3

1.2

13.9

1.0

0.8

3.4

0.7

0.7

1.1

0.5

2.8

2.7

1.1

3.1

3.0

2.4

—

2.2

2.9

15.1

2.6

1.0

0.9

2.1

7.0

2.7

-.

3.3

3.1

-.

7.8

2.2

1.2

...

-.

0.7

1.1

2.2

-.

.—

--

—

—

213.5

-.

-.

-.

—

-.

-.

.-

..-

-.

-.

-.

217.1

--

—

-.

--

-.

.-

-.

-.

-..

...

.-

...

...

210.9

...

...

...

...

---

.-.

...

---

‘Includes all races other than Negro.

2Bas@on information for the Mexican-American population.

31ncludes births to mothers whose care was begun in last trimester of pregnancy. Separate data for births to mothers with no

prenatal care were not available.

‘Figures are artificially inflated because the category care “not stated” includes a number of births to mothers who had had care

but for whom it was not known in which trimester ofpregnancy mrebegan. Since the Wrcents are based onthe number of births lass

ye births to mothers with care not stated, the large number of “not stated” in this city (24 percent of all births) inflates the percent of

mothers with no care.

Table9. Percent of Iive births to mothers having less than 12vears ofeducation, bypoverty status of area of residence andracefor6

salected,cities: United States, 1969-71 average

Tota I

City I All other

Poverty areas

All other

Nonpoverty areas

All lther

I

White

t--Total

PJhite White

Negro

66.6

--

60.1

—

46.9

41.9

Negro Total Total Negro

Baltimore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Buffalo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cincinnati . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cleveland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Denver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Minneapolis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

43.6

26.9

38.0

38.8

29.8

18.0

55.0

49.8

53.7

47.4

36.2

40.8

55.3

—

54.4

36.4

34.6

68.1

47.4

65.7

62.3

51.3

26.6

66.6

57.2

59.9

56.9

46.6

45.2

38.1

24.5

30.7

35.9

21.2

16.7

37.8

34.1

39.6

35.7

28.7

36.8

38.2

40.9

-.

29.0

27.9

32
Table IO. lnfantmortality mtesbypove~ atatusofareaof residence andraca orethnic group for19salectad cities United States, 1969-71 average

[Rates are infant deaths per 1,000 live births in specified group]

Total Poverty areas Nonpoverty areas

city White All other White All other White All other

Total

17.0

21.0

20.5

20.4

18.2

19.9

218.5

18.4

18.9

17.1

16.5

20.1

18.5

20.5

20.2

19.7

14.5

14.8

18.4

18.6

16.9

16.5

17.1

20.1

Total

29.2

29.6

31.8

34.8

28.5

29.7

19.9

30.6

25.5

26.1

25.5

29.9

28.1

32.9

29.0

24.9

29.5

35.4

36.8

27.3

18.1

29.9

30.2

Spanish

heritage]

—

—

—

18.2

—

—

17.1

—

—

22.5

21.8

24.4

19.2

. . .

—

—

—

—

Total

30.4

31.3

34.1

38.8

32.1

31.1

20.9

37.4

28.2

26.1

25.1

33.3

30.5

35.1

31.7

32.3

. . .

36.9

39.4

28.5

23.1

32.9

31.6

Negro

Spanish

heritagel

Spanish

heritegei

Negro Total Total Total Negro

Atlanta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Baltimore . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Buffalo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chica90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cincinnati . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cleveland . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dallas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Denver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Indianapolis . . . . . . . . . . . .

LosAngeles’ . . . . . . . . . . .

Memphis . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Minneapolis . . . . . . . . . . . .

NewYorkCity . . . . . . . . . .

Bronx County . . . . . . .

Kings County . . . . . . . .

New York County . . . . .

Queens County . . . . . . .

Richmond County . . . . .

Philadelphia . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pittsburgh . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Diego . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SanFrancisco . . . . . . . . . .

Seattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

22.6

25.5

30.8

23.0

22.7

23.8

‘20.1

19.3

28.2

20.6

26.9

26.3

25.5

24.8

26.3

24.5

62.5

. . .

24.6

31.1

21.8

20.0

22.2

33.8

15.9

20.0

19.3

20.0

17.0

19.4

=18.2

18.1

18.3

16.4

14.9

19.3

16.0

17.1

16.7

17.6

14.4

14.8

17.5

17.1

16.2

15.6

16.8

18.7

27.7

27.2

26.8

28.7

20.4

28.1

19.2

25.8

21.9

25.8

25.9

25.5

24.1

28.1

23.5

24.0

29.5

33.8

32.3

26.2

14.9

29.0

28.1

—

—

20.2

—

—

13.3

-.

