NATiONAL CENTER Series 22 

For HEALTH STATISTICS Number 7 

VITAL and HEALTH STATISTICS 

DATA FROM THE NATIONAL VITAL STATISTICS SYSTEM 

EmploymentDuring 

Pregnancy 

legitimate live Births pfyy)~fypf M~ 

iwwi United States- 1963 ?LWMcfim?$ii

Ewofm L{IMARY 

Statistics on the prevalence of employment during pregnancy and the 

trimester of pregnancy during “which the woman was last emplcyed, 

according to selected socioeconomic characteristics of the mother. 

Based on data collected by a questionnaire mailed to a sample of 

mothers selected from the certificates of legitimate live births in 

1963 filed with the National Center for Health Statistics. 

Washington, D.C. September 1968 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE Public Health Service 

Wilbur J. Cohen Wil Iiam H. Stewart 

Secretary Surgeon General 
Public Health Service Publication No. 1000-Series 22-No. 7


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


Washington, D. C., 20402- Price 35 cents 
NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS 

THEODORE D.WOOLSEY, Di?’eCtoT 

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

OSWALD K. SAGEN, PH. D.,, Assistant Director for Health Statistics Development 

WALT R. SIMMONS, M.A., Assistant Director for Researchand Scientific Development 

ALICE M. WATERHOUSE, M. D., Medical Consultant


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


MA RGERY R. CUNNINGHAM, in/ormation O//icer


DIVISION OF VITAL STATISTICS 

ROBERT D. GROVE, Ph.D.,Director 

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

ARTHUR A. CAMPBELL, SpecialAssistant to the Director 

ROBERT A. ISRAEL, M.S.,Acting Chief, Mortality Statistics Branch 

PATIENCE LAURIAT, M.A.,Acting Chief, Natality Statistics Branch 

LOREN E. CHANCELLOR, Chief,Registration Methods Branch 

PATIENCE LAURIAT, M.A.,Chic/,Marriageand Diuorce Statistics Brarzch 

ARNE B. NELSON, M.A.,chief, Vital Records Survey Branch 

ALICE M. HE TZEL, Chief,Statistical Resources Section 

Public Health Service Publication No. 1000-Series 22-No. 7 

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 68-60074 
----------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTENTS 

ktroduction


Sources and Limitations oftheData


Selected Findings


Nature of thePopul;tion


Extent ofEmployment


Region and Residence


Income, Father’s Employment Status, and Education


References --------------------------:--------------------------------

Detailed Tables


Appendix I. Tectiical Notes onMetiods


Background of ~isReport


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


The Birth Certificate and Questionnaire


CoUection ofData


Processtig ofData


Nonresponse and Imputation of Missing Data ---------------------------


Btith Records


Esttiation


Reliability of Esttiates


RomtigofNumkrs


Appendix II. Definitions of Certain Terms Used in This Report


Information From the Certificateof LiveBirth


InformationFromthe Questionnaire


Appendix III. Source Forms


Standard Certificate ofLiveBirth


Survey QuestiomaireforMo&ers


Page 

1 

1 

2 

3 

3 

6 

6 

10


11


20


20


20


20


21


21


21


23


23


24


25


26


26


26


27


27


28


... Ill 
------------------------ ---

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

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

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

IN THIS REPORT statistics ave presented on the prevalence of employment duving pregnancy among women who had a le~”timate livebovn child in 1963. The women ave classified by age, color, numbev 

of live bivths, family income in 1962, level of education, husband’s 

employment status and level of education, geographic ve~”on, and 

metropolitan status. Information on whethev the employment was full 

time OY part time and on the last tvimestev of employment during 

pregnancy is also included. 

Almost one-thivd of the women ware employed at some time during 

pvegnancy. Among those for whom this was the first live birth 59 percent we~e employed; among those who had had pvevious live bivths only 

22 percent weve employed. However, while the employment rates fov 

wives having their fivs t live birth showed wide variation among different age, income, and educational groups, the rates fov women who had 

alveady had child~en fluctuated only within a narrow range. The bivth of 

pvevious children was a move powerful detevmindnt of the rate of employment during pregnancy than any othev characteristic for which suvvey data are available. 

