DATA ‘EVALUATION AND METHODS RESEARCH

Series 2

Number 30

comparison of the

Classificationof Placeof

Residenceon Death Certificates

and Matching CensusRecords

United States - May - August 1960

Comparison of the classification of residence stated on the death

certificate with residence as stated on the matching census record

for selected geographic areas by age, race, and sex. Based on a sample of death certificates for deaths occurring in the United States

during May-August 1960, matched to 1960 census records.

DHEW Publication No. (HRA) 74-1287

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

Public Health Service

Health Resources Administration

National Center for Health Statistics

Rockville, Maryland
Vital and Health Statistics Series 2-No. 30

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

January 1969
NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS

EDWARD B. PERRIN, Ph. D., Director

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

GAIL F. FISHER, Director for Health Stat&ics Development

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

EDWARD E. MINTY, Executive Officer

ALICE HAYWOOD, Information Officer

Vital and Health Statistics-Series 2-No. 30

DHEW Publication No. (HRA) 74-1287

Library of Gnzgress Catalog Card Number 68-62238

● .
CONTENTS

Page

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

Major Findings -------------------------------------------------------

Urban Places ---------------------------- -----------------------------

Population-Size Groups ------------------------------------------------

Underenumeration in-1960 Census of Population --------- ---------------

Followback Survey --------------------------------------------------

Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Counties for Urban and Rural Areas ------

StandardMetropolitan Statistical Areas ----------------------------------

Age by GeographicDivision ---------------------------------------------

Race by Geographic Region ---------------------------------------------

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

Selected Biblio~aphy --------------------------------------------------

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

Technical Appendix------------------------------:---------------------

Design of Study----------------------------------=------------------

Criteria for Matching -----------------------------------------------

Variances ---------------------------------------------------------

Age-------------------- -------------------------------------------

Race and Color -----------------------------------------------------

Sex----------- ----------------------------------------------------

Urban and Rural Areas ----------------------------------------------

Standard Metro@itan Statistical Areas -------------------------------

Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Counties ----------- -----------------

Geographic Divisions and Regions ------------------------------------

Formula for Adjusting Annual Death Rate ------------------------------

Net and Gross Difference Rates --------------------------------------

1

2

2

4

5

5

6

7

9

10

11

12

13

56

56

57

57

57

58

58

58

59

59

59

59

60

...

Ill
IN THIS REPORT a comparison of the classification of residence

stated on the death certificate with residence as stated on the matching

census record for selected geographic re~”ons by demographic vavia bles

is ~esented.

The classification of residence information on the death certificates

corresponds closely to the vesidence on the censws records for the decedents whose records were matched. An inverse relationship exists

between the size of the geo~aphic area and the degree of difference between censws assignments and those by the National Center for Health

Statistics (NCHS) with differences approaching zeYo as the size of the

area increases. NCHS somewhat overstates the num bars of deaths for

individual urban places and understates those for rural areas. Towns,

townships, boroughs in Connecticut, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania,

territorial annexations between 1950 and 1960, and urban j%inge aveas

presented problems to NCHS in properly allocating thevesidence of the

decedents. The poovest age agreement between the census records and

the death certificates was for the nonwhite group at ages 85-99 years in

the geographic divisions comprising the South Re@”on. The average proportion of vecords unmatched UMS 50 percent highs? for the nonwhite

gvoup than for the white. Both the differences by race between census

and NCHS vecords and the match statws were most favora Me for the

white population and the’Japanese when compared with other vacial and

ethnic groups. Differences by sex were negligible.

I

SYMBOLS

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

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

Net difference rate not computed if census

frequency is the same as NCHS frequency1-

Net difference rate not computed if either

census frequency or NCHS frequency or

both are zero -------------------------- I

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

iv
COMPARISON OF THE

CLASSIFICATION OF PLACE OF RESIDENCE ON

DEATH CERTIFICAT-- A‘ ‘- ‘ ‘ “ ‘-” 9“’ “-

CENSUS

kS AND MA I CHING

RECORDS

Mary A.

INTRODUCTION

The chief purpose of the 1960

McCarthy, Division of Vital Statistics

contained the following item for eliciting residence information:

Comparison

Study is to measure differences for s-elected

characteristics as reported on the death certificates and on the questionnaires for those decedents enumerated in the Eighteenth Decennial

Census of the United States. A secondary objective is to assess the accuracy of the annual death

rate on the basis of the results of this study.

This comparison study involves a sample of

deaths occurring during the 4-month periodMayAugust, 1960. The design of the sample, number

of records, procedure for matching, and related

information are noted in the Technical Appendix.

The present study is a byproduct of the University of Chicago Mortality Study, Social and

Economic Differentials in Mortality: United

States, 1960, which is now providing nationwide

statistics on mortality differentials collected in

the 1960 census by social and economic characteristics.ll 2

This report evaluates the comparability of

classification of residence as reported on the

death certificate and on the 1960 census schedules. The report primarily evaluates coding differences between the Bureau of the Census and

the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS).

The standard certificate of death (1956 Revision)

2. #WAL=M51MllCE ( Wk. tidlidb, l(iyi&t,m: R.dawI $@,-. hb.i.m)

C. CITY, TOWN, OR LOCATION

d. STREET ADDRESS

c IS RESIDE!(CE !NSIDE CITY LlMlT51 /. IS RESIDENCE ON A FARM7

YES!J non YEso Non

In order to develop uniform national statistics,

NCHS issues standard certificates which serve

as models for the States. With respect to the death

certificate, the usual residence is the place where

the deceased resided at the time of death. i30wever, in the case of persons residing in longterm institutions, assignment is made to the place

where the deceased lived prior to admission, if

it is given.

In the 1960 Census of Population each individual enumerated was counted as an inhabitant

of his usual place of abode which, for the most

part, was the place where the individual lived

most of the time. Differences exist between census and vital statistics in determining the usual

residence for certain numerically small groups

such as inmates of long-term institutions and

residents of foreign countries temporarily living

in the United States.

1
The residence data shown in this report were

grouped into six major categories:

(1) Urban places of 25,000 population or more

in 1960

(2) Population-size groups of areas

(3) Metropolitan and nonmetropolitan counties,

urban and rural areas

(4) Standard metropolitan statistical areas

(5) Geographic divisions

(6) Geographic regions

(For definitions of these geographic areas, see

the Technical Appendix.)

MAJOR FINDINGS

The classification of residence information

on the death certificates corresponds closely to

the place of residence as stated on the census

records for the decedents whose records were

matched. The proportion of unmatched records

was high—23 percent.

Considerable improvement in the quality of

the residence data has taken place since 1950.

This observation is based on a comparison of the

results of this study with those for a matched

record study involving births for 1950.

An inverse relationship exists between the

size of the geographic area and the degree of difference found between census assignments and

those by NCHS. Differences diminish as the population size of the area increases. Compared with

census assignments, NCHS somewhat overstates

the numbers of deaths for individual urban places

and understates those for rural areas. A comparison of NCHS annual data with figures tabulated

by selected State offices of vital statistics shows

the same pattern.

Towns, townships, and boroughs in Connecticut, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania; urban fringe

areas; and territorial annexations made between

1950 and 1960 presented the greatest problems

to NCHS in properly allocating the residence of

decedents.

The poorest age agreement between the

census records and the death certificates was for

the nonwhite group at ages 85-99 years in the

geographic divisions comprising the South Region.

For three-fifths of the 729 urban places of

25,000 population or more in 1960, either no

matched deaths for nonwhite persons were reported or fewer than 10 deaths were reported,

thereby obscuring the comparison of differences

by color.

The average proportion of records unmatched

was 50 percent higher for nonwhite than for white

persons. Both the net difference rates by race

and the match status were more favorable for the

white and Japanese groups than for other racial

and ethnic groups. Differences by sex were

negligible.

A followback survey involving almost 10,000

decedents showed that the distribution of matched

and unmatched records by nine population-size

groups of geographic areas was not different.

However, this general finding cannot be extended

to the more detailed residence data used in this

report.

The findings of this study on the annual death

rate are limited by the fact that a sample of

deaths is taken only for the summer months, and

data are for a single year. Other limiting factors

are covered in the Technical Appendix. The results of this study generally indicate that the

annual death rate for an individual urban place

is slightly overstated.

URBAN PLACES

A frequency distribution of net difference

rates for 729 urban areas with a population of

25,000 or more in 1960 is shown in table 1. Net

difference rates were computed by subtracting

the number of deaths matched at the usual place

of residence according to census assignments

from those by NCHS assignments, dividing by the

census figure, and multiplying by 100. A negative

rate indicates more assignments by census than

by NCHS. The group “matched at usual residence”

represents those decedents who died at the place

where they had usually resided and had been

enumerated in the 1960 Census of Population. Net

difference rates based on 100 frequencies or more

(according to census designations) are shown

separately from those based on fewer than 100

deaths. The reason for this separation is that the

variance would be greater for rates based on

small frequencies. This

range of rates—from O

latter group has a wider

to 94.9—compared with

2
the range of O to49.9for the group in which the

rates are based on 100 deaths or more.

The median net difference rate for the 729

areas falls at 3.0 percent. Based on 100 deaths or

more, the median is 2.9, and for small frequencies, 3.2. The size of the difference varies inversely with the size of the urban area. For

areas of under 100,000 population, differences of

understatement by NCHS exceed those of overstatement.

As indicated in table 1, most of the differences are positive, This finding is consistent

with that of other independent sources used for

comparison. In a previous matched-record study

involving births for 1950, the results were the

same as those of this study--an overstatement of

events in the urban areas by NCHScompared with

census records.s

Net difference rates for deaths in 1960 and

births in 1950 for 221 selected urban areas were

reviewed. The basis for the selection of the 221

areas was the number of births included in the

19S0 study, namely, 100 events according to either

the census record or the birth record. For 66.5

percent of the areas the difference was positive

for births and deaths (more assignments by NCHS

than by census). The direction of the differences

for births and deaths for the balance of the areas

was as follows:

Direction of diffwence

Percent of

totul

Both negative --------------------- 7.2

One positive and one negative-- ----- 16.3

Zero net difference for either births

or deaths ----------------------- 10.0

The negative differences were not concentrated

in any one State but were scattered among 32 of

the 42 States and the District of Columbia, shown

in table 2. This pattern was also typical of the

other types of differences shown above.

The magnitude of the difference was substantially less for deaths than it was for births (table

2), Two factors contributed to this difference.

First, the addition of the residence checkbox item

on whether the place of residence was inside or

outside the city limits on the standard certificates in 1956 aided in properly allocating the

residence of persons living near cities, but outside the corporate limits. Certificates of births

and deaths for the majority of States contain this

checkbox item. The second factor involves the

mobility of persons using hospitals. There is

more likelihood of movement for the utilization

of hospitals for births than for deaths.

A comparison was made between the annual

number of deaths by place of residence as tabulated by NCHS and those tabulated by the various

State offices of vital statistics. For most registration areas, NCHS figures were larger than the

State tabulated data.

Three-fifths of the States or registration

areas had State assigned residence codes on the

mj crofilm copies of the death certificates received by NCHS for 1960. It is not known if these

codes were assigned on the basis of census

tracts, street maps, or if the codes were assigned only on the basis of the information entered

in the residence section of the certificate. NCHS

used the State codes in determining its own geographic codes for only four States and for selected

local areas and counties in 11 other States.

The findings of the 1960 Comparison Study

show the same pattern of difference when comparing NCHS figures with either those of the State

or the Bureau of the Census.

The primary reasons for the differences

between census and NCHS figures are to be found

in the enumeration process and vital registration— the former giving greater support to the

accuracy of the census figures. In the 1960 Census

of Population, geographic locations can be fixed

with a high degree of precision by the use of

street maps and similiar aids. The situation is

very different with respect to the vital record,

however. In assigning residence codes, NCHS is,

for the most part, dependent on the information

entered in the section of the vital record pertaining to usual residence. Due to the great

number of vital records which NCHS must code,

it is not feasible to verify all addresses by means

of a census tract or street guide.

Few extreme differences between census and

NCHS assignments were observed. Only 14 of the

729 areas had net difference rates of 50 percent

or more. With the exception of Boise City, Idaho,

the remaining 13 areas had fewer than 100 deaths

matched at the usual place of residence as re3
ported by either census or NCHS designations.

The average number of such records for the

c’ombined 14 areas was below 50.

Not all of the excess differences can be explained. Generally, the areas with these extreme

differences in code assignments between census

and NCHS fell into three groups. First, towns,

townships, and boroughs were difficult to identify

and code for vital statistics purposes. Almost

three-fourths of the areas with large net difference rates were towns or townships in Connecticut, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. In each

of these areas, the numbers of assignments were

understated by NCHS when compared with census

numbers. For example, the first area listed in

Pennsylvania was Bristol Township—an area

of 59,298 population which was classified as urban by special rule. In the same county— Bucks

Count y--there was also the incorporated area

of Bristol borough (population of 12,364) which

NCHS also classified as u~ban. Duplication of

place names within a county and double entries

of place names on certificates resulted in problems in correctly classifying geographic areas.

The second factor relating to extreme differences may be the number of annexations between the two decennial census periods. For

example, Hayward, California, had over a 400-

percent increase in population, primarily due to

annexations between 1950 and 1960. Frequently,

the place names of the annexed areas are reported

as the decedent’s residence and thus may be improperly classified. Several of the areas with

substantial net differences had large annexations

between 1950 and 1960.

Finally, unincorporated areas which have

mailing addresses and/or place names similar

to that of an adjacent urban place present a

coding problem. One such example is Boise City,

Idaho, which is surrounded by unincorporated

areas with place names similar to Boise City

such as South Boise.

The numbers of deaths matched at the usual

place of residence were tabulated by color for

the 729 urban places having 25,000 population or

more in 1960. Comparisons of net difference

rates for the white and nonwhite decedents were

limited by the small frequencies for the nonwhite

group. Almost one-third of the 729 areas had no

matched deaths assigned according to either the

census record or death record for the nonwhite

group (table 3). Another 4 percent of the areas

had no frequency according to either census assignments or those by NCHS and with only one or

two deaths in the alternative cell. Consequently,

no net difference rate could be computed. An

additional one-third of the areas had frequencies

of fewer than 10, Net difference rates for white

individuals were lower than those for the nonwhite

group for most areas. As the number of matched

deaths increased, the net difference rates for the

nonwhite group approached those for the white.

The urban places with at least 50 nonwhite

deaths or more assigned by both census and NCHS

were concentrated in the South Region (table 4).

In this region the match status for both color

groups was least favorable. About one-fourth of

the records in the South were not matched and

thus obscured the analysis of white-nonwhite differences.

The proportions of records which were unmatched for the nonwhite group were higher than

those for the white in 324 of the 729 areas. However, for three-fourths of the 324 areas there

were fewer than 20 unmatched deaths. The unmatched proportion was higher for white than

nonwhite persons in only 92 of the 729 areas. The

balance (43 percent) had no matched and/or unmatched deaths.

It can be concluded that no judgment can be

made about the white-nonwhite differences for the

unmatched group for urban areas of 25,000 population or more throughout the country because of

the small frequencies for nonwhite deaths except

in the South Region.

POPULATION-SIZE GROUPS

Table 5 shows the numbers of deaths matched

at the usual place of residence for urban places

grouped by population size as of 1960. As indicated previously, for the less definitive population- size groups in table 1, the magnitude of the

net difference rates varies inversely with the

size of the area. This inverse relationship is

more evident from data shown in table 1, than

from data shown in table 5. For alltrt%an areas

of 100,000 population or over and for rural areas,

the net difference rates are positive, indicating

more assignments according to the death record

4
than by the census record. For all other urban

places, the direction of the difference is negative.

The group, urban areas of 2,500-10,000

population, had the largest net difference rate

(-9.0) compared with other population-size

groups. There are slightly over 3,000 such areas

and the problem of properly identifying the residence of decedents of such areas has increased

so extensively since 1960 that starting with datayear 1964 NCHS no longer separately identifies

such places. The reason for this change was

primarily due to the fact that mailing addresses

rather than the actual residence of the decedents

were often entered on the death record.

The proportions of records which were not

matched at the usual place of residence were

similar for the various population- size groups

with the exception of that for rural areas. The

proportion for this latter group was 26 percent

and the range for the other eight groups was

from 20 to 22 percent. Lack of a well defined

place of residence on the vital record undoubtedly

contributed to the high proportion of unmatched

records for rural areas.

Data for white and nonwhite individuals are

also included in table 5. The net difference rates

by population-size groups follow the same pattern

for each color group as for the total population.

For most of the population-size groups in table

5, the net difference rates for the white group

were higher than those for the nonwhite. However, the proportion of the records which were

not matched at the usual place of residence was

about 50 percent greater for nonwhite than for

white persons. For urlxm places of a combined

population of 25,000 or more, the unmatched

proportion was 19 percent for the white and 30

for the nonwhite group.

Underenumeration in 1960 Census

of Population

There appears to be an association between

the net undercount in the 1960 Census of Populat ion for geographic areas grouped by population

size and the proportion of records unmatched in

the 1960 Comparison Study. Various methods

were used in estimating the coverage errors in

the 1960 census. One method was an estimate of

housing unit coverage errors noted in Waksbergts

paper.q ‘rhe data relate only to field enumeration

errors and not to errors resulting from FOSDIC

Processing (Film Optical Sensing Device for Input to Computer). The highest net undercounts

were reported for urban places of 500,000 population or more and for areas of under 10,000

population. Likewise the proportion of records

unmatched in the 1960 Comparison Study showed

somewhat the same distribution— low proportions

of unmatched records for groups of urban places

of 10,000 to 250,000 population and high proportions for areas above and below these population

groups.

Followback Survey

One method of evaluating the character of

the unmatched group was to followback by an independent survey on a sample of matched and

unmatched decedents. This was done for 9,475

decedents of the 340,033 included in the comparison study. A survey questionnaire was mailed

to the 9,475 informants whose names were entered

on the death certificates. On the basis of the

questionnaires returned and after personal interview followups, there was over 90-percent response.

The only residence data included in both the

survey and the 1960 Comparison Study were those

for population- size groups of areas. Table 6

shows the number and percent distribution of

deaths by population-size groups of areas included

in both the survey and the comparison study. The

distributions were almost identical, thereby indicating that the survey was representative of the

major study. The number of records matched in

both the survey and the comparison study are

shown in table 7. With the exception of the category 25,000 to 50,000, the distributions of matched

events foliowed closely those of total events

shown in table 6. The large difference for this

category was the result of processing errors. h

is probable that an additional 300 records in the

survey in the group “25,000 or more, but not

further defined” should be properly classified to

the size of areas, 25,000-50,000.

Table 8 shows data for the unmatched group.

The number of decedents for which there was a

response in the followback survey is shown

separately from that for which a response was

5
not received. Since this latter group included only

221 records, it is not feasible to make a judgment

about the differences between this distribution

and that representing a response in the survey.

The percentage distribution by populationsize group of the unmatched decedents for which

there was a response in the survey differed only

slightly from the matched groups (table 7). Therefore, it is probable that the matched and unmatched

decedents were from the same “population.” To

be conclusive, it would be necessary to have a

distribution of deaths matched in the survey only

and coded according to the responses in the survey.

This was not done, however.

METROPOLITAN AND

NONMETROPOLITAN COUNTIES

FOR URBAN -AND RURAL AREAS

Net difference rates and the proportion of

records unmatched for the combined groups of

metropolitan and nonmetropolitan counties are

presented in table 9. The two groups of counties

are further classified by urban and rural areas

for color-sex groups.

Metropolitan counties had smaller net difference rates and lower proportions of unmatched

records than nonmetropolitan counties. For the

latter group of counties there were more assignments according to the census record, whereas

for metropolitan counties there were more assignments according to the death record. Consistent

with the findings noted in the previous section,

NCHS classified more deaths to urban areas than

to rural. The rural areas of both types of counties

have higher proportions of unmatched records

than urban areas. This may be related to the fact

that rural areas generally have less definitive

mailing addresses than urban areas. Consequently, matching the census and death records

for individuals who had resided in these areas

was not as successful as in urban areas.

The difference between census assignments

and those by NCHS was greatest for rural areas

in metropolitan counties (table 10). Likewise, the

proportion of records not matched-- 27.4—was

considerably higher for this geographic component than for the others shown in the table. The

rural section of metropolitan counties is unique

for several reasons. First, the rural component

of metropolitan counties as defined for vital statistics includes the “urban fringe,” that is, places

surrounding large metropolitan areas. This definition differs from that used by the Eighteenth

Decennial Census insofar as the Bureau of the

Census classifies these fringe areas as urban.

This difference is necessitated by the fact that

census can set up one-time boundaries for unincorporated areas for its decennial enumerations,

whereas NCHS must depend upon established

political delineations for a 10-year period. A

rapid growth of new fringe areas took place between the two census periods— 1950 and 1960.

Such areas frequently had mailing addresses of

the adja’cent incorporated urban places, and these

addresses were reported as the usual place of

residence. Consequently, there were difficulties

in matching.

The second factor to adversely affect the

match status was migration. As used here, migration pertains to those persons 5 years of age

and over who moved from one county to another

between April 1, 1955, and April 1, 1960. The

proportion of persons who moved to different

counties in this quinquennial period was 21.1

percent for the urban fringe of metropolitan areas

and only 14.0 percent for the central cities of

metropolitan counties.5

The social and economic characteristics of

the rural parts of metropolitan areas are very

different from those for rural areas in nonmetropolitan counties. b From one point of view, the

rural section of metropolitan areas is more urban in character than the rural section of nonmetropolitan areas.

In regard to the net difference rates and the

proportions unmatched, the differential bwween

the white and the nonwhite groups is pronouncedboth measures are higher for nonwhite than for

white persons. The contrast between the direction

of the net difference rates is noteworthy. These

rates for rural areas are negative for the white

group and positive for the nonwhite, The individual

geographic areas which comprise the rural total

are not separately identified in coding geographic

information on the death certificates. This detail

would be necessary to attempt to explain the differences in the rates for the white and nonwhite

groups. Rural data were reviewed for the four

geographic regions and the differences observed

6
in the North Central Region contributed most to

the high positive net difference rate for the nonwhite group.

Nonwhite

Region metropolitan-rwal

net difference rate

Total ------------ 10.3

Northeast ------------ 25.9

North Central -------- 57.6

south ---------------- 8.0

West ---------------- -13.6

(Death record is base of rate and minus sign

indicates more assignments by the death record

than by the census record.)

STANDARD METROPOLITAN

STATISTICAL AREAS

Table 11 shows a comparison of net differcrtce rates for 25 standard metropolitan statistical

~reils (SMSA’s) which were randomly selected,

and the urban components of these same SMSAts.

Here the urban components are limited to those

places of 25,000 population or more in 1960

since deaths for urban places below 25,000 population were not separately tabulated. All subsequent references to these components will be

limited to urban areas of 25,000 population or

more.

Data presented in this table show that the net

difference rates are, for the most part, lower for

the SMSA than for selected urban areas which are

a part of that SMSA. The SMSA is a county or

group of contiguous counties and therefore includes urban and rural areas. As noted in table

9, NCHS data generally show an overstatement

of events for urban places and an understatement for rural areas. As a result, the net

difference rate is low—the result of compensating differences.

The SMSA’S with the highest proportion of

unmatched records were located in the South

Region with the West having the next highest

proportion. This is not only true for the 25 SMSA’S

in table 11 but for all 201 SMSA’s (MSEA’s in

New England) and for other residence data in this

report. Both the South and the West Regions have

a higher proportion of nonwhite persons than

either the Northeast or North Central Regions.

For this color group the unmatched proportion

is less favorabje than that for the white group.

Another factor is that migration is higher in the

West and South; therefore it is likely that the

unmatched proportion would be higher in these

two regions than in the Northeast or the North

Central Regions.

The largest of the SMSA’S in table 11—

Chicago, Illinois —had 22 urban components of

25,000 population or more. The net difference

rates for these areas ranged from O for several

components to 91.4 for Oak Lawn, Illinois, but

the average was only 5.9 percent and the net difference rate for the SMSA, 0.2 percent.