—

20.9

19.6

23.6

19.3

12.8

14.9

—

—

—

29.9

—

35.7

28.8

—

31.9

21.2

30.7

28.5

26.2

31.2

28.5

33.5

31.7

27.2

30.7

—

29.5

26.3

36.6

—

31.5

—

39.2

32.2

33.7

21.1

37.7

29.9

—

27.4

33.8

30.6

35.4

33.1

32.4

. . .

—

30.5

29.0

33.9

—

—

—

—

—

21.6

11.1

17.0

13.8

20.6

19.4

12.9

14.9

—

—

—

—

-.

27.5

30.2

20.6

25.6

21.3

25.7

26.1

-.

25.1

27.4

24.9

29.2

28.3

26.4

30.7

28.1

23.6

37.5

Washington,D.C. . . . . . . . . —

lBased on information for the Mexican-American population in Dallas, the Spanish-surname population in Los Angeles, and the Puerto Rican

popu Iation in New York City.

‘Inciudesal[ races other than Negro.

‘Average of 1969 and 1970.

33
Table 11. Fetal death ratios bypoverty status ofareaof residence and race orethnic group for17 selected cities: United Stat&, 1969-71 average

[Period of gestation is 20 weeks or more unless otherwise noted. Ratios are fetal deaths per 1,000 live births in specified group]

Total Poverty areas Nonpoverty areas

city White All other White All other White All ‘other

Spanish

heritage’

Spanish

heritagel

Spanish

heritage]

Total Total Negro Total Total Negro Total Total Negro

Atlantaz . . . . . . . . . . .

Baltimore . . . . . . . . . .

Buffalo* . . . . . . . . . . .

Clweland . . . . . . . . . . .

Dallas . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Denver . . . . . . . . . . . .

Indianapolis . . . . . . .

LosAngeles4 . . . . . . . .

Memphis . . . . . . . . . . .

Minneapolis . . . . . . . .

NewYorkCity’ . . . . . .

Bronx Countyz . . . . .

Kings County2 . . . . . .

New York Countyz . . .

QueensCountyz . . . . .

Richmond County’ . .

Philadelphias . . . . . . . .

Pittsburghb . . . . . . . .

San Diego . . . . . . . . . .

San Francisco . . . . . . .

Seattle . . . . . . . . . . . .

Washington, D.C. . . . . .

45.5

12.8

90.5

12.4

911.7

24.8

10.1

11.7

10.6

12.0

112.0

97.6

115.5

143.6

101,3

100.6

15.5

29.6

9.3

12.0

11.4

20.8

26.3

19.0

74.4

18.1

.. .

42.1

19.5

18.9

24.6

15.2

146.6

105.4

152.9

168.4

158.3

148.6

44.6

73.2

13.8

13.6

17.1

19.8

53.0

17.1

117.8

14.9

314.7

28.5

16.0

11.9

11.7

15.7

124.1

111.9

120.3

153.0

+

. . .

21.1

38.1

12.2

13.4

21.2

22.5

21.1

19.2

62.1

18.5

.-

41.2

20.7

19.1

25.2

16.2

138.1

106.6

139.5

164.7

151.9

. . .

44.5

68.8

16.3

15.3

17.8

16.4

44.1

11.8

87.2

12.1

311.2

23.3

9.7

11.6

10.5

11.4

107.7

86.5

112.8

139.3

100.6

100.6

14.7

28.6

9.0

11.6

10.9

20.7

34.0

18.6

100.5

17.5

. . .

42.7

18.6

18.5

16.0

14.3

159.2

103.5

184.8

176.5

159.2

148.6

44.6

80.7

11.2

12.5

16.9

20.7

-.

—

---

.-

12.7

..-

-.

11.6

-.

. ..

102.9

99.8

89.8

136.0

127.9

74.5

-—

.-

.-

.—

...

..-

—

19.2

—

-.

19.8

45.6

19.4

19.4

-.

19.1

150.9

106.7

154.4

180.9

169.2

158.8

-.

-.

16.4

17.7

20.8

-.

-.

...

-.

—

13.6

-.

10.4

--

.-

100.4

106.4

83.2

134.6

*

. . .

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

19.4

.. .

--

19.8

45.0

20.3

18.8

.. .

22.4

139.8

106.4

140.7

171.9

150.8

. . .

--

—

16.5

18.0

17.6

—

.-

--

.-

-.

12.0

—

-.

12.3

-.

—

109.8

80.2

116.9

138.8

129.2

74.5

. ..

. ..

-..

. ..

—

—

-..

18.9

-..

.-

19.9

46.1

18.7

20.4

..-

16.0

168.7

107,3

188.6

203.7

172.0

158,8

.-

...

16.2

17.3

21.9

. ..

‘Based on information for the Mexican-American population in Dallas, the Spanish-surname population in Los Angeles, andthe Puerto Rican populationin New York City.