Among marvied women expecting their first child, the highest rates of 

employment were fov those aged 25-29 (71 pevcent employed), college 

~aduates (82 pevcent), membe-rs of families with a 1962 income of 

$’7,000-$9,999 (81 pevcent), or those whose husbands were employed 

full time (60 percent). The lowest rates weve for those undev 20 years 

(42 pevcent employed), with only elementary-school education (28 pevcent), members of families with a 1962 income of under $3,000 (38 

pevcent), ov wives whose husbands weye not employed (38 pevcent). 

Among mavvied women expecting a second or subsequent child the 

highest rates of emplo yment weve found among those under 20 yeavs of 

age (26 pevcent employed), with no move than an elementary-school 

education (24 percent), mem bars of families with a 1962 income of 

$7,000-$9,999 (24 pevcent), ov those whose husbands were employed 

pavt time (34 pevcent). The lowest vates were among those aged 30-34 

(19 pevcent employed), college graduates (20 

families with a 1962 income of $3,000-$4,999 

whose husbands were not employed (18 pevcent). 

SYMBOLS 

Data not available 

Category not applicable 

Quantity zero 

pevcent), membms of 

(21 percent), or those 

. . . 

-

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

Figure does not meet standards of 

* reliability or precision 
EMPLOYMENT DURING PREGNANCY


Mary Grace Kovar, Division of Vital Statistics 

INTRODUCTION 

There are several reasons for interest in the 

proportion of women who are employed during 

their pregnancy. First is the medical aspect. 

Various studies—mostly in Great Britain 1 —have 

indicated that the chance of a successful pregnancy is significantly lowered if the woman 

worked during her pregnancy. The evidence indicates that women who were employed had a 

higher rate of prematurity as measured either 

by birth weight or by period of gestation than 

women who did only housework. Although the 

present study is limited to women whose pregnancy resulted in a live birth and thus furnishes 

no information on other outcomes of pregnancy, it 

does provide an estimate of the exlent of employment during pregr+ancy. 

The second reason is that the proportion 

of women in the labor force has been increasing 

in recent years, and the increase has been particularly rapid for married women with children. 

In 1940, only 9 percent of all married women 

with children under 18 years of age worked outside the home, but by 1964 this proportion had 

increased to 35 percent.2 Also, 22 percent of the 

mothers with children under 3 years of age were 

in the labor force by 1964. Therefore, any information on women’s work habits is of interest. 

Finally, there is the effect that a woman’s 

work experience may have on the number and 

the spacing of her children. Studies, particularly the Growth of American Families Study 

of 1955,3 have indicated that women who have 

worked since they were married have fewer 

children than women who have not. Women who 

worked during pregnancy are only a fraction of 

those who have worked at any time since marriage, but it has been possible here to distinguish 

those who worked during the pregnancy preceding 

the birth of their first child from those who 

worked during later pregnancies; the differences 

in these rates of employment are substantial. 

It should be strongly emphasized that the 

statistics presented in this report refer only to 

women who had a live birth in 1963 which was 

either reported or inferred as being legitimate. 

Excluded from the survey data are women who 

were pregnant in 1963 but who did not give birth 

until 1964 and women who gave birth in 1963 to 

children who were either reported or inferred 

to be illegitimate. (The method of inferring 

legitimacy for States which do not have the item 

on the birth certificate is given in Appendix II.) 

The employment rates in this report, therefore, 

should not be interpreted as being rates for all 

women who were pre~ant in 1963. 

SOURCES AND LIMITATIONS 

OF THE DATA 

The data contained in this report are based 

on a survey of women who had legitimate live 

births in 1963. The statistics are based on information recorded on the birth certificates and on 

responses to a questiomaire mailed to the mother 

of the child selected in the sample.. 

Information about the age of the mother, 

live-birth order, color, geographic region, and 

1 
metropolitan status was obtained from the birth 

certificate and is therefore uniformly available 

for all mothers. 

Information about the family income, education of the mother and the father, father’s employment at the time of the child’s birth, and the 

mother’s employment during pregnant y was obtained from the questionnaire sent to the mother 

and is therefore subject to errors of inaccurate 

or incomplete response. 

A sample of 4,096 births was selected from 

the certificates of birth filed with the National 

Center for Health Statistics. From this, 316 were 

excluded because the birth was either recorded as, 

or inferred to be, illegitimate. Therefore, the 

sample of legitimate births included in the survey was 3,780. 