The number of matched deaths for SMSA~s

was tabulated separately for two groups: Matched

at usual place of residence (UPOR) and matched

but not at the usual place of residence. This

latter group was numerically small and represents those matched at the place of death (POD).

The number and percentage breakdown of the

number of records by match status areas follows:

Number Peycent

Total -------------- 532,948 100.0

Matched --------------- 420,292. 78.9

UPOR --------------- 388,754 72.9

POD ---------------- 31,538 5.9

Unmatched ------------- 112,656 21.1

The group matched at the place of death (POD)

is different insofar as any comparison of residence

coding by census and NCHS is not applicable. One

factor which accounts for a match at the place of

death rather than at the usual place of residence

is the difference between the enume~ ation process

and the vital registration system. Persons residing in long-term institutions were enumerated in

the census at these institutions prior to their

death, but the death record asks for the usual

place of residence prior to admission to the institution. Therefore, the two geographic codes

assigned are not the same.

The net difference rate for the total matched

group was 0.3 and for the two subgroups, UPOR

and POD, the rates were 0.0 and 4.1 (table 12).

7
The highest rates for the total group were observed for the three SMSA’S of Columbia, South

Carolina; Pueblo, Colorado; and Tuscaloosa,

Alabama. The high difference rates for the total

group were the result of matching at the place of

death. The distribution of net difference rates by

type of match is as follows:

Totul UPOR POD

Columbia, S.C ------ -22.3 -1.7 -77.5

Pueblo, Colo -------- -30.3 -2.1 -85.7

Tuscaloosa, Ala----- -37.4 - -92.5

In comparing the net difference rates by

color only 57 SMSA’S were considered. The areas

were those to which 100 or more nonwhite deaths

were assigned (table 13). Although the net difference rates for the white group were higher for

slightly over half of the 57 areas, the proportion

unmatched was considerably higher for the nonwhite group (table 14). The frequency distribution

of the proportion unmatched (using census as base)

for the white and nonwhite groups is presented

below:

?%oportion wnmatched Numbev of SMSAIS

White Nonwhite

Total ------------- 57 57

10.0 -19.9 ------------- 20 1

20.0 -29.9 ------------- 28 26

30.0 -39.9 ------------- 9 28

40.0-49 .9------------- - 2

Those areas for which the net difference rates

for the nonwhite group did exceed those for the

white were located for the most part in the South

Region, where the match status was least favorable.

one purpose of the 1960 Comparison Study

was to evaluate the effect of the findings of this

study on the annual death rate. The annual death

rates for SMSA’S in 1960 are published in Vital

Statistics of the United States, 1960, Vol. II, Part

B. The method involves the following assumptions.

First, the assignment of deaths to any SMSA

made by census is presumably the “correcttf

figure rather than the NCHS figure for the MayAugust study period. As indicated previously, the

difference between the enumeration process and

vital registration gives greater support to the

accuracy of the coding of geographic locations by

the Bureau of the Census. The second assumption

is that the population enumerated as of April 1,

1960, for an SMSA is “correct.” Measures of

misstatement of residence or underenumeration

for individual SMSA’S as of April 1 have not

been published by the Bureau of the Census.

The annual rate could be adjusted on the

basis of the findings of this study. An upper and

lower range of the annual rate could be computed

as indicated below.

(1)

(2)

The upper range is derived as follows:

Increase or decrease the annual number of

deaths by the percent difference ktween census and NCHS assignments for the study

period for the SMSA. If the census figure is

lower than the NCHS figure, the annual number of deaths would be reduce~ if the NCHS

figure is lower, the annual figure would be

increased.

Compute the upper range of the annual adjusted rate using the frequency derived in

step 1.

in computing the upper range of the annual adjusted rate, all unmatched deaths are assumed to

be carrectly assigned to the SMSA. In computing

the lower range of the annual adjusted rate, all

unmatched deaths are assumed to be incorrectly

assigned to the SMSA. Therefore, the range of the

annual adjusted rate is determined by the unmatched deaths.

The lower range of the annual adjusted rate

is computed as follows:

(1)

(2)

(3)

Follow step 1 for the upper range.

Reduce the annual number of deaths by the

proportion that unmatched deaths are of total

deaths for the study period. The figure for

total deaths is the sum of the matched and

unmatched deaths.

Compute the lower range of the annual adjusted rate using the frequency derived in

step 2.

8
It is probable that the true adjusted rate is ckser

to the upper range since it is most liiely that the

majority of unmatched deaths are correctly assigned.

The formulas for computing the adjusted

rates and their application for one SMSA are

shown in the Technical Appendix.

AGE BY GEOGRAPHIC DIVISION

Net difference rates vary slightly among the

nine geographic divisions for the total population.

In five of the divisions, the highest net difference

rates—all negative—were reported for the age

group 25-34 years. (Negative indicates more assignments by census than by NCHS to an age

group.) For the three divisions comprising the

South Region, maximum positive net differences

were observed for the interval 55-64 years. The

highest net difference rate (-5.5) in the Middle

Atlantic divisiou was reported at ages 35-44 years

(table 15). Division data discussed here and region data discussed in the following section are

according to census designations. These sections

differ from those appearing previously insofar

as they are a comparison of age and race, respectively, rather than a comparison of residence.

A detailed analysis of age for the United States

has been covered in a report in Vitul and Health

Statistics, Series 2, No. 29.6

There was only a slight difference by sex,

hut a pronounced difference by color when data

were compared by age for the divisions. Net difference rates for nonwhite males and females

were considerably higher than those for white

males and females. The highest rates were reported for nonwhite individuals below 25 years of

age. However, the rates are based on extremely

small frequencies—generally about 10 deaths—

for all divisions except those in the South Region.

In addition to net difference rates, the percent agreement between census and NCHSassignments was also computed. This measure was

derived by dividing the number of matched records

classified by a given age group by both census

and NCHS (the common cell) by the number of

matched records classified to that same age group

by census. As was noted for net difference rates,

extensive variability was observed for the percent

agreements for the nine divisk ,1s by 10-year age

groups. Generally, the poorest agreement occurred at 85-99 years—the age group for which

the annual age-specific death rate is maximal.

The New England Division was an exception to the

patterw the percent agreement was poorest at

the younger ages rather than the older ages. The

observations made for the net difference rates by

color and sex are applicable to the percent agreements. Nonwhite differences between census and

NCHS assignments were more extreme than those

for white decedents and these differences were

greatest in the divisions comprising the South

Region.

With few exceptions, the proportions of records unmatched for males and females and for

white and nonwhite persons were highest for the

age groups 15-24 and 25-34 years in the nine

geographic divisions. For the most part, the

exceptions to this pattern were for the interval

1-4 years of age and the proportions were based

on small frequencies.

With respect to the characteristics of age

and race, there were two phases in the 1960

Comparison Study. The difference between the

two phases of the study relares to the two-stage

enumeration in the 1960 Census of Population.

All matched records in stage I represent decedents who were in the 100-percent enumeration.

Stage II includes those decedents who were

matched in stage I and who also were included in

the 25-percent sample of households. With respect to this study and the impact on vital rates,

the important distinction is that in stage II, not

stated and not valid codes for the majority of

items were allocated. The method of allocation is

described in the various publications relating to

the 1960 Census of Population found in the bibliography. It is data from stage II which are used

in computing selected vital rates.

All data by age previously discussed have

been derived from stage I. Table 16 shows four

series of net difference rates for white males

for the South Atlantic Division— stage I with and

without the “not stated and not valid” codes and

stage 11 with and without the allocations of the

“not stated and not valid” codes. Stage I illustrates better than stage II the “true” comparison

between data derived from the census record and

those from the death record. The fact that the

effect of the allocations on most age groups was

9
to increase the disparity between age reporting

on the census record and the death record has

an impact on the analysis of mortality data.

RACE BY GEOGRAPHIC REGION

Detailed data for race for the United States

and four regions are presented in tables 17 and

18. The net difference rates for each of the regions were less than 1 percent for the white

group. The direction of the difference was always

positive, that is, more assignments were made to

the white group by NCHS than by census (census

record used as base). Two factors may contribute

slightly to the direction of these differences.

First, the number of “race not stated and not

valid” assignments according to census tabulations was 3,214, compared with 22 “race not

valid” assignments according to NCHStabulations.

Therefore, the figures for the white and for the

nonwhite category by census designations are below those by NCHS designations for the United

States and each region. Second, the death records

for which the race was not stated were assigned

to “white” in the initial coding operation in NCHS,

The number of “not stated” entries is not known,

but presumably the figure is small.

Not only are the net difference rates generally lowest for the white group but the proportions

of unmatched deaths are lowest. The latter factor

gives greater validity to the net difference rates

for the white population.

The net difference rates for the Negro race

were higher than those for the white and were

generally positive; the rates were less than 2

percent for the LMited States and each region.

However, the proportion of records unmatched

was approximately 30 percent for the Negro race—

almost 50 percent above that for the white.

The net difference rates for the Indian group

were negative for each region and lowest in the

West where the majority of the Indian reservations are located. Self-enumeration of race, which

was introduced in the 1960 Census of Population,

may contribute to the excess of census records

over death records which were coded as Indian.

The annual death rate for the Indian group was

8.6 per 1,000 population in the United States for

1960 compared with 13.0 in 1950. The selfenumeration procedure in the 1960 census and

changes in classification by census of persons

of mixed stock of Indian and other races contributed to a sharp increase in the Indian population

between the two census years. This artifact observed in the anual death rates is consistent with

the findings of this study.

With the exception of those for the West, the

regional net difference rates for Chinese, Japanese, and Filipino are based. on such small frequencies as to render the rates statistically

unreliable. The net difference rate for the Japanese in the West was -0.6 which was the lowest

of any net difference rate for any racial category

for the United States or any of the four regions.

The match status for this racial group— 18 percent— is superior to that of the other racial

categories in the West Region or in the United

States as a whole. The net difference rate for the

Chinese is 0.9—the same as that for the white

group in this region. The proportion unmatched

is about the same for the two categories— 22

for the white group and 23 for the Chinese. The

net difference rates for the “other nonwhite”

group showed the greatest divergence between

census assignments and those by NCHS. Likewise

the proportion unmatched is highest—approximately 50 percent (census record used as abase).

If the death record is used as a base, the equivalent proportion is below 30 percent because the

denominator of the proportion would be substantially larger. It is difficult to explain the large

difference between census assignments and those

by NCHS for this group because it is an “all other”

category. Differences may exist in interpretation

between census and NCHS as to what should be

included in this “all other” group.

Regional differences for each sex group were

examined only for the white and nonwhite categories since the frequencies for the racial groups

were very small. Net difference rates for females

were lower than those for males for each region

except the West.

In stage H of the 1960 Comparison Study

there were 87,905 matched records. Of this

number 1,145 or 1.3 percent had no entry for

race ~’not valid” included). After the 1,145 records were assigned a code for race, the assignments were compared with the codes for race on

the death records for those 1,145 decedents. There

was only 20 percent agreement. The effect on the

10
comparison study was to bring into closer agreement the assignments of codes by census and

NCHS to the white category. The reverse effect

occurred with respect to most of the nonwhite

racial groups. A comparison of the net difference rates for stages I and H by race for the

United States is shown below. (Census record is

used as base and minus sign indicates more assignments by census than by NCHS.)

Race

White---------

Nonwhite ----- -

Negro ------

Indian ------

Japanese ---

Chinese ----

Filipino ----

Other ------

Not stated and

not valid----

Net difference mtes fw stages:

I II

0.8 -0.4

1.1 -1.2

1.1 0.2

-9.4 -11.2

-0.9 7..5

-4.6 -2.5.0

-23.2 -33.3

-125.4 21.9

-99.3 ...

If the annual death rates for the two groups,

white and nonwhite, are evaluated in terms of the

findings noted above, the effects are negligible.

However, rates for specified nonwhite racial

groups would & affected. For example, the net

difference rate for the Japanese according to

stage I is -0.9 and according to stage II, +7.5.

The latter net difference rate (+7.5) represents

fewer allocations of “not stated” to the Japanese

than the findings of this study would warrant. The

effect would k to overstate the published annual

death rate for the Japanese from 5.1 per 1,000

population to 5.5.

REFERENCES

lKitagawa, l?.. M., and Hauser, P. M.: Methods used in

a current study of social and economic differentials in mortality. Emerging Techniques of Population Re se arch, Proceeding of the 1962 Annual Conference of the Milbank Memmorial Fund. New York. Milbank hJemorial Fund, hfar. 1967.

2Kitagawa, E. M., and Hauser, F’. hi.: Education and Income Differentials in Mortality, United States, 1960. Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the Copulation Association of America, New York, Apr. 29-30, 1966. Revised Mar.

1967.

3Nati~nal vjtal Statistics Division: Matched record

comparison of birth certificate and census information,

United “Statee, 1950. Vital Statistics–Special Reports, Vol.

47, No. 12. Public Health Service. Washington, D.C. Mar.

1962.

4Waksberg, J.: Housing unit coverage errors by type of

geographic areas, 1960 census. Memorandum No. 2. Bureau

of the Census. Unpublished data.

5U.S. Bureau of the Census: U.S. Census of Popub

tion, 1960. General Social and Economic Characteristics.

UnitedSts#es Swnrnary. Final Report PC (1)-lC. Washington.

U.S. Government Printing Office, 1962.

6National Center for Health “Statistics: Comparability

of age on tbe death certificate and matching census record;

United States, May-August 1960. Vital and Health Statistics. PHS Pub. No. 1000+eries 2-No. 29. Public Health

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

1966.

7National Office of Vital Statistics: The comparability

of reports on occupation from vital records and the 1950

census, by D. L. Kaplan, E. Parkhurst, and P. K. Whelptcm.

Vital Statistics-Special Reports. Vol. 53, No. L Z7ublic

Health Service. Washington, D.C. June 1961.

%.”s. Bureau of the Census: U.S. Census of PoprJation, 1960, Number of Inhabitants, United States Summay.

Final Report PC (1)-1A. Washhrgton. U.’S. ‘Government Printing Office, 1961.

9U.’S. Bureau of the Budgeti Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Washington. U.”S. ‘Government Printing Office,

1961.

10u;5. Bureau of the Census: U.S. census of Popub

tion, 1960, Selected Area Reports, State Economic Areae.

Final Report PC (3)-1A. Washington. U.’S. Government Printing Office, 1963.

11
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arriaga, E.: Index for the Detection of the Underregistration of Rural Deaths Due to the Inaccessibility of the Registration OffIce. A paper presented at the April, 1966, annual

meeting of the Population Association of America.

Fellegi, L P.: Response variance end its estimation. J. Am.

Stdtis.Assoc. 59(308} 1016-1041, Dec. 1964.

Kitagawa, E. M., and Hauser, P. M.: Educational differentials in mortality by cause of death, United States, 1960.

Demography, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1908. ‘

Marke, E., and Waksberg, J.: Evaluation of coverage in the

1960 Census of Population through case-by-case checking.

Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section. American Statistical Association, Los Angeles, Calif., Aug. 15-18, 1966.

National Office of Vital Statistics: Coding and punching

geographic and pereonal particulars; birthe, deathe, and fetal

deathe occurring in 1960. Vital StatL?tr2s-instruction Manual,

Part II, Section B and Supplements. Public Health Service.

Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, Oct. 1960.

National Office of Vital Statistics: haterviewer’s Manual;

National Morkdity Study, 1960. Washington. U.S. Government

Printing Office, Oct. 1960.

National Vital Statistics Divieion: Vital Statistics of the

United States, 1960, Vol. I. Public Health Service. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1962.

National Vital ‘Statistics Division: Vitat Statistics of the

United States, 1960, Vol. II, Parts A and B. Public Health

Service. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963.

National Center for Health ‘Statistics: Vital Statistics of

the United States, 1964, Vol. II, Part A, Section 6. Public

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

1966.

Neter, J., Maynes, IL S., and Ramanathan, R.: The effect

of mismatching on the measurement of responee errore. J. Am.

Statis.Assoc. 60(312):1005-1027, Dec. 1965.

‘Siegel, J. S., and Zelnik, M.: An evaluation of coverage in

the 1960 Census of Population by techniques of demographic

anal ysis and by composite method e. Proceedings of the Social

Statistics Section, Am&ican Statistical Association, 1966.

Taeuber, C., and lianeen, M. H.: Self-enumeration ae a

censue method. Demography 3(1):289-295, 1966.

Zelnik, M.: Errors in the 1960 census enumeration of native whites. J. Arn.Statis .Assoc. 59(306):437-459, June, 1964.

U.S. Bureau of the Census: County and City Data Book,

196,??,A Statistical Abstract Supplement. Washington. U.S.

Government Printing Office, 1962.

U.S. Bureau of the Census: Evaluation and Research Program of the U.S. Censuses of Population and Hawing, 1960;

Record Check Studies of Poptdution Coverage. Series ER 60,

No. 2. Washington, D. C., 1964.

U.S. Bureau of the Census: Evaluation and fi’eeearch Program of the U.S. Censuses of Population and Housing, 1960;

the Employ erRecord Check. Series ER 60, No. 6. Washington.

U.S. Government Printing Office, 1965.

U.S. Bureau of the Census: U.S. Censuses of Population

and Housing, 1960; Principal Date-Collection Forms and Procedures. Washington, D. C., 1961.

U.S. Bureau of the Census: The Post-Enumeration Suruey,

1950. Bureau of the Census Technical Paper No. 4. Washington, D. C., 1960.

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

1960, Detailed Characteristics, United States Summary. Final

ReportPC(l)-ID. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office,

1963.

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

1960, General Population Characteristics, United State8 Summary. Final Report PC(l)- lB. Washington. U.S. Government

Printing Office, 1961.

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

1960, Selected Area Reports, Standard Metropolitan Stati8ticat Areas. Final Repat PC(3)- lD. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963.

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

1960, Subject Reports, Inmates of Institutions. Final Report

PC(2)-8A. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963.

U.S. Bureau of the Census: U.S. Censue of Population, 1960,

Su6ject Reports, Mobility for States and State Economic Areas.

Final Report PC(2)-2B. Washington. U.S. Government Printing

Office, 1963.

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

1960, Subje d Reports, t~obility for Metropolitan ~reag. Final

Report PC(2)-2C. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office,

1963.

000

12
DETAILED TABLES

Table 1.

2.

3.

4,

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

Frequency distribution of size of net difference rates based on deaths matched

at usual place of residence,for urban areas of 25,000 population or more: United

States, May-August 1960---------------------------------------------------------

Net difference rates based on events matched at usual place of residence for 221

selected urban areas of 25,000 population or more:united States,selected months,

1950 and 1960-------------------------------------------------------------------

Distribution of nonwhite deaths matched at usual place of residence for 729 urban areas of 25,000 population or more, by frequency groupings and type of difference: United States, May-August 1960-----------------------------------------

Number of deaths matched at usual place of residence and net difference rates,

deaths unmatched, and proportion unmatched for 89 selected urban areas of 25,000

population or more, by color: United States, May-August 1960--------------------

Number of deaths matched at usual place of residence and net difference rates,

by population-size group of area: United States, May-August 1960----------------

Number and percent distribution of deaths in the 1960 Comparison Study and the

followback survey, by population-size group of area according to death record

designations: United States, May-August 1960------------------------------------

Number and percent distribution of deaths matched in the 1960 Cmparison Study

and the followback survey, by population-size group of area according to census

record designations: United States, May-August 1960-----------------------------

Number and percent distribution of unmatched deaths, for which there were response and no response in the followback survey,and unmatched deaths in the 1960

Comparison Study, by population-size group of area according to death record

designations: United States, May-August 1960------------------------------------

Net difference rates and proportion of death records unmatched for urban and

rural areas in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan counties, by color and sex:

United States, May-August 1960--------------------------------------------------

Number of deaths matched at usual place of residence and not at usual place of

residence, according to census record and death record for urban and rural areas

in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan counties, by color and sex: United States,

May-August 1960-----------------------------------------------------------------

Comparison of net difference rates and proportion unmatched, based on deaths

matched at usual place of residence for 25 selected standard metropolitan statistical areas (sMSA’s) and urban area components of those SMSA’s: United States,

May-August 1960-----------------------------------------------------------------

Number of matched deaths reporting same standard metropolitan statistical area

(S14SA)on both census and death records, on census recor~~~yi ayjsgl ~~~~

record only; and net difference rates for total matched,

of residence, and not at usual place of residence: United States, May-August

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

Page

15

16

19

20

23

24

24

25

25

26

29

31

13
DETAILED TABLES-Con.

Table 13. Number of matched deaths reporting same standard metropolitan statistical area

(SMSA) on both census and death records, census record only, and death record

only; and net difference rates, by color: United States, May-August 1960--------

14. Number of unmatched deaths for standard metropolitan statistical areas (SMSA’S),

by color: United States, May-August 1960---------.-----------------.------------

15. Net difference rates, by color, sex, and age: United States and each geographic

division, May-August 1960-------------------------------------------------------

16. Net difference rates for white males for stage I and stage 11, by age: South

Atlantic Division, May-August 1960 ------------ --------- -------- ---------------- -

17. Number of matched deaths reporting same race on both census and death records,

census record only, and death record only; and net and gross difference rates:

United States and each region, May-August 1960----------------------------------

18. Number of matched and unmatched deaths and proportion unmatched, by race: United

States and each region, May-August 1960 ------------------ ------------------ -----

Page

44

48

52

53

54

55

14
Table 1. Frequency distribution of size of net difference rates based on deaths matched at usual

place of residence,for urban areas of 25,000 population or more: United States, May-August 1960

r~enswrecord useG aa a baae.Negative indicatea inureass,gnmenta by csrms than by NCHS]

Net difference rate

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

0-0.04-----------------------

0.1-4.9----------------------

5.0-9.9----------------------

10.0-14.9--------------------

15.0-19.9--------------------

20.0-24.9--------------------

25.0-29.9--------------------

30.0-34,9--------------------

35.0-39.9--------------------

40.0-44,9--------------------

45.0-49.9--------------------

All other--------------------

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

0-0.04-----------------------

0.1-4.9----------------------

5.0-9.9----------------------

10.0-14.9--------------------

15.0-19.9--------------------

20,0-24.9--------------------

25.0-29.9--------------------

30.0-34,9--------------------

35.0-39.9--------------------

40,0-44.9--------------------

45.0-49.9--------------------

50.0-54.9--------------------

55.0-59.9--------------------

60.0-64.9--------------------

65.0-69,9--------------------

70.0-74.9--------------------

75.0-79.9--------------------

80.0-84.9--------------------

85.0-89.9--------------------

90.0-94.9--------------------

95.0-99.9--------------------

100.0 or more ----------------

Positive difference Negative difference

Total

289

47

172

50

14

;

1

243

1

‘1

1

1.

1

Areas of:

100,000 50;:00 25,000 ‘otal

‘= ‘ore 100,000 50%00

100,000 50;:00 25,000

‘r ‘ore 100,000 50300

Based on 100 deaths or more

110 83

_

. . .

68

10

1

1

1

1

1

21

...

18

2

1

Based on less than 100 deaths

21 —

7

8

3

1

i

1

222 114

. . .

61

21

12

3

3

3

1

i

i

1

i

?

Areas of:

. . .

45

...

38

5

1

1

16

...

10

1

3

i

17

. . .