2AII periods of gestation. Based on data for 1969 only. Includesa substantial number of induced abortions.

31nchsdes all races other than Negro.

‘Average of 1969 and 1970.

5 Period of gestation 17 weeks or more.

‘Period of gestation 16 weeks or more.
Table 12. Death rates fortuberculosis, by poverty status of area of residence and race for 19 selected cities: United States, 1969-71

average

[Rates par 100,000 population in specified group enumerated as of April 1,1970. Population data not

available to compute rates for the Spanish-heritage population]

city

Atlanta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Baltimore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Buffalo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chicago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cincinnati . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Clweland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dallas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Denver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Indianapolis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LosAngeies2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Memphis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Minneapolis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NewYork City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bronx County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kings County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NewYorkCounty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Queens County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Richmond County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Philadelphia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pittsburgh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Diego . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Francisco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Seattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Washington,D.C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Tota I

White

3.2

7.1

3.7

4.7

5.1

4.4

‘1.8

3.3

2.5

3.6

1.5

2.2

3.0

2.8

3.1

4.5

2.0

2.3

5.2

4.0

1.9

4.1

1.5

5.4

All other

Tota I

5.2

10.7

7.8

6.8

11.0

5.6

2.4

5.1

4.0

4.3

1.2

9.5

5.7

10.4

14.5

4.7

5.6

9.4

10.5

0.9

2.8

3.5

8.1

Negro

10.7

—

7.1

11.2

3.6

2.8

5.2

4.4

.-

9.9

6.2

10.8

15.3

5.2

6.3

0.6

2.1

1.8

Poverty areas

White

7.5

16.0

10.5

19.3

15.0

5.0

18.9

6.5

10.0

9.4

4.1

5.0

5.2

4.1

4.5

7.6

38.2

. . .

14.3

11.3

4.9

12.9

4.6

20.9

All other

Total

6.2

14.2

10.9

9.2

14.1

7.9

3.0

10.8

4.9

4.4

2.6

12.4

7.8

12.2

16.6

9.0

. . .

13.5

13.5

1.8

4.6

8.9

10.7

Negro

14.2

--

9.4

14.2

4.1

3.6

10.9

5.7

12.6

8.4

12.4

16.8

9.1

. . .

—

1.1

3.0

—

Nonpoverty areas

White

2.4

5.5

2.8

3.4

3.0

4.4

11.1

2.4

1.9

2.9

1.1

1.7

2.5

2.3

2.7

3.7

1.9

2.3

4.0

2.9

1.6

2.5

1.3

3.9

All other

Total

3.9

5.8

1.1

3.7

4.8

2.8

—

1.9

1.2

2.9

2.6

5.5

2.6

6.4

9.9

4.1

5.6

5.0

5.2

1.8

1.9

6.2

Negro

5.7

...

4.0

4.9

.-

2.0

2.3

1.3

3.2

6.0

2.6

7.1

11.5

4.6

6.3

-.

1.3

2.3

—

‘ Includas all races other than Negro.

2Averageof 1969 and 1970.

35
Table 13. Death rates for violent causes, by poverty status of area of residence and race for 19 selected cities: United States

1969-71 average

[Deaths from violent causes include deaths due to accidents, homicides, and suicides. Ratea per 100,000 population in specified group

enumerated as of April 1, 1970. Population data notavailable tommpute rates forthe Spanish-heritage population]

City

Atlanta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Baltimore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Buffalo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chicago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cincinnati . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Clsweland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dallas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Denver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Indianapolis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

LosAngelesa ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Memphis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Minneapolis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NewYorkCity3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

BronxCounty3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

KingsCounty3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NewYork CountyS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

QueensCounty3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Richmond County’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Philadelphia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pittsburgh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SanDiego . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

San Francisco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Seattle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Washington, D.C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

*includes all races other than Negro.

2Averageof 1969 and 1970.

White

85.7

74.7

59.2

61.3

75.6

97.3

] 61.0

96.7

50.8

95.9

60.3

77.3

40.8

48.2

40.4

55.4

27.7

36.9

SO.9

51.7

72.9

127.6

86.4

85.2

Total

All other

Total

130.8

105.3

99.3

112.4

98.1

141.3

.-

113.3

86.1

103.7

82.8

126.3

62.9

60.9

59.5

79.8

43.3

33.6

107.3

103.2

62.2

95.8

119.5

96.3

Negro

-.

106.1

-.

116.9

99.1

—

115.4

127.6

87.6

121.0

129.8

68.0

66.4

62.6

90.2

53.5

34.8

-.

78.1

144.0

136.4

-.