In addition to the mothers who were excluded 

because their births were illegitimate, there is 

one other small group of mothers for whom data 

are not available. In the second half of 1963, 

Missouri withdrew from the survey for technical 

reasons; thus no questionnaires were mailed to 

45 mothers in Missouri who should have been 

included in the survey. In addition, questionnaires 

were not mailed to nine mothers who either had 

no usable mailing address recorded on the certificate or who were living outside the United 

States at the time the questionnaires were mailed, 

although they had given birth within the United 

States. Both groups of women were within the 

scope of the survey and the available data on 

them are included in this report. Therefore, 

in some tables these women are shown in a 

separate category, but in other tables they 

are distributed as the mothers who were queried, 

since there is no reason to believe that the 

reason for their exclusion is related to the 

variables presented in this report. The estimated number of births and the size of the 

sample are shown in table I of Appendix 1. 

As is true for all surveys and in particular for mail surveys, a certain proportion of 

the women did not respond to the initial questionnaire. The problem was handled by a series of 

procedures. First, two followup questionnaires 

were sent at 2-week intervals, one by certified 

mail and one by regular mail. Second, if ttie 

mother’s address was in one of the Bureau of the 

Census’ primary sampling units, interviewers employed by the Bureau tried to interview the 

mother either by telephone or by personal interview. The response achieved by these methods is 

shown in table II of Append& L 

After all of the responses had been received, 

coded, and edited, the statistics were adjusted for 

lmth item and unit nonresponse by imputing to 

nonrespondents the characteristics of similar 

respondents. The technique is discussed in Appendix I of this report and a detailed description can 

be found in an earlier report in this series. 4 

Appendix I also contains tables of sampling errors 

for statistics presented in this report. 

Definitions of terms are given in Appendix II, 

and Appendix 111 is a facsimile of the Standard 

Certificate of Live Birth and of the questionnaire 

which was mailed to the mothers. 

SELECTED FINDINGS 

Approximately 31 percent of the women who 

had a legitimate live birth in 1963 were employed 

outside the home at some time during pregnancy. 

The woman for whom this was the first pregnancy 

resulting in a liveborn child was more likely to be 

employed than the woman who had previously had 

children; 59 percent of the former group were employed compared with only 22 percent of the latter. 

Almost half (47 percent) of the wives who 

worked were still employed during the third trimester of pregnancy.. An additional 32 percent 

reported that they did not work after the second 

trimester and 14 percent did not work after the 

first trimester. The remaining 7 percent of the 

women did not report a termination date. 

The majority of the women (73 percent) 

were employed full time only. Approximately 

20 percent worked only part time and about 8 

percent reported both full-time and part-time 

employment. Among those reporting both fulltime and part -time employment, 69 percent were 

employed during the third trimester. 

Employment rates during pregnancy increased as the woman’s level of education increased. Among women for whom this was the 

first live birth, 28 percent of those with an 

elementary-school education, 66 percent of the 

high-school graduates, and 82 percent of the 

college graduates were employed. Among women 

for whom this was the second or later birth, only 

2 
20-24 percent were employed at any educational 

level. 

Employment rates also increased as family 

income increased. Approximately 27 percent of 

the wives in families with a 1962 income of 

under $3,000 were employed during pregnancy, 

compared with 38 percent of the wives in families with an income of $10,OOO or over. The 

parallel increase of employment and income 

was much more pronounced for white wives 

than for nonwhite wives. 

A higher rate of employment during pregnancy was also observed when the husband was 

working part time at the time of the child’s 

birth than when he was working full time or was 

unemployed. 

NATURE OF THE POPULATION 

The population from which this sample was 

selected is women who had a legitimate liveborn 

child during 1963. Because these women were 

having children, they were a young population. 

A third of them were aged 20-24. More than 

three-fourths were under 30 at the time of the 

birth which brought them into the survey. Among 

wives having their first birth, 93 percent were 

under 30; among those who were already mothers, 

68 percent were under 30. 

About 87 percent of the wives were white. 

Among those for whom this was the first child, 

92 percent were white; among those having a 

second or later child, 86 percent. 

Partly because they were young, their family 

income was relatively low. Almost half, 49 percent, were members of families with a 1962 

income of under $5,000. If this was the first 

birth, 54 percent reported an income of under 

$5,000; for those with previous children, 47 percent. About 44 percent of the white wives and 

83 percent of the nonwhite wives were members 

of families with a 1962 income of under $5,000. 

The largest group of wives (42 percent) were 

high-school graduates with no education beyond 

high school. Wives having their first child were 

somewhat better educated (48 percent were highschool graduates) than those who had had previous 

children (40 percent were high-school graduates). 