12

3

1

i

98

15
Table 2. Net difference rates based on events matched at usual place of residence for 221 selected urban areas of 25,000 population or’more: United States, selected Wnths, 1950 and 1960

r2enswrecord wedasbase.Minw(-)si9.indicates mmeasskmmentsb YcensmthanbYNCHS. lncl.des o.lvthoseareaaforwhichatleastlOO births

ormorewereassignedaccording toeither"the censusrecOrdorthebitihrecwd"in 1950]

Area

Alabama:

Birmingham ---------------

Gadsden ------------------

Mobile -------------------

Montgomery ---------------

Arizona:

Phoenix ------------------

Tucson -------------------

Arkansas:

Little Rock--------------

California:

Alameda ------------------

Bakersfield --------------

Berkeley -----------------

Burbank ------------------

Compton ------------------

Fresno -------------------

Glendale-----------------

Long Beach---------------

Los Angeles --------------

Oakland ------------------

Pasadena -----------------

Richmond -----------------

Riverside ----------------

Sacramento--------------y

San Bernardino -----------

San Diego ----------------

San Francisco ------------

San Jose -----------------

Santa Monica -------------

Stockton-----------------

Colorado:

Colorado Springs---------

Denver -------------------

Pueblo -------------------

Connecticut:

Bridgeport ---------------

Hartford -----------------

New Britain --------------

??ewHaven----------------

Stamford-----------------

Waterbury ----------------

Delaware:

Wilmington ---------------

District of Columbia:

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

Florida:

Jacksonville -------------

Miami --------------------

Pensacola ----------------

Tampa --------------------

fet difference rate

)eaths,

1960

2.1

-2.7

-;.;

-5.5

4.6

8.1

l::i

::2

12.9

4.1

-:::

0.9

1.1

11.;

8.4

-::;

;.j

5:3

-;:;

2.0

-1.0

-5.9

-;:;

-1.0

0.3

3.3

-0.7

7.4

-!::

3.4

Births,

1950

-:$;

-7:4

22.9

271.0

10.3

4;:;

M

15.1

18.9

-1.7

::;

-2:

1;:;

3;::

2.5

3;:;

1!::

28.2

0.7

7.9

:::

-n

-6.8

4.1

7.4

7.4

25.7

15.2

41.1

63.1

Area

Georgia:

Atlanta ----------------

Augusta ----------------

Columbus ---------------

Macon ------------------

Savannah---------------

Illinois:

Chicago----------------

Decatur ----------------

East St. Louis---------

Joliet -----------------

Peoria-----------------

Rockford---------------

Springfield------------

Indiana:

East Chicago -----------

Evansville -------------

Fort Wayne -------------

Gary-------------------

Hammond ----------------

Indianapolis-----------

Muncie -----------------

South Bend-------------

Terre Haute------------

Iowa:

Cedar Rapids-----------

Davenport --------------

Des Moines -------------

Dubuque ----------------

Sioux City -------------

Waterloo ---------------

Kansas:

Kansas City------------

Topeka -----------------

Wichita ----------------

Kentucky:

Covington --------------

Louisville -------------

Louisiana:

Baton Rouge ------------

New Orleans ------------

Shreveport-------------

Maine:

Portland---------------

Maryland:

Baltimore--------------

Massachusetts:

Boston -----------------

Brockton ---------------

Cambridge --------------

Net difference rate

Deaths,

19(i0

2.7

8.2

17.;

0.9

0.5

R

4.4

0.7

2.5

8.0

-0.;

1.5

-?:?

2.7

13.3

4.9

1.6

-::;

2.2

-0.5

3.4

11.5

;::

-1.0

12.1

4.0

0.7

0.7

-0.4

0.6

-!:;

0.7

Births,

1950

3::?

34.5

53.3

9.1

%!!

7U

;:!

10.;

2::;

-15.0

9.0

15.9

12.1

25.7

-::;

17.4

-::;

6.6

10.3

17.1

23.3

6.1

12.7

0.4

1::;

-3.9

1.1

-;:+

1.1

16
Table 2. Net difference rates base6 on events matched at usual place of residence for 221 selected urban areasof 25,000 population or more:United States,selected months, 1950 and 1960—Con.

[Census reccvd used os base. Minus (-) sign indicates more assignments by census than by NCHS. Includes cnly those areas for which at least 100 births

ormorewere assigned accwding toeither thecenaua r~wdorthe binh record in 195~

Area

Massachusetts-Con.

Fall River---------------

Lawrence -----------------

Lowell--------------------

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

h%en -------------------

New Bedford--------------

Newton -------------------

Quince-------------------

Somerville---------------

Springfield--------------

Worcester ----------------

Michigan:

Bay City-----------------

Dearborn -----------------

Detroit ------------------

Flint --------------------

Grand Rapids--------------

Jackson ------------------

Kalamazoo ----------------

Lansing ------------------

~;$g -----------------

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

Royal Oak----------------

Saginaw------------------

Minnesota:

Duluth -------------------

:pp:~lis --------------

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

Missouri:

Kansas City--------------

Springfield--------------

St. Joseph ---------------

St. Louis ----------------

Nebraska:

Lincoln ------------------

Omaha --------------------

New Hampshire:

Manchester---------------

New Jersey:

Bayonne------------------

Camden-------------------

Clifton ------------------

East Orange --------------

Elizabeth ----------------

Jersey City--------------

Newark-------------------

Paterson-----------------

Trenton ------------------

Net difference rate

Deaths,

1960

-0.5

-0.;

0.6

-::;

-0.9

-0.5

0.2

3.6

9.4

0.4

0.9

3.0

R

2.0

3.3

0.6

1.;

2.1

1.1

0.2

2.5

0.2

-::;

0.6

::$(

-

::2

-1.3

-:::

:::

3.3

Births,

1950

3.6

2.3

-i:!

2.0

N

-;:;

4.4

2.2

44.2

24.0

::;

11.4

35.4

13.7

2~:~

22:2

1.0

2.;

3.6

-1.7

$:

1.5

5.6

5.1

3.0

0.8

-4.i

-0.9

M

-0.2

-0.5

4.3

Area

New Mexico:

Albuquerque ------------

New York:

Albany -----------------

Binghamton -------------

Buffalo ----------------

Mount Vernon -----------

New York City---------Niagara Falls ----------

Rochester --------------

Schenectady ------------

Syracuse---------------

Troy -------------------

Utica ------------------

Yonkers ----------------

North Carolina:

Charlotte --------------

Durham -----------------

Fayetteville -----------

Greensboro -------------

Raleigh ----------------

Winston-Salem ----------

Ohio :

Akron ------------------

Canton-----------------

Cincinnati -------------

Cleveland --------------

Columbus ---------------

Dayton -----------------

Lakewood ---------------

Lima -------------------

Lorain -----------------

Springfield ------------

Toledo -----------------

Warren -----------------

Youngstown -------------

Oklahoma:

Oklahoma City ----------

Tulsa ------------------

Oregon:

Eugene -----------------

Portland ---------------

Pennsylvania:

Allentown --------------

Altoona ----------------

Bethlehem --------------

Chester ----------------

Erie -------------------

Harrisburg -------------

Johnstown --------------

Lancaster --------------

Philadelphia -----------

Net difference rate

Deaths,

1960

6.0

;:;

-;:;

0.2

1.2

M

1.1

-;:;

-2.6

-0.6

2;:;

1.1

3.;

::;

0.4

1.7

-0.1

-$:

3.3

-0.8

5.1

0.3

::;

5.2

8.7

-8.6

5.0

1.5

;::

5.1

Ii::

36.9

21.0

0.3

Births,

1950

19.0

-;::

-0.2

-2.0

0.5

3.0

2.4

10.8

1:::

-5.;

6.5

21.7

3;:;

21.2

15.5

2;:;

0.4 i.1

-2.5

46.1

-3.9

32.0

12:!

16.2

13.8

15.0

3.8

7.3

62.7

30.5

::;

1%;

1;:;

42.6

13.2

1.8

17
Table 2. Net difference rates based on events matched at usual place of residence for 221 selected urban areasof 25,000 population or more:United States,selected months,1950 and 1960-Con.

[Jensus record used aa baae. Mirws (-) sign indicates rrwxe a=aignments by census than by I.L.WL. Incl”ues only those areas for which at Ieaat 100 births

or more were assigned according to either the census record or the birth record in 195~

Area

Pennsylvania- Con.

Pittsburgh---------------

Reading ------------------

Scranton-----------------

Upper Darby--------------

Wilkes-Barre -------------

York---------------------

Rhode Island:

Pawtucket----------------

Providence---------------

South Carolina:

Charleston---------------

Columbia-----------------

Greenville---------------

South Dakota:

Sioux Falls--------------

Tennessee:

Chattanooga--------------

Knoxville----------------

Memphis ------------------

Nashville----------------

Texas:

Amarillo-----------------

Austin-------------------

Beaumont-----------------

Corpus Christi-----------

Dallas-------------------

El Paso------------------

Fort Worth---------------

Galveston----------------

~et difference rate

)eaths,

1960

5.0

1.0

-H!

4.;

-0.8

-0.7

2.0

-1.0

4.2

6.7

M

M

-0.5

-:.:

0:4

0.8

::;

0.5

Births,

1950

30.5

10.3

-1;:;

23.7

26.7

7.3

1.1

11.9

45.2

7.7

6.9

2;.:

-7:9

58.1

N

1.9

H

1:::

23.2

Area

Texas-Con.

Houston----------------

Laredo-----------------

Lubbock----------------

Port Arthur------------

San Antonio------------

San Angelo-------------

Waco -------------------

Wichita Falls----------

Utah:

Ogden------------------

Salt Lake City---------

Virginia:

Alexandria-------------

Arlington County-------

Norfolk----------------

Portsmouth-------------

Richmond ---------------

Roanoke ----------------

Washington:

Seattle----------------

Spokane----------------

Tacoma-----------------

Yakima-----------------

West Virginia:

Charleston-------------

Huntington -------------

Wheeling---------------

Wisconsin:

Green Bay--------------

Madison ----------------

Milwaukee--------------

Racine -----------------

Net difference rate

Deaths,

1960

-12.3

4;;

0.7

1.2

-::;

2.7

5.5

3.7

1.5

::!

0.3

3.9

3.7

1,6

1;::

2,6

3.5

3.6

6.8

u

0.5

NOTE: May-August 1960 used for deaths and January-March 1950 used for births.

Birr~s,

14.2

:::

::;

2:5

10.5

2::

13.2

0.3

5.1

::!)

0.6

43.9

1?:

33.0

38.0

::;

-O.;

1!:;

Source for births: National Vital Statistics Division: Matched record comparison of birth certificate and census information: IJnitedStates, 1950. Vital Statistics—special Reports, Vol. 47,

No. 12. Public Health Service, Washington, D.C,, Mar. 1962.

18
Table 3. Distribution of nonwhite deaths matched at usual place of residence for 729 urban areas

of 25,000 population or more, by frequency groupings and type of difference: United States, l.fayAUgUSt 1960

Direction of difference

All areas --------------------------------------------------------------------------

NO deaths assigned according to census record or death record----------------------------

F;;q~~c of 1 or 2 according to either census record or death record and zero frequency

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

Frequency of less than 10 deaths according to census record------------------------------

Net difference rate is zero------------------------------------------------------------

Net difference rate for white is higher than for nonwhite ------------------------------

Net difference rate for white is lower than for nonwhite -------------------------------

Frequency bf 10 deaths or more according to census records-------------------------------

Net difference rate is zero------------------------------------------------------------

Net difference rate for white is higher than for nonwhite ------------------------------

Net difference rate for white is lower than for nonwhite -------------------------------

Number

of

urban

areas

729

201

26

239

150

82

1263

58

1;;

lIncludes one area for which the net difference rate was the same for white and nonwhite.

19
Table 4. Number of deaths matched at usual place of residence and net difference rates, deaths unmatched,

and proportion unmatched for 89 selected urban areas of 25,000 population or more, by color: United States,

May-August 1960

[Census record used as a base for net difference rat’ ant pmpmtion UI,IMCIWLL Min.. [-) sign inoimtes more assignments by census than by NCHS. Includes only those areas

for which at least 50 nonwhite ckaths were assigned accordin~ to either the census record or death recor~

Area

Alabama:

Bessemer ------------

Birmingham ----------

Mobile --------------

Montgomery ----------

Arkansas:

Little Rock ---------

California:

Los Angeles ---------

Oakland -------------

San DiegO -----------

San Francisco -------

Colorado:

Denver --------------

Delaware:

Wilmington ----------

District of Columbia:

Washington ----------

Florida:

Jacksonville --------

Miami ---------------

St. Petersburg ------

Tampa ---------------

Georgia:

Albany --------------

Atlanta -------------

Augusta -------------

Columbus ------------

Macon ---------------

Savannah ------------

Hawaii:

Hilo ----------------

Honolulu ------------

Illinois:

Chicago -------------

East St. Louis ------

Indiana:

Gary ----------------

Indianapolis --------

Kansas:

Kansas City ---------

Kentucky:

Lexington -----------

Louisville ----------

Louisiana:

Alexandria ----------

Baton Rouge ---------

Monroe --------------

New Orleans ---------

Shreveport ----------

Maryland:

Baltimore -----------

Deaths matched at usual residence

according to:

Census record

White

4;:

222

110

171

4,975

858

884

2,012

1,183

254

1,070

251

639

720

584

6;;

1:;

111

169

1::

8,081

133

262

970

237

142

806

1%

1,1:!

234

1,744

Nonwhite

3%

120

127

74

627

150

lx

56

51

854

205

103

1$:

4X

84

59

88

152

2!:

1,643

92

132

239

78

2X

1%

6;;

171

679

Death record

White

4%

227

123

189

5,021

877

886

2,035

1,193

262

1,064

278

687

751

614

7;!

1::

132

163

1;:

8,199

149

276

1,017

272

182

933

51

177

1,1;;

231

1,773

Nonwhite

51

380

117

127

77

618

146

54

169

53

54

863

214

108

1’%

4::

%

103

163

2X

1,682

95

137

235

86

2!;

51

111

6;:

179

687

Net

difference rate

White

26.1

3.6

1:::

10.5

;.;

0:2

1.1

0.2

3.1

-0.6

10.8

;::

5.1

u

20.9

-0.7

18.9

-3.6

11.8

2.9

J::

N

14.8

28.2

15.8

10.9

$;

1:5

-1.3

1.7

Nonwhite

21.4

-;:;

4.1

-1.4

-2.7

-3.6

-1.7

-0.8

5.9

1.1

;.:

-1:5

1,4

8.0

2.3

7.1

1$::

7.2

30.2

27.3

2.4

3.3

-Y)

10.3

13.0

5.3

-1.9

2.8

8.7

::;

1.2

Unmatched

deaths

Jhite

12

169

:3

51

1,362

257

323

514

230

51

260

100

293

135

152

2;:

41

;:

47

4:

.

?,061

41

2X

67

2::

:;

2:!

83

469

$onwhite

lx

45

55

37

305

65

24

69

24

33

358

83

64

25

56

22

174

34

H

41

%!

,8;:

x

22

1::

25

38

2;!

329

Proportion

unmatched

White

34.3

27,3

24.5

36.4

23.0

21.5

23.0

26.8

20,3

16.3

16.7

19.5

28.5

31.4

15.8

20.7

22.2

24,7

38.0

33.2

19.0

21.8

15.0

29.9

20.3

23.6

14.9

21.1

22.0

20.2

25,9

40.3

21.0

25.8

17.2

26.2

21.2

Nonwhite

38.2

26.9

27.3

30,2

33.3

32,7

30.2

30.0

28.6

30.0

39.3

29.5

28.8

38.3

27.5

28.9

30.6

28.9

28,8

30.6

27.3

21.2

40.3

23.8

34.1

28.1

29.8

29.1

22.0

30.8

33.0

32.5

26.0

28.9

25.9

29.6

32.6

20
Table 4. Number of deaths matched at usual place of ]esidence and net difference rates, deakhs tmmatched,

and proportion unmatched for 89 selected urban areas of 25,000 population or more by color: United States,

N,iy-August 1960—Con.

[MS., rcc.rd .smi m a base for net cflfference mm and propmlmn .mtmhed. Mln.s (-) sign lnchcates more assignments by census than y NCli3. Incl.fies only those areas

forwh!ch at least 50nonwhse deaths were asstgnedaccord, n~ toetthertl,e census record ordmth reccm

Area

Nossachusctts:

Boston--------------

Nichigan:

Elctroit-------------

Flint ---------------

Mississippi:

Greenville ----------

Jackson -------------

Vicksburg -----------

Missouri:

Kansas City ---------

St. Louis -----------

Nebraska:

Omaha ---------------

Omaha--------------New Jersey;

Atlantic City -------

Jersey City ---------

Newnrk --------------

New yO?Ck:

New York City -------

~~ff~l~----...-.---.

North Carolina:

Charlotte -----------

Durham --------------

Greensboro ----------

Raleigh -------------

Wilmington ----------

Winston-Salem -------

Ohia :

Akron ---------------

Cincinnati ----------

Cleveland -----------

Columbus------------

Dayton --------------

Tol.cdo--------------

Youngstown ----------

Oklahoma:

Oklahoma City -------

Tulsa ---------------

Pennsylvania:

Philadelphia---------

Pittsburgh ----------

South Carolina:

Charles ton----------

Columbia ------------

Greenville ----------

Tennessee:

Chattanooga ---------

Knoxville -----------

Memphis -------------

NashviJ,le -----------

Texas:

Beaumont ------------

Dallas --------------

Fort Worth ----------

‘Galveston -----------

Houston -------------

San Antonio ---------

Waco ----------------

Deaths matched at usual residence

according to:

Census record

Whitf

1,927

3,344

38C

1;;

31

1,139

1,742

584

165

767

740

8,703

1,520

208

120

114

93

71

122

602

1,082

1,934

836

529

783

416

546

447

4,464

1,551

1:;

65

200

215

594

279

163

928

569

144

1,152

925

170

Nonwhite

134

885

73

18;

67

213

514

65

::

266

2,074

129

139

55

63

60

60

112

2:?

492

167

127

81

53

81

65

1,174

264

71

;;

114

4;;

190

75

251

130

3 z

98

59

Death record

White

1,946

3,383

387

1::

31

1,146

1,771

613

160

761

761

8,813

1,559

206

123

117

94

73

128

616

1,091

1,995

835

549

791

418

581

493

L,529

1,639

84

132

74

212

221

617

294

172

945

598

147

1,017

940

177

Nonwhite

129

898

71

1::

69

216

513

66

58

2::

2,132

116

139

54

62

59

65

115

56

254

489

173

126

83

52

83

70

1,162

281

U

50

113

42:

191

76

247

131

3X

99

54

Net

difference rate

White

1.0

1.2

1.8

6.3

3.7

0.6

1.7

5.0

-3.0

-0.8

2.8

0.6

2.6

-1.0

2.5

2.6

1.1

2.8

4.9

$:

-i::

3.8

1.0

0,5

6.4

10.3

1.5

5.7

6.3

13. i

6.0

2.8

3.9

5.4

5.5

;:!

2.1

-11.7

H

Nonwhite

-3.7

-;:?

-3.2

1.0

3,0

1.4

-0.2

1.5

9.4

-::;

2.8

-10.1

-1.8

-1.6

-1.7

8.3

2.7

-3.4

2.8

-0.6

-:::

2.5

-1.9

2.5

7.7

-1.0

6.4

-1.4

-;:;

-0.9

-7.0

1.4

0.5

1.3

-1.6

0.8

-1:: ;

-R

Unmatched

deaths

White

457

663

68

12

54

12

242

471

151

51

153

239

4,350

225

73

‘&

29

12

25

127

232

339

179

133

186

55

201

131

,235

410

;:

36

85

%

78

3X

211

3:;

286

62

Nonwhite

71

341

16

13

32

14

85

242

33

24

1::

1,252

36

40

31

24

11

H

1:?

184

46

44

22

18

44

31

518

88

::

26

65

22

173

65

21

137

;;

161

42

18

Proportion

unmatched

White

19.2

16.5

15.2

27.3

28.7

27.9

17.5

21.3

20.5

23.6

16.6

24.4

18.9

12.9

26,0

18.9

28.3

23.8

14.5

17.0

17.4

17.7

14.9

17.6

20.1

19.2

11.7

26.9

22.7

21.7

20.9

24.8

13.2

35.6

29.8

30.6

18.5

21.8

21.6

25.7

27.1

19.1

23.2

23.6

26.7

Nonwhite

34.6

27.8

18.0

17.3

23.4

17,3

28.5

32.0

33.7

31.2

38.9

37.6

37.6

21.8

22.3

36.0

27.6

15.5

17.8

29.1

33.3

29.0

27.2

21.6

25.7

21.4

25.4

35.2

32.3

30,6

25.0

22.0

40.4

33.3

36.3

27.8

28.4

25.5

21.9

35.3

30.9

26.7

30.1

30.0

23.4

21
Table 4. lk~mber of deaths matched at usual place of residence and net difference rates, deaths unmatched,

and proportion unmatched for 89 selected urban areas of 25,000 population or more by color: United States,

May-August 1960—Con.

[3msL!s re:ord used as a base for net difference rate and proportion rematched. Minus (-) sign indicates m.xe assignments by census than by NCHS. Includes only those areas

for which at least 50 nonwhite deaths were assigned according to either the census rscom or &eath recc+~

Area

Virginia:

Newport News --------

Nor folk -------------

Petersburg ----------

Portsmouth ----------

Richmond ------------

Wisconsin:

Milwaukee -----------

Deaths matched at usual residence

according to:

Census record

Whit e

108

377

1;:

432

1,205

1,750

~onwhite

Death record

White

109

383

1?:

440

1,260

1,766

Nonwhite

72

195

51

1:;

60

91

Net

difference rate

White

0.9

1.6

2.;

1.9

4.6

0.9

gonwhite

1.4

::!

1.3

1.7

-1.1

Unmatched

deaths

Nonwhite

31

81

;:

92

25

34

PIoportion

unmatched

White

22.3

22.1

18.8

22.2

16.4

28,0

15.7

Nonwhite

30.4

29.9

22.2

31.6

33.2

29.8

27.0

22
I

I

Table 5. Number of deaths matched at usual place of residence and net difference rates, by population-size group of area: United States, May-August 1960

[.ensus record used as base. Minus (-) sign indicates more assignments by census than by NCHS]

Population-size group of area

Total

All areas ------------------------------------------------

Total areas of 25,000 or more ----------------------------------

1,000,000 or more--------------------------------------------

500,000 to l,ooo,ooo-----------------------------------------

250,000 to 500,000-------------------------------------------

100,000 to 250,000-------------------------------------------

50,000 to loo,ooo--------------------------------------------

25,000 to 50,000---------------------------------------------

10 000 to 25 OOO-----------------------------------------------

2,300 to lo,boo------------------------------------------------

Rural----------------------------------------------------------

White

All areas ------------------------------------------------

Total areas of 25,000 or more ----------------------------------

1,000,000 or more --------------------------------------------

500,000 to l,ooo,ooo-----------------------------------------

250,000 to 500,000-------------------------------------------

100,000 to 250,000-------------------------------------------

50,000 to loo,ooo--------------------------------------------

25,000 to 50,000 ---------------------------------------------

10,000 to 25,000-----------------------------------------------

2,500 to 10,000------------------------------------------------

Rural----------------------------------------------------------

Nonwhite

All areas------------------------------------------------

Total areas of 25,000 or more ----------------------------------

1,000,000 or more --------------------------------------------

500,000 to l,ooo,ooo-----------------------------------------

250,000 to 500,000-------------------------------------------

100,000 to 250,000-------------------------------------------

50,000 to loo,ooo--------------------------------------------

25,000 to 50,000---------------------------------------------

10,000 to 25,000-----------------------------------------------

2,500 to lo,ooo------------------------------------------------

Rural----------------------------------------------------------

Deaths matched at usual

residence according to:

Census

record

388,754

189,363

46,317

27,760

25,671

27,203

30,768

31,644

36,159

41,510

121,722

344,495

163,749

39,567

22,529

21,255

23,423

28,003

28,972

33,294

38,142

109,310

41,111

24,084

6,401

5,026

:,;:;

2;509

2,415

2,645

2,995

11,387

Nom: For explanation of why white and nonwhite do not add to the

AppendIx.

Death

record

388,754

189,307

46,452

27,924

26,259

27,530

30,543

30,599

34,464

37,786

L27,197

347,247

41,486

24,335

6,492

5,024

4,233

3,628

2,561

2,397

2,607

2,903

11,641

Net

differente

rate

...

-0.0

0.3

0.6

2.3

-k ;

-3.3

-4.7

-;.:

.

0.8

M

1.6

M

-0.1

-2.7

-4.3

-8.6

5.7

0.9

1.0

-:::

2.2

1.0

-;:$

-1.4

-3.1

2.2

total, see Technical

23
Table 6. Number and percent distributionof deaths in the 1960 ComparisonStudy and the follwback survey, by population-sizegroup of area accordingto death record designations:United

States,May-August 1960

Population-sizegroup of area

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

1,000,000or more--------------------------------------------

500,000 to l,ooo,ooo -----------------------------------------

250,000 to 500,000 -------------------------------------------

100,000 to 250,000-------------------------------------------

50,000 to loo,ooo--------------------------------------------

25,000 to 50,000---------------------------------------------

10,000 to 25,000---------------------------------------------

2,500 to 10,000----------------------------------------------

All other----------------------------------------------------

L960 Comparison

Study

Wmber

501,410

59,390

35,800

33,830

34,600

37,991

38,000

43,425

47,434

L70,940

?ercent

listri-

)ution

100.0

11.8

7.1

6.7

6.9

7.6

7.6

8.7

9.5

34.1

Followback

survey

Number

9.475

1,134

717

651

653

708

718

825

843

3,226

Percent

distribution

100.0

12.0

7.6

6.9”

6.9

7.5

7.6

8.7

8.9

34,0

Table 7. Number and percent distributionof deaths matched in the 1960 ComparisonStudy and the

followbacksurvey, by population-sizegroup of area according to census record designations:

United States,May-August 1960

Population-sizegroup of area

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

1,000,000or more---------------------------------------------

500,000 to l,ooo,ooo-----------------------------------------

250,000 to 500,000-------------------------------------------

100,000 to 250,000-------------------------------------------

50,000 to loo,ooo--------------------------------------------

25,000 to 50,000---------------------------------------------

10,000 to 25,000---------------------------------------------

2,500 to 10,000-----------------------------------------------

25,000 or more1----------------------------------------------

All other------------------------------------------------.---

Wnnber

388,754

46,317

27,760

25,671

27,203

30,768

31,644

36,159

41,510

● .0

121,722

?ercent

listri-

)ution

100.0

11.9

7.1

6.6

7.0

7,9

8.1

9.3

10.7

.*,

31.3

Followback

survey

Number

7,393 —

889

539

495

474

564

292

700

761

302

2,377

‘ercent

listriwtion

100.0

12.0

7.3

6.7

6.4

7.6

3,9

9.5

10.3

.4,1

32.2

lprocessingerrors by census category representsareas of 25s000 Populationor ‘re* but size

of area could not be further defined.

24
Table 8. Number and percent distribution of unmatched deaths, for which there were response and no response

in the followback survey, and unn=tched deathsin the 1960 COmParisOn Study, by Population-size grOuP Of area

accordin~ to death record designations: United States, May-August 1960

Unmatched deaths

in 1’360 Comparison

Study

I

Followback survey

No response

Population-size group of area

I

Percent

distribut ion

100.0

11.5

7.0

::;

6.6

6.6

8.0

3;::

Number

Percent

distribution

Percent

3istribution

Number Number

1

112,656

12,938

7,876

7,571

7,070

7,448

7,401

8,961

9,648

43,743

Total ------------------------------------------- 221 100.0

1,000,000 or more -------------------------------------

500,000 to 1,000,000 ----------------------------------

250,000 to 500,000 ------------------------------------

100,000 to 250,000 ------------------------------------

50,000 to 100,000 -------------------------------------

25,000 to 50,000 --------------------------------------

10,000 to 25,000 --------------------------------------

2,500 to 10,000 ---------------------------------------

All other ---------------------------------------------

189

127

121

140

126

127

10.2

6.8

6.5

::2

6.8

30

34

16

11

24

17

18

62

13.6

15.4

7.2

1:::

::;

2;:;

155

164

712

8.3

3%:

I

Table 9. Net difference rates and proportion of death records unmatched for urban and rural areas in metroI politan and nonmetropolitan counties, by cOlOr and sex: United States, Mey-Au@st 1960

rceath rscordused as a bass. Minus (-) sign mdrcetes more ass,gnrnents by census than by NCHS. FOr definition of areas. see Tachnical Appendix]

Proportion of

deaths

un -

natched

21.5

19.7

22.9

34.6

35.4

33.8

48.1

33.2

31.8

34.1

31.5

31.0

29.4

45.1

32.4

28.8

34.9

Proportion of

~eaths

unmatched

Net

difference

rate

Net

difference

rate

Area, color, and sex Area, color, and sex

Total ------------------------ 21.1 White famale-Con.

Nonmetropolitan cnunties -----

Urban ----------------------------

Rural ----------------------------

Nonwhite male --------------

Metropolitan counties --------

Urban ----------------------------

Rural ----------------------------

Nonmetropolitan counties -----

Urban ----------------------------

Rural ----------------------------

Nonwhite famale ------------

Metropolitan counties --------

Urban ----------------------------

Rural ----------------------------

Nonmetropolitan counties -----

Urban ----------------------------

Rural ----------------------------

. . .

0.5

2,4

-0.9

...

-0.7

-2.2

15.0

1.1

0.3

2.0

...

-0.3

-1.2

10.0

0.4

-0.2

1.0

20.8

19.4

27.4

21.6

Metropolitan countiea ---------- -0.3

-%2

0.5

Urban ------------------------------

Rural ------------------------------

Nonmetropolitan counties -------

-i;

. . .

-0.3

-%:

0.5

-::;

...

-0.3

0.6

-5.0

20.0

22.7

21.0

20.8

19.2

27.4

21.2

19.8

22.0

20.4

19.8

18.0

27.8

Urban ------------------------------

Rural ------------------------------

White male----------------r--

Metropolitan counties ----------

Urban ------------------------------

Rural ------------------------------

Nonmetropolitan countiea -------

Urban ------------------------------

Rural ------------------------------

White female -----------------

Metropolitan counties ----------

Urban ------------------------------

Rural ------------------------------

NOTE : Figures with color i;dior sex not stated are included in the total, but are not shown separately.

25
Table 10. Number of deaths matched at usual place of residence and not at usual place of residence, according to census record and death record for urban and rural areas in metropolitan

and nonmetropolitan counties, by color and sex: United States, May-August 1960

[For definition of areas, see Techneal Appsntiix]

Area according to census record Total

388,754

Area according to death record

Metropolitan county Nonmetropolitan county

Tota1

241,075

Urban IRural Total Urban Rura1

T!01,366 39,709

USUAL PLACE OF RESIDENCE

Total

All counties --------------- 147,679 60,191

118

87,488

All metropolitan counties---- 241,030 195

205,660

35,370

147,724

240,717

205,469

35,248

358

--t-

!f)l,154 39,563

L97,373 8,096

3,781 31,467

313

191

122

147,366

100

18

60,073

1::

87,293

Urban ----------------------------

Rural ----------------------------

All nonmetropolitan counties- 212 I 146

61,372

86,352

190,119

120

238

115,442

1!2 1;;

94,749 20,693

61,252

86,114

74,677

175

100

75

74,502

57,565

2,508

29,139

60

56

4

29,079

3,687

83,606

45,538

115

44

71

45,423

Urban----------------------------

Rural ----------------------------

White

Male -----------------------

All metropolitan counties---- 115,438 115,263 94,624 ]20,639

96,733

18,530

179

1;;

87,880

87,761

92,632 4,101

1,992 16,538

Urban----------------------------

Rural----------------------------

96,833

18,605

74,681

29,867

44,814

138,013

87,854

---t125 54

47

78 H

All nonmetropolitan couhties29,810

44,692

50,133

27,870

1,209

21,899

1,940

43,483

28,234

Urban ----------------------------

Rural----------------------------

Female --------------------- 73,672 14,208

73,614 14,147 41

30

11

21,858

52

32

20

28,182

All metropolitan counties---- 93

62

31

50,040

75,443

12,411

50,159

72,430 2,951

1,184 11,196

58 61

Urban ----------------------------

Rural ----------------------------

75,381

12,380

All nonmetropolitan counties- 119

28

30 H

22,336

27,704

7,773

1,265

26,917

4,775

Urban ----------------------------

Rural----------------------------

22,380

27,779

19,886

44

75

12,113

21,071

787

2,998

Nonwhite

Male -----------------------

All metropolitan counties---- 12,108 12,089 19 6 13

11,141

967

7,778

+

10,924 205

137 823

15 9

2

; 7

12

7

7,754

5

1

2,992

:

4,762

Urban----------------------------

Rural ----------------------------

All nonmetropolitan counties11,129

960

24

136

4,626

Urban --------------------------- -

Rural ----------------------------

2,996

4,782

2,987

4,767

2,851

141

26
Table 10. Number of deaths matched at usual place of residenceand not at usual place of residence, accordingto census record and death record for urban and rural areas in metropolitan

and nonmetropolitancounties,by color and sex: United States,May-August 1960-Con.

,r definition of areas, see Tectmical Appendix]

Area according to death record

Area according to census record Total

16,814

Metropolitancounty Nonmetropolitancounty

Rural

854

Jrban

2,703

Total

1.0,520

Urban

9,666

Total

6,294

Rura1

3,591

USUAL PLACE OF RESIDENCE-Con.

Nonwhite-Con.

Female---------------------

All metropolitancounties---- 10,523 10,507 9,660

9,566

94

6

847 16 6 10

Urban----------------------------

Rural----------------------------

All nometropolitan cwnties9,732

791

6,291

.—

2,703

3,588

31,538

9,722

785

13

156

691

7

10

6

6,278

4

2

2,697

:

3,581

Urban----------------------------

Rural----------------------------

4

9

19,992

;

16,936

:

3,056

2,699

3,579

11,546

2,591

106

5,038

108

3,473

6,508

NOTAT USUAL PIACE OF RESIDENCE

Total

All counties---------------

All metropolitancounties---- 19,210 17,041 14,445 2,596 2,169

1,482

687

9,377

4,090

5,287

5,125

1,029

932

632

300

4,106

2,170

1,936

2,183

1,237

Urban----------------------------

Rural----------------------------

13,368

5,842

12,328

5,165

7,163

13,450

7,920

11,886

5,155

2,951

1,075

1,876

8,325

6,891

10,581

3,864

2,491

890

1,601

7,030

5,807

1,305

1,291

46o

185

275

1,295

1,084

850

387

5,271

1,920

3,351

2,942

All nonmetropolitancountiesUrban----------------------------

Rural----------------------------

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

Male-----------------------

All metropolitancounties----

Urban----------------------------

Rural----------------------------

424

309

115

1,759

605

5,274

2,646

5,530

4,550

2,341

1,434

4,049

1,758

1,223

501

583

211

724

305

4,096

415

190

All nonmetropolitancounties- 2,337

Urban----------------------------

Rural----------------------------

2,223

3,307

15,493

543

891

9,902

437

786

8,322

106

105

1,580

1,680

2,416

5,591

849

910

2,552

831

1,506

3,039

515

Female---------------------

All metropolitancounties---- 9,634 8,689 7,323 1,366 945 430

Urban................-----------.

Rural----------------------------

All nonmetropolitancounties7,049

2,585

5,859

6,372

2,317

1,213

5,632

1,691

999

740

626

214

677

268

4,646

291

139

2,122

386

129

2,524

1,002

1,522

27

Urban------------------------.---

Rural----------------------------

2,662

3,197

439

774

373

626

2,223

2,423

1,221

901
Table 10. Number of deaths matched at usual place of residence and not at usual place of residence, according to census record and death record for urban and rural areas in metropolitan

and nonmetropoli.tan counties, by color and sex: Untted States, May-August 1960-Con.

~ordefiniticm of areas, see Technical Appendix]

Area according to death record

Area according to census record Total Metropolitan county Nonmstropolitan county

rTotal

NOT AT USUAL PLACE OF

RESIDENCE-Con.

Nonwhite

Male -----------------------

All metropolitan counties----

Urban----------------------------

Rural ----------------------------

---------------------------Ala nonmetropolitan countiesUrban ----------------------------

Rural----------------------------

Female ---------------------

All metropolitan counties----

Urban ----------------------------

Rural----------------------------

All nonmetropolitan countiesUrban----------------------------

Rural----------------------------

}

1,273

800

467

333

F

473

139

334

I 903

I

379

206

t318

108

210

I

886

696

428

268

190

1;;

617

518

350

168

99

27

72

Urban Rura 1 Tota 1

793 93 387

625 71 104

405

220

39

65

+-l- ;::20 29

22 38

89 10 219

25 2

64 8 1%

Jrban

I

Rura 1

I148 239

39 I 65

+

109 174

42

67 &

1151 171

26 I 41

12 17

14 24

89 ! 130

48 33

41 97

NOTE : Figures with color and/or sex not stated are included in the total but are not shown

separately.

28
Table 11. Comparisonof net difference rates and proportionunmatched, based on deaths matched

at usual place of residencefor 25 selected standardmetropolitanstatisticalareas (SMSA’S)

and urban area componentsof those SMSA’S: United States,May-August 1960

[Urban area components are only those of 25,000 pqmlstiorr or more. For further definition of areas, see Technicsl Appendix]

Area

Albuquerque,N. Mex----------------------------------------------------

Albuquerque,N. Mex--------------------------------------------------

Augusta, Ga.-S.C-------------------------------------------------------

Augusta, Ga----------------------------------------------------------

Billings,Mont---------------------------------------------------------

Billings,Mont-------------------------------------------------------

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

ArlingtonHeights, Ill-----------------------------------------------

Aurora, Ill----------------------------------------------------------

Berwyn, Ill----------------------------------------------------------

Calumet City, Ill----------------------------------------------------

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

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

Cicero, Ill----------------------------------------------------------

Des Plaines, Ill-----------------------------------------------------

Elgin, Ill-----------------------------------------------------------

Elmhurst, Ill--------------------------------------------------------

Evanston, Ill--------------------------------------------------------

Harvey, Ill----------------------------------------------------------

Highland Park, Ill---------------------------------------------------

Joliet, Ill----------------------------------------------------------

Maywood, Ill---------------------------------------------------------

Oak Lawn, Ill--------------------------------------------------------

Oak Park, Ill--------------------------------------------------------

Park Forest, Ill-----------------------------------------------------

Park Ridge, Ill------------------------------------------------------

Skokie, Ill----------------------------------------------------------

Waukegan, Ill--------------------------------------------------------

Wilmette, Ill--------------------------------------------------------

Davenport-RockIsland-Moline,Iowa-Ill---------------------------------

Davenport,Iowa------------------------------------------------------

Moline, Ill----------------------------------------------------------

Rock Island, Ill-----------------------------------------------------

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

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

Fort Wayne, Ind--------------------------------------------------------

Fort Wayne, Ind------------------------------------------------------

Jersey City, N.J-------------------------------------------------------

Btjyonne,N.J---------------------------------------------------------

Hoboken, NrJ---------------------------------------------------------

Jersey City, N.J-----------------------------------------------------

Kearny, N.J----------------------------------------------------------

North Bergen, N.J----------------------------------------------------

Union City, N.J------------------------------------------------------

West New York, N.J---------------------------------------------------

Laredo, Tex------------------------------------------------------------

Laredo, Tex----------------------------------------------------------

Lorain-Elyria,Ohio-----------------------------------------------------

Elyria, Ohio---------------------------------------------------------

Lorain, Ohio---------------------------------------------------------

Net

difference

ratel

-0.3

6.0

0.3

8.2

8.;

0.2

4.2

8.3

1.1

$:;

-;:;

15.8

-3.1

4.7

-0.5

-::;

91.4

0.6

-::;

5.6

-1.4

-3.2

-::;

3.3

1..7

0.2

1.5

O*2

-0.;

-0.8

-0.9

-:::

0.8

-0,3

-3.0

-0.8

Proportion

unmatched

Census

record

base

31.4

30.6

36.1

32.2

31.1

29.3

21.3

32.4

20.0

2?::

22.8

16.0

3::;

17.7

14.7

10.9

,25.6

15.1

13.2

13.7

18.6

20.4

!::

10.7

19.1

4.3

19.1

20.3

23.9

9.6

28.9

28.7

12.5

12.5

17.9

20●0

25.6

18.9

11.9

1;.;

20:7

25.3

25.7

25.0

17.3

19.6

Death

record

base

31.4

29.3

36.1

30.5

31.1

27.7

21.3

31.5

18.8

2.7

20.7

22.8

1;.;

30:2

18.2

14.1

11.0

25.6

;;.;

14:8

10.7

2;.;

.

1:::

18.3

4.3

19.4

20.8

22.8

9.7

28.2

28.3

12.5

12.3

17.9

20.0

25.7

19.1

12.0

12.3

2:::

25.2

25.7

25.1

17.7

19.7

29
Table 11. Comparison of net difference rates and proportion unmatched, based on deaths matched

at usual place of residence for 25 selected standard metropolitan statistical areas (SMSA’S)

and urban area components of those SMSA’S: United States, May-August 1960-Con.

[Urban area components are only those of 25,000 population or more. For fmther definition of areas, sae Technical Appendix]

Area

Milwaukee, Wis---------------------------------------------------------

Milwaukee, Wis-------------------------------------------------------

Waukesha, Wis--------------------------------------------------------

Wawatosa, Wis--------------------------------------------------------

West Allis, Wis------------------------------------------------------

Muncie, Ind------------------------------------------------------------

Muncie, Ind----------------------------------------------------------

Nashville, Term --------------------------------------------------------

Nashville, Term------------------------------------------------------

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

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

Omaha, Nebr.-Iowa -------------------------.----------------------------

Council Bluffs, Iowa-------------------------------------------------

Omaha, Nebr----------------------------------------------------------

Racing, Wis------------------------------------------------------------

Racine, Wis----------------------------------------------------------

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

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

Salt Lake City, Utah---------------------------------------------------

Salt Lake City, Utah-------------------------------------------------

Shreveport, La---------------------------------------------------------

Bossier City, La-----------------------------------------------------

Shreveport, La-------------------------------------------------------

Steubenville-Weirton, Ohio-W.Va----------------------------------------

Steubenville, Ohio---------------------------------------------------

Weirton, W.Va .-------------------------------------------------------

Tacoma, Wash -----------------------------------------------------------

Tacoma, Wash ---------------------------------------------------------

Tuscaloosa, Ala--------------------------------------------------------

Tuscaloosa, Ala------------------------------------------------------

Wichita Falls, Tex-------------------------------.---------------.-----

Wichita Falls, Tex---------------------------------------------------

Wilkes-Barre--Hazleton, Pa---------------------------------------------

Hazelton, Pa---------------------------------------------------------

Wilkes-Barre, Pa-----------------------------------------------------

Youngstown-Warren, Ohio------------------------------------------------

Warren, Ohio---------------------------------------------------------

Youngstown, Ohio-----------------------------------------------------

Net

difference

ratel

0.1

-;::

6.3

5.7

13.3

-0.3

3.0

1.;

2.1

4.i

0.;

-;.;

.

3.;

-0.4

0.;

0.8

2.5

-0.3

1.2

13.;

1.9

2.7

-0.1

u

Proportion

unmatched

:ensus

record

base

16.6

;:.;

13:0

7.6

;;.;

.

25.5

23.3

29.9

33.1

20.1

2:::

15.4

12.0

18.3

14.2

23.7

20.9

31.1

28.9

27.6

24.8

19.9

32.0

28.4

17.9

48.1

46.5

24.0

20.0

15.1

13.7

21.3

19.9

18.0

13.5

Death

record

base

16.6

16.2

24.7

13.8

7.3

25.2

17.6

25.5

22.8

29.9

32.8

19.8

2?:!

15.4

12.0

18.3

13.9

23.7

20.3

:;.;

27:4

24.7

19.9

31.4

28.5

17.7

48.1

43.4

;;.:

.

15.1

13.7

21.3

19.9

17.2

13.4

lCensus record used as base. Minus (-) sign indicates more assignments by census than by NCHS.

30
Table 12. Number of matched deaths reporting same standardmetropolitanstatisticalarea (SMSA)

on both census and death records, on census record only, and on death record only; and

differencerates for total matched, matched at usual place of residence,and not at usual place

net

of residence:United States,May-August 1960

[Census record used as a base. Minus (-) sign indicates more assigmnents by census thm by NLHS. For definition of areas, see Technical Appendix]

Area

Total

All areas----------------------------------------------

Total =SA's ---------------------------------------------

Abi.lene,Tex-------------------------------------------------

Akron, Ohio--------------------------------------------------

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

Albany-Schenectady-Troy,N.Y---------------------------------

Albuquerque,N.Mex-------------------------------------------

Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton,Pa.-N.J--------------------------

Altoona, Pa--------------------------------------------------

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

Ann Arbor, Mich----------------------------------------------

Asheville,N.C-----------------------------------------------

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

Atlantic City, N.J-------------------------------------------

Augusta, Ga.-S.C---------------------------------------------

Austin, Tex--------------------------------------------------

Bakersfield,Calif-------------------------------------------

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

Baton Rouge, La----------------------------------------------

Bay City, Mich-----------------------------------------------

Beaumont-PortArthur, Tax------------------------------------

Billings,Mont-----------------------------------------------

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

Birmingham,Ala----------------------------------------------

Boston-tiwell-Lawrence,Massl--------------------------------

Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk,Connl---------------------------

Brockton,Masst----------------------------------------------

Brownsville-Harlingen-SanBenito, Tax------------------------

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

Canton, Ohio-------------------------------------------------

Cedar Rapids, Iowa-------------------------------------------

Champaign-Urbana,Ill----------------------------------------

Charleston,S.C----------------------------------------------

Charleston,W.Va---------------------------------------------

Charlotte,N.C-----------------------------------------------

Chattanooga,Term.-Ga----------------------------------------

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

Cincinnati,Ohio-Ky--------.---------------------------------

Cleveland,Ohio----------------------------------------------

Colorado Springs, Colo---------------------------------------

Columbia, S.C------------------------------------------------

Columbus, @.-Ala --------------------------------------------

Columbus,Ohio-----------------------------------------------

Corpus Christi, Tex--------------------------------- ----------

Dallas, Tex--------------------------------------------------

Davenport-RockIsland-Moline,Iowa-Ill-----------------------

Dayton, Ohio-------------------------------------------------

Number reporting

Same

b%h

412,197

255,454

179

1,042

126

1,833

364

1,398

404

210

288

264

1,869

517

350

329

467

3,855

356

224

546

134

522

1,200

8,713

1,532

692

Z23

3,468

764

241

192

295

436

405

512

15,504

2,694

4,406

245

432

309

1,490

312

1,880

633

1,458

record

only

8,095

4,786

2:

19

3

14

21

15

;;

24

1:

55

64

:

8

33

8

;:

20

5

z

i

6

:

9:

32

12

13

124

6

35

4;

32

37

Death

record

only

8,095

5,613

4:

1

76

3

16

4

;

6

62

:;

6

16

55

12

1:

1

14

37

129

;:

5;

9

1:

12

;

3%

29

94

19

1;

24

11

54

10

10

Net

differente

rate

.0.

0.3

2.7

2.1

0.8

3.1

-::;

-3.6

-17.0

-5.6

2.0

i:;

-12.8

3.4

-0.2

i::

1.8

0.7

-3,4

2.4

0.7

0.4

1.1

-:::

-4.1

1.2

5.7

2.0

-:::

0.8

1.8

-0.1

1.9

-2;::

4.1

-0.7

1.3

0.6

-3.3

-1.8

31
Table 12. Number of matched deaths reporting same standard metropolitan statistical area (SMSA)

on both census and death records, on census record only , and on death record only; and net

difference rates for total matched, matched at usual place of residence, and not at usual place

of residence: United States, May-August 1960—Con.

&en.s.s record used as a baw. Minus (-) sign indicatesmm swig.rnents by census than by NCHS. For definition of areas, see Techn!cal Appendix]

Area

Decatur, Ill-------------------------------------------------

Denver, Colo-------------------------------------------------

Des Moines, Iowa---------------------------------------------

Detroit, Mich ------------------------------------------------

Dubuque, Iwa------------------------------------------------

Duluth-Superior, Minn.-Wis -----------------------------------

Durham, N.C--------------------------------------------------

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

Erie, Pa--------------- --------------------------------------

Eugene, Oreg-------------------------------------------------

Evansville, Ind.-Ky------------------------------------------

Fall River-New Bedford, MassI --------------------------------

Fargo-Moorhead, N.Dak. -Minn----------------------------------

Flint, Mich --------------------------------------------------

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood, Fla-------------------------------

Fort Smith, Ark ----------------------------------------------

Fort Wayne, Ind----------------------------------------------

Fort Worth, Tex----------------------------------------------

Fresno, Calif------------------------------------------------

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

Galveston-Texas City, Tax------------------------------------

Gary-Hammond-East Chicago, .Ind-------------------------------

Grand Rapids, Mich -------------------------------------------

Great Falls, Mont ---------------------------------------.--.-

Green Bay, Wis-----------------------------------------------

Greensboro-High Point, N.C-----------------------------------

Greenville, S.C----------------------------------------------

Hamilton-Middletown, Ohio ------------------------------------

Harrisburg,Pa--------------------------- --------------------

Hartford-NewBritain-Bristol,Connl--------------------------

Honolulu, &waii ---------------------------------------------

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

Huntington-Ashland, W.Va. -Ky.-Ohio---------------------------

Huntsville, Ala----------------------------------------------

Indianapolis, Ind--------------------------------------------

Jackson, Mich ------------------------------------------------

Jackson, Miss ------------------------------------------------

Jacksonville, Fla--------------------------------------------

Jersey City, N.J---------------------------------------------

Johnstown, Pa------------------------------------------------

Kalamazoo, Mich ----------------------------------------------

Kansas City, Mo. -Kans----------------------------------------

Kenosha, Wis -------------------------------------------------

Knoxville, Term ----------------------------------------------

Lake Charles, L“a---------------------------------------------

Lancaster,Pa------------------------------------------------

Lansing,Mich ------------------------------------------------

Laredo, Tex--------------------------------------------------

Las Vegas, Nev-------------------------------'----------------

Lawton, Okla -------------------------------------------------

Number reporting

Same

b%h

237

1,942

622

7,848

186

741

222

439

649

238

440

998

170

720

702

;;;

1,025

715

150

278

1,166

808

180

253

392

269

400

885

1,551

602

1,934

529

144

1,673

345

346

839

1,865

813

322

2,330

192

622

185

656

568

118

199

99

record

only

2;

22

23

16

1

;

19

13

7

2:

2;

1:

10

3

3;

6

8

11

3;

16

1:

23

1:

2;

13

2?

29

26

3:

64

12

1

Death

record

only

Net

3ifference

rate

-

2.2

2.6

-:::

:::

.

::!

-3.7

::;

-;:;

-1.5

0.4

1.3

-:::

2:;

-1.7

-1,6

1.5

-0.5

4.5

-i:?

1.6

-:.;

-1:4

-1.3

1,8

-::;

1.1

-%{

-7.7

2.9

-:::

3.8

-5.6

0.7

::;

5.0

32
Table 12. Number of matched deaths reporting same standard metropolitan statistical area (SMSA)

on both census and death records, on census record only, and on death record only;

difference ratea for total matched, matched at usual place of residence, and not at usual place

and net

of residence: United States, May-August 1960-Con.

[Oms.mrecord used as a base, Minus (-) sign indicates more assignments by census than by NO-R. For definition of areas, sw Technical Appsndix]

Area

Lexington, Ky------------------------------------------------

Lima, Ohio ---------------------------------------------------

Lincoln, Nebr------------------------------------------------

Little Rock-North Little Rock, Ark---------------------------

Lorain-Elyria, Ohio ------------------------------------------

Los Angeles-Long Beach, Calif --------------------------------

Louisville, Ky. -Ind------------------------------------------

Lubbock, tiX-------------------------------------------------

Lynchburg, Va------------------------------------------------

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

Madison, Wis-------------------------------------------------

Manchester, N.H1------------------------------,---------------

Memphis, Term ------------------------------------------------

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

Midland, Tex-------------------------------------------------

Milwaukee, Wis-----------------------------------------------

Minneapolis-St. Paul, Mien -----------------------------------

Mobile, Ala--------------------------------------------------

Monroe, b---------------------------------------------------

Montgomery, Ala----------------------------------------------

Muncie, Ind--------------------------------------------------

Muskegon-Muskegon Heights, Mica ------------------------------

Nashville, Term ----------------------------------------------

Newark, N.J--------------------------------------------------

New Haven-Waterbury, Connl -----------------------------------

New Orleans, La----------------------------------------------

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

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

Norfolk-Portsmouth, Van--------------------------------------

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

Ogden, Utah--------------------------------------------------

Oklahoma City, Okla ------------------------------------------

Omaha, Nebr. -Iowa--------------------------------------------

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

Paterson-Clifton-Passaic, N.J--------------------------------

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

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

Philadelphia, Pa. -N.J----------------------------------------

Phoenix, Ariz ------------------------------------------------

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

Pittsfield, Mass~--------------------------------------------

Portland, Winel ---------------------------------------------

Portland, Oreg.-Wash -----------------------------------------

Providence, R.I1---------------------------------------------

Provo-Orem, Utah ---------------------------------------------

Pueblo, Colo-------------------------------------------------

Racine, Wis--------------------------------------------------

Raleigh, N.C-------------------------------------------------

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

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

Number reporting

Same

b=h

292

228

355

410

394

14,583

1,643

179

215

336

426

450

1,297

1,984

61

2,762

3,207

520

195

280

242

328

819

4,163

1,672

2,169

366

28,001

974

101

179

915

968

555

2,619

306

644

10,931

994

6,061

418

465

2,130

2,012

180

245

320

267

852

158

Census

record

only

40

14

21

32

17

90

37

2i

16

23

2;

3

23

65

35

3

16

i

1::

18

24

34

93

3

5;

29

42

4

52

:;

57

6

11

29

21

31

108

::

29

21

Death

record

only

Net

differente

rate

-10.2

-:::

-6.3

-2.4

-H

13.4

-4.-2

-1.4

-2.0

-H

0.7

9.8

::2

-2.5

-?::

H

-5.2

-0.0

2.5

-::;

0.9

3.2

2.0

-::;

w

2.2

-:::

-:::

-0.0

0.9

2.5

;:!

-14.7

-30.3

-1.5

-8.8

-2.7

-11.2

33
Table 12. Number of matched deaths reporting same standard metropolitan statistical area (SMSA)

on both census and death records, on census record only, and on death record only; and net

difference rates for total matched, matched at usual place of residence, and not at usual place

of residence: United States, May-August, 1960-Con.

[Census recordused ass base. Minus (-) sign indicates more asaignme”ts by census than by NCHS. For definition of areas, see Technical Appendix]

Area

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

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

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

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

Sacramento, Calif--------------------------------------------

Saginaw, Mich ------------------------------------------------

St. Joseph, Mo-----------------------------------------------

St. Louis, Mo.-Ill -------------------------------------------

Salt Lake City, Utah -----------------------------------------

San Angelo, Tex----------------------------------------------

San Antonio, Tex---------------------------------------------

San Bernardino-Riverside-Ontario, Calif----------------------

San Diego, Calif---------------------------------------------

San Francisco-Oakland, Calif---------------------------------

San Jose, Calif--------------------------- -------------------

Santa Barbara, Calif-----------------------------------------

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

Scranton, Pa-------------------------------------------------

Seattle, Wash .........---------------------------------------

Shreveport, La -----------------------------------------------

Sioux City, Iowa---------------------------------------------

Sioux Falls, S.Dak-------------------------------------------

South Bend, Ind----------------------------------------------

Spokane, Wash ------------------------------------------------

Springfield, T.ll---------------------------------------------

Springfield, MO----------------------------------------------

Springfield, Ohio--------------------------------------------

Springfield-Holyoke, Massl -----------------------------------

Steubenville-Weirton, Ohio-W.Va ------------------------------

Stockton, Calif----------------------------------------------

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

Tacoma, Wash ----.--------------------------------------------

Tampa-St. Petersburg, Fla------------------------------------

Terre Haute, Ind---------------------------------------------

Texarkana, Tex. -Ark------------------------------------------

Toledo, Ohio-------------------------------------------------

Topeka, Kans -----------.-----------.-------------------------

Trenton, N.J-------------------------------------------------

Tucson, Ariz -------------------------------------------------

Tulsa, Okla --------------------------------------------------

Tuscaloosa, Ala----------------------------------------------

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

Utica-Rome, N.Y----------------------------------------------

Waco, Tex----------------------------------------------------

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

Waterloo, Iwa-----------------------------------------------

West Palm Beach, Fla-----------------------------------------

Wheeling, W.Va. -Ohio-----------------------------------------

Wichita, Kans ------------------------------------------------

Wichita Falls, Tex-------------------------------------------

Number reporting

Same

b%h

830

316

1,631

467

918

436

263

4,881

652

114

1,153

1,570

1,694

6,234

1,080

331

399

835

2,384

562

299

174

537

701

440

290

322

l,:;!

528

1,450

658

2,440

329

161

1,141

300

664

445

840

143

143

872

322

3,612

264

563

500

602

215

Census

record

only

;;

33

4

7

3

%

15

10

64

58

26

65

83

1

1;

19

8

5

4;

1:

33

3;

20

:!

3

23

29

27

12

10

87

1;;

22

65

:

4

5;

)eath

?ecord

only

34

17

33

%

11

4;

20

13

12

37

2%

7

10

13

i:

13

1:

15

24

6

2;

19

13

63

3;

1:

24

1:

3;

:

8

10

86

5

11

57

16

7

Net

lifference

rate

-::;

1.;

5.3

-k:

M

2.4

-4.3

-1.3

0.4

-2::

2.7

3,0

1.3

-;:;

2.6

::;

-;.;

.

-0.3

-3.2

-0.8

-u

-;:;

-0.1

::;

-H

-1.7

-1.8

3.2

-37.4

-13.3

-11● 5

-3.5

0,6

-1.1

1?)::

-1;:2

34
Table 12. Number of watched deaths reporting

on both census

same standardmetropolitanstatisticalarea (.91sA)

and death records, on census record only, and on death record only;

differencerates for total matched, matched at usual place of residence,and not at usual place

and net

of residence:United States,May-August1960-Con.

[Censusrf!ccrd used as a base, Minus (-) sign indicates more assignments by census tl,~n by NW:. For definition of areas, see Technical Appmdix]

Area

Wilkes-Barre-Hazleton,Pa----------------------------------”-

Wilmington,Del.-N.J-----------------------------------------

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

Worcester,Wssl ---------------------------------------------

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

Youngstown-Warren,Ohio--------------------------------------

All other

All

Total.

areas----------------------------------------------

Usual place of residence

areas----------------------------------------------

mM's ---------------------------------------------

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

Akron, Ohio--------------------------------------------------

Albany, @---------------------------------------------------

Albany-Schenectady-Troy,N.Y---------------------------------

Albuquerque,N.Mex-------------------------------------------

Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton,Pa.-N.J--------------------------

Altoona, Pa--------------------------------------------------

tirillo, Tex----------------------------------------------.,-

AnnArbor, Mich.......---------------------------------------

Asheville,N.C-----------------------------------------------

Atlanta, @--------------------------------------------------

Atlantic City, N.J-------------------------------------------

Augusta, Ga.-S.C---------------------------------------------

Austin, Tex--------------------------------------------------

Bakersfield,Calif--------------------------- ----------------

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

Baton Rouge, La----------------------------------------------

Bay City, Mich-----------------------------------------------

Beaumont-PortArthur, Tax------------------------------------

Billings,Mont-----------------------------------------------

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

Birmingham,Ala----------------------------------------------

Boston-Lowell-Lawrence,Massl--------------------------------

Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk,Connl---------------------------

Brockton,Massl----------------------------------------------

Brownsville-Harlingen-SanBenito, Tax------------------------

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

Canton, Ohio-------------------------------------------------

Cedar Rapids, Iowa--------------------------- ----------------

Champaign-Urbana,Ill----------------------------------------

Charleston,S.C----------------------------------------------

Charleston,W.Va........-----------.......--------------------

Charlotte,N.C--------------------------- --------------------

Chattanooga,Term.-Ga----------------------------------------

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

Number reporting

Same

b~h

1,;;;

325

1,652

545

1,116

156,743

387,763

240,397

167

1,010

124

1,;;:

1,330

378

208

273

257

1,802

462

327

301

460

3,581

350

209

538

133

494

1,175

7,844

1,456

619

215

3,230

714

227

180

289

422

394

501

14,683

Census

record

only

H

9;

8

3,30;

991

633

i

.

i

6

2

i

1

6

1

i

2

i

6

2

26

2

7

14

2

i

!

2

1;

Death

record

only

Net

differente

rate

0.1

0.9

-3.;

4.5

-w

...

0.0

-0.;

0.8

-% :

-0.4

-!:2

-0.2

-0.2

-;:;

●

-0.1

-;:2

1.1

-0.6

-0.4

O*(I

0.;

-0.2

0.4

0.4

-1.7

-0.;

::$

35
Table 12. Number of matched deaths reporting same standard metropolitan statistical area (SMSA)

on both census and death records, on census record only, and on > .th record only; and net

difference rates for total matched, matched at usual place of residence, and not at usual place

of residence: United States, May-August 1960-Con.

~%sus record useu as a base. kinus (-) sign indicates more z!ss.ignnmts by census thrm by NCHS. For definition of WIX+S,see Technical Appendix]

Area

Cincinnati, Ohio-Ky ------------------------------------------

Cleveland, Ohio----------------------------------------------

Colorado Springs, Colo---------------------------------------

Columbia, S.C------------------------------------------------

Columbus, Ga.-Ala--------------------------------------------

Columbus, Ohio-----------------------------------------------

Corpus Christi, Tex------------------------------------------

Dallas, Tex--------------------------------------------------

Davenport-Rock Island-Moline, Iowa-Ill-----------------------

Dayton, Ohio -------------------------------------------------

Decatur, Ill-------------------------------------------------

Denver, Colo -------------------------------------------------

Des Moines, Iowa---------------------------------------------

Detroit, Mich ------------------------------------------------

Dubuque, Iowa------------------------------------------------

Duluth-Superior, Minn.-Wis -----------------------------------

Durham, N.C--------------------------------------------------

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

Erie, Pa-----------------------------------------------------

Eugene, Oreg -------------------------------------------------

Evansville, Ind.-Ky------------------------------------------

Fall River-New Bedford, MassI --------------------------------

Fargo-Moorhead, N.Dak. -Minn----------------------------------

Flint, Mich --------------------------------------------------

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood, Fla-------------------------------

Fort Smith, Ark----------------------------------------------

Fort Wayne, Ind----------------------------------------------

Fort Worth, Tex----------------------------------------------

Fresno, Calif------------------------------------------------

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

Galveston-Texas City, Tax------------------------------------

Gary-Hammond-East Chicago, Ind-------------------------------

Grand Rapids, Mich -------------------------------------------

Great Falls, Mont --------------------------------------------

Green Bay, Wis-----------------------------------------------

Greensboro-High Point, N.C-----------------------------------

Greenville, S.C----------------------------------------------

Hamilton-Middletown, Ohio ------------------------------------

Harrisburg, Pa-----------------------------------------------

Hartford-New Britain-Bristol, Connl--------------------------

Honolulu, &waii ---------------------------------------------

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

Huntington-Ashland, W.Va.-Ky.-Ohio ---------------------------

Huntsville, Ala----------------------------------------------

Indianapolis, Ind--------------------------------------------

Jackson, Mich ------------------------------------------------

Jackson, Miss ------------------------------------------------

Jacksonville, Fla--------------------------------------------

Jersey City, N.J---------------------------------------------

Johnstown, Pa------------------------------------------------

Number reporting

Same

b%h

2,438

4,241

245

398

305

1,377

312

1,822

612

1,351

229

1,863

577

7,451

171

718

222

427

624

231

429

896

165

711

668

127

508

1,000

697

148

277

1,133

749

159

253

371

250

366

848

1,487

577

1,896

515

144

1,539

331

335

784

1,769

773

Census

record

only

)eath

record

only

12

;

1

;

i

1

:

11

2

3

16

;

i

1

i

1

3

2

3

2

10

3

i

1

5

11

2

2

2

5

22

2

1

2

;

Net

3ifference

rate

.

-0.2

0.2

-1.;

0.7

-0.3

-0.6

-0.9

-1.4

-:::

-0.2

0.1

1.2

-0.7

3,i

0.;

0.;

-0.;

-0.4

0.8

0.2

-%$

-2.0

0.7

0.8

-:::

-0.8

0.3

2.0

-;:;

-::;

-::!

1,4

0.6

::?

:;:

36
Table 12. Number of matched deaths reporting same standard metropolitan statistical area (SMSA)

on both census and death records, on census record

difference rates for total matched

only, and on death record only; and net

, matched at usual place of residence, and not at usual place

of residence: United States, May-August 1960-Con.

[Census record used as a base. Min.s (-) sign indicates more assignments by census than by NCHS. For definition of areas, see Technical Appendix]

Area

Kalamazoo,Mich----------------------------------------------

Kansas City, Mo.-Kans ----------------------------------------

Kenosha,Wis-------------------------------------------------

Knoxville, Term ----------------------------------------------

Lake Charles, La---------------------------------------------

Lancaster,Pa------------------------------------------------

Lansing,Hich------------------------------------------------

Laredo, Tex--------------------------------------------------

Las Vegas, Nev-----------------------------------------------

Lawton, Okla-------------------------------------------------

Lexington,Ky------------------------------------------------

Li-, Ohio---------------------------------------------------

Lincoln,Nebr------------------------------------------------

Little Rock-NorthLittle Rock, Ark---------------------------

Lorain-Elyria,Ohio------------------------------------------

Los Angeles-LongBeach, Calif--------------------------------

Louisville,Ky.-Ind------------------------------------------

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

Lynchburg, Va------------------------------------------------

Macon, &----------------------------------------------------

Madison, Wis-------------------------------------------------

Manchester;N.H1--------------------------------------------s

Memphis,Tmn------------------------------------------------

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

Midland, Tex-------------------------------------------------

Milwaukee,Wis-----------------------------------------------

Minneapolis-St.Paul, Mien-----------------------------------

Mobile, Ala--------------------------------------------------

Monroe, b---------------------------------------------------

Montgomery,Ala----------------------------------------------

Muncie, Ind--------------------------------------------------

Muskegon-MuskegonHeights,Mica ------------------------------

Nashville, Term ----------------------------------------------

Newark, N.J--------------------------------------------------

New Haven-Waterbury,Connl-----------------------------------

New Orleans,La----------------------------------------------

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

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

Norfolk-Portsmouth,Van--------------------------------------

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

Ogden, Utah--------------------------------------------------

OklahomaCity, Okla------------------------------------------

Omaha, Nebr.-Iwa --------------------------------------------

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

Paterson-Clifton-Passaic,N.J--------------------------------

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

Peoria$ Ill--------------------------------------------------

Philadelphia,Pa.-N.J----------------------------------------

Phoenix,Ariz------------------------------------------------

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

Number reporting

Same

b%h

310

2,238

192

573

185

606

523

118

198

99

279

215

340

391

378

13,321

1,554

179

202

332

391

443

1,232

1,916

61

2,635

2,998

509

194

274

238

320

736

3,920

1,610

2,104

335

26,017

949

101

169

871

922

523

2,529

306

599

10,302

955

5,645

Census

record

only

Death

record

only

Net

differente

rate

0.1

-1.3

0.i

4.6

-1.4

-!:?

-0.3

-0.3

R

-?:;

0.6

U

-:::

-::i

-::;

0.7

-0.;

0.1

0.5

-0.1

-%;

;:;

-0.3

-0.3

-0.2

-0.0

-0.;

37
Table 12. Number of matched deaths reporting same standardmetropolitanstatisticalarea (SMSA)

on both census and death records, on census record only, and on death record only; and net

differencerates for total matched,matched at usual place of residence,and not at usual place

of residence:United States,May-August 1960—Con.

[Censwrecordused as a base. Minus (-) sign indicates mwe assignments by census than by NCHS. For definition of areas, see Technical Appendix]

Area

Pittsfield,liassl--------------------------------------------

Portland,~inel ---------------------------------------------

Portland,Oreg.-Wash-----------------------------------------

providence,R.11---------------------------.-.---------------

Provo-Orem,Utah-------------------------------------.-------

Pueblo, Colo-------------------------------------------------

Racine,Wis--------------------------------------------------

Raleigh,N.C--.----------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sacramento,Calif--------------------------------------------

Saginaw,Mich-.------------------------------------------.-.-

St. Joseph,Mo-----------------------------------------------

St. Louis, Mo.-Ill-------------------------------------------

Salt Lake City, Utah-----------------------------------------

San Angelo, Tex-------.---------------.-------------------.--

SanAntonio, Tex---------------------------------------------

San Bernardino-Riverside-Ontario,Calif----------------------

San Diego, Calif---------------------------------------------

San Francisco-Oakland,Calif---------------------------------

San Jose, Calif------7---------------------------------------

Santa Barbara, Calif-----------------------------------------

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

Scranton,Pa-------------------------------------------------

Seattle,Wash------------------------------------------------

Shreveport,La-----------------------------------------------

Sioux City, Iowa--------------------------- ------------------

Sioux Falls, S.Dak-------------------------------------------

South Bend, Ind----------------------------------------------

Spokane,Wash------------------------------------------------

Springfield,Ill---------------------------------------------

Springfield,Mo----------------------------------------------

Springfield,Ohio--------------------------------------------

Springfield-Holyoke,WSS1------------------------------------

Steubenville-Weirton,Ohio-W.Va------------------------------

Stockton,Calif----------------------------------------------

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

Tacoma, Wash-------------------------------------------------

Tampa-St. Petersburg,Fla------------------------------------

Terre Haute, Ind---------------------------------------------

Texarkana,Tex.-Ark------------------------------------------

Toledo, Ohio-------------------------------------------------

Topeka, Kans-------------------------------------------------

Trenton,N.J-------------------------------------------------

Tucson, Ariz--------------------------------------------------

Tulsa, Okla--------------------------------------------------

Number reporting

Same

b%h

403

459

1,968

1,809

168

228

283

266

804

150

814

309

1,447

:;;

422

233

4,579

613

109

1,097

1,495

1,571

5,892

1,015

323

390

756

2,160

544

269

167

508

612

434

270

298

1,300

383

496

1,333

594

2,303

328

154

1,074

274

627

433

823

Census

record

only

Death

record

only

Net

iifference

rate

-0,;

-0.;

-0,6

-2.1

.

-oei

-0.2

-::!

-0.2

1.1

0,2

-0,;

0.;

-0.1

-0.4

-0.6

-;::

-:::

-M

-0.4

0.7

-

0.2

2.1

0.4

0.7

0.2

0.8

0.2

-0.;

0.2

-1,;

0.5

0.;

0.5

0.l

38
Table 12. Number of matched deaths reporting same standardmetropolitanstatisticalarea (SMSA)

on both census and death records, on census record only, and on death record only; and net

differencerates for total matched, matched at usual place of residence,and not at usual place

of residence:United States,May-August 1960-Con.