Poverty areas

White

143.3

124.5

134.4

119,2

139.9

165.9

‘ 130.0

157.1

122.3

178.4

99.9

111.9

65.4

66.9

58.0

78.1

38.2

92:8

81.9

103.0

220.8

182.7

188.2

All other

Total

157.9

124.4

113.9

135.4

109.2

165.2

156.2

108.9

131.4

81.9

146.6

72.8

71.1

65.7

87.9

46.7

. . .

135.0

114.6

77.8

129.4

178.1

1 lB.9

Negro

-.

124.7

...

137.9

108.6

...

125.8

178.1

108.6

138.3

.-

157.4

77.0

76.9

66.0

95.6

47.1

. . .

...

...

92.2

165.1

177.8

.-

N on poverty areas

White

75.6

65.7

49.6

56.0

61.7

88.2

154.3

80.2

45.8

85.9

54.3

71.2

36.0

41.2

35.0

49.3

27.7

36.9

56.5

47.5

69.6

110.3

80.0

74.9

All other

Total

95.6

78.6

68.0

83.5

75.5

112.6

—

85.5

70.5

70.5

97.6

106.9

49.6

45.3

46.0

62.1

49.6

33.6

77.2

82.7

48.2

77.5

102.6

78.6

Negro

.-.

79.9

-..

88.7

77.3

-..

81.5

95.3

72.3

92.0

105.5

55.1

50.0

50.1

75.7

54.4

34.8

...

-.

59.6

126.0

123.2

3Averageof 1970 and 1971 only dueto change in “suicide’’c lassificationb eginningin 1970.

36
APPENDIX I

*

TECHNICAL NOTES

Allocation of Unknown Data

In compiling the tabulations of data received

from the cities, it became apparent that there

were a few instances where data were missing.

For most variables, the actual number of cases

with unknown information was quite small, with

the exception of data on births to niothers with

no prenatal care. In preparing summary tabulations for this report, the followirig guidelines

were established for the treatment of unknown

data:

. Events with unknown race were allocated

according to the distribution of known race in

poverty and nonpoverty areas.

. Births with legitimacy status unknown

were considered legitimate.

. Births with other characteristics unknown,

that is, birth weight, educational attainment, or

prenatal care, were subtracted from figures for

total births used as denominators before percents or ratios were computed.

. Events for which the census tract (or other

small area) of residence was unknown were

allocated to nonpoverty areas.

indirect Standardization of Infant Mortality

Rates

Since previous studies have indicated both a

high correlation between infant mortality and

birth weight and a substantial difference in birth

weight between white infants and infants of alI

other races, it was considered desirable to

determine how much of the observed differences

in infant mortality between color groups could

be attributed to differences in weight at birth.

This was achieved by use of standardized infant

mortality rates. The direct method of standardization could not be used since it would have

required” knowledge of weight-specific infant

mortality rates for the areas under study, and

these were not available. Therefore, the indirect

method of rate standardization, which relies

instead on weight-specific rates of a standard

population, was employed. The standard used

was the weight-specific infant mortality rates for

the United States, derived from a study of infant

mortaJit y from linked records for the 1960

live-birth cohort.18 The formula applied is as

fouows :

Weight-standardized infant mortality rate for

given color group =

(PJW,)M

where dc is the observed number of infant

deaths for a given color group in a given city;

M* , the weight-specific rates of the standard

population; bw,=, the number of births for each

birth-weight category for a given color group;

and M, the crude infant mortality rate of the

standard population. The birth-weight categories

are (1) births weighing 2,500 grams or less and

(2) births weighing 2,501 grams or more.

Direct Standardization of Death Rates

To compare death rates of the 19 cities in this

study by color without the influence of differences in age composition, the direct method of

standardization of death rates was used. In this

method a standard population is chosen and its

age distribution is used as weights for computing

the weighted average of the age-color-specific

death rates in a given city. The standard popula37
tion employed was the 1970 average age distri- where ma ~ are age-color-specific death rates in

bution, without regard to color, of the 19 cities the given ‘city, Pa represents the standard popuunder study. The formula for standardization is: lation at each age, and P represents the total

Age-adjusted death rate for given color group =

standard population.

Age-adjusted rates were computed separately

for the w-bite population and for the population

~ ma,c Pa of races other than white in each city, permitX 1,000 ting intracity as well as intercity color compariP sons of mortality levels.

000

3a
APPENDIX Il. MAPS OF SELECTED LOW-INCOME

AREAS OF CITIES UNDER STUDY:

U.S. BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, 1970 CENSUS OF POPULATION

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

LIST OF MAPS

Page

Selected low-income areas in Atlanta:1970 .............................................................................. 41

Selected low-income areas in Baltimore:1970 .......................................................................... 42

Selected low-income areas in Buffalo: 1970 .................... .................................... ..................... 43

Selected low-income areas in Chicago: 1970 ...................... ....... .... ...................................... .... 44

Selected low-income areas in Cincinnati: 1970 .......................................... ............................... 45

Selected low-income areas in Cleveland: 1970 ...................... .................................................... 46

7. Selected low-income areas in Dallas: 1970 .......................................................... ..................... 47

8,

9.