About 44 percent of the white wives were highschool graduates with no further education, while 

only 30 percent of the nonwhite wives had completed high school. 

EXTENT OF EMPLOYMENT 

The question from which the data on employment were obtained was a double one (fig. 1). 

The design permitted the woman who had been 

employed to report not only whether she had 

worked full time or part time but also to give the 

date when she had stopped working. The trimester 

of pregnancy was then computed by comparing 

the date of last employment with the date of birth. 

Table 1 is a cross-classification of these 

responses by color. Approximately 68 percent of 

the women reported that they had not worked at all 

during their pregnancy. Information on employment was not available for just over 1 percent of 

the wives who, for reasons already explained, 

were not sent a questionnaire. Thus, among 

married women who had a live birth in 1963, 31 

percent reported that they had been employed outside the home at some time during pregnancy. 

Most of the wives who were employed during 

pregnancy, 73 percent, worked full time only; 

an additional 20 percent worked only part time 

while the remainder reported that they had 

worked both full time and part time during the 

course of their pregnancy. These proportions 

are consistent with es:imates pubIished by the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, even though the definitions and methods of deriving the data are different. According to a survey conducted in March 

1964, 75 percent of the married women, whose 

husbands were present and who were employed 

in nonagricultural occupations, worked full time 

and 25 percent, part time. ~ 

Among all the women who were employed, 

14 percent did not work after the first trimester 

of pregnant y, 32 percent did not work after the 

second trimester, 47 percent worked during the 

third trimester, and 7 percent of the women 

did not indicate a termination date for their 

employment. Among the women who worked 

only full time or only part time, abox onethird stopped working during the second trimester of their pregnancy and almost half, 

46 and 43 percent, respectively, worked into 

the third trimester. 

3 
Were you employed outside your home at any time during your 

recent pregnancy? 

I 

� YES (Answer a and b below) � NO 

a. Did you work full time at all during your recent 

i pregnancy? 

I � YES � NO 

1 

When did you stop working full time? 

I 

I 

L 

b. Did you work part time at all during your recent 

pregcancy? 

� YES � NO 

1 

When did you stip working part time? 

Figure 1. The quest ion on employment during pregnancy, asked. of mothers of legitimate 1ive-born children.


Approximately 8 percent of the employed 

wives worked both full time and part time. 

A majority of these women, 69 percent, reported that they had worked during the third 

trimester of pregnant y, a significantly higher 

percentage than in the other two groups. It 

is possible that these were women who had been 

working full time and changed to part-time work 

as their pregnancies advanced. It is also possible that they were women who took whatever 

job they could find, whether it was full time 

or part time. 

A slightly higher proportion of nonwhite 

than of white wives worked during pregnancy, 

34 percent of nonwhite women and 31 percent, of 

white women, and among the employed wives, 

a higher proportion of nonwhite women worked 

into the third trimester (53 percent of nonwhite 

and 46 percent of white women). Also a higher 

proportion of the employed nonwhite women 

worked part time than did the white women. 

Again these findings are consistent with labor 

force statistics; at any given time, relatively 

more nonwhite than white women are in the 

labor force and relatively more nonwhite women 

are employed part time. 

Two factors that might be expected to affect 

whether a woman works during her pregnancy 

are her age and the number of previous liveborn 

children. Table 2 shows the extent of the mother’s 

employment by age and color and table 3, by 

live-birth order and color. Table 4 shows the 

percentage employed in each age class crossed 

with each live-birth order. 

A higher percentage of young women worked 

during pregnancy than of older women. Approximately 37 percent of the women under age 25 

were employed at some time during their pregnancy, 30 percent of those aged 25-29, 23 percent of those 30-34, and 21 percent of those 

35 years of age and over. This pattern of employment by age is accounted for by the decrease in the proportion of those working full 

time; the proportions of women working part 

time or both part time and full time remained 

relatively constant for each age group. 

Since 87 percent of the legitimate births 

in the United States in 1963 were to white 

wives, they dominate any discussion of the total 

population, Therefore, it is necessary to look 

at the data for nonwhite wives separately as 

their employment pattern was quite different. 

4

------

------

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

----

------

-----

------

-----

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

Table A. Percentage of wives employed decreasing to a low of 29 percent for those 

during pregnancy, by color and age of expecting their third or fourth child, increased mother:

births

United States, 1963 legitimate to 34 percent for women expecting a fifth or live 

later child. 