[&n~USr~~ordusedasabass.MinUS{-)ekmindicstes more=sumrnents bycsmwsthanW NCHS. For defi~tion of are=, =e TeCh~cal Appendix]

Area

Tuscaloosa,Ala----------------------------------------------

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

Utica-Rome,N.Y----------------------------------------------

Waco, Tex----------------------------------------------------

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

Waterloo, Iowa-----------------------------------------------

West Palm Beach, Fla-----------------------------------------

Wheeling,W.Va.-Ohio-----------------------------------------

Wichita, &ns------------------------------------------------

Wichita Falls, Tex-------------------------------------------

Wilkes-Barre-Hazleton,Pa-----------------------------------

Wilmington,Del.-N J-----------------------------------------

1

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

Worcester,Massl-- J-----------------------------------------

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

Youngstown-Warren,Ohio--------------------------------------

All other areas----------------------------------------------

Nottat usual place of residence

I

All areas-----------------------------------------------

Total WSA's ---------------------------------------------

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

Akron, Ohio-------y------------------------------------------

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

Albany-Schenectady’-Troy,N.Y---------------------------------

Albuquerque,N.Mext-------------------------------------------

Allentown-Bethlehe~-Easton,Pa.-N.J--------------------------

Altoona, Pa--------------------------------------------------

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

Ann Arbor, Mich----------------------------------------------

Asheville,N.C-----------------------------------------------

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

Atlantic City, N.J-------------------------------------------

Augusta, Ga.-S.C---------------------------------------------

Austin, Tex--------------------------------------------------

Bakersfield<Calif-------------------------------------------

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

Baton Rouge, La----------------------------------------------

Bay City, Mich-----------------------------------------------

Beaumont-PortArthur, Tax------------------------------------

Billings,Mont-----------------------------------------------

Binghasnton,N.Y----------------------------------------------

Birmingham,Ala----------------------------------------------

Boston-Lowell-Lawrence,Massl--------------------------------

Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk,Connl---------------------------

Brockton,tiss1----------------------------------------------

Number reporting

Same

b%h

137

131

778

303

3,397

259

542

470

601

204

1,137

718

324

1,485

520

1,083

147,366

24,434

15,057

12

32

102

4

68

26

1;

7

67

55

23

28

7

272

15

8

1

28

8%

76

73

Census

record

only

;

d

2

2

2

5

2

7

i

4

2

358

7,104

4,153

4

21

1;

2

8

19

14

62

21

18

5

14

51

62

7

i

30

4;

::

Death

record

only

4,935

4:

6i

3

16

2

5

6

5

59

17

11

6

14

55

11

:

1

14

1%

32

20

Net

differente

rate

-0.i

-1.6

-0.4

-;::

-;:;

1.9

O.i

-0.;

-0.8

-0.1

-0.0

...

4.1

31.3

47.2

37.i

16.7

10.5

-37.8

-56.3

-72.7

-57.1

48.2

20.0

-8.1

-57.0

200.0

-2.1

30.8

53.3

40.0

100.0

-27.6

125.9

6.0

5.9

8.1

39
Table 12. Number of matched deaths reporting same standard metropolitan statistical area (SMSA)

on both census and death records, on census record only, and on death record only; and net

difference rates for total matched, matched at usual place of residence, and ~ot at usual place

of residence: United States, May-August 1960-Con.

&ensus record used as a b~,e. Minus (-) sign indicates mere assignments by census than by NCFIS. For definition of areaa, see Technical Awsndt~

Area

Brownsville-Harlingen-San Benito, Tax------------------------

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

Canton, Ohio-------------------------------------------------

Cedar Rapids, Iowa-------------------------------------------

Champaign-Urbana, 111----------------------------------- -----

Charleston, S.C----------------------------------------------

Charleston, W.Va ---------------------------------------------

Charlotte, N.C------ -----------------------------------------

Chattanooga, Term. .Ga~---------------------------------------

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

Cincinnati, Ohio-Ky ------------------------------------------

Cleveland, Ohio ----------------------------------------------

Colorado Springs, Colo---------------------------------------

Columbia, S.C------------------------------------------------

Columbus, Ga.-Ala--------------------------------------------

cOhlmbUS, Ohio -----------------------------------------------

Corpus Christi, Tex------------------------------------------

Dallas, Tex--------------------------------------------------

Davenport-Rock Island-Moline, Iowa-Ill -----------------------

Dayton, Ohio-------------------------------------------------

Decatur, Ill-------------------------------------------------

Denver, Colo-------------------------------------------------

Des Moines, Iowa---------------------------------------------

Detroit, Mich ------------------------------------------------

Dubuque, Iowa------------------------ ------------------------

Duluth-Superior, Minn.-Wis ---------------.-------------------

Durham, N.C ------------------------.-------------------------

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

Erie, Pa-----------------------------------------------------

Eugene, Oreg -------------------------------------------------

Evansville, Ind.-Ky------------------------------------------

Fall River-New Bedford, MassI --------------------------------

Fargo-Moorhead, N.Dak. -Minn----------------------------------

Flint, Mich --------------------------------------------------

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood, Fla-------------------------------

Fort Smith, Ark -----------------------------------------------

Fort Wayne, Ind----------------------------------------------

Fort Worth, Tex----------------------------------------------

Fresno, Calif ------------------------------------------------

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

Galveston-Texas City, Tax------------------------------------

Gary-Hammond-East Chicago, Ind-------------------------------

Grand Rapids, Mich -------------------------------------------

Great Falla, Mont --------------------------------------------

Green Bay, Wis -----------------------------------------------

Greensboro-High Point, N.C-----------------------------------

Greenville, S.C----------------------------------------------

Hamilton-Middletown, Ohio ------------------------------------

Harrisburg, Pa-----------------------------------------------

Hartford-New Britain-Bristol, Connl--------------------------

Number reporting

Same

b%h

23;

50

14

12

6

14

11

8;;

256

165

3;

4

113

5i

1:;

8

Z

397

15

23

12

25

7

1:$

5

3:

13

25

18

2

3;

59

21

?;

34

37

64

Census

record

only

4:

40

1

i

;

73

23

1:

LL7

5

30

2:

::

2:

2;

23

8

1

5

3

-19

12

-6

..---- 2;

~5

23

14

1

7

3

3i

5

5

11

3i

11

~eath

record

only

4;

4

2

12

11

!

33!

:!

19

1:

H

51

10

9

6;

18

130

2

34

11

2:

7

1:

13

14

4

2:

26

10

3

12

25

1;

11

8

;

H

Net

difference

rate

15.4

+:;

84:6

183.3

37.5

18.;

28.9

4Hi

46.2

-77.5

122.2

-4.9

120.0

32.9

-29.5

-18.9

-7.7

46.5

37.0

25.5

-55.3

83.9

1,000.0

6;:;

100.0

-56.7

-1.8

63.6

43.8

-32.1

-60.0

3:;:

47.4

-44.4

225.0

75.8

-18.3

-7.7

120,0

-9.4

36.8

20.6

-26.7

37.3

40
Table 12. Number of matched deaths reporting same standardmetropolitanstatisticalarea (SMSA)

on both census and death records, on census record only, and on death record only; and net

differencerates for total matched, matched at usual place of residence,and not at usual place

of residence:United States,May-August 1960-Con.

~enws record used as a base. Minus (-) sign indicates rwe asaignrnenta by census than by NCHS. For definition of areaa, see Technical Appendix]

Area

I

Honolulu,&waii ---------------------------------------------

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

Huntington-Ashland,W.Va.-Ky.-Ohio---------------------------

Huntsville,Ala----------------------------------------------

Indianapolis,Ind--------------------------------------------

Jackson,Mich------------------------------------------------

Jackson,Miss------------------------------------------------

Jacksonville,Fla--------------------------------------------

Jersey City, N.J---------------------------------------------

Johnstown,Pa------------------------------------------------

Kalamazoo,Mich----------------------------------------------

Kansas City, Mo.+ans----------------------------------------

Kenosha,Wis-------------------------------------------------

Knoxville,Term----------------------------------------------

Lake Charles,Lai--------------------------------------------

Lancaster,Pa------------------------------------------------

Lansing,Mich------------------------------------------------

Laredo, Tex--------------------------------------------------

Las Vegas, Nev-----------------------------------------------

Lawton, Okla----'--------------------------------------------

T

Lexington,Ky---T--------------------------------------------

Lima, Ohio------

1

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

Lincoln,Nebr---,------------------------------------ --------

Little Rock-Nort$Little Rock, Ark---------------------------

Lorain-Elyria,Ohio------------------------------------------

Los An eles-LongBeach, Calif--------------------------------

Louisvf’he, Ky.-$nd------------------------------------------

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

Lynchburg,Va---+--------------------------------------------

Macon, Ga-------4--------------------------------------------

Madison,Wis----l--------------------------------------------

Manchester,N,Hl~--------------------------------------------

Memphis, Tenn---:--------------------------------------------

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

Midland, Tex----~<r------------------------------------------

Milwaukee,Wis--IJ’------------------------------------------

Minneapolis-St.Patil,Mien-----------------------------------

Mobile, Ala--------------------------------------------------

Monroe, k---------------------------------------------------

Montgomery,Ala----------------------------------------------

Muncie, Ind--------------------------------------------------

Muskegon-MuskegonHeights,Mica------------------------------

Nashville,Term----------------------------------------------

Newark, N.J--------------------------------------------------

New Haven-Waterbury,Connl-----------------------------------

New Orleans, La----------------------------------------------

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

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

Norfolk-Portsmouth,Van--------------------------------------

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

Number reporting

Same

b%h

25

38

14

13i

14

11

55

%

;:

4;

::

i

::

15

19

16

1,262

89

13

4

35

7

%

127

209

11

1

6

4

8

2::

62

2:

1,984

25

Census

record

only

1:

21

5

18

2:

12

2:

28

22

3;

?2

36

14

8

?;

%

19

15

22

2;

1

19

60

34

15

i

45

107

15

20

34

73

3

Death

record

only

::

2;

13

16

20

53

18

8;

5

7

7

21

16

;

1

2:

1

:

187

12

17

12

8

9

1?

15

6

27

87

19

7

7

1:

2

102

49

54

31:

34

2

Net

difference

rate

-16.7

31.4

-31.4

-20.0

5.9

42.1

-18.2

11.9

:;.;

.

-67.5

57.0

-33.;

-31.1

7.0

900.i

-61.2

22.2

-30.4

-56.3

-29.0

8.0

-19.8

-21.9

-36.8

-22.8

77.8

-8.0

20.3

1;:;

-33.3

700.0

-38.1

150.0

38.5

-33.6

-1.4

44.2

40.0

-41.5

11.8

110.7

41
Table 12. Number of matched deaths reporting same standard metropolitan statistical area (SMSA)

on both census and death records, on census record only, and on death record only; and net

difference rates for total matched, matched at usual place of residence, and not at usual place

of residence: United States, May-August, 1960-Con. 71

&mus record used as a base. Minus (-) sign indicates more assignments by census than by NCHS. For &finition of areas, see Technical Appsndi~

Area

Ogden, Utah --------------------------------------------------

Oklahoma City, Okla------------------------------------------

Omaha, Nebr. -Iowa--------------------------------------------

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

Paterson-Clifton-Passaic, N.J--------------------------------

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

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

Philadelphia, Pa. -N.J----------------------------------------

Phoenix, Ariz ------------------------------------------------

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

Pittsfield, MSssl --------------------------------------------

Portland, tiinel ---------------------------------------------

Portland, Oreg.-Wash-----------------------------------------

Providence, R.Il---------------------------------------------

Provo-Orem, Utah ---------------------------------------------

Pueblo, Colo-------------------------------------------------

Racine, Wis--------------------------------------------------

Raleigh, N.C-------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sacramento, Calif--------------------------------------------

Saginaw, Mich ------------------------------------------------

St. Joseph, Mo-----------------------------------------------

St. Louis, Mo.-Ill -------------------------------------------

Salt Lake City, Utah-----------------------------------------

San Angelo, Tex----------------------------------------------

San Antonio, Tex---------------------------------------------

San Bernardino-Riverside-Ontario, Calif----------------------

San Diego, Calif---------------------------------------------

San Francisco-Oakland, Calif---------------------------------

San Jose, Calif----------------------------------------------

Santa Barbara, Calif-----------------------------------------

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

Scranton, Pa-------------------------------------------------

Seattle, Wash ------------------------------------------------

Shreveport, La-----------------------------------------------

Sioux City, Iowa---------------------------------------------

Sioux Falls, S.Dak-------------------------------------------

South Bend, Ind----------------------------------------------

Spokane, Wash------------------------------------------------"

Springfield, Ill---------------------------------------------

Springfield, Me----------------------------------------------

Springfield, Ohio--------------------------------------------

Springfield-Holyoke, Massl -----------------------------------

Steubenville-Weirton, Ohio-W.Va ------------------------------

Stockton, Calif----------------------------------------------

Number reporting

Same Census

record

only

Death

record

only

Net

differente

rate

27.3

-43,5

5?;

700,0

-44.8

-2?:

0.2

19.0

93.3

19.9

-7::;

-85.7

-10.6

-65.9

-30.3

-69.0

34.3

-54.2

3;:?

86.7

41.2

-53.6

3.9

1:::

-42.9

-12.2

11.5

52.1

-51.I.

100.0

144.4

3;::

-13.0

17.1

42.9

27.6

-22,0

40.0

-7.4

-31.0

-;I..;

-32:8

42
Table 12. Number of matched,deaths reporting same standardmetropolitanstatisticalarea (SMSA)

on both census and death records, on census record only, and on death record only; and net

differencerates for total matched, matched at usual place of residence,and not at usual place

of residence:United States,May-August 1960-Con.

~ensus record used as a base, Minus (-) sign indicates mwe assignments by census than by NCHS. For definition of areas, see Technical Appendix]

I

Area

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

Tacoma, Wash-------------------------------------------------

Tampa-St. Petersburg,Fla------------------------------------

Terre Haute, Ind---------------------------------------------

Texarkana,Tex.-Ark------------------------------------------

Toledo, Ohio-------------------------------------------------

Topeka, Kas-------------------------------------------------

Trenton, N.J--------------------------- ----------------------

Tucson, Ariz-------------------------------------------------

Tulsa, Okla--------------------------------------------------

Tuscaloosa,Ala----------------------------------------------

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

Utica-Rome,N.Y---F~-----------------------------------------

Waco, Tex---------,-T----------------------------------------

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

Waterloo, Iowa---------.........-----------------------------

West Palm Beach, Fla-----------------------------------------

Wheeling, W.Va.-Ohio-----------------------------------------

Wichita, Kans..-.7-------------------------------------------

Wichita Falls, Teh-------------------------------------------

j

Wilkes-Barre—Ha leton, Pa-----------------------------------

Wilmington,Del. N.J----------------------------------------.-

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

Worcester,Massl~--------------------------------------------

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

Youngstown-Warren, Ohio--------------------------------------

All other areas----------------------------------------------

lMetropolitan~Stateeconomicareas.

Number reporting

Same

b%h

117

64

137

1

7

67

26

37

12

17

6

12

94

2:;

2;

30

1:

31

38

16;

25

9,3;?

Census

record

only

17

77

33

2

23

29

;:

7

87

23

117

i;

6

6

;

53

11

25

8;

4

5

2,951

Death

record

only

60

6

25

8

14

19

7

14

3;

1

1

5

i:

::

14

1

12

31

1;

33

30

2,169

Net

differente

rate

32.1

-50.4

-4.7

200.0

200.0

-4.4

-40.0

-20.3

-43.5

108.3

-92.5

-62.9

-53.1

-:;.;

.

-54.5

18.5

128.1

400.0

-81.3

2.4

9.5

-25.;

100.0

65.8

-6.3

‘- \

. .

43
Table 13. Number of matched deaths reportingsame standardmetropolitan statistical area (SMSA)on both

census and death records, censusrecord only, and death record only;

United States,May-August 1960

snd net differencerates, by color:

~Cens.Srecord used as a base. Minus (-) sign indicates more asslgmnents by census than by NCHS. For definition of areas, see Technical +jppendn~

White Nonwhite

Number reporting Number reporting

Area Net

difference

rste

Net

difference

rate

Same

b%h

Census

record

only

Death

record

only

Same

b%h

Censw

recorc

only

Desth

record

only

All areas--------------------------366.216 7,308

4,341

7,308

—

5,056

. . . 42,57! 72: . . .

Total SMSA’S-------------------------226,877 0.: 26,521 39! 0.4

Abilene, Tax-----------------------------

Akron, Ohio ------------------------------

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

Albany-Schenectady-Troy, N .Y-------------

Albuquerque, N. Mex----------------------

Allentown-Beth lehem-Easton, Pa.-N.J------

168

981

1,7;?

342

1,375

400

195

275

227

1,331

443

218

280

417

3,002

204

222

403

132

508

678

8>438

1,462

;;:

3,272

718

240

185

176

391

254

376

13,489

2,338

3,854

235

304

195

1,287

288

1,559

617

1,285

224

1,866

593

6,{:$

735

2,5

2.1

1.6

3.1

-0.:

0.2

-4.0

-3.3

-16.3

-4.5

2.3

-;:;

-10.9

$:

:::

1.0

-!:2

:::

0.5

::;

-0.2

-3.5

i:;

3.4

-;::

i::

-0.3

i::

-19.4

-;:;

1.4

-::;

-1.9

-0.9

1.9

2.5

-::;

.

::

61

3;

2C

i

12

12

5?;

J:

49

8;;

152

13:

1:

510

186

51

13

3

1:;

:

117

1$:

132

1,853

332

527

12i

114

191

3:;

1::

13

60

1,0::

i

1.;

2.;

-12::

-6.;

-22.2

-11.6

1.4

1:$

-21.9

-;:2

0.6

4.i

$:;

-1.9

-6.7

-%:

0.;

2.5

1.3

1.;

1.2

1.9

-29.;

-;::

2.;

-[:;

15.4

8,2

4.3

1.8

Altoona, Pa------------------------------

Amarillo, Tax----------------------------

Ann Arbor, Mica --------------------------

Asheville,N.C---------------------------

Atlsnta,Ga------------------------------

Atlantic City, N.J-----------------------

Augusta, Ga. -S.C-------------------------

Austin, Tax------------------------------

Bakersfield, Calif -----------------------

Baltimore, Ma----------------------------

Baton Rouge? Lo--------------------------

Bay City, Mlch ---------------------------

Beaumont-Port Arthur, Tex----------------

Billings,Mont---------------------------

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

Birmingham, Ala--------------------------

Boston-Lowell-Lawrence, Maasl ------------

Bridgeport- Stamford-Norwalk, Connl-------

Brockton,Maaal--------------------------

Brownsville-Harlingen-SanBenito,Tex----

BuffalojN.Y-----------------------------

Canton, Ohio-----------------------------

Cedar Rapida, Iowa-----------------------

Champaign-Urbana,111--------------------

Charleston,S.C--------------------------

Charleston, W. Va------------------------

Charlotte, N.C---------------------------

Chattanooga, Term. -Ga--------------------

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

Cincinnati, Ohio-Ky ----------------------

Cleveland, Ohio --------------------------

Colorado Springs, Cola -------------------

Columbia, S.C----------------------------

Columbus, Ga. -Ala ------------------------

Columbus, Ohio ---------------------------

Corpus Christi, Tax----------------------

Dallas, Tax------------------------------

Davenport-Rock Island-Moline, Iowa- 111---

Dayton, Ohio -----------------------------

Decatur, Ill------- -------------------- .-

Denver, Cola -----------------------------

Des Moines, Iowa-------------------------

Detroit,Mica----------------------------

Dubuque, Iowa----------------------------

Duluth-Superior,Minn.-Wis---------------

See footnote at end of table.

44
Table 13. Number of matched deaths reporting same standardmetropolitan statistical area (SMSA)on both

census and death records, census record only, and death record only;

United States,May-August1960—Con.

and net differencerates, by color:

[;I?.sw record used a% a bm.e. M8.us (-) SWn mdmates mm .Swqmmnts by . ..s.s than by NCHS. For defi.,tmn of areas, see Techmcal Ammndm]

Area

Durham, N. C------------------------------

!?,1Paso, Tax-----------------------------

Eria, Pa---------------------------------

Eugene, Oreg-----------------------------

Evansville,Ind.-Ky----------------------

Fall River-NewBedford,Maaal------------

Fargo-Moorhead,N. Dak.-Mien-------------

Flint, Mica------------------------------

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood,Fla-----------

Fort Smith, Ark--------------------------

Fort Wayne, Ind--------------------------

Fort Worth, Tax--------------------------

Fresno, Calif----------------------------

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

Galveston-TexaaCity, Tex----------------

Gary-Hammond-EastChicago, Ind-----------

Grand Rapids, Mica-----------------------

Great Falls, Mont------------------------

Grcwn Bay, Was---------------------------

Greensboro-HighPoint, N.C---------------

Greenville,SAC--------------------------

Hamilton-Middletown,Ohio----------------

Harrisburg,Pa---------------------------

Hartford-NewBritain-Bristol,Connl------

Honolulu,Hawaii-------------------------

Houston,Tax-----------------------------

Huntington-Ashland,W. Va.-Ky.-Ohio------

Huntsville,Ala--------------------------

Indianapolis,Ind------------------------

Jackson,Mica----------------------------

Jackson,Miss----------------------------

Jacksonville,Fla------------------------

Jersey City, N.J-------------------------

Johnstown,Pa----------------------------

K~lamazoo,Mica --------------------------

Kansas City, Mo.-Kans--------------------

Kenosha,Was-----------------------------

Knoxville,Term--------------------------

Lake Charles,La-------------------------

Lancaster,Pa----------------------------

Lansing,Mica----------------------------

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

Las Vegas, Net---------------------------

Lswton, Okra-----------------------------

Lexington,Ky----------------------------

Lima, Ohio-------------------------------

Lincoln,Near----------------------------

Little Rock-NorthLittle Rock, Ark-------

Lorain-Elyria,Ohio----------------------

Los Angeles-LongBeach, Qalif------------

Louiaville,Ky.-Ind----------------------

Lubbock,Tax-----------------------------

Lynchburg,Va----------------------------

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

Madison,Wi.a-----------------------------

See footnoteat end of table.

White

Number reporting

Same

b%h

15s

42:

63(

23:

39[

96E

165

64]

614

11:

501

875

662

126

20i

983

769

176

251

291

194

376

825

1,483

159

1,495

486

116

1,400

333

184

584

1,771

801

309

1,991

185

539

130

646

555

113

181

2;;

217

343

282

369

13,584

1,366

164

165

201

414

Censu:

recor<

only

Death

record

only

;;

20

9

2

16

14

12

2

2

27

23

11

li

32

20

1:

6

7

2;

39

28

15

4:

15

:;

;;

2

89

1:

5

24

16

:

6

6

21

3

:

187

13

22

10

12

Net

difference

rate

6.:

3.:

2.;

-::;

0.:

4.C

0.6

-3.2

-2.:

0.4

1.1

j:;

3.8

-?::

-1.6

1.2

-1.7

3.6

-i:?

-i::

-;::

-3.3

:::

-1.5

0.7

2.8

-7.;

3.5

.:::

-5:6

0.7

;::

5.5

-11.2

-:::

-8.1

-2.3

0.8

-1.7

13.4

-5.9

-4.6

-1.6

Nonwhite

Number reporting

Same

b;h

6;

11

1[

3:

2:

7!

81

1:

1:

4;

25

6t

17:

31

;

10C

:;

55

3:;

424

34

2:;

11

157

252

78

9

7

314

8:

55

7

13

1;

6?

10

1:$

22

872

263

;;

134

5

Death

recorc

only

Net

difference

rate

5.;

1.3

7.7

-::;

:::

-;:;

-33.3

3.0

6.8

l.i

1.9

-0.5

-2.9

7.4

-1::2

-;.:

.

-;::

-12.5

2.;

3.6

5.;

-6.;

-9.1

-14.3

-2.3

-4.2

0.2

1;::

;:;

-28.6

45
Table 13. Number of matched deaths reporting same standardmetropolitan statistical area (WSA) on both

census and death records, census record only, and death record only;

United States,May-August 1960—Con.

and net differenceratea, by color:

[Census record used as a base. M!nus (-) s,~nindicates moveassiqnmem by ..”s.s thm by NCHS. For dafiniticm of areas, see Techmcal Append!xl

Area

Manchester,N.H--------------------------

Memphis,Term----------------------------

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

Midland,Tax-----------------------------

Milwaukee,Was---------------------------

Minneapolis-St.Paul, Minn---------------

Mobile, Ala------------------------------

Monroe, La-------------------------------

Montgomery,Ala--------------------------

Muncie, Ind------------------------------

Muskegon-MuskegonHeights,Mich----------

NashvillejTerm--------------------------

Newark, N.J------------------------------

New Haven-Waterbury,Connl---------------

New Orleans,La--------------------------

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

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

Norfolk-Portsmouth,Va-------------------

Odeaaa,Tax------------------------------

Ogden, Utah------------------------------

OklahomaCity, Okra----------------------

Omaha, Nebr.-Iowa------------------------

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

Pateraon-Clifton-Passaic,N..J------------

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

Peoria, 111------------------------------

Philadelphia,Pa.-N.J--------------------

Phoenix,Aria----------------------------

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

Pittsfield,MassI------------------------

Portland,MaineI-------------------------

Portland,Oreg.-Wash---------------------

Providence,R.ll-------------------------

Provo-Orem,Utah-------------------------

Pueblo, Cola-----------------------------

Racine, Was------------------------------

Raleigh,N.C-----------------------------

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

Reno, Net--------------------------------

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

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

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

Rockford, 111----------------------------

Sacramento,Calif------------------------

Saginaw,Mica----------------------------

St. Joseph,Me---------------------------

St. Louis, Mo.-Iii-----------------------

Salt Lake City, Utah---------------------

San Angelo, Tax--------------------------

San Antonio,Tax-------------------------

San Bernardino-Riverside-Ontario,Calif--

San Diego, Calif-------------------------

San Franciaco-Oakland,Calif-------------

San Jose, Calif--------------------------

Santa Barbara,Calif---------------------

White

Number reporting

Same

on

both

45C

762

1,751

57

2,659

3,113

327

g

22?

293

589

3,674

1,604

1,468

244

25,332

658

1%

809

893

463

2,516

229

612

9,336

924

5,571

409

457

;,;3;

‘179

239

;;:

835

148

624

265

1,588

451

848

406

249

4,125

640

104

1,050

1,509

1,601

5,703

1,:;;

Census

recorc

only

Death

record

only

Net

difference

rate

2.0

-0.5

1;:;

0.4

0.8

5.2

-::!

2.7

-i:;

-0.1

2.5

1.4

-8.2

0.9

2.4

M

-4.9

:::

2.1

2.2

-6.5

-H

1.;

2.6

1.9

-1:::

-29.2

-1.2

-14.7

-2.8

-11.8

0.2

-7.0

-0.1

1.5

5.8

2.0

-12.5

0.0

0.8

-::;

-0.8

0.4

-H

‘2.8

Nonwhite

Number reporting

Same

on

both

Census

record

only

Death

record

only

i

6

;

:

;

8

2:

2:

15

3

3

:

2

1;

2

1

i

1;

2

1

i

;

i

5

i

10

Net

difference

rate

-100.0

-0.4

2.4

-1.:

-14.;

;:2

-H

0.2

R

-3.1.

;::

;:;

5:1

1.3

-;.;

.

-0.;

-z.i

-100.:

-45.5

-11.1

3.1

4.i

-5.5

-::!

1.9

-7.1

0.4

10.6

3.0

-5.1

1.3

-:::

See footnoteat end of table.

46
Table 13. Number of matched deaths reportingsame standardmetropolitan statistical area (SMSA) on both

census and death records, census record only, and death record only; and net difference rates, by color:

United Statea, May-August 1960—Con.

[CmSu5~0rdu5d asabse. Min,s(-)signind!cates moreassignmenls byce"s.sthanbyNCHS.Fordef!n!tlon ofareas.seeTeshn,calAppend!~

Area

i,

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

Scranton,Pa-----------------------------

Seattle,Wash----------------------------

Shreveport,La---------------------------

Sioux City, Iowa-------------------------

Sioux Falls, S. Dab----------------------

South Bend, Ind--------------------------

Spokane,Wuah----------------------------

Springfield,Ill-------------------------

Springfield,Me--------------------------

Springfield,Ohio--------i---------------

Springfield-Holyeke, Masa ---------------

Steubenville-Weirton,Ohio-W.Va---------

Stockton,Calif--------------------------

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

Tacoma,Wash-----------------------------

Tampa-St.Petersburg,Fla----------------

Terre Haute, Ind-------------------------

Texarkana,Tex-Ark-----------------------

Toledo, Ohio-----------------------------

Topcko, Kens-----------------------------

Trenton,N.J-----------------------------

Tucson,Aria-----------------------------

Tulsa, Okra------------------------------

Tuscaloosa,Ala--------------------------

Tyler, Tax-------------------------------

Utica-Rome,N.Y--------------------------

Waco, Tax--------------------------------

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

Wateploo,Iowa---------------------------

West Palm Beach,Fla---------------------

Wheeling,W. Vs.-Ohio--------------------

Wichita,Kens----------------------------

Wichita Falls, Tax-----------------------

Wilkes-Barre-Hazleton, Pa---------------

Wilmington,Del.-N.J---------------------

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

Worcester,Masai-------------------------

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

Youngstown-Warren,Ohio?~,~lIzlI=~~~~==~==

All other areas--------+-----------------

White

Number reporting

Same

b:h

216

827

2,296

320

292

174

507

683

426

27’8

272

1,316

368

484

1,421

637

2,190

312

117

1,049

270

594

417

733

84

107

855

247

2,531

255

467

488

562

195

1,160

649

205

1,636

533

1,024

139,339

Census

record

only

)eath

record

only

Net

difference

rate

3.2

1.3

-:::

2.7

1.7

1.4

-3.3

;::

-4.2

-1.2

-::?

2.8

-9.9

-0.3

1.9

:::

-7.4

-1.3

-1.9

-4;::

-14.4

-11.7

-4.5

-;::

1;:2

-ii:;

0.1

1.0

-3.;

4.6

-;:;

Nonwhite

Number reporting

b%h

Census

record

only

Death

record

only

Net

3ifference

rate

3.3

-

::?

4.i

-17.6

-14.3

7.0

.

-;:!

4.8

-9.5

1.7

8.;

-3.3

-5.4

-$;

-9.8

1.;

;;.:

.

-;:2

-40.6

4.;

-0.7

lMetxopOlitan State econOmic areas.

47
Table 14. Number of unmatched deaths for standard metrowlitan statistical areas (sMsA’s). bv -..

color: United States, May-A&gust 1960

~crdefinitionofwsas,sae TschnicalAppsndix]

Area

All areas-----------------------------------------------------

Total SMSA’S----------------------------------------------------

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

Akron, Ohio---------------------------------------------------------

Albany, &----------------------------------------------------------

Albany-Schenectady-Troy, N.Y----------------------------------------

Albuquerque, N.Flex--”-----------------------------------------------

Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, Pa. -N.J---------------------------------

Altoona, Pa---------------------------------------------------------

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

Ann Arbor, Mich=-----------------------------------------------------

Asheville, N.C-------=----------------------------------------------

Atlanta, &---------------------------------------------------------

Atlantic City, N.J--------------------------------------------- -----

Augusta, Ca.-S.C--------------------------------------------- -------

Austin, Tex---------------------------------------------------------

Bakersfield, Calif--------------------------------------------------

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

Baton Rouge, k-----------------------------------------------------

Bay City, Mich ------------------------------------------------------

Beaumont-Port Arthur, Tex-------------------------------------------

Billings, Mont ------------------------------------------------------

Binghampton, N.Y--------------------------- -------------------------

Birmingham, Ala-------------;---------------------------------------

Boston-Lowell-Lawrence, Mass ---------------------------------------

Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, Conn2----------------------------------

Brockton, ~ss2-----------------------------------------------------

Brownsville-Harlingen-San Benito, Tax-------------------------------

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

Canton, Ohio--------------------------------------------------------

Cedar Rapids, Iowa-----.--------------------------------------------

Champaign-Urbana, 111-----------------------------------------------

Charleston, S.C-----------------------------------------------------

Charleston, W.Va ----------------------------------------------------

Charlotte, N.C------------------------------------------------------

Chattanooga, T=n.-Ga -----------------------------------------------

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

Cincinnati, Ohio-Ky -------------------------------------------------

Cleveland, Ohio---------------------------------------------`-------

Colorado Springs, Colo----------------------------------------------

Colunbia, S.C-------------------------------------------------------

Columbus, Ga.-Ala--------------------------- ------------------------

Columbus, Ohio------------------------------------------------------

Corpus ChrisSi, Tex-------------------------------------------------

Dallas, Tex ----------------------------------------c----------------

Davenport-Rock Island-Moline, Iowa-Ill------------------------------

Dayton, Ohio--------------------------------------------------------

Decatur, Ill--------------------------------------------------------

Denver? Colo--------------------------------------------------------

Des Moznes, Ima----------------------------------------------------

Detroit, Mich -------------.--------------------.-----------.--------

Dubuque, Iowa------------------------------------------------------ -

Total

‘112,656

68,731

2$

3%!

165

677

132

185

137

174

1,274

131

1;;

60

116

620

217

92”

55”

205

146

201

281

3,979- .-.

-635.

- y5.

146

169

321

113

663

147

349

4;;

125

1,545

16

White

93,319

56,613

2::

32;

158

207

92

64

458

94

106

115

154

876

69

57

133

60

113

351

1,642

308

151

114

567

193

92

53

89

130

133

204

3,077

516

681

74

1$

273

105

488

145

298

4;;

115

1,163

16

Ionuhite

19,336

12,117

3:

25

14

7

219

38

79

22

20

398

62

4i

27;

%

7

5:

24

11:

16

68

96;

119

18:

75

56

48

See footnotes at end of table.

48
Table 14. Number of unmatched deaths for standardmetropolitan statisticalareas (sMSA’s).by

color: United States,May-A&yst 1960—Con,

[For ciefinition of areas, see Technical Appendix]

Area

Duluth-Superior,Minn.-Wis------------------------------------------

Burham, N.C---------------------------------------------------------

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

Erie, Pa---------

2

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

Eugene, Oreg----- --------------------------------------------------

Evansville,Ind.-Ky-------------------------------------------------

l?allRiver-NewBedford,Mass2---------------------------------------

Fargo-Moorhead,N.Dak.-Minn-----------------------------------------

Flint, Mich---------------------------------------------------------

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood,Fla--------------------------------------

Fort Smith,Ark-----------------------------------------------------

Fort Wayne, Ind-----------------------------------------------------

Fort Worth, Tex-----------------------------------------------------

Fresno, Calif-------------------------------------------------------

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

Galveston-TexasCity, Tex-------------------------------------------

Gary-Hammond-EastChicago, Ind--------------------------------------

Grand Rapids,Mich--------------------------------------------------

Great Falls, Mont---------------------------------------------------

Green Bay, Wis..-4-?-..-------------.--------------.----------------

Greensboro-HighPoint, N.C------------------------------------------

Greenville,S.C-----------------------------------------------------

Hamilton-Middletown,Ohio-------------------------------------------

Harrisburg,Pa------------------------------------------------------

Hartford-NewBritain-Bristol,Conn2---------------------------------

Honolulu,Hawaii----------------------------------------------------

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

Huntington-Ashland,W.Va.-Ky.-Ohio----------------------------------

Huntsville,Ala--p--------------------------------------------------

Indianapolis,Ind---------------------------------------------------

Jackson,Mich-------------------------------------------------------

Jackson,Miss-------------------------------------------------------

Jacksonv3.Ue,FlaE

------- ------- ------- ----------------- ------- ----- Jersey City, N.J- --------------------------------------------------

Johnstown,Pa----,--------------------------------------------------

1

Kalamazoo,Mich-----------------------------------------------------

Kansas City, Mo.-Rans-----------------------------------------------

Kenosha,Wis--------------------------------------------------------

Knoxville,Term-----------------------------------------------------

Lake Charles, h-7--------------------------------------------------

Lancaster,Pa----i--------------------------------------------------

!

Lansing,Mich---- :?~-----------------------------------------------

Laredo,Tex---------------------------------------------------------

Las Vegas, Nev-----------------------------------------------------

Lawson, Okla--------------------------.------------------------------

Le#ng:h;; Ky-------------------------------------------------------

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

Linc&ln,Nebr-------------------------------------------------------

Little Rock-NorthLittle Rock, Ark----------------------------------

Lorain-Elyria,Ohio-------------------------------------------------

Los Angeles-LongBeach, Calif---------------------------------------

Louisville,Ky.-Ind-------------------------------------------------

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

Lynchburg,Va-------------------------------------------------------

Macon, &-----------------------------------------------------------

Total

167

1;:

159

117

115

120

64

152

226

67

4;:

228

109

133

262

155

49

69

143

185

1%

369

211

810

173

106

433

1;;

307

386

122

6;:

3:;

94

135

159

40

H;

;;

2!:

127

3,559

517

70

88

128

White

165

55

171

156

116

97

117

64

135

156

61

68

337

205

95

96

197

149

45

67

102

140

1%

345

5;:

167

3:;

39

70

;;;

115

5E

2ii

74

134

153

40

100

34

52

i:

130

119

3,189

401

65

62

74

. .

Nonwhite

See footnotesat end of table.

49
Table 14. Number of unmatched deaths for standardmetropolitan statisticalareas (SMSAIS), by

color: United States,May-August 1960-con.

~:or Minition of areas, sw Technical Awendix]

Area

Madison, Wis--------------------------------------------------------

Manchester,N.H2----------------------------------------------------

Memphis, Tem-------------------------------------------------------

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

Midland, Tex--------------------------------------------------------

Milwaukee,Wis-----.------------------------.-----------------------

Minneapolis-St.Paul, Minn------------------------------------------

Mobile, Ala---------------.-----------------------------------------

Monroe, ti----------------------------------------------------------

Montgomery,Ala-----------------------------------------------------

Muncie, Ind---------------------------------------------------------

Muskegon-MuskegonHeights,Mica-------------------------------------

Nashville,Term-----------------------------------------------------

Newark, N.J---------------------------------------------------------

New Haven-Waterbury,Conn2------------------------------------------

New Orleans, h-----------------------------------------------------

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

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

Norfolk-Portsmouth,Va----------------------------------------------

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

Ogden, Utah---------------------------------------------------------

Oklahoma City, Okla-------------------------------------------------

Omaha, Nebr.-Iwa ---------------------------------------------------

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

Paterson-Clifton-Passaic,N.J---------------------------------------

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

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

Philadelphia,Pa.-N.J-----------------------------------------------

Phoenix, Ariz-------------------------------------------------------

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

Pittsfield,MSSS2---------------------------------------------------

Portland,tiine2----------------------------------------------------

Portland, Oreg.-Wash------------------------------------------------ providence,R-12--------------------------.-------------------------

Provo-Orem,Utah--------------------------------------------------

Pueblo, Colo--------------------------------------------------------

Racine, Wis---------------------------------------------------------

Raleigh, N.C--------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sacramento,Calif---------------------------------------------------

Saginaw,Mich-------------------------------------------------------

St. Joseph, Mo------------------------------------------------------

St. Louis, Mo.-Ill--------------------------------------------------

Salt Lake City, Utah------------------------------------------------

SanAngelo, Tex-----------------------------------------------------

San Antonio, Tex----------------------------------------------------

San Bernardino-Riverside-Ontario,Calif-----------------------------

San Diego, Calif----------------------------------------------------

San Francisco-Oakland,Calif----------------------------------------

San Jose, Calif-----------------------------------------------------

Total

7J

132

38;

724

3[

52(

796

22:

1O$

152

8C

2;;

987

336

557

123

17,119

389

43

3%

233

209

513

140

175

2,946

545

1,554

68

143

582

391

30

%

1,432

191

60

389

557

620

1,561

314

White

1;;

17C

601

32

49C

777

134

61

79

E

173

773

311

315

5,7::

220

40

2:;

199

161

483

94

169

2,301

493

1,414

68

141

565

380

30

H

l%

93

2::

2;;

320

68

1,1:$

185

56

346

522

589

1,379

308

Nonwhite

217

12:

36

242

1,3%

169

3

46

64:

52

140

J

11

4

4;

5

3

115

4

30

13

3

See footnotesat end of table.

50
Table 14. Number of unmatched deaths for standardmetropolitan statisticalareas (sMSA’s),by

color: United States,May-August 1960-Con.

[For definition of areas, see Technical Appendix]

Area

Santa Barbara, Calif------------------------------------------------

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

Scranton,Pa--------------------------------------------------------

Seattle,Wash----

i

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

Shreveport,La--- ,--------------------------------------------------

Sioux City, Ima----------------------------------------------------

Sioux Falls, S.Dak--------------------------------------------------

South Bend, Ind-----------------------------------------------------

Spokane,Wash-----------------:------------------------------------

Springfield,Ill----------------------------------------------------

Springfield,Mo-----------------------------------------------------

Springfield,Ohio---------------------------------------------------

Springfield-Holyoke,Mass2------------------------------------------

Steubenville-Weirton,Ohio-W.Va-------------------------------------

Stockton,Calif----------------------------------------------------

Syracuse,N.Y

I

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

Tacoma, Wash--------------------------------------------------------

Tampa-St,Petersburg,Fla------------------------------------------

Terre Haute, Ind----------------------------------------------------

Texarkana,Tex.-Atk-------------------------------------------------

Toledo, Ohio--------------------------------------------------------

Topeka, ~ns--------------------------------------------------------

Trenton,N.J--------------------------------------------------------

Tucson, Ariz--------------------------------------------------------

Tulsa, Okla---------------------------------------------------------

Tuscaloosa,Ala--i'-------------------------------------------------

Tyler, Tex-------4~-------------------------------------------------

Utica-Rome,N.Y--+--------------------------------------------------

Waco, Tex--------

Washington,D.C.-JG::i::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Waterloo, Iwa------------------------------------------------------

West Palm Beach, Fla------------------------------------------------

Wheeling,W.Va.-Ohio------------------------------------------------

Wichita, Kans----4--------------------------------------------------

Wichita Falls, TeA--------------------------------------------------

Wilkes-Barre—Hazleton,Pa------------------------------------------

Wilmington,Del.-N.J------------------------------------------------

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

Worcester, Mss2+--------------------------------------------------

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

l!

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

~%%’’:%-: ~1-~~: Mb----------------------------------------------

l~ncludesone machine error.

2Metropolitan state f?COIIOIUic areas.

Total

117

121

119

803

247

82

38

118

177

113

116

l%

233

237

598

98

81

303

l%

202

251

118

1,180

l%

164

164

65

203

232

146

280

139

270

43,925

White

114

70

115

764

126

82

37

102

166

107

114

73

177

116

196

221

225

501

93

59

277

1:;

187

207

lx

158

151

56

201

179

2::

133

240

36,706

Nonwhite

1

16

11

6

2

9

10

11

29

12

12

97

58

37

4

NOTE: For explanation of why white and nonwhite do not add to the total, see Technical

Appendix.

51
Table 15. Net differencerates, by color, sex,and age: United States and each geographicdivision,MSyColor, sex,

and age

Tota1

1-4 yeara-------

5-14 years------

15-24 years-----

25-34 yeara-----

35-44 years-----

45-54 years-----

55-64 years-----

65-74 yeara-----

75-84 years-----

85-99 yeara-----

White male

1-4 years-------

5-14 years------

15-24 years-----

25-34 years-----

35-44 years-----

45-54 years-----

55-64 years-----

65-74 years-----

75-84 years-----

85-99 years-----

White female,

1-4 years-------

5-14 years------

15-24 years-----

25-34 years-----

35-44 years-----

45-54 years-----

55-64 years-----

65-74 years-----

75-84 years-----

85-99 yeara-----

Nonwhite male

1-4 years-------

5-14 years------

15-24 years-----

25-34 years-----

35-44 years-----

45-54 yeare-----

55-64 years-----

65-74 years-----

75-84 years-----

85-99 years-----

Nonwhite female

1-4 years-------

5-14 years------

15-24 years-----

25-34 years-----

35-44 yeara-----

45-54 years-----

55-64 years-----

65-74 years-----

75-84 years-----

85-99 years-:---

Total

-2.1

-0.3

-0.8

-3.9

-3.6

0,3

-H!

0.7

1.0

-0.6

0.2

-::;

-4.1

-1.2

-::;

;:;

-1.2

-1.5

-1.8

-4.9

-4.0

-1.3

-0.6

-2.8

2.4

2.8

-1.5

-::$

-3.2

-1.9

1!::

-1::;

.22.6

-2.2

-2.3

-4.8

-2.4

-1.1

13.3

23.6

-4.5

.17.2

.20.8

August 1960

[Census rscord used as a base. Minus (-) sign ,mticates mrs assigmrmnts by cemus thm by NCH$]

New

England

-!::

-J:i

-5.5

-0.8

-0.5

-1.0

2.4

1.6

4.3

2.9

-Ii::

-5.3

-1.8

-0.0

1.8

-H

-J::

-;::

-5.7

-::;

-;.;

3:2

-20.0

33.3

-12.5

12.5

-7.7

3.3

3.;

-4.i

-33,;

-H

-10.6

13.9

6.7

Middle

Atlantic

-0.4

-0.6

-1.C

-4.2

-5.5

-0.5

0.7

-0.7

;:;

0.3

-::;

-5.0

-5.2

-1.2

-8:{

;::

-%:

-1.5

-2.1

-6.9

-2.4

-;::

0:8

H

-3.2

-7.8

-2.9

4.3

4,3

-:::

-20.5

-5.0

-2.4

-i::

-2.1

1?:!

-7.1

-5,4

-13.8

East

Nmtb

Central

-2.3

-!:!

-3.5

-3.4

-0.3

-i::

0.9

2.4

-1.3

0.9

-3.;

-4.5

-1.5

-8:;

0.9

3.9

-2.7

-:::

-4.9

-1.6

-0.5

-1.2

-:.:

2:4

-::;

-2::

-3.5

1:::

-1.8

-10.3

-15.0

-3.3

-4.9

-:::

-5.0

1?:$

-7.1

+;.;

.

West

North

Central

-3.4

-:::

-4.3

-0.3

-0.6

-2.6

R

-3.1

-:::

-3.0

-3.6

-0.9

-0.5

-1.0

0.8

4.1

-3.1

-;::

-6.0

-2.5

-5.2

3.4

3.8

6.;

6.3

-::;

5.6

9,6

2.6

-6.3

-22.2

12.5

-28.6

40.0

-20.0

H

12.1

-6.0

-2.6

-7.2

South

!tlantic

-2.9

-0.1

-2.1

-1.1

-2.0

2::

-1.6

-3.3

-1.6

-8::

-0.2

-2,2

-2.6

-0.6

-0.1

-0.1

0.6

2.2

-0.8

-0.6

-1.3

-4.2

-2.2

-1.9

-%:

-1.2

-5.9

-;.;

-3:5

-0.4

;::

23.8

-0.1

-28.1

-35.2

-3.;

-11.2

-:::

22.2

32.5

-5.9

-27.8

-32.0

Esst

South

Centra 1

-2.5

-1.:

-0.6

-5.6

-2.1

1.0

5.8

-1.4

-0.3

-2.5

-2.6

-:::

-3.1

0.3

-:::

-:::

-:::

-2.1

-9.0

-1.9

-4.3

-::;

4.2

3.1

-8.2

-2.;

-3.9

-4.3

1::;

-1?:$

-15.7

-2.3

-H

-9.0

:::

32.5

-3.5

-15.6

-18.0

West

South

;entra1

-3.1

-0.2

-:::

-2.1

:::

-0.6

-1.:

-2.2

-2.9

-1.6

-$;

-4.6

-1.6

-H

;::

-1.5

-:::

-4.0

-2.4

-8:?

-3.9

2.8

1.4

-4.8

1.3

-H

l::!

-19:6

-29.1

-1.9

-2.7

-3.6

-5.6

10.4

1s.0

2;.;

-25:7

-25.7

Mountain

-1.5

-;:;

-4.4

-3.5

-:::

-0.8

::;

-0.i

-2.9

-3.0

-0.4

-0.3

-1.0

2.1

2,1

-::!

-8.4

-2.3

-1.0

-0.3

-0.5

-0.5

5.2

6.7

-:;::

16:7

-2.8

H

-20,8

-16.7

22.;

-17.4

21.4

10.3

-5.1

4.5

-13.3

Pscific

-2.0

-0.9

-2.9

-3.9

-3.3

-1.2

-0.3

-1.4

:::

-0.9

-1.0

-3.;

-3.1

-1.5

-0.3

0.0

::;

-4.0

-0.6

-5.6

-3.8

-4.0

$;

-3:6

:::

-2.i

-18.0

-7,4

-4.3

-1.0

4.0

$;

2.4

-2.9

-H

-15.0

H

-:::

-:::

N~E: Figures with color and/or sex not stated are includedin the total, but are not shown separately.

52
Table 16. Net difference rates for white malea for stage T.and stage II, by age: South Atlantic

Division, May-August 1960

[jms.us reccrd used as base. Minus (-) sign inciic.ates mm assignments by census than NCHS. For explanation of stage I and stage 11, see Technical

Appendixl

Age

1-4 years---------------------------------------

5-14 years--------------------------------------

15-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

65-74

75-84

85-99

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

85 yeara and over-------------------------------

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

Not valid---------------------------------------

Stage I

Age not

stated and

not valid

included

1.1

0.5

-1.0

-1.7

0.2

0.9

0.6

1.4

3.1

. . .

-100.0

-42.9

Age not

stated and

not valid

excluded

0.6

-0.6

-0.2

-2.2

-2.6

-0.6

-0.1

-0.1

-0.6

2.2

. . .

. . .

. . .

Stage II

Age not

stated and

not valid

allocated

-6.3

1.3

-3.8

0.8

-5.7

-3.8

-0.5

0.9

k. 8

. . .

5.2

. . .

. . .

Age not

stated and

not valid

unallocated

-6.3

-2.9

2.3

-4.5

-2.7

.

-0.8

0.7

1.1

. . .

5.5

. . .

. . .

NOTE: Stage I, but not stage II, excludes decedents whose age was stated to be 100 years or

over on the c~nsui record.

53
Table 17. Number of matched deaths reporting same race on both census and death records, census record only, and

death record only; and net and groaa difference rates: United States and each region, May-August 1960

Region and race

All regions

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

Nonwhite --------

Negro ---------

Indian--------

Japanese ------

Chinese -------

Filipino ------

Other nonwhite --------

Not stated and

not valid ------

Northeast

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

NOnwhite --------

Negro ---------

Indian --------

Japanese ------

Chinese -------

Filipino ------

Other nonwhite --------

Not stated and

not valid------

North Central

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

NOnwhite --------

Negro ---------

Indian--------

~h~~;e------

-.-.-.-

FilipinO ------

Other nonwhite --------

Not stated and

not valid------

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

Ncmwhite --------

Negro ---------

Indian--------

~h~~e------

.--.---

Filipino ------

Other ncinwhite --------

Not stated and

not valid ------

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

Nonwhite --------

Negro ---------

Indian--------

Japanese ------

Chinese -------

Filipino ------

Other nonwhite --------

ITot stated and

not valid ------

Number reporting

Same on

both

353,612

37,110

35,309

602

562

315

138

69

.,.

107,551

5,467

5,313

24

7:

1

...

113,116

6,587

6,401

110

28

21

5

...

81,809

22,369

22,188

146

1:

...

51,136

2,687

1,407

322

521

205

130

68

...

:ensus

record

only

847

881

685

154

19

33

56

49

3,214

275

245

229

21

Ii

15

11

824

196

204

153

51

3

8

3

8

989

274

262

220

38

3

3

7

6

842

102

170

::

13

3:

24

559

Death

recor?

only

3,621

1,299

1,092

!;

17

11

197

22

1,007

332

335

10

:

1

26

5

1,117

263

257

14

1

;

9

9

926

448

433

20

2

1

2

5

4

571

256

X

10

11

6

157

4

Census record as base

Net difference

Number

2,774

418

407

-71

-5

-16

-45

148

-3,192

732

18:

-11

-1;

-14

15

-819

921

1::

-:;

-6

-1

1

-980

652

186

213

-18

:;

-5

-1

-838

469

86

-16

::

-2;

133

-555

0.8

1.1

-ki

-0.9

-4.6

23.2

125,4

-99.3

0,7

1,5

-2;::

12.5

-11.5

-77.8

125.0

-99.4

0.8

0.9

-2!::

-6.5

-2007

-12.5

12.5

-99.1

0.8

!?::

-9.8

-12,5

-11.1

-71.4

-16,7

-99.5

0.9

-?::

-1.4

-0.6

-1:::

144.6

-99.3

Gross difference

Number

4,46~

2,18C

1,777

237

32

SC

67

246

3,236

1,282

577

564

31

1:

16

37

829

1,313

467

410

65

4

10

5

17

998

1,200

710

653

58

i

9

11

846

673

426

150

83

23

20

37

181

563

lMinus sign indicates more assignments by census than by NCHS.

2Minua si= indicates more assignments by NCHS than by c~sus.

Rate

1.3

5.7

3?::

l::i

34.5

208.5

100.7

1.2

10.1

10.2

68,9

12.5

18.4

88.9

308.3

100.6

k;

4;::

12.9

34.5

62.5

212.5

100.9

::?

3::?

62.5

22,2

128.6

183.3

100.5

1.3

14.9

10.1

2;.;

.

2::;

196.7

100.7

Death record as base

Net difference

Number

-2,774

-41E

-407

71

:

::

-14E

3,192

-732

-87

-106

11

-1

::

-15

819

-921

-59

-104

37

2

6

1

-1

980

-652

-186

-213

18

1

2

5

1

838

-469

-86

16

:

i:

-133

555

Rate

2

-0,8

-1,1

-1.1

10.4

0.9

3:::

-55.6

14,509.1

-0.7

-1.5

-1.9

32.4

-11.1

13,0

35Q.O

-55.6

16,380.0

-0.8

-0.-9

-1.6

29.8

2%?

14.-3

-11.1

10,888 .-9

-0.8

-0.8

-0.9

10.8

14.3

12.5

‘250.0 .. ..-

20.0

20,950.0

-0.9

-2.9

1.1

1.4

-:::

18.4

-59.1

13,875.0

Groaa difference

Numbex

4,468

2,180

1,777

237

33

50

67

246

3,236

1,282

577

564

31

1*

16

37

829

1,313

467

410

65

1:

5

17

998

1,200

710

653

58

2

9

11

846

673

426

150

83

;:

37

181

563

Rate

k;

3:::

1;:!

45.0

92,5

14,709.1

1,2

1:::

91.2

11.1

20.8

400.0

137.0

16,580,0

1.1

6.8

5;:;

13.8

$;,:

.

188.9

11,088,9

1.5

3.1

3::;

71.4

25.0

450.0

220.0

21,150.0

li:;

10.2

2;.;

.

2%;

80.4

14,075.0

NOTE : For explanation of why white and nonwhite do not add to the total, aee Technical Appendix.
Table 18. Number of matched and unmatched deaths and proportionunmatched,by race: United States

and each region,May-August 1960

Region and race

All regions

All races------------------

white----------------------------

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

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

Indian-------------------------

~~;;e -----------------------

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

Filipino-----------------------

Other nonwhite-----------------

Not stated and not valid---------

Northeast

All races------------------

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

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

Negro----------+---------------

Indian---------L.--------------

Ja~:e -----------------------

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

Filipino-----------------------

Other nonwhite-----------------

Not stated and not valid---------

North Central

All races ------------------

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

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

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

Indian-------------------------

.TT~;~e -----------------------

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

Filipino-----------------------

Other nonwhite-----------------

Not stated and not valid---------

South

All races------------------

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

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

Negro----------7~r-------------

Indian---------------d---------

Japanese-----------------------

Chinese------------------------

Filipino-----------------------

Other nonwhite-----------------

Not stated and not valid---------

w

All races------------------

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

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

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

Indian-------------------------

Jafan;~e-----------------------

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

Filipino-----------------------

Other nonwhite-----------------

Not stated and not valid---------

Matched deaths according to:

Census

record

395.664

354,459

37,991

35.994

-756

581

348

194

118

3,214

114.362

107,826

5,712

5,542

45

8;

121,092

11:,;;;

6;554

161

31

29

8

8

989

105.556

82,083

22,631

22,408

184

8

18

:

842

54,654

51,238

2,857

1,490

366

534

214

161

92

559

Death

record

395,664

357,233

38,409

36,401

685

576

332

149

266

22

114.362

108,558

5,799

5,648

34

7?

2;

5

121,092

114,233

6,850

6,658

124

z:

7

9

9

105.556

82,735

22,817

22,621

166

7

16

2

2

54,654

51,707

2,943

1,474

361

531

216

136

225

4

Unmatched

deaths

100.412

84,560

15,851

14,913

432

131

153

112

110

1

24.321

21,821

2,499

2,410

16

4

58

;

1

26,318

23,792

2,526

2,386

105

7

15

3

10

34,279

24,681

9,598

9,487

83

3

15

:

15,494

14,266

1,228

630

228

117

65

103

85

Proportionunmatched

Census

record

20.2

19.3

29,4

29.3

36.4

18.4

30.5

36.6

48.2

0.0

17.5

16.8

30.4

30.3

26.2

33.3

40.0

10.O

42.9

0.1

17.9

17.4

27.1

26.7

39.5

18.4

34.1

27.3

55.6

24.5

23.1

29.8

29.7

31.1

27.3

45.5

36.4

50.0

22.1

21.8

30.1

29.7

38,4

18.0

23,3

39.0

48.0

Death

record

20.2

19.1

29.2

29.1

38.7

18;5

31.5

42.9

29.3

4.3

17.5

16.7

30.1

29.9

32.0

30.8

43.0

33.3

25.0

16.7

17.9

24.5

23.0

29.6

29.5

33.3

30.0

48,4

66.7

54:5

22.1

21.6

29.4

29.9

38.7

18.1

23.1

43.1

27.4

55
c

TECHNICAL

Design of Study

The study includes a sample of registered

deaths which occurred during the 4-month period,

May-August, 1960. ‘l%e following age-color

groups were included:

1. All nonwhite decedents

2. All white decedents under 65 years of age

3. One-half of white decedents 65-74 years

of age

4. One-fifth of white decedents 75 years and

over

The records for white decedents were systematically selected from the regular mortality punchedcard file using the randomly assigned terminal

Table 1. Number and Dercent distribution

APPENDIX [

digitsof the certificatenumbers. Sample groups

threeand fourof Imth the matched and unmatched

records were inflated by two and five, respectively, during the processing operation.

As indicated in table 1, the actual count of

death certificates included in the match operation

was 340,033. Of this number, 495 records were

excluded because of “impossible” codes—483

matched and 12 records unmatched.

Also included in table I are the inflated counts

of records by match status. ‘‘”

A seasonaI bias may be introduced since the

deaths were limited to May-August. But an examination of ‘‘nonmatch” rates by month, particularly

April and September, for a previous study involving the occupation item on the ‘census and death

records,7 resulted in a decision to limit this study

to the 4-month period. ‘ ‘“!-,

of records included in the’1960 Comparison

Study: United States, May-August 1960

i I

I

Actual count of IInflated count of

records ~~ records

Result of match operation

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

Matched --------------------------------------

Unmatched ------------------------------------

Rejectsl -------------------------------------

I l,,-!, ,,

I I

Percent I

~~l-,~fm Percent

Number distribu- Number distribution tion

340,033 I 100.0 I 533,747 I 100.0

1 I 1

262,483 77.2 420,292

77,055

78.7

22,7 112,656 21.1

2495 0,1 3799 0.1

‘Includes impossible codes not included in the study.

2Includes 483 matched records and 12 unmatched.

31ncludes 782 matched records and 17 unmatched.

56
Criteria for Matching

Copies of the 340,033 death certificates included in this study were coded for the stage I

Census Enumeration District (ED). A record

was considered matched if the exact street

address of residence and the name of the decedent were located in the ED book. Other information such as date of birth and marital status

were used if the above criteria did not result

in a match.

If infants under 1 year of age were not

located in the ED kook, an attempt was made to

match via the mother. The infants represented

a high nonmatch risk group since mmy of them

were born after the 1960 Census of Population

and therefore were not enumerated.

Almost 6 percent of the records were matched

at the place of death, rather than the usual place

of residence. Those persons matched at the place

of death were for the most part those who died

in institutions. , ,

Decedents matched in stage I and included in

the 25-percent sample of the 1960 Census of Population, referred to as stage II, were then searched

in the stage 11 books. There were 64,675 such

decedents and all but 2,188 were located in the

stage H census records. The names of these 2,188

decedents could pot be located on the appropriate

pages of the stage’ II schedules.

A host of reasons exists for failure to match

the death certificate to the census record:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

The decedent may have moved after the

date .of enumeration on April 1.

The decedent may not have been enumerated.

Clerical and machine errors occurred

at all stages of ~ study.

,

Misstaterncmt6 pf information were entered on the census record and/or the

death certificate.

Variances

The sample design has been discussed in a

previous section, “Design of Study.” To obtain

the sampling error of an estimate of tbe net

difference rate for a given geographic area, it

would be necessary to know the number of death

records for white decedents 65-74 years of age

and 75 years and over during May-August 1960

for geographic areas botb before and after sampling. The death records were sampled but the

color designations for most geographic areas

were based on the color on the census record.

Although all nonwhite decedents were included

in the study period, a decedent stated to be

white on the death record may be nonwhite on

the census record and vice versa. Therefore,

it is not possible to state that the sampling

error is zero for the nonwhite group shown in

the tables.

Age

The age reported on the death record is

generally the age of the decedent at his last

birthday. If the rqmrted age did not agree with

the computed age (the difference between the date

of death and the date of birth on the certificate),

the stated age was accepted unless the difference

was 5 years or more. If the difference was 5

years or more, entries for other items on the

vital record such as cause of death, occupation,

marital status, and social security number were

considered in determining the age. Most of the

differences involved infants. Therefore, the aforementioned characteristics would give some indication of the “correct” age. If a discrepancy

occurred such as 25 years for the computed age

and 35 for the stated age, the stated age was

accepted.

The age classification used in the 1960

Census of Population is based on the quarter of

the year of birtb as of April 1, 1960. For this

study, the age was updated to adjust for a birthday that might have occurred between the date

of the census and the time of death.

As indicated in the tables showing data by

age, the number of matched records for decedents under 1 year of age and 100 years and over,

according to the census record, are excluded.

The number of records with negative ages are

also excluded. Infants were excluded because

many were born after the date of enumeration

on April 1, 1960. There were 23,176 records

57
for infants. Decedents 100 years and over and

those with negative ages were omitted because

there was an excessive number of errors in the

century-of-birth codes on the census record. For

example, if the year of birth was actually 1861

and the century code for 1900 was assigned, the

result was a negative age. There were 1,452 such

records, that is, for persons 100 years and over

and for negative ages. Such exclusions were made

to maintain comparability in order to better

assess differences in age reported on the two

records.

Additional technical problems relating to

age reported on the vital record are covered

in another report.6

Race and Color

Deaths in the United States in 1960 are

classified for vital statistics purposes into white,

Negro, American and Alaskan Indian, Chinese,

Japanese, Aleut, Eskimo, Filipino, Hawaiian,

part-Hawaiian, and other nonwhite. The U.S.

Bureau of the Census uses the same classification.

Tabulations in this study by race were

grouped as follows:

White

Nonwhite:

Negro

Indian (American and Alaskan)

Japanese

Chinese

Filipino

Other nonwhite (Aleut, Eskimo, Hawaiian,

part-Hawaiian, and racial mixtures except as noted below)

Not stated and not valid

The category “white” includes, in addition to persons reported as “white,” those reported as Mexican or Puerto Rican. If race is given as a mixture

of Negro with any other race except Hawaiian, the

race is classified as Negro. Mixtures of Hawaiian

and any other race are classified as “other nonwhite. ”

In stage I the number of census records for

which the race item was not stated is combined

with “not valid” codes (processing errors) and

shown as a single group in the race tables. Ihe

relative number of such records is small—less

than 1 percent of the matched records. If the

race was not entered on the death record, the

code for “white” was assigned in the initial

code-punch operation in NCHS. Consequently,

the category “not stated and not valid” according to death certificate designations includes only

invalid codes. The number of such records is

small. This factor is noted, not because it seriously invalidates the net difference rates, but

because the category “not stated and not valid”

was excluded from most of the residence tables.

Therefore, figures by white and nonwhite do not

add to the total.

With the exception of table 18 which shows

a comparison of detailed groupings of race, the

tables show the color item according to census

designations. The purpose was to compare a

single characteristic such as data for an SMSA

according to census and to death record assignments. 71erefore, all other characteristics such

as age, sex, and color in that table were bv

census designations so as not td distort the comparison of the variable being compared.

Sex

In a table showing a characteristic such as

age or race classified by se~, the sex of the

matched decedent is that stated on the census

records in order not to invalidate the characteristic being compared. :)

The small number of deaths for which the

sex was not stated-O.5 perdent of the total

matched records—is included in the total in

those tables containing sex, but the category

is not shown separately. ‘

Urban and Rural Areas ‘ “

,.4r.i,~.l ,:

The urban-rural definitions used by NCHS

differ from those used for data published by the

U.S. Bureau of the Census. For this study, the

Bureau of the Census assigned the residence

codes on the census records of the decedents

included in this study according to the rules

used for vital statistics. Therefore, the figures

for urban and rural are comparable with respect

to the application of rules, and the differences

58
between the NCHS figures and those tabulated by

census result from the entries on the two records

or processing errors. As noted earlier, differences in the enumeration process and the registration system give greater weight to the accuracy

of the census figures. For the decemial census,

geographic locations can be fixed with a high degree of accuracy by the Bureau of the Census

through the use ~f street maps, census tracts,

and the like. NCHS is dependent almost entirely

on the information entered in the residence item

on the vital record.

For the definitions of urban and rural as

used for vital statistics purposes, see Vitul

Si!utistics of the United Stutes, 1960, Volume

II, Part A.

Geographic Divisions and Regions

The nine divisions and four regions referred

to in this reprt correspond to those used by the

U.S. Bureau of the Census. For States included in

each division and region, see reference 8.

Formula for Adiusting Annual Death Rate

(

dmd – dmc

D-D

dm= )

= R ~ = Upper range of

D–D

(

‘m;::mc) ‘D (:: d.)

Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas

The standard metropolitan statistical areas

(SMSA’S) used in this report are the same as those

established by the JJ.S. Bureau of the Budget as of

1960 (except in the New England States) and used

by the U.S. Bureau of the Census.

Except in the New England States, an SMSAis

a county or a group of contiguous counties which

contains at least one city of 50,000 inhabitants or

more or “twin cities’,’ with a combined population

of at least SO,000,in the 1960 census. Contiguous

counties are included in an SMSA if, according to

specified criteria, they are (1) essentially metropolitan in character and (2) socially and economically intergrated Iwith the central city or cities.

In New England the Bureau of the Budget uses

towns and cities 1rather than counties as geographic components of SMSA‘s. NCHS cannot use

the SMSA classification in New England because

its data are not coded to identify all towns. Instead

the metropolitan State economic area (MSEA)

established by the Bureau of the Census, which

is made up of county units, is used. (For a more

complete discussion of SMSA’s and MSEA’s, see

references 8-10.)

Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Counties

Counties which are included in SMSA’S, or

in New England MSEA’S, are called metropolitan

counties; all other counties are classified as

nonmetropolitan.

P

= R2 = Lower range of

Symbols

D = annual number of deaths, 1960

rate

P =populatiofi enumerated as of April 1, 1960

dmc =matched deaths in study period according to

census record

dm~ =matched deaths in study period according to

death record

du = unmatched deaths in study period

R = annual death rate per 1,000 population

RI =upper range of adjusted annual death rate

per 1,000 population

R2 = lower range of adjusted annual death rate

per 1,000 population

Deaths, 1960, by residence-SMSA of Abilene,

Texas— White

Fovmula A—uppw range

794 – 794

(17:;”2) =

114,508

771

X 1,000 = 6.7 = RI

114,508

RI

= upper range

59
Fovmulu B—lower range

7?4- P’ (“;;’’2)1 -794 (172:57)=R’

114,508

573 ~ 1,000s R2 = 5.0 = lower range

114,508

Rates

R -6.9 published annual rate

RI= 6.7 IIadjusted rates

R2=5.0

Net and Gross Difference Rates

Net difference rates for matched deaths were

computed as follows:

(1)

(2)

(3)

Subtract the number of records according to census assignments only from

those according to NCHS assignments

only

Divide the number obtained in step 1 by

the number of records for which there is

agreement between census and NCHSplus

census assignments only

Multiply by 100

Most tables contain net difference rates with the

census record as base; thus a negative rate

indicates more assignments by census than by

NCHS. If the death record is the base, a negative rate signifies more assignments by NCHS.

In most instances the base is inconsequential.

If the differences are relatively large, the rate

may vary greatly depending on the base.

Gross difference rates were computed by

summing the differences rather than subtracting

the differences as for net difference rates. Otherwise the computation was the same.

Due to a programming error the first digit

of the gross difference rates was not printed out

on the tabulations in many instances. Rather than

manually correct all of these errors, only a few

were recomputed for inclusion in this report.

Symbols

Si - Number of assignments are the same

according to both the census record and the

death record

c, = Number of assignments according to the

census record only

di = Number of assignments according to the

death record only

ndr, = Net difference rate

gd~ = Gross difference rate

Formulas

Net difference rate:

Census record is base.

d,- C,

x 100 = ndrl

s, +Ci

Death record is base.

Ci – dl

x 100 = ridri

S1 + d,

Gross di~erence Yate:

Census record is base.

d, + cl x 100 = gdr.I

Si+ c,

Death record is base.

C, + d,

x 100 = gdr,

S, + dl

000

60

* U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1969—34204S/3S
Series 1.

Series 2.

Series 3.

Series 4.

Series 10.

Series 11.

Sevies 12.

Series 13.

Series 14.

Series 20.

Series 21.

Series 22.

OUTLINE OF REPORT SERIES FOR VITAL AND HEALTH STATISTICS

origindy I%blic Health Service l%blication No. 1000

Programs and collection fwocedures.-Reports which desc .ii -he gener?l 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.

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.

Ana&yticat studies. —Reports presenting analytical or interpretive studies based on vital and health

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

Documents and committee reports. —Final reports of major committees concerned with vitsl and

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

and death certificates.

Data j%om the Health Interview 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 national household interview survey.

Data from the Health Examination Survey. -Data from direct examination, testing, and measurement of national samples of tie 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 reqpect to physical, physiol@cal, and psychological characteristics; and (2)

analysis of relationships among the various measurements without reference to an explicit finite

universe of persons.

Data from the Institutional Population Surveys. —Statistics relating to ‘the health characteristics of

persons in institutions. and on medical, nursing, and personal care received, based on national

samples of establishments providing these services and samples of the residents or patients.

Data from the HospitaJ Discharge Survey.— Statistics relating to discharged patients in short-stay

hospitals, based on a sample of patient records in a national sample of hospitals.

Da to on health resources: manpower and facilities .- Statistics on the numbers, geographic distribution, and characteristics of health resources including physicians, dentists, nurses, other health

manpower occupations, hospitals, nursing homes, and outpatient and other inpatient facilities.

Data on mortatity, —Various statistics on mortality other than as included in annual or monthly

reports —special analyses by cause of death, age, and other demographic variables, also geographic

and time series analyses.

Data on natality, marriage, and divorce. —Various statistics on natality, marriage, and divorce other

than as included in annual or monthly reports— special analyses by demographic variables, also

geographic and time series analyses, studies of fertility.

Data from the Nationa[ Nata[ity and MortaLity Surveys. —Statistics on characteristics of births and

deaths not available from the vital records, based on sample surveys stemming from these records,

including such topics as mortality .by socioeconomic class, medical experience in the last year of

life, characteristics of pregnancy. +’tc.

For a list of titles of reports published in these series, write to: Office of Information

National Center for Health Statistics

Public Health Semite, HRA

Rockville, Md. 20852
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTN EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

PUBLIC XEALTH SERVICE

f%lth Resources Administration

5600 Fishers Lane

Rockville, Maryland 20852

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for Private Usc $300

PoSTAGE AND FEES PAID

U.S. D=ARTMENT OF HEW *

uS.MUL

THIRD CLASS

BLK. RT.