NATIONAL CENTER Series 20 

For HEALTH STATISTICS INumber 1 

VITAL mid HEALTH STATISTICS 

DATA FROM THE NATIONAL VITAL STATISTICS SYSTEM 

Infant Mortality Trends 

United States and 

Each State, 1930-1964 

Graphic presentation of infant mortality trends in 

the United States and each State for the period 

1930-64. The trends for individual States are for 

the neonatal and postneonatal periods of life; for 

a selected group of States, the trends by color are 

also inctuded. wwm OFTHE 

PUBLICATIONS‘XW3-s 

EDITWAL LIM4AW 

Washington, D.C. November 1965 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE Public Health Service 

John W. Gardner Wi I I iam H. Stewart 

Secretary Surgeon Genera I 
., .,, ,, ,: 

r. . 

Public Health Service Publication No. 1000-Series 20-No. 1 

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

Washington, D. C., 20402- Price 45 cents 
NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS 

FORREST E. LINDER, PH. D., Director 

THEODORE D. WOOLSEY, Deputy D&ctor 

OSWALD K, SAGEN, PH. D., ~~shtant Director 

WALT R. SIMMONS, M.A., statistical Advi.ror 

ALICE M, WATERHOUSE, M.D., Medical Advisor 

JAMES E. KELLY, D.D.s., Dental Advi~or 

LOUIS R. STOLCIS, M.A., Executive OfiCer 

DIVISION OF VITAL STATISTICS 

ROBERTD. GROVE,PH. D., C&j 

ANDERSS. LUNDE,PH.D., Assistant Chiej 

Public Health Service Publication No. 1000-Series 20-No. 1 

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 65-62785 
------- ------- ------- -------------- ------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTENTS 

Page 

Infant Mortality Trends in the Uriited States .------ 1 

Infant, Neonatal, and Posmeonatal Mortality Rates for Each State: 

Page 

Alabama 

Alaska 

Arizona 

Arkansas 

California 

Colorado 

Connecticut 

Delaware 

District of Columbia 

Florida 

Georgia 

Hawaii 

Idaho ----------------------------------

Illinois 

Indiana 

Iowa 

I<ansas 

Kentucky 

Louisiana 

Maine 

Maryland 

Massachusetts 

Michigan 

Minnesota 

Mississippi 

Missouri 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

Page 

Montana 32 

Nebraska 33 

Nevada 34 

New Hampshire 35 

New Jersey 36 

New Mexico 37 

New York ------------------------------ 38 

North Caroling 39 

North Dakota 40 

Ohio 41 

Oklahoma 42 

Oregon 43 

Pennsylvania 44 

Rhode Island 45 

South Carolina 46 

South Dakota 47 

Tennessee 48 

Texas 49 

Utah 50 

Vermont 51 

Virginia 52 

Washington 53 

West Virginia 54 

Wisconsin 55 

Wyoming 56 

Mississippi 64 

Missouri 64 

Nevada 65 

New Jersey 65 

New Mexico 66 

New York ------------------------------ 66 

North Carolina 67 

Ohio 67 

Oklahoma 68 

Pennsylvania 68 

South Carolina 69 

Tennessee 69 

Texas 70 

Virginia 70 

Infant Mortality by Color for Selected States: 

Alabama------------------------------,- 57 

Alaska 57 

Arizona 58 

Arkansas 58 

California 59 

Delaware 59 

District of Columbia 60 

Florida 60 

Georgia 61 

Hawaii 61 

Illinois 62 

Louisiana 62 

Maryland 63 

Michigan 63 
T!tilS REPORT bvings wp to date the status of the infant movtality problem. in the United States and pvesents in gvaphic fovm the infant movtality tyends foy the individual States. 

A study of the change in the infant movtality tvend foy 1933-57 was ~b -

lished in 1960. An additional 7 years of data Reinforces the findings of 

the pyevious study. The infant moytality vate fov the past 15 yeans has 

been declining at one-quavtey of the rate of the 15 yeavs before that. Although the infant mo~tality rate foy 1964, the latest complete yeav, is the 

lowest evev Yecoyded fo~ the United States, there is no indication of any 

j?.mthey change in tvend. 

The change in the Yate of decline of the infant movtality Yate has occu?wed 

in practically every segment of the infant population in the United States 

and in vi$+ually all of the States. Until 1958, the infant movtality Yate 

foy at least a dozen States was declining OY even showing a significant 

acceleration in the Yate of decline. HoweveY, the moye vecent expedience 

shows that there has been a deeyease in the Yate of decline of the infant 

moytality Yate foy every one of these States except Mississippi and New 

Mexico. 
INFANT MORTALITY TRENDS 

UNITED STATES AND EACH STATE 

In a study of the infant mortality trend published in 1960,1 data for the period 1933-57 were 

examined ‘and‘attention was called to the deceleration in the rate of decline of the infant mortality 

rate. Data for an additional 7 years are now 

available. It is the purpose of this report to bring 

the status of the infant mortality problem in the 

United States up to date and to present graphically 

infant mortality trends for the individual States. 

The change in the infant mortality trend in 

the United States came after a long period of 

rapid decrease. If the trend prevailing during 

the period 1935-50 had continued, the infant mortality rate in the United States would now be about 

15 per 1,000 live births. This is considerably 

lower than the rate of 24.8 per 1,000 live births 

for 1964, the lowest rate ever recorded for the 

United States. However, the rate for 1964 is not 

inconsistent with the trend for the period 1950-

63. The infant mortality rate for the first 6 months 

of 1965 is about 3 percent higher than the rate 

for the corresponding period of 1964. 

Because significant changes had taken place 

over the years in the United States in the distribution of live births by age of mother, birth 

order, birth weight, and other factors related to 

increased risk of infant death, it was possible for 

total mortality to be affected by the change in the 

proportion of births by these various characteristics even if the force of mortality remained unchanged. Adjustment of rates for the changing distribution of live births by birth order and age of 

mother did not indicate that these factors account 

lMoriyama, I. M.: Recent change in infant mortality trend. 

Pub. HeaZth Rep. 75:391-405, M’ay 1960. 

for the change in the infant mortality trend. 

Neither did the changing number of annual births 

explain the phenomenon. 

Although there is no evidence to suggest this 

possibility, infant mortality rates could be affected 

by changes inregistrationpractices. For example, 

it is known that deaths of some babies dying soon 

after birth are registered as fetal deaths rather 

than as infant deaths. In a significant number “of 

cases the total infant mortality rate and, more 

particularly, the neonatal mortality rate could be 

affected by this practice. However, there is no 

indication from the examination of the perinatal 

mortality rates that such an artifact is involved. 

AH in all, there is little to suggest that the recent 

change in the infant mortality trend is not real. 

The slowing down of the decline in the infant 

mortality rate was evident in practically every 

segment of the infant population in the United 

States. The rates for both the white and nonwhite 

infants were affected, as were the rates for the 

various age subdivisions. There was a definite 

leveling off of the rate for urban residents. While 

the change in the rate for rural areas was not 

as great as that for the cities, it nevertheless 

appeared to be real. The infant mortality trends 

for individual States generally showed the same 

pattern as those for the country as a whole. However, several other patterns involving some 17 

States and the District of Columbia were evident. 

In a small group of States there was an apparent 

reversal in trend, and the rates were rising. In 

another small group of States there was a significant acceleration in the rate of decline. In 

some 10 States there appeared to be no apparent 

change in the rate of decline of the infant mortality trend. 
● 

The addition of more recent information removes any doubt, if any existed, of the change 

that has taken place in the infant mortality trend. 

Figure 1 shows that the infant mortality rate declined at a rapid pace for many years. During the 

period 1933-49 the total infant mortality rate decreased about 4.3 percent each year. Beginning 

about 1950, however, the rate of decrease in infant mortality dropped to 1.1 percent per annum. 