Table 4 shows that the decrease in the emAll Age of mother mothers White ;g;e ployment rate with the increase in age is largely 

due to the higher proportion of higher order 

births at the later ages. Within each birth order 

Percentage the percentage of women employed did not change 

All ages--- 31 31 34 much with age. However, within each age group, 

the percentage employed during pregnancy was 

Under 20 years--- 36 38 high for first births, dropped sharply between 

20-24 years :; 38 25 first and second births, and decreased slowly 25-29 years 30 29 37 

30-34 years 23 20 39 thereafter. Regardless of age, proportionally 

35+ years ITT21 18 39 more married women worked during the pregnancy preceding their first live birth than during 

later pregnancies. Among white wives the differences in employment rates by age between those 

It has already been noted that more nonwhite having a first birth and those having a second or 

married women were employed during preglater birth were large enough to be statistically 

nancy and that a higher proportion of these significant. Among nonwhite wives there is no 

women worked part time than did white wives, statistically valid evidence either way. 

The distribution of employment rates by age 

Because this examination of employment 

for nonwhite married women is entirely differ- rates, based on information from the birth certifentfrom that for white married women (table A). icate, reveals that the two variables which most 

Among white women the highest employment affect the rate of employment during pregnant y are 

rate was for the age group 20-24 years in which color and whether this was a first or a higher 

38 percent were employed during pregnancy. 

order Iive birth, these two variables are shown 

in all the tables that follow. As an introduction The ratethendropped steadilyuntilonly 18percent table 5 shows the same data as table 4 with rates of the group aged 35 and over were employed. 

In contrast, among nonwhite women the lowest computed for second and higher birth orders combined. employment rate was found among the women 

aged 20-24 where 25 percent were employed,


while the rate was higher among Imth the older Table B. percentage 

by

of wives employed


during pregnancy, color and liveand the younger women. Among nonwhite women birth order: United States, 1963 legi -

under age 20 and age 25 or over, the rateof timate live births 

employment by age was remarkably stable, 

varying only from 37 to 39 percent. Live-birth order ~o:::rs White ~;e As table B shows, the patterns of employment 

by live-birth order and color were also different. 

While the highest percentage of married women, Percentage 

whether white or nonwhite, worked during the 

All birth 

pregnancy that preceded their first live birth, orders 31 31 34 

the patterns of employment during pregnancies 

of successive birth orders for the two color First child 59 43 

groups were quite distinct. For white women the Second child :: 33 

employment rates fell with each succeeding preg- Third child 22 ;; 29 

Fourth child 19 17 29 

nancy to a low of 13 percent for women expecting Fifth child and 

their fifth or later child. on the other hand, the over 18 13 34 

employment rate among nonwhite women, after 

5 
------------

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

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

Region and Residence 

There was no significant difference among 

the four regions in the percentage of women 

working during pregnancy (table 6). There were, 

however, slightly more women working during 

pregnancy in metropolitan areas, particularly 

in the South and North Central Region. 

In the South the employment rate among 

white women was lower than the average for 

the United States, particularly among women 

having first births and among women living in 

nonmetropolitan areas. Among nonwhite women 

living in the South, however, the employment 

rate was higher than the national average, particularly for women having second or higher order 

births. It is important to remember that the 

number of nonwhite women living in the South 

and having second or higher order births was 

almost half the number of the nonwhite women 

having any legitimate birth in 1963. If these 

women are removed from the population, the 

employment rate for the rest of the nonwhite 

women is 30 percent as compared with 31 percent for the U.S. total for white women, and the 

employment rate for nonwhite women having a 

second or later child is 24 percent as compared 

with the U.S. total of 20 percent for white women 

having a second or later child. In other words, 

although national estimates of employment during 

pregnancy show a differential by color, the higher 

rate of employment among nonwhite women is a 

function of the exceptionally high rate of employment among nonwhite women residing in the South 

and having a second or later birth. 

Income, Father’s Employment Status, 

and Education 

The income referred to in this report is 

the total income during 1962 of all the family 

members who were living together at the time 

of the baby’s birth in 1963. In the framework of 

this definition, the family income will be higher 

for a given husband’s income if the wife is 

gainfully employed than if she is not. 

Although no data are available for 1962, 

there is information from the Current Population 

Survey of March 1963 about the earnings of 

married women, whose husbands were present, 

and the percent which these women contributed 

to the family income. These data are shown in 

table C. In no income group did the wife’s 

earnings account for as much as one-third of 

the family income and in most income groups 

her earnings accounted for less than one-sixth 

of the total family income. The average was just 

over one-fifth. It is therefore unlikely that removing the wif e’s contribution would lower the 

total family income by more than one income 

group, and in many cases there would be no 

change. 

In addition, for the population being considered in this report, that is, wives who had 

babies in 1963, it is entirely possible that their 

contribution to the family income would be less 

than that of all married women because they 

would be more likely to have worked only part 

of the year. These were predominantly young 

women with high labor force mobility rates. They 

were of an age when school leaving, marriage, 

childbirth, and the husband’s change of occupation would affect their labor force participation. 

Thus, it is likely that the family income in 1962 

<does not reflect a complete year of the wife’s 

earnings. 

Table C. Earnings of married women, hus - band present ? as a percent of fami.lY 

income in 1962 

Median 

percent of 

family 

Family income income 

account ed 

for by 

wife’s 

earnings 

All incomes 

E:!k:i$E:::::::~:::::: 

$5;000-$6;999----------------

$7,000 -$9,999 

$10,000 -$14,999 

$15,000 and over 

21.1 

1;:! 

.15.6 

17.0 

26.1 

28.7 

20.8 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Labor, ~­

cial Labor Force Report, No. 40, Table W, 

P. A-23. 

6 
With this background, the data shown in 

table 7 —the percentage of women employed by 

family income—are perhaps more meaningful. 

The employment rates during pregnancy increased as income rose, from 27 percent of 

the wives employed in families with a 1962 

income of under $3,000 to 38 percent of the 

wives employed in families with an income of 

$10,000 or more in 1962. Tlms was true for 

both white and nonwhite women. However, in 

each income group the proportion of nonwhite 

wives working was higher than the proportion 

of white wives working, in spite of the fact that 

more nonwhite women were having second or 

higher order births. 

The data for nonwhite women are too meager 

for detailed discussion by income group since 

only 17 percent of the nonwhite legitimate births 

were in families with income of $5,000 or more 

and the median income was under $3,000. For 

white births, however, the median family income 

was in the group $5,000-$6,999, and 56 percent 

of the births were in families with a 1962 income of $5,000 or more. 

Among the white wives the employment 

rate increased 11 percentage points from the 

lowest to the highest income group; 26 percent 

of the women in families with a 1962 income 

of under $3,000 were employed during their 

pregnancy while in families with an income 

of $10,000 or more 37 percent were employed. 

Among the 2.4 million white women having a 

second or later birth the difference was only 

5 percentage points. Thus, among the 0.9 million women having their first live birth the 

difference was much greater. When the family 

income was under $3,000, 41 percent were employed; when the family income was $10.000 or 

more, 77 percent were employed. 

In addition to questions on the mother’s employment during pregnancy, the questionnaire included an item on whether the husband had been 

employed at the time of the child’s birth and 

whether his employment was full time or part 

time. The vast majority of the wives (87 percent) 

reported that their husbands were employed full 

time (table 8). Only 7 percent reported that th’eir 

husbands were not employed and 5 percent that 

their husbands were employed par! time. In 

general, the highest rate of employment during 

pregnancy was observed when the husband worked 

part time and the lowest rate occurred when he 

was unemployed. Howeve~, for first births the 

highest employment rate was among women whose 

husbands worked full time. This may be a function 

of age. A woman having her first child whose 

husband is employed part rime may be young 

and married to a student who can work only 

part time. Financial security is not solely dependent on his earnings. A woman having a 

second or later child whose husband is working 

part time may be older and need to work for 

financial reasons. This, however, does not explain the low employment rate among women whose 

husbands were not employed. 

It has been noted in other studies that employment rates among women increase with higher 

levels of education.6 The general increase is also 

true for women’s employment during pregnant y. 

However, the increase is entirely due to the employment of women pregnant with their first child. 

As tables D and 9 show, the employment rate 

among women who were already mothers may 

actually have decreased somewhat as their level 

of education increased. However, among wives 

expecting a first child only 28 percent of those 

with no more than an elementary-school education 

were employed during pregnancy while 82 percent of those who were college graduates were 

employed. In addition, the proportion of women 

expecting a first child was higher with each subsequent level of education and therefore exerted 

more influence on the overall rate. 

There is some evidence that nonwhite mothers 

(that is, nonwhite wives with at least one previous 

liveborn child) at both educational extremes were 

more likely to be employed during pregnancy than 

white mothers, while the proportions for those with 

a high-schd education, whether high school was 

completed or not, were more nearIy comparable. 

Among women with only an elementary-school 

education 18 percent of the white mothers and 

43 percent of the nonwhite mothers were employed during pregnancy. For women with at least 

some college training the employment rates were 

20 percent for the white mothers and 46 percent 

for the nonwhite mothers. Among those who had -

at least some high-school education but who had 

not gone on to college, 21 percent of the white 

mothers and 25 percent of the nonwhite mothers 

7 
----------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

Table D. Percentages of wives employed during pregnancy having first child and having


second or later child,and percentage of all wives having first child, by educational


level of mother: United States, 1963 legitimate live births


I


Percentage of wives


employed


Educational level of mother 1-First Second 

Total child child 

or later 

l?ercent­


age of


all wives


having


first


child


I 

All levels 31 26 

I 

Elementary 25 28 24 10 

High school: 

1-3 years 23 32 21 21 

4 years 35 66 22 30 

College:


1-3 years 64 24 32

4+ years 

were employed.The employment ratesofwhite 

mothers did not changemuch witheducational 

attainment.However,theemploymentrateofnon­


white mothers did change. It is possible that 

economic and social pressures aremuchstronger 

on these women. 

Using data from the 1960 c.ensus, Kiser and 

Frank7 examined anumberoffactors inanattempt 

to explain the fact that fertility among nonwhite 

collegewomenis lower than among white college 

women even though the overall fertility ofnonwhite women ishigher thanofwhitewomen. Among 

the factors was employment status. They found 

that: 

For all women and for those classified as 

“married and husband present,” the percentage in the labor force among those 

22-24 years old reporting one to three or 

four or more years of college was considerably higher among nonwhite than among 

white women. Thus at ages 25-29 the proportions in the labor force among women 

“married andhusbandpres ent’’andreporting 

four or more years of college were 35percent for whites and 66 percent fornonwhites. 

The data also throw light onthe reason why 

fertility ofnonwhite collegewomensurpas ses 

that of white college women at ages under 

:$ 82 20 r I 

25. It will be noted that at age 20-21 the 

proportion of women in the labor force was 

lower for nonwhites than for whites among 

those reporting oneto threeor four yearsof 

college. At ages 22-24 the difference is in 

the other direction butthegapwasnotas wide 

as at ages 25 and over. 

Thus, these findings support those from the 

present study on two important points. First, 

the highly educated nonwhite woman is more 

likely to continue working after marriage and 

childbirth than the highly educated white woman; 

second, the very young married nonwhite woman 

is less likely to be employed than the young 

married white woman. 

Table 10 shows the wife’s rate of employment during pregnancy according to her husband’slevel of education. The increased rate of 

employment with higher levels of educationwhich 

was evident for the wife’s own education almost 

disappeared when the women were classifiedby 

their husband’s educational level. The wife’s 

likelihood of working during pregnancy appears 

to be influenced more by her own educational 

attainmentthan byherhusband’ s;however,several 

factors are operating to conceal differences 

which become apparent upon closer examination. 

8


37 
-------- -----------------------

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

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

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

Table E. percentage of wives employed during pregnancy, and percentage of wives having first child, by educational level of wife and of husband: United States, 1963 

legitimate live births 

I I 

Wife’s Husband’s Wife fs Husband’s Educational level Ieducation education education education I 

Percentage of wives Percentage of wives 

em~loyed having first child 

Elementary 24.7 27.7 9.8 I 13.0 

High school: 

1-3 years

4 years -.----- 23.2 30.7 

34.9 31.7 

21.2 

30.0 

24.7 

29.3 

College: 

1-3 years 36.7 38.7 32.1 33.9 

4+ years 43.1 30.4 37.0 28.8 

L 

First, among women having their first child, 

employment rates did increasers thehusband’s 

level of education increased, but the differencein 

employment rates was not as great when the 

women were classified by their husband’s educational level as by their own. Second, among 

women having a secondor later child, there was 

an apparent decrease unemployment rates as the 

husband’s level of education increased. Finally, 

the percentage of women having afirst birth did 

not changeas much when the women wereclassified according to their husband’s level of education asitdid whentheywere classifiedaccording