10,

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

Selected low-income areas in Denver: 1970 ..............................................................................

Selected low-income areas in Indianapolis: 1970 ....... ...............................................................

Selected low-income areas in Los Angles: 197 O.............................................................. ..........

Selected low-income areas in Memphis: 1970 .......................................................................... ...

Selected low-income areas in Minneapolis: 1970 ......................................................................

Selected low-income areas in New York City: 1970:

Selacted low-income areas in Bronx County ................... .......... ....... .........................................

Selectad low-income areas in Kings County .............................................................. ................

Selected low-income areas in New York County ........................... ...........................................

Selected low-income areas in Queens County .................. .........................................................

Selacted low-income areas in Richmond County .................................................. ....................

Selected low-income areas in Philadelphia: 1970 ................................................................. .....

Selected low-income areas in Pittsburgh: 1970 ........... ..............................................................

Selected low-income areas in San Diego: 1970 .........................................................................

Selected low-income areas in San Francisco: 1970 ...................................................................

Selected Iow-incoma areas in Seattle: 1970 ..................... .........................................................

Selected low-income areas in Washington, D.C.: 1970 .......................................................... ....

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

39
SELECTED LOW-INCOME AREAS IN ATLANTA, GA.: 1970

,Wllnm sin-

-W. ma hum-

—.-— -

—.— -.

— .c.m+-

— .!..

,W,d”!.l we, u. ** 1--

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cn.nw

------ c..-*-

/

4--%

i“-H-- ‘KJ.--.k’

.>

i----i “ ;

J

J--’-” I 72;

...

;Ws

,+ ~- .- +__..--—” J

US, OEMRTMENTOF cOMMERCE

sOC!ALAND ECONOMK STATISTICSADMlN!51’SAn~

&JREAUOf THECENSUS

PEWE?STOF PERSONS BELOWTHE NO. OF

LDW_INCOME (PoVERTY)I.E$’ELIN TRACTS

1969

~ 2oo%to29.9% (17)

~ 30,0%,.39.9% (14)

= 40,0% and Over {19)

41
SELECTED LOW-INCOME AREAS IN BALTI MORE, MD. :1970

wumm smuts

C.,”.m ,,KI ,.”., ”!-

—. --— . . —.-— —-— -

— -.

— . . ..,.

-----------“—”4-.

,N,,o”l” ..,, ,,, “., 18.”.

--

“w-!. PM.

MAP A - BALTIMORE

PERCENT OF PENSONS BELOW THE NO, OF

LOW-INCOME (POVERTY) LEVEL IN TRACTS

1969

~ 20.0% to 29.9% (29)

m so.,% ,0 S9.9% (1s)

- 40.0% and Over (24)

us DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

SOOAL ANO ECONOMIC STATISTICS AOMINISTSATION

BUREAU Of THE CENSUS

42
SELECTED LOW-INCOME AREAS IN BUFFALO, N.Y. ‘ 1970

MAP A - BUFFALO

OWNMRV Swmcu

C4nlw rrtctBOu?d,r,n

—.-.. — Mw,.M!4

—--- *,

—-— -..

— . . .

— .,., B.””d,d,, W,, “r, Not Tml.

. . . . . . . . . ..- -“m

U E. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

SOCIAL AND ECONO),UC STATISTICS ADMINl~ATION

BUREAU Cf THE CENSUS

-2- “

PERCENT OF PERSONS BELOW THE NO, OF

LOW-INCOME (POVERTY) LEVEL IN TRACTS

1969

~ 200% to 299% (13)

I-”-J 30.0% to 39.9% [8)

m 400% and Over (1)

43
SELECTED LOW-INCOME AREAS IN CHICAGO, ILL : 1970

2,, 1,

L

-1

,,.C3-

.- .“.

%M7DM70ZL ml /

I 1.

—..

-.”—

—. ..- -

—.. — -

—.— -.

—...

— . .

-..-.. . r..=.

. . . . ..rL--

“a,,

lm

(101)

m

147)

“* m., ,,,,,!, (,,,.,,,”,.!, .WW”.T A””.
45
46
SELECTED LOW-INCOME AREAS IN DALLAS, TEX. : 1970

_ .......... A=.JL ______

Icwam $YnIaI.i

colas rrtct ,Cw4uk

—--— -

—-_ -H

&m”uW.. — . .

DW”d,,kl MM U, “d l,SCIX

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . C.r.”Olw

------ --rev -

--4f5-J- F-=-J !..