Although the national infant mortality rate is now 

at its lowest level, the prospects for a change in 

the rate of decline in the future do not appear to 

be as favorable now as they did in 1958. 

The mortality experience of white infants 

follows the same pattern as that for all infants. 

For nonwhite infants the deceleration in the downward trend is even more marked. During the 

period 1933-49, the mortality rate for nonwhite 

infants decreased 4.6 percent per annum. Between 1950 and 1964 the rate of decline slowed 

down to 0.6 percent per year. The gap between 

the rate for white and nonwhite infants has widened 

during the past decade. 

The trends of the neonatal (under 1 month of 

age) and the postneonatal (1 to 11 months of age) 

mortality rates by color are shown in figure 2. 

10 —— —— .-——— _ ___ .._. _____ 

+ * +* 8 — —-. — ——. .— 

+ 

++* 

6 ——-—--—.. x. -+-% +-

****** 

4 . 1111111111111111111111111111 111 [11 

.-O 

. . 80 

● .* 

●. 60 ●= ●**”* . 

*4** Nonwhite *** “.c. c 

40 

● ** . . 

*--

. . ..* “*. . S*L 

***: 

*::. All Races **.** 

~ti,e*** *””*”’ *O*. *m 

****** **** 

20 11111111111111111111111111 Illllllt 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 I96: 

Figure 1. Infant mortal ity rates, by color: United 

States. 1933-6L 

The neonatal mortality rates for white and nonwhite infants declined at about the same rate (3 

percent per year) between 1935 and 1949. Since 

then the rate of decline dropped to 0.3 percent 

——. ———... 10 

— 

—.. ..—.— ., _- .._ .__ . . . __________ . . . 8 

6 

1111111111111111111111111111111 Ill . 4 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 IB65 1930 1935 1940 1945 I 950 1955 1960 1965 

Figure 2. Neonatal and postneonatal mortality rates, by color: United States, 1933-6% 

2 
● 

● 

per year for nonwhite and to 1.0 percent per annum 

for white infants. 

The leveling-off effect may also be seen in 

the trends for the postneonatal period. For the 

nonwhite the annual rate of decline prior to 1946 

was about 5 percent. Since 1946 the rate of decrease dropped to 1.2 percent per year. For 

white infants the annual rate of decline prio~ to 

1950 was 7.2 percent per annum as compared with 

2.2 percent after 1950. 

The difference between the neonatal and postneonatal mortality rates among white infants is 

considerable. For the nonwhite the rate differential for these two age groups is not very great, 

which suggests that the posmeonatal environment 

of nonwhite infants has not changed greatly over 

the years. The gap between the neonatal and postneonatal mortality rates for white infants appears 

to be widening, but this is not so for nonwhite infants. 

In figure 3 infant mortality rates by age subdivisions are shown in greater detail than the neonatal and postneonatal mortality rates. Of particular interest is the mortality rate during the 

first week of life. The infant mortality rate during 

the first day is now slowly but definitely increasing. However, the rate for the age group 1 

to 6 days appears to be declining without interruption. Most of the infants that die during the 

first week are those that are born and die in hospitals. The effect of nursery care should be most 

evident in the age group I-6 days. The mortality rate for the age group under 1 day may be 

affected by the increased survival of fetuses into 

the first day of life. This factor may possibly 

explain the gradual increase in rate in recent 

years. It does not, however, serve to explain why 

there has been an upturn in the rate after the 

period of rapid decline between 1935 and 1950. 

In the older ages in the first year of life the 

leveling off of the infant mortality rate is now 

much more marked than it was when the trends 

were examined in 1960. In fact, the decline in 

mortality of infants over 1 month of age appears to 

have ceased altogether. Mortality in the postneonatal period is still relatively high (about 30 

percent of total infant deaths). 

At the time that the trends for the period 

1933-57 were examined, it was found that” the 

rate of decIine in the infant mortality rate for 

cities of every size had decreased. The rate for 

urban places as a whole had leveled off, as may 

DEATHS PER 1,000 LIVE BIRTHS 

20 20 

. 

● 

● ●* . . . . . ● 

..O . 

. ●*.. *m Under I Oay ●*. 3-II Months 

. ,. 10 .—.-* ●—.—.- -4 “ “ “ “ . 10 

. . . . . . . . . 8 .* —-. 

. . — . . . . e 

. ● 

. ● . l-600ys “a..”. 

6 . ● . ● * . . . 6 

● . . ●..* ●. . . ● . . . ● . . . . . . 

4 —* ● . 4 . .! ..* 

. -. 

‘. 

7-27 DOy$ 1-2 Months 

● .*. 

. ..* ●*..*, 

● . . 

“.. * 

.O. 2 7. 2 

. 

I 1111111111111111111111111111 111111 1111111 1111111 lllllllltllll 1111111 .1 

1930 1935 1940 I 945 I 950 1955 1960 1965 1930 1935 1940 I 945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

Figure 3. Infant mortal ity rates, by age: Uni ted States, 1933-64. 

3 
● 

● 

● 

be seen in figure 4. The rates for some large 

cities had even increased. This led to the suggestion that the ‘increase might be due to the 

movement from the city to the suburb of people 

in more favorable circu-rns;ances, thus resulting 

in a higher proportion of poorer people in” the 

remainin~’ city population. It has also been suggested’ that the infant mortality rates for cities 

were unfavorably affected by the large migration 

of rural residents to urban places seeking better 

economic opportunities. These suggestions may 

serve to explain’ the leveling off of the urban infant mortality rates, but if these factors were 

adversely affecting the urban mortality experience, they should concurrently influence favorably 

the rural mortality rates. The rate of decline of 

the mortality rate for rural infants began to decrease slightly starting about 1950. After 1956 

the rural infant mortality rate appears to have 

leveled off completely. 

The infant mortality rate in the United States 

is currently significantly higher than the rates for 

the various Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands, Switzerland, England and Wales, Australia, 

and New Zealand. The difference between the infant 

mortality rate in the United States and those of 

other countries cannot be readily accounted for on 

the basis of differences in definitions, methods of 

data collection, and possible incornpleten&s’ of ,, registration.2 ,, ,. 

Bec’&se’ of the change in the morta~ity trend 

in the “United States, the present situation in this ,, country is less favorable relative to other countries” than was the case 25 to 30 years ago. Although there are indications of a cha,nge in trend 

in other countries such as Australia, England and 

Wales, New Zealand, Norway,, and Sweden, these 

changes are not nearly as great as those experienced in the United States. On the other hand, 

the rates for other countries of’ low mortality 

continue to decline. 

The fetal mortality rate” for the United States 

is low and the neonatal mortality rate is high 

relative to the corresponding rates for other 

countries. Because of the leveIing off of ‘the rates 

in the United States, ‘the perinatal mortality rate 

for the United States is now at the upper end of 

the range for countries of low mortality. 

The postneonatal mortality rate in the United 

States now ranks close to the highest in the group 

of countries of low mortality. This is in sharp 

z~hapiro, s. and ).ioriyama, I. M.: International trends in 

infant mortality and their implications for the United States. 

Am. J. Pub. Health 53:747-760, May 1963. 

OEATHS PER 1,000 LIVE BIRTHS 

100 100 

80 80 

60 ● . ——— .- .._— —— —.———— 60 

● . --+.”* 

● .’. O . 

40 ——. ●—, .— . ● ~i.. —_——--— ..? -.. 40 

● Urban’ ●*.* Rural’ ● . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ““. . . . . . . . 

20. 1111111111111111111111111111 111111. 111111111111111111111111111 1111111 20 

I930 1935 I940 1945 1950 I 955 1960 1965 1930 1935 !940 f945 1950 1955 “1960 1965 

‘Dot. for 1951 and 1952 .31a ..1 OValloble. 