1..

181s4 <’ -+:.

.....

. lTs02

L J -y

. . . . .

‘- -

U,.S DEPARTMENT Cf COMMERCE

SOCIAL AND ECONOMK STATISTICS ADMINISTRATION

BUREAU G THE CENSUS

mm

MAP A. D- ANOVICINET’Y PERCENT OF PER50NS BELOW THE NO, OF

LOW-INCOME (POVERTY) LEVEL IN TRACTS

1969:

~ 20,0% to 29.9% (27]

m ?0,0% to 39,9% (13]

= 40 o% and 0“,, (11]

47
SELECTED LOW-INCOME AREAS IN DENVER, COLO. : 1970

..

%%&

US DEPARTMENT Cf COMMERCE

SCCIAL AND ECONOMIC STATISTICS ADMINISTRATION

BUREAU Cf THE CENSUS

MAF A .DENVER

‘=-l

I

d

--- “

—-. —-——-

— -..,.

,W”d.rk W+’” A“ NM T,-

. . . . . . -ML!

PERCENT OF PERSONS BELOW THE NO OF

LOW-INCOME (POVERTY) LEVEL IN TRACTS

19s9:

~ ,Oo%to 299% (16)

= L310%to 399% (5)

m 400% and over (7)
SELECTED LOW-INCOME AREAS IN INDIANAPOLIS, IND. :1970

-F- .. .-—.__..

.. ~ —.-—___.

J?

I 320 -_! .<1

‘ >) J-----l

t

~

,! .

3210 32!!

II,

:rJ-4-Ji

m

-. --M

MAP A - INDEANAPOL.IS (P.4F’17

Iwllwm $YMMU

Cmml ma m“md”,it

—.-— *

—-— -..

— . . .

-.”8,

m“”,>,kl w,,,, “r. “,, 1,*,

. -w

------ -ms -

PERCENT OF PERSONS BELOW THE NO. OF

LOW-INCOME (POVERTY) LEVEL IN TRACTS

1969

U.S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

S~ AND ECC+SOMIC STAnSllC3 ADAUN13TRATIC+N

SUREAU Cf lNE CENSUS

~ 20.0% to 29.9% [16)

m 3.o%t.a 3.9% (13)

m 40,0% ●nd over (3)
SELECTED LOW-INCOME AREAS IN LOS ANGELES, CALIF. : 1970

.

us MP2RTMm, a CO.MFKE

,COA, .4.0 Km..,, s,.nmcs ADMI!WSMA”ON

mm” ‘an+ CmW,

-1--

,..- W-M

,-”.- 0---

—.. —

—.— — s..

— . . .-!,.,

. . —?..

w-w- “,.. 1...

. . . . . .

50
+-~---”?

51

6

t
SELECTED LOW-INCOME AREAS IN MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. :1970

.—

*CUNMP.Y Sm,cu

C4”.H Tizd Ow”d”in

—---- Ml,

—.-— -

—-— -.

— . . .

— . . .

ti”d,rk. ..0 Am ..! Trwf.

. . . . . . . . . -u-

----- - ..*

US DEPARTMENT C+ COMMERCE

SCCIAL AND ECONOMIC STATISTICS ADMINISTRATION

BUREAU Cf THE CENSUS

i718$gl.. \\-. Imx-1-l

MAP A MINNEAPOLIS AND VICENITY

PERCENT OF PERSONS BELOW THE NO OF

LOW-INCOME [POVERTY) LEVEL IN TRACTS

1969

~ 200% to 2,,% (16)

M 30,0’%,03,,,% (9)

~ 40,D% and Over (5)

52
Kwwal m,.

..,. 90w4”h

—... — -

—.. — -

—.— -.

— . . .

— . .

. . . . . . . . —.

W#”k. Wch J,, “. ,,,E.

-.

.. :”.-. MmSELECTED LOW-INCOME AREAS IN NEW YORK, N.Y. :1970

BRONX COUNTY

..

PERCENT OF PERSONS BELOW THE NO OF

LOW-INCOME (POVERTY) LEVEL IN TRACT,

1969

~ 200% to 29,9%

m ~o%,0 ~,g%

m 400% .“, 0“,,

us C+PARWHW Cf COMM2WC

S= NW KOUOIAC SAI15TKS ADWWIEAllON

6LREAL2OF IME CEN2US

[261

[40)

{20)

53
SELECTED LOW-INCOME AREAS IN NEW YORK, N.Y. : 1970

KINGS COUNTY

/

( ‘4

\ ,--— -t--

PERCENTOF PERSONS BELOWTHE No, OF

LOW-INCOME (PoVERTY] LEVELIN TRACTS

1969

~ 200% to 29,9% (1171

~ 300% to 39,9% (75)

- 40,0% ,,,,,,, (401

US DEPARTMENTC+ COMMERCE

SOCIALAND ECONOMIC STAnSTICSADMlNlS7F@nON

BUREAUCX 7HE CENSUS
SELECTED LOW-INCOME AREAS IN NEW YORK, N.Y. : 1970

NEW YORK COUNTY

I

,,

,— .,.

-“ ,!. —

—. ..- -

—.. — -

—.— -.

— ..-

— -.

—.

-. m . .“ . . .

-.

. . . . -----

PERCENT OF PEF30t15 BELOW THE NR OF

LOW-! NCOME IWERN, LEVEL ,N TFAWS

1969

~ 200%,.29,% [57)

n ?30%,0399% [w

g am..., 0“,, [lo]

us C+PN3MNI w COMMERCE

SW AND ECCNOK 51AllSTKS ADMN51RAnCU

BLMAU W THE CENSUS

55
8W” mm 5W,0LS

,!”.0 %x! ea”d”k,

—. ..- w,

—.. — m.

—-— -..

— . . .

. .. ...

,,..,,!- .,!,,.. No, r!.”,

---

.-- . . . tiMPERCENT OF PERSONS BELOW THE NO OF

LOW-INCOME (POVERTY) LEVEL IN T.RACTS

1969

~ 200% !0 299% (20)

~ 300% t. 399% (2I

m 400% ,“, 0“,, (1)

U S DEPARTMENT C+ COMMERCE

SCXYA1AND ECONOMIC STATISTICS ADMINISTRATION

2wEAu w nt CENSUS

\

\

56
SELECTED LOW-INCOME AREAS IN NEW YORK, N.Y. : 1970

RICHMOND COUNTY

M

BOUNOARY SYMBOLS

CenWs Tract Boundaries

—---— St8te

—--— -v

—-— C4frmrahumit

— MlnmCM CWISka

OlimrTr%ts

‘----------- U.incOrpantti P18c*

Boundaries Which Are Not Tracts

--------------- CW.arataurlit

—— ___ _ MinorCM ~

. . . -,C,7 I t

I

PERCENT OF PERSONS BELOW THE

LOW–INCOME (POVERTY) LEVEL IN

1969:

tzzl 20.07’0 to 29.9%

n

$i!!.+il .... ........ 30.0% to 39.9%

m

40.O?10 and Over

NO. OF

TRACTS

(2)

(1)

(())

US DEPARTMENT WCOMh!E7G

SWAlANDCONOMK5TAllsTK5ADMM5TRATION

BGffEAUCfIIKCENSJS

57
SELECTED LOW-INCOME AREAS IN PHILADELPHIA, PA.: 1970

B.”?+,*W SYMBOLS

Cms”i l.. a..”dM-

—. --— ,..

—--— -k

—-— -,. .,

— .cM -

— ., ,.,

,,””,..,,$ ‘mm m m! T..<!%

--

US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC STAT13TI S ADMINISTRATION

BUREAU OF THE CENSUS

PERCENT OF PERSONS BELOW THE NO OF

LOW-INCOME (POVERTYI LEVEL IN TRACTS

1969

~ 200%,0 29,9% (50]

m 300%,03’39% (27)

~ 400% and Over (23)

58
SELECTED LOW-INCOME AREAS IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. :1970

~

‘.

\\

‘.

I

\

\

“%-l

I

\

\

.,

,

‘\

‘..

\

‘1

\

\

\

‘,

\

\

(--g —. \,

. ..—

—— -7,. —

—.-— -

—-— -.

— ---

. . . . . . . . . —.

— .,.

—NNch.lld ,,..

. . . . . . . . . . . . . -1-l

/

-.

..Y

.

“ s UllKd

‘,

\

‘,

\

*-*’ ‘,

\

‘,

/

~.

MAP A - SANFRANCISCO

U.,, DEPARTMEM 0? COMMSRCE

sCCIAL AND ECONOMIC STATISTICS ADhVNISTRATION

SUREAU ff TdE CENSUS

..

‘$‘.

\

‘.

\

‘.

\

-—_l

PERCENT OF PERSONS BELOW THE NO. OF

LOW-INCOME (POVERTY) LEVEL IN TRACTS

1969

~ 20,0% to 29,9% (22)

m ?00% ,0 39,,% (8)

m 40.0% and Over [4)

61
SELECTED LOW-INCOME AREAS IN SEATTLE, WASH. : 1970

‘\/./”’ L-J MAPA. 8E4T1’Ls

US DEP,4R7AwN7 w COMMERCE

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC STATISTICS ADMINISTRATION

BUREAU C+ THE CENSIJS

SUmmm 6YMBU-S

M. 1,. h-

—-— —___ --~ ——..

. . .

-&b WWU, M N. TIIL!X

. . ------------ mwnlkm

------ -.. C-.wmn..

I’ERCENT OF PERSONS BELOW THE NO OF

LOW-INCOME (POVERTYI LEVEL ,N TRACTS

1969,

n 2oo%to29Y7. [8)

m 30,0% ,03,,,% (3]

~ 400% and over (2)

62
SELECTED LOW-INCOME AREAS IN WASHINGTON, D.C. :1970

8wNMn7 mum

CMIW mcl Bcu.ian

—. --— m.

—--— w

—-— -7”=.

— . . .

— .,.,

. . . . . . . . . —?-.

BW.*NI W.*h . . maa

. .... ..... -U’s

-------- . . . u— -

------ -mum”-.

MAP A . WASHU.GTON, D C

US DEPARTMENT Cf COMMERCE

SOUAI AND ECONOMIC STATISTICS ADMINISTRATION

BUREAU Of THE CENSUS

PERCENT OF PERSONS BELOW THE NO OF

LOW-INCOME (POVERTY) LEVEL lN TRACTS

1969

~ 200.,,’0 .2,,% (32)

m ~o%to3gg% [12)

~ 600% and Over (8)

63

* U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINT~G OFNCE :1975 210-981/24
VITAL AND HEALTH STATISTICS PUBLICATIONS SERIES

Formerly Public Health Service fiblication No. 1000

Sm”es 1. Programs and Collection Procedures. –Reports which describe the general programs of the National

Center for Health Statistics and its offices and divisions, data collection methods used, definitions, and

other material necessary for understanding the data.

Sera”es2. Data Evaluation and Methods Research. –Studies of new statistical methodology including experimental

tests of new survey methods, studies of vital statistics collection methods, new analytical techniques,

objective evaluations of reliability of collected data, contributions to statistical theory.

Series 3. Analytical Studies. –Reports presenting analytical or interpretive studies based on vital and herdth

statistics, carrying the analysis further than the expository types of reports in the other series.

Series 4. Documents and Committee Reports. –Final reports of major committees concerned with vital and

health statistics, and documents such as recommended model vital registration laws and revised birth

amddeath certificates.

Series 10. Data from the Health Interoiew Survey. –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 nat iomd household interview survey.

Series 11. Data from the Health Examination Survey. –Data from dh-ect examination, testing, and measurement

of national samples of the civilian, noninstitutionalized population provide the basis for two types of

reports: (1) estimates of the medically defined prevalence of specific diseases in the United States and

the distributions of the population with respect to physical, physiological, and psychological characteristics; and (2) analysis of relationships among the various measurements without reference to an

explicit finite universe of persons.

Series 12. Data from the Institutionalized Population Surveys. –Discontinued effective 1975. Future reports from

these surveys will be in Series 13.

Series 13. Data on Health Resources Utilization. –Statistics on the utilization of health manpower and facilities

providing long-term care, ambulatory care, hospital care, and family planning services.

Series 14. Data on Health Resources: Manpower and Facilities. –Statistics on the numbers, geographic distribution, and characteristics of health resources including physicians, dentists, nurses, other health occupations, hospitals, nursing homes, and outpatient facilities.

Series 20. Data on Mortality. –Various statistics on mortality other than as included in regulm annual or monthly

reports. Special analyses by cause of death, age, and other demographic variables; geographic and time

series analyses; and statistics on characteristics of deaths not available from the vital records, based on

sample surveys of those records.

Series 21. Data on h’atality, Marriage, and Divorce. –Various statistics on natality, marriage, and divorce other

than as included in regular annual or monthly reports. Special analyses by demographic variables;

geographic and time series analyses; studies of fertility: and statistics on characteristics of births not

available from the vital records, based on sample surveys of those records.

Se??”es22. Data from the A’ationol Mortality and Natality Surveys. –Discontinued effective 1975. Future reports

from these sample surveys based on vital records will be included in Series 20 and 21, respectively.

Swies 23. Data from the National Survey of Family Gro wth. –Statistics on fertility, family formation and dissolution, family planning, and related maternal and infant health topics derived from a biennial survey of

a nationwide probability sample of ever-married women 1544 years of age.

For a list of titles of reports published in these series, write to: Scientific and Technical Information Branch

National Center for Health Statistics

Public Health Service, HRA

Rockville. Nld. 20852
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

Public Health Qrvlce

Health Resources Administration

5600 Fishers Lane

Rockville, Md. 20852

POSIAC,E AND kF”kS PAID

(!.s.I) EP.ARTMF.hr”[ 1)1’ IIEW

HEW 390

THIRD CLASS

BLK. RATF

OFFI(31AL BUSINESS

Penalty for Private Use, $300

*-

U.S.MAIL

b

I

Scricsca11301 -443 -XCIIS.