Figure !, Infant mortal ity rates for urban and rural residents: United States, 1933-6Y. 

4 
.

.

contrast with the situation 10 years earlier when 

Canada, Denmark, England and Wales, F~nlafid~ : 

Norway, and Switzerland recorded higher rates 

than the ,United States. 

The change in mortality ~ren”dhas not beep . 

limited to any particular section of the country, 

and the degree of leveling off of the rates has not 

been uniform. Until 1958 the i~fant mortality rate 

for at least a dozen States was decreasing steadily 

or eve,n showing a si=~ificant acceleration in the 

rate of decline. More recent, experience shows 

that there has been a decrease in the rate of 

decline of the infant mortality date for everyone of 

these States with the possible exceptions of Mississippi and New Mexico. Although the decline in 

the infant mortality rate for white infants in Mis -

.’ .. ..-. ,’ 

-. 000 

. . . ... . 

.,. , 

. .. 

.. .. 

sissippi has slowed down. somewhat since 1957, 

the downward movement is still relatively rapid. 

However, the trend for the State as a whole is 

rising because of the upward course of mortality 

fQr; ~.nonwliite’ infants.. ‘Tliere ‘have been sorrfe 

changes in the rate for white infants in New 

,

~Mexico. Although the: rate of decrease is still 

~fairly high, there is no longer an acceleration in 

the rate of decline. Tl+e mortality trend. for nonwhite infants in New Mexico continues d&vnward 

:without appreciable change. “., 

‘“”Thefollowhig charts show th~ pattern of the 

infant mortality treads fch%the individual States, 

wliich indicates tlie- nature and ektient o&h{problem 

in the various States. ,-,, 

.-

. ... . 

!... 

.. ,.. , .. + 

. . .. 

,’ 

5 
.

● 

/WJW/+#lA 

200 

I INFANT MORTALITY RATE 

I I I I .... ... 1930 .1955 “1840 {945 1950 1955 IWO .,,~~~ 

50 

40 w 

Oo ~ 

● o” 

20 

10 

8 

6 

4 I 1 I I 

I NEONATAL ANb POSTNEONATAL MORTALITY RATES 

I 

T ‘o. 

●0.0 

-/ 

~ Neonotol I 

● Postneonotal I 

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I JJ 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

6 
● 

● ● 

● 

ALASKA’ 

200 

INFANT MORTALITY RATE 

m 

r 

k 100 

z 

w 80 > 

7 

4} ● 

: 60 

_. 4) ● 

● * 

5 

a 40 ● ● ● 4, 

4) ● 0 m ●

? ● 

2 ● ““ n 

20 

15 1 I 1 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I 1 1 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

NEONATAL AND POSTNEONATAL .MORTALITY ATES 

60 

+ 

t 

O Neonatal 

● Postneonatal 

● .0 

---F 

8 

--t---

6 I I I I I I I 1“ I 1 1’1 I 1 1 1 / ‘1 1“ I I I I ,, .: 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

10ato not available prior to 1945. 

-+ 

7 
tAR,lZONA 

200, -

INFANT MORTALITY RATE ““’” ““ “’” ““ L ..! .; . “,i.. 

I 

4-4---H,..,.,, c 

., 

1, .; 

i’ # i! 

,:

.’, ‘,,. /, .:., 

w 

20 

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,. . 1930 - 1935 “ 1640 “ 1945 i950 !955’ .,” “1960 , 1965 

100 1. NEONATAL AND POSTNEONATAL MORTALIT tATES 

I 

80 

I 

03 60 

: +4w4--& O Neonatal a 

ii ● Postneonatal “ 

u 

> 40 

i 

10 

a .,. ... . 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 ‘ , t96ci’ 1965 

8 
---

--

● ☛ 

● ● 

ARKANSAS 

200 

I INFANT MORTALITY RATE 

,<. 

I 

l– 

I 100 

80 . I 

60 

40 

I ,J.. 

. . 

1 -... 

● . ● .:; .’000 . . 

20 

15 

1930 1935 1840 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

50 I NEONATAL AND POSTNEONATAL MORTALITY RATES I 

40 

w 

~ ,20 

J 

o 

0 

0 

% 

n 

:.10 

z 

I&l 

a 8 

6 

4 

.,. 1930$ ‘ ‘ ‘1935 1940 ““ 1945 , 1950 1955 1960 1965 

. ., . . 

“’9 
--

CALIFORNIA 

I 200 — INFANT MORTALITY RATE I I 

100 – 

80 – 

+ 60 – 

40 – 

, 

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

50 ““- NEONATAL AND bTNEONATi MORTALITY ‘RATES 

40 F ~ Neonatal 

g Postneonatol 

0 ● 

0 ● 0 

() 

u 

w 

n. ●.OO 

!!J 10 ● 

1-

a 

w 

Q8 1---1-- ● 0. .;$ 6 —~ 

4

1930 

k 1940 1945 1950 

I I I 

1955 

-t1 I I I 

1960 

I I I I 

1935 1965

10 

I 
--

● 

● 

● ✎ 

● 

COLORADO 1 

200 “ 

iNFANT MORTALITY RATE 

100 

80 a 

● .*{ )’”* 

60 m ab 

●..* i I 

40. 

-.0 

4I ●.*e 

d) ●o’. e 

4L ●oo. 

20. 

15 1 I 1 I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I 1 I 4 1 -1 J I 1 1 i I I 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 i960 1965 

en 1 Uu 

NEONATAL AND POSTNEONATAL MORTALITY RATES 

+ I I I 

o 

0 

0 

a ● 

k’ ● 

9 4 ● ’ 

● ● w 

~v ● . 

● ’ ● CO* 

6 

. . 

5 I I I I ~ I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1,, ,, 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 J963 
--

..

CONNECTICUT ., 

200 “ 

INFANT MORTAIJTY RATE 

in 

z 

k 100 1 

z 

w 

~ 80 . ““.- :. 

,! 

J ., ~..,. 

0 

0 60 -

0 I 

‘e 

e~e 

cc 

u , n. 40 e 0 a 

m ee 4) : 

z ,.. ‘e.e” () 

n e 

‘ee 

20 -

:., 4I e@O e 6/ %’e ‘e 

3

@@e 

e 

15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 

1930 1935 1840 1945 1950 19.55 1960 ,, 1965 

..” :, 

— 

50 ~-”-–’-~ NEONATAL AND POSTNEONATAL MORTALITY RATES 

., .,, ,.. 

1930” ‘ ‘“ 1935 “’ “ i940 ‘ . L,g45~~ ..... +. -?m,950,, ““ 1955 ‘ “- 1960’ +’ ‘“ 1965 ,, ,. :: ‘ 4? 

. ..< .,, ,, ,, , . ,,:; .. 

12 
. .

--

. . .

●

..* ..,. -. .-

iEtAWARE 

,“ 

I

,.- .,. 

200 

INFANT M’OtTALITY RATE I 

G9 

z I . . . 

. . k 100 .’-” 

z 

w %0,, -“ > I

i I 

0 Go ..- ● ● ☛✍ ✎ ‘.’ a o 

0 

—-

.: 

n. 40 . ...,-

.WJ”. :,.’ 

z 

$ 

u 

n 

. 

20 ‘-

.. k 15 I I [’1 I

,. 

I I 1’ I I 1’ I .. ... . .. . . . . ...

. .

-,

. 1930 1935 1840 1945 1950 1955 1960 ‘ ‘ [965 

a :<i : 

.- i.... .: .,.. .’ .,.. -. ;.. .: ,, 

, : 10. : +; ~’ _ “ ., *j , .-. . . . . . .. . ,., 6:00 4I i

. . ----- :.J

.,’ ,;! ● ● ’-”. ..”a . --;‘: . >: :8 > 4) 4b .! + 

. ::.*,y. ,.,,.. . . . ● ● :.0 . - ‘— -’.? .’,. . .. ..-. . .._< , ... . . ..-.:

6 .; t w ● ● “ j 

i 

,,. ..w .. , -:.,.. . . ,:

.- ,. ...

!:,

., ....: . :e.<. . ,..’.. . :.,

. .... . ,...’.-. ,. .

:,‘+.>.. ,...’, .,...>.! ,.. .. -

;!

..... .. .Ai .-? !* 

,.,:. 4 I .;,I l--i ,. , ,,,., I 

:7. i :>::.!? J .<. “.‘1 .- .p~ 

I 

1930 1935 . 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 [965 

. . . . 

791-085 0 -85-3 “13 
—.--— ---- —-— . . . ..—. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

200 

t INFANT MORTALiTY RATE I 

1930 1935 1840 1945 1950 1955 t960 1965 

:.,, 

.’ 

..; 

1930 1935 1940 !945 1950 t955 1960 1965 

14 
.. .

● ● 

● 

FLORIDA 

I I f INFANT MORTALITY RATE 

00 -

80 

. ..O ● 

6Q? ‘ a t)-

-O* 

f~o 

● a. {b 

40 -e 

● * 

● 00* 

● .eo 

20 

[5 I [ ,1. I I I I I I f f I 1 I 1 I J t } I . . . ,.,, . 

1930 1935 ram - 1945 ‘ 195Q 1955 1960 [965. 

.50 .. NEONATAL- AND POSTNEONAIAL’ .MORTAtJW RATES . .. . . 

4s ~ :. .’, .’ 

0 

oQ~fj 

●A ●e ● o@ 

T 

● 0 ● 

---1- > Neonatal 

B Postneondal JLILL-uJuLLJ-ut I t I till! 

1930 1935 1940 1945 ““’ ‘“ 1950 1955 1960 1965 

15 

. . ... .. -3 
.

--

GECRGiA 

,. ..., . .. , 

200 

INFANT MORTALITY RATE 

4! 

k 100 

1“ -, 1’. 

z ., . .-, 

u 80 > ( i. 

i ,, 

: $ 

o 60 ., . ..’ 

0 m 0 

—-

a 

2 40 

m ---+--- z 1- 

2 

n 

20 

,,. 15’ I I I I I I I I I I I l“ I t ,. .,.. ,!,. . . I I I I I I I .4. . ,, ., 

1930 1935 I940 1945 1950 [955 1960 1965 

. ... .. .. ,. .,. ,. -.:. 

NEONATAL AND POSTNEONATAL MORTALITY RATES . ,, 

40 au g+—..-.-. ., .,—,! .,,’ # ..

) Q o~~< ;0 !: :, 

r 

In ~.,,.:; , ,, ,: x 00 c‘) 00 Q

0, :, . .,: .: k 0 0’ ;~”” Q{ )~ ,, .:. .,,. 

,,,:: “j . ‘ 

z

iii’ 

20 

~ :,, ,., :.,’ J “’. ;.0 c9 ~Q,Q , Inn:~.. ’.. ;.:O “’o

“ 

f J

‘, . 

~ ~ 

‘o 

o c!+~ .+ UOQQ 

% 

o fB ,,-, 

0 

;,( ~ . ‘o 

.> ‘‘ “(!. + il. ,- J 

,* g 

● , 4) ● e ~.o. 4) *

~oi.,: ~, 

g 10, ~,, ,,. ~~ ,; ●

● ● 1- ..’, 

Cl 8 ,’ 

.- . “: 

6 ,, .,.. .’ C) Neonatal 

:. : ., ● Postneonotol ~ 

.. .. . 

,’,,.[: 

. ... . 

4 

.... 

,. .. 

.. . . .. ,.,, . .... 

., ..7. 

> . ,, .,,,., 

,. 

,,, ,..,. ,,. 

c 

,., ,,. 

I .,.,,4 ,. >, 

.;.. ., I I I 

,: ... I I 

1930 - 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

:.’. :. ,,,? :. .. . . ; . ,.; 
--

HAWAII 

INFANT MORTALITY RATE ‘“or . 

I I 

I 60 

I 

I 

I 

40 

E 

20 . 1-.,

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

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

. . . .. . . 

NEONATAL AND POSTNEONATAL MORTALITY RATES 

● 0 I

, ! 

I O Neonatal 

● Postneonotal 

0 

~ 

K 

III 

n 

In 

x 10 1-

a 

w 

Q 8 

6 

---H-= a ,, E 

‘1 

,,4 ‘iw I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1: I I ?“?1 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

— 

17 
--

--

.

● 

● 

IDAHO 

INFANT MORTALITY RATE 

o 60 0 

0 ● 

a 

u ● a. 40 E 

LLL—l— 

1930 1935 1840 1945 1950 4955 1960 1965 

50 

40 1== 

u 

220’ d 

o r ● 

o ●

● 

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 

.. .. .. 

NEONATAL ANti POSTNEONATAL MORTALITY RATES I 

I 

0 Neona+al 

● mstneontal 

I 

*.O t3 

t 

1930 1935 

m 

1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

0 
-- ● 

● 

ILLINOIS 

200-

INFANT MORTALITY RATE 

2 

L 100 

E 

80 

g 

J 

o 60 0 ● o d) ● * 

t ● 

5 ● 0. 40 

w 

z 4) ●..* 

5 () ● Ill 

n .0. 

dI ..O. () ..00 ‘.0. ● 

20 

15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I 

1930 1935 1840 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

50r NEONATAL AND POSTNEONATAL MORTALITY RATES 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

19 
---

INDIANA 

200 

INFANT MORTALITY RATE 

07 

x 

k 100 

ii 

w 80 > 

i 

o 

0 60 

0 .0.. —- 4JO, 

a 

III ● 4i n 40 w w w 

07 ● t) x ● 

1- ● 0 

5 ● , a d~@oo@ 

4b ● . . . {) ● ..0 

20 

15 I I I I I [ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 

1930 1935 1940 ‘ 1946 1950 1955 1960 1965 

50 -—. ...-—— 

NEONATAL AND POSTNEONATAL MORTALITY RATES I 

40 

L 

-.. .-— .. —-— 

- –-”-+--- 1 0 Neonotol

● Postneonotol 1 

‘o w 

● O 

,0 

4L I I I J I I 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

20 
--

--

● ✎ 

● ● 

● 

● ✎ 

IOWA 

200 

INFANT MORTALITY RATE - I 

w 

~ 

2 

100 

80 

L I 4-.

0 

0 60 

0 

●...* K 

w 

0. 40 

(n E I x I 1-

a ●☛ “ ,’€

u€

n€ *O 

● 0 ● ● ● ☛ ● ● 20 

1511111 

L 

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

-d

I I I I 

1930 1935 I940 1945 -1950 !955 1960 1965 

50 —., . . .. ————— 

NEONATAL AND POSTNEONATAL MORTALITY RATES 

40 — .— .— I 

Q Neonatal m f3fJ”~ ● PostneonatoI z 

L 

z 

w ‘o ~ 20 w o- -1 

0 

0 

0 ● O€

E 

n 

OY 10 z 

1-

a 

u 

a 8 

6 

4 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

791-0850 -65-4 21 
--

● 

KANSAS 

200 

: 60 

0 _. 

K 

Lu 

n 40 

m 

s

!-

: 

n 

20 

[5 

INFANT MORTALITY RATE 

. 

● 0 ● 4) ● .,, 

‘o 

w ( ● c ● . {P ● “’ 

●oe ) .000 Ip coo. 4) ● 000 

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 

1930 1935 1840 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

50 

NEONATAL AND POSTNEONATAL MORTALITY RATES 

40 

-—t— 

0 Neonatal ~ 

1- I I ● Postneonotol a 

Ei 

w I I I 

? 20 -1 

0 ● .O 0 

0 

a 

w 

a 

g 10 

1-

< 

~8 

6 

4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

22 
--

● ● 

● 

● 

● 

KENTUCKY 

200 - I 

‘--1 I I INFANT MORTALITY RATE 

,, 

. -0 w 

● . 

●O.O ●.OO 

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

1930 1935 1640 ‘i945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

50 

NEONATAL AND POSTNEONATA MORTALITY ATES I 

40 

[ ,U m pQ[ ~:oo Q Neonotal 

K ● i } o{ ~Q ● Postneonatol I z “oc+o 

u 

~ 20 ● 4) m s 

tF 

~ 

o ● 

a ,., Id ● n 

g 10 

1- ● ● 

: ● 0 ● 

n8 =ld● o.

6 

4 I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I J I I I I I I I 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

23 

3 
--

●

LOUISIANA 

INFANT MORTALITY RATE 

~ 

u 80 > 

i ● , *Q ..OO 

60 

0 

FF 

“”et*”-+”eOl”””O 

I I I I I I I I I I I 1. I I I I I I I 

1930 1935 1840 1945 1950 1955 1960 

—— 

1930 1935 1940 1945. 1950 1955 1960 1965 

24 

1965 
● 

● 

● ● ● 

● 

.“,’”’ MAINE 

200-

INFANT MORTALITY RATE 

100 

%0 

–o 

60, 

.0 s 

4t ● 0 

● d)0 . 

● O 4) 

40 ● 

.0 

4

‘ ● 0 

● .,, .,.. ) ●Ooe 

20 

15 I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 [955 1960 .1965 

50 

0 NEONATAL AND POSTNEONATAL MORTALITY RATES 

40C ) c1 m n <?Oo 

I 

o Neonotol 

0 ● Postneonatol 

o I 

● ✟ Q ● 

.0. I I I 

6 

4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

— 

25 
--

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

MARYLAND 

200 

VI 

x 

r 

z 100 

6 

Id 00 a 

> 

i ● 0 

o 60 0 

0 

Ed------ 

20 

t-----

I 

INFANT MORTALITY RATE 

1511111 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 

1930 1935 1840 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

● I NEONATAL AND POSTNEONATAL MORTALITY RATES 

I 

0 Neonatal 

● postneonotol 

n 

● ✠ 

Q ‘c) 

4 

. 

w ● 0 

.O. O 

---i 

I 

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

26 
--

--

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

MASSACHUSETTS 

m 

E 

a 

z 

Y 

i 

o 

0 

0 

K 

Ill

0. 

m 

z 

1-

a 

Ill 

n 

200 

INFANT MORTALITY RATE I 

100 

80 

* 

60 

40 

● 0 

20 

15 

1930 1935 1640 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

50 

NEONATAL AND POSTNEONATAL MORTALITY RATES 

40 

Neonotol 

03 I 0 

● Postneonotd s 

& 

= 

w 

~ 20 

0 

0 

0 

a 

w 

n. ● 0 

g 10 

1-

a ● 

:8 

6 ● ● 0 

● 

● ● 0 ●’0 d) .0 ● ° ? 

4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

! 27 

.. 

. . . :1 

-i 

. ..,, ‘ 

-. .“. . 

1 
--

● 

● 

MICHIGAN 

INFANT MORTALITY RATE 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 

50 NEONATAL AND POSTNEONATAL MORTALITY RATES 

40 

t > 

~o~o 07 

z t > 0000 

G 4 t ) 

z ~~~oc ,Qo 

w ● 

: 20 w ● 

● 4) ● o 

0 ● o ● ).O 

K 

w ● 0 n 

?J 10 

I 0 Neonatal 

● Postneonotol 

0 & < ● * ,0 

:8 

6 4---L%- 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

28 

1965 
---

--

d

● 

● 

● ● 

● 

MINNESOTA 

zoo 

INFANT MORTALITY RATE 

w 

: 

a 100 

G 

Id 80 > 

3 

0 60 

~ 4

–0 

● OO . K 

w 

n 40. m 

UY ● . z 1- .00 

2 

n 

20 

-L ,“ 

, 

0 

.0 

‘e 4) I ● 0 ● g{ --P15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 

1930 1935 1840 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

50 

\ NEONATAL AND POSTNEONATAL MORTALITY RATES 

40 

(3 0 

Qo~ ~ 

~ Neonotal 

Qoo 

( 3 0 

● Postneanatol 

c3~Qt ‘~oo 

20 

4) (3:3 

● ●-, ,00 

%3QQC )O-oc )QC3C3Q 

a ● w 

n. 

10 4D m 

● 4P 

8 a 

● ● 0 

6 b 

● . ● . t) ● 

S*4 )0 ● ● 00 

4 I I 1 I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 

1930 ‘1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 .. . 

29 
--

--

● 

MISSISSIPPI 

200 - INFANT MORTALITY RATE 

w 

J 

~ 

4 o 

0 

0 

a 

LIJ 

n 

03 

x +

‘z 

w 

n 

I I 

1930 1935 1840 1945 1950

k

1955 1960 

I I I 

1965 

50 I NEONATAL AND POSTNEONATAL MORTALITY RATES I 

40 

00. 

‘e OQO fie ● 1●

● 

m 

o 

0 

0 

a 

w 

a. 

10 

Q Neonatol 

8 ● Postneonatal 

6 

4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 
--

--

●✎✎✎ 

● 

● 

MISSOURI 

I INFANT MORTALITY RATE 

w 80 > 

i 

o 60 ● ● 

o ● , 0 

a

III 

n. 40 E 

20 

15k I I I I 

1930 1935 1840 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

50 I NEONATAL AND POSTNEONATAL MORTALITY RATES 

40 

C3Neonatal 

● Postneonotol 

I 

I w 

: 20 

● t3-u-% 

0 ● 

0 ● 0 4 ●

●

● 0 

I

, 

6 

4 I I I I I I I I I I I 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

31 
-- ● ● 

MONTANA 

200 r t 1 

I I I INFANT MORTALITY RATE I 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

5“T I NEONATAL AND POSTNEONATAL MORTALITY RATES 

I I

‘$o+—+—+—— 

Neonotol 

● Postneonotol I Q 

0 

0 

0 

a I ● ~ c 

I I I 

1930 1935, 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

32 
● 

● ● 

NEBRASKA 

200 

INFANT MORTALITY RATE r 

‘+---

60 

1-

40 

● 

● @. F--

20 

L 

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

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

‘“rl NEONATAL AND POSTNEONATAL MORTALITY RATES 

I I 

I 0 Neonatal 

O Postneonatal 

0 

00 

c? 

10 

8 

6 

E

I I I I -u-u 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

33 791-085 0 -65-5 
--

-- ● 

● 

● ● ● 5 ● 

NEVADA 

INFANT MORTALITY RATE ‘oor 

d4-- -LI 

0 

0 60 w 0 

i= ● I 

: 0 -i- I n 40 m 

In 

z ● 0 .0. 

1- 

< 

LIJ 

n --t 

I 20 

15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 

1930 [935 I940 1945 1950 [955 1960 1965 

. ..-— 60 

NEON AL AND P~STNEONATA; MORTALITY ,RATES 

0 I 

40 __#_ — 0 

OY c)o~. ● 

● Q :

K 

● = 0

w — ? 20 m ● Q 

-1 ● ● 

0 

0 ● ☞ c? 0 

a ● w 

L 

: 10 dh ● –—– .~. ● . 

5 ● ● ● u 

la 8 w 9 

() 

6 

5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 

!930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

34 
NEW HAMPSHIRE 

1930 1935 1840 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

50 

NEONATAL AND POSTNEONATAL MORTALITY RATES I 

35 
--

--

—. — NEW JERSEY 

200r————— 

I 

m 

x 

k 100 

z 

u 80 > 

i 

o 

0 

0 ● 

● . 

a ● Id 

n 40 

60 

u? 

z 

1-

: 

c1 

20 

I INFANT MORTALITY RATE 

.— 

.**O 4) ● 000 

i=’—L—L—u— I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 

1930 1935 I940 1945 1950 1955 1960 

50 

NEONATAL AND POSTNEONATAL MORTALITY RATES 

40 

m 

r 

E 

z 

w 

: 20 

0 

0 

0 

m 

u 

a 

: 10 

1-

a 

w 

Q 8 

6 

———...— — —— -— t 

t o NeOnotOl 

● Postneonotd 

-..——- .——. .-— ,— ..-...——__— —.—

4 J I I I I I I I I I I 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

— — ——— ——. 

36 

1965 
--

● 

● 

NEW MEXICO 

200 -

INFANT MORTALITY RATE 

(B 

● - ● 4) .0 

U-I ● 

z ● 0 h z 100 ● ● 

z ● . 

id 80 ~ ●

-1 *00 

o 60 0 

0 4) ● 

●0 a 

w ● t I 

n 40 ● 

m ●

● 4) x 

1- ● 000 s 

n 

20 

15 I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

NEONATAL AND POSTNEONATAL MORTALITY RATES 

40 

r 

( 

20 L 

I ● 

● I 

10 J-4--Q8 b I I I I 

1930 [935 1840 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

37 
● 

● 

i 

NEW YORK 

200 

INFANT MORTALITY RATE 

[00 

m 

.0.0 

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

1930 1935 1640 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

50 

NEONATAL AND POSTNEONATAL MORTALITY RATES 

● 0 

4) ● O 

● 0 I I

-1- 0 Neonatal 

— ● pOstneOnatal — 

6 ● ● * ● 

+ 

4 I I I I I I I I I I I 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 
● 

● 

. ,---,-, , .— NUKIH CAROLINA 

200 ‘ 

INFANT MORTALITY RATE I 

100 

w 80 ~ > ●

i –0 

● . { 

’000 

60 9 

K ●O. Ill 

n 40 

I I I I 

1930 1935 1840 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

50 

I NEONATAL AND POSTNEONATA MORTALITY RATES 

40 

Q-#= 

a 

WI ● 0 ● ✎ a. ● ● 0 ● ,* ●0°0 

6 _ ~ Neonatal _ 

● Postnematal 

4 ~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

39 
● ● 

NORTH DAKOTA 

200 

INFANT MORTALITY RATE 

100 

80 

60 ~b {B 

‘o * 

40 

20 

15 I I I I I 

1930 1935 

50 

40 

63 

z 

L 

z 

w 

: 20 

0 

0 

0 

—-

a 

Id 

a. 

g 10 

1-

a 

u 

n 8 

6 

4 I I I 

1930 1935 

● * 

d) 

● , ● 0 . 

i I ● .O 

4) ●

● .. ,O. O 0 ● 0 ● Q 

_, 

I 

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I J 

1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

NEONATAL AN’D POSTNEONATJ MORTALITY RATES 

I 0 Neonotol 

● Postneonotol 

I I I I I I 

1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

40 
● 

OHIO 

INFANT MORTALITY RATE 

●.OO 

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

1930 1935 1840 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

50 ‘—r NEONATAL AND POSTNEONATAL MORTALITY RATES 

K I I t O Neonotol 

?J 10 ● Postneonotol 4 1-

a ● 

:8 — — — ~ ● 0 

● U 

a 

c. 

6 9 ( l-g-a 

s 4) ●..O 

4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

41 
--

● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

OKLAHOMA 

200 

INFANT MORTALITY RATE 

100 

80 

60 ~h ● . e 0 ● 

–0 ● ● ei )0 

40 ● ● ● 

● 0 . . 

●0. 

0 ●. . 0 ● ●O.O 

20 -

15 I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

—.——- 50 

40 -—-

F 

o 

0 

0 

K 

Lll 

m 

: 10 

G 

:8 

6 

4 E 

,. -? 

NEONATAL AND POSTNEONATAL MORTALITY RATES 

—. 

‘0 o 

o 0 Neonatal ● ● Postneonotol I 

● 00 I I 

-L-+J--., ● 0 

? 

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

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

42 
--

● 

● 

● 

● 

OREGON 

200 

INFANT MORTALITY RATE 

L---l1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

50 I NEONATAL AND POSTNEONATAL MORTALITY RATES 

40 

● ee 

6 

I 

4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

43 
● 

PENNSYLVANIA 

INFANT MORTALITY RATE ‘“or 

● O.* 

I I 

I I I I I I I I 

1930 1935 I840 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

NEONATAL AND POSTNEONATAL MORTALITY RATES 

I I 

● ● O 

Neonotol 

Postneonotol _ 

● *O w 

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

44 
● 

● 

● 

● 

● 

RHODE ISLAND 

200 

INFANT MORTALITY RATE 

1930 1935 1640 1945 1950 1955 !960 1965 

5.0 

NEONATAL AND POSTNEONATAL MORTALITY RATES 

40 

c? o 

0 ‘o 

{

3Qot3 

f ● . o <> ‘9 

20 

Q 0 0

630 c3 .

w 

● . ~e c3 0 

0 (3O ~Q ~ Qc) 

d) 0 c 0 

b 

● , ,0 ● 

10 0 Neonotal 

d ● Posfneonotol 

-1 

8 

4b 

● ● 4) ● ,0 ● ●..O 

● ‘o 

4 I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

6 d. 

45 
--

● 

● 

● 

CAROLINA 

200 I INFANT MORTALITY RATE 

=+= 

-+s-+ 

1 

I I I 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 ‘ 1965 

—-.. .——.— 50 I NEONATAL AND POSTNEONATAL MORTALITY RATES 

40 #!_d03 

F

K

iii 

Id 

2 20 A 

o 

0 

0 

a 

Ill 

L 

: 10 

1-

a 

:8 

6 

4 

. 

.0 

0 Neonotol 

● Postneonoiol 

I I I I I I I I J I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 
--

● 

● 

SOUTH DAKOTA 

200 “ 

INFANT MORTALITY RATE 

m 

z 

k 100 

z 

ld 80 ~ 

d 

o 60 0 .0 0 

● 4) ● 

● . K 

: 40 m

4) 

●

● %- 

rn ● ●’ z 1- 0 .0 

u. 

< .J ●

● () n ● 4) 

● ●@’ ’000 ●@. 

s ● 

20 

15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 

1930 1935 1840 1945 -1950 f955 1960”’ 1965 

50 

NEONATAL AND POSTNEONATAL MORTALITY RATES 

40 

00 

Q 

K 

u 

a. 

: 10 

z ● 0 

~8 ● 

1= O Neonotol I 

I I I I 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

47 
-- ● 

TENNESSEE 

200 

07 

x 

k 100 

z 

u 80 > 

i 

o 

0 60 

0 

% 

n 40 

(n 

x

1-

2 

n 

20 

-L 

INFANT MORTALITY RATE II 

15 

4

1 I I I I I I I 

1930 1935 I840 1945 1950 [955 1960 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

48 

1965 
--

● 

● ☛ ● 

TEXAS1 

200 

INFANT MORTALITY RATE 

1930 

50 

40 

m 

z

!-

a 

z 

w 

: 20 

0 

0 

0 

s 0. 

~ l-o 

1- 

< 

:8 

6 

--1-

● I

●..* 

.000 

I I I 1 J I I 

1935 1640 1945 1950 1955 1960 

.NEONATAL AND POSTNEONATAL MORTALITY RATES 

Neonotol 

Postneonotol 

I 

4 J I I I I I 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 [965 

lDaia not ovailoble prior to 1933. 

1965 
--

● 

● 

UTAH 

200 

INFANT MORTALITY RATE 

OY 

E a 100 

= 

w 80 ~ 

d 

o 60 0 

0 _@ ● 

., 4) 

K ● 

Ill ● 

0. 40 m ah w 

(n 

z ● 1- ● O 0 ; 

n ● . ● 0 

0 .*C 

● 00 ● dh a 20 . 0 ● . 

15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 

1930 1935 1840 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

50 

NEONATAL AND POSTNEONATAL MORTALITY RATES 

40 I I I I I 

● 4} ,00 

6 ● ● ● ● 0 ..0. 

● . dI 

4) 

4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

50 
VERMONT 

!930 .1935 1840 1945 1950 1955 4960 .i965 

“-- I NEONATAL AND POSTNEONATAL MORTALITY RATES 

,. 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1865 

51 

50 
--

.

.

VIRGINIA 

INFANT MORTALITY RATE 

< 

.<, .. .

. 

‘a) ~,0 . “’ 1’ : 

G1 ~’@ 

@ 

e d) ~tB@@ o ~e;oa, 

,. . 

:, 15,k—u—Lu_ . .,.. + I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1’ I 

;966 .....”>.: 

1930 1935 1940 “ ‘“ 1945: “ 1950 ‘ [955 1965 ,,. w, 

50 

NEONATAL AND ‘POSTNEONATAL MORTALITY RATES ,..-

— 40 ,.. ’;..* 

o ,.”i , 

:

E 

00 h)ooo “ ;. :“ 

., 

,:. 

G ,. ... 

w e : 20 ,, 

!,. 

o 

0 

0 e v. ‘.* 

m ●O . 

a 

Id ● ; J Q n 

$$ 10 

1-

-x 

:8 

., ● Postneonatol 

6 

4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 

,:, 1930 1935 “ 1940’ ““ 1945 : “ 1950 1955 ‘, 1960 1965 

,!+, 

52 
.

‘‘ “WhWGTON 

.. . 

200 

80 

60 

40 

4 

20 

’15 

. . .._ . . . 

,.’. . . 

! INFANT” MORTAilTY RATE 

,,;,,. ,.. 

. . . ... ,. . .. . . ... . 

+ ,. . . . 

+3 ‘. “ 

,,, . .’. 

I 

● o. 4.8*O( ..O 

● 

c O.eo 

. 1 I. I 1 I 1“ I I 1 t I .-.

I .’1. I I .,, .I I I d.. i I ( I

:? 

1930 ‘“ 1935 1940 1945 1950 ‘ [955- ‘ [960 

.. 

50 

“NEoNATAL AND POSTiiEONATA MORTAtilTY RATES 

40 ,- 1 I 

1’ I ● Postneonotol , I 

;....... s.-,

4 L ...! m

I :.. . ... , -., .x, ,

,, . m.< . w . . . . . . . . . . 

~..:; ,935 ~~$’ : 1930 ‘“”” ? 1940” ‘““ 1945” “ 1950 “’: 1955 ‘ 1960 ‘: 1965 

..—..-...., . . . . 

1965 
● 

● 

WEST VIRGINIA 

200 

INFANT MORTALITY RATE 

100 

801‘8* 

●.g ● 

60 4b ● 0 ● 

● 4} ● .0 i b I 

40 ~ u a ● m w 

4) o 

● . 

() .OO 

20 T 

15 1 ..,.,,.: I I I 1 I I I I I I ,. I I I 1 t ‘1 I I i t I 1 J.., >. 

1930 1935 1640 1945 195a 1955 1960 1.965 

50 .l:;...,,. . 

,., I NEONATAL AND POSTNEONATAL. MiXTWTY”RATES . f ‘ - ~ / ‘( 

I 

E ‘o T ● 

n. 

$ Lo : 

● 

1-

a 

:8 

● db ● 

G tdeonatol ●

● 4) ● 0 o ● 

e Postneonatol 

6 

4 I I t t I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I t I t I I 

t630 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

— 

.. .’ 

54 

,,/””’ ,. 
WISCONSIN 

200 I INFANT MORTALITY RATE I 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 [955 1960 1965 

50 I NEONATAL AND POSTNEONATAL MORTALITY RATES 

d 

T 

Q 

o ‘t3 

i 

* 

6 ‘ i I 

g Neonatal ● * 

● Fast neand a I ● *’ 

3. 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

55 
--

--

., ,..,. 

‘WYdMING 

200 ,, ’., 

‘ INFANT MORT~LITY RATE 1 

W 

z TI L 100 

z 

% 

i 

o 

0 

0 

a 

u.! 

LL 

(n 

x 

1-

S 

n 

w 

> 

i 

: 

0 

a 

w 

n. 

In 

x 

1-

4 

w 

n 

,.. 

,’.. ‘, 

80 I 

60 

40 

I I 

20 

15 I I I I ., I I 

1930 1935 16’40 1945 1950 1955 1960 “ ; ‘i 1965 

. .,, _ 50/---l-=-F- EONATAL AND POSTNEONA”tAk MORTALiTY RATES 

/ 

,~so .’.;;.. I 1935 ‘: :f 1940”” 1945$’: 1950 “’ 1955 ,~&j ::>:$: 1965 

56 
● 

● 

MORTALITY RATES !lY COLOR 

O White 

. Nonwhite 

ALABAMA 

I 

I 

I 

.. *.’” 

I ‘. 

I I Ill I I 1 I 1 

1930 1935 ~ 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 

, . . .. . .. ... +.. 

$..

. . . .

200 

cl) 

z 

1-

K 

—— z 100 

u 

> 

i 80 

0 

0 

0 60 -. 

K 

w 

a 

u) 40 z 

1-

a 

Id 

n 

,-

20 

ALASKA’ 

-1-t= 

15 Lu-L I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 

~“:, 

“[930 ‘ 1935 . ‘““ ““1940 1945 “ 1950 1955 i9&+- 1965

GEE, 

lData not available prior to 1945. 

. 

1965 
● 

INFANT MORTALITY RATES BY COLOR 

0 White 

● Nonwhite 

m 

? 

a 

z 

III 

> 

i 

o 

0 

0 _. 

E 

a 

to 

: 

a 

w 

o 

..7 

., 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 J955 1960 1965 

ARKANSAS 

100 . 

00 

15 i I I I I i Illlfll llllltlllllll 11111 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

58 
● 

● 

● 

INFANT MORTALITY RATES BY COLOR 

~ White 

● Nonwhite 

U) 

z 

1-

K 

z 

w

~ 

-1 

; 

_. 

E 

n. 

m 

x 

ia 

w 

n 

200 

CALIFORNIA 

. 

100 0 . 

80 

I I I I 

‘“r G“: 

15u_ulLuL I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

200 

DELAWARE 

m 

z 

1-

K ● ●☛ 

z Ioc 

w ,0

> I

i 80 

0 

0 

0 60 _. 

a 

w 4. 

(/) 40 z 1- 

a 

Id 

n 

20 I 15 t I I I I I I 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

59 
● 

● 

INFANT MORTALITY ‘RATES’ BY COLOR 

C) White 

* Nonwhite 

200 r DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

JI I I I I 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960’ ““ 1965 

200 

F1ORIDA 

I 

100 

●5 ‘4 

80 

0 

0 

0 60 I 

_. 

K 

Id 

L 

U) 40 z 

1- 

a 

w 

a 

20 

15 I I I I 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1.965 

60 
. INFANT MORT,ALIT~.-,RATES. BY COLOR . - . . .. . ,...~<i 

~ white 

● Nonwhite 

. . ,.. ., ---, .. -

GEORGIA .. 

: .. -. ● I I 

o c) 0 

0 60 _. f---- o~

I . ,..“-’ I 

20””’””k !. I I 

. . 

15 I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I 

1930 - ‘ 1935 “ - 1940 , 1945, r .’ 1950. 1955 1960 1!365 . . . 

200 

HAWAII 

. 

100 

80 1. I t I 

60 

40 

20 I 

15 t I 1“ ! t I I I I t t I r II I I 1 I I I 

1930- 193ii 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

61 
● ● ☛ 

INFANT MORTALITY RATES BY COLOR 

0 White 

● Nonwhite 

m 

Z 

+ 

a 

ii 

u 

> 

i 

o 

0 

0_. 

a 

k’ 

(n 

E 

a 

w 

o 

0-1 

x 

1-

K 

z 

u 

> 

7 

0 

0 

0 

_. 

K 

ill 

a 

U) 

: 

a 

w 

a 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

200 

100 

00 

60 Q 

00 

Q 

40 

20 

15 I I I I I 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

62 
INFANT MORTALITY RATES BY COLOR-

~ White 

● Nonwhite 

200 

MARYLAND 

●❨ 4 ●❨ @ . ☛❨ 100 

“1 ● ✎❨

80 

)0 

● ● ✌ I 

60 1 I u 

QQ Q ● 1“ 

40 o 

900 

20 

15 I I Jill I 1 I I 1,, ,, 

?930 1835 1940 {945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

MICHiGAN 2ool=r 

; !: 

-1 

look-+-

Y ‘1 m 

● ● 0 K ● 4) 

w ● a 

“151”1 I I I t JliI~lllllIlll~llIIjIIIIj 

1930 ‘ 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

63 
.

.

Q White 

@ Nonwhite 

I <,:

.. 

;!, 

~,. 

[00 ,, “ :i. 

u ., > 

z 80 ..! 

a ., .

o 

c1 

_. 60 e

● “?”-. ,, ‘ ● u 

w 

a. ,’>, 

40 

. 

) 

20 

15 I I I I I I I I I 

;.

I . ,,., 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

200 ., : f, . 

MISSOURI 

. 

K 4) .00 

100 (’ 

id ;, 

> 80 * i 

● ,: ,: o€0 n e. ) m 0 60 w ..,, - _. 3 C)O Io 

a€

w 

Q 

40 

20 “— 

15 t I 1 I 

.,945, 

I I I 

,,

[ I I kill 

1930, I 5, 1940’ 1950 1955, 1960 k965 
., 

lNFANT”MORThLITYR ATES’BY’COLOR 

20 I I I I 1 I I I 1 I 911 I I I 1’1 I 

1930 1935 - 1940 1945 1950 1955 .. 196CI 1965 

., 

200 

Ioc 

80 

60 

0 

0’0 Q 

40 

20 

15 LL.u 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

‘Data no! available for 1962-%3. 

65 
INFANT MORTALITY RATES BY COLOR 

~ White 

. Nonwhite 

m 

z 

1-

a 

ii 

Id 

> 

z 

0

0

0_. 

K 

u 

L 

m 

z 

1-

a 

III 

0 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

m 

: 

K 

z 

w 

~ 

-1 

0 

0 

0 _. 

a 

w 

a. 

0 

E 

u 

u 

0 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

66 
● 

INFANT MORTALITY RATES BY COLOR 

0 White 

. Nonwhite 

200 

NORTH CAROLINA I I 

100’ ‘ . m 

w ,0 4J@oo > 

z 80 

o 43 Q 0

0 n _. 60

“o. i 3 “o” 

a 0 

w 

o. 

m 40 z 

ia 

w 

n 

20 

15 . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

200 

OHIO 

100 

80 

60 

I 

I 

40 “OOQ 

20 

15 I I I I I I I I I I I 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 
INFANT MORTALITY RATES BY COLOR 

200 

(nx

1-

a 

z 100 

w 

~ 

2 80 

0 0 0 60 _. 

% n 

m 40 z 

5 w 0 

20 

15

4--

I I 1 I 1 11111 I I I 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

200 

PENNSYLVANIA 

0) 

? 

K 

z 100 

w 

~ 

a QQ w 

a 

J 80 ● 0 

0 .0 0 

0 60 _. 

t3c3 ‘“.L.L.I. . 03 40 

? 

a 

w 

n 

20 

15 I I I I I I I I I 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

68 
INFANT MORTALITY RATES BY COLOR 

0 W bite 

. Nonwhite 

200 I 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

1930 1935 1940 1845 1950 1955 1960 1965 

200 ‘ 

TENNESSEE 

(0 

z 

1- 4 K ● 

z 100 ●Q ● 

w ● 

~ ● 0

A 80 ● 9 

o f 3- 0 ~ 4) 

0 

0 60 C)Q 0 m ● ah _. . . c)” ● . 

a 0{ ‘o ● ● 0 4

‘O. ● k’ (3 

u) 40 ‘C)” ● m 4b ● S1 ~oo. m 

z 

$ QOQQ ● 

3 w

0 QQ 

Oo 00 )~c) (3QQ o Q 

20” 

15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I [ I I I I 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

69 
INFANT MORTALITY RATES BY CO1OR 

~ White 

● Nonwhite 

200 I I I I I I I 1 

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

10oio not available prior to 1933. 

20 

15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I€

1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 

70 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1965 0-791-085 
Se7ies 1. 

Sates 2. 

Series 3. 

Series 4. 

SeYies 10. 

SeYies 11. 

Series 12. 

Se7-ies 20. 

Sem-es 21. 

Se7-ies 22. 

OUTLINE OF REPORT SERIES FOR VITAL AND HEALTH STATISTICS 

Public Health Service Publication No. 1000 

Programs and collection firoceduyes. —Reports which describe the general programs of the National 

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

other material necessary for understanding the data. 

Reports number 1-4 

Rata evaluation and methods Yesearch. —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. 

Reports number 1-12 

Analytical studies. —Reports presenting analytical or interpretive studies based on vital and health statistics, carrying the analysis further than the expository types of reports in the other series. 

Reports number 1-4 

Documents aud committee Yeports .—Final reports of major committees concerned with vital and health 

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

death certificates. 

Reports number 1 and 2 

Data From the Health Interview Survey. —SWtistics on illness, accidental injuries, disability, use of 

hospital., medical, dental, and other services, and other health-related topics, based on data collected in 

a continuing national household interview survey. 

Reports number 1-25 

Data From the Health .Examhzation SuYvey.— Statistics based on the direct examination, testing, and 

measurement of national samples of the population, inchding the medically defined prevalence of specific diseases, and distributions of the population with respect to various physical and physiological 

measurements. 

Reports number 1-12 

Data FYom the Health RecoYds Sm-vey. —Statistics from records of hospital discharges and statistics 

relating to the health characteristics of persons in institutions, and on hospital, medical, nursing, qnd 

personal care received, based on national samples of establishments providing these services and 

samples of the residents or patients. 

Reports number 1 and 2 

Data on ,moYtaJity, —Various statistics on mortality other than as included in annual or monthly reportaspecial analyses by cause of death, age, and other demographic variables, also geographic and time 

series analyses. 

Reports number 1 

Data on natality, marm.age, 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. 

Reports number 1-7 

Data Fvom the National Natality 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, etc. 

Reports number 1 

For a list of titles of reports published in these series, write to: National Center for Health Statistics 

U.S. Public Health Service 

Washington, D.C. 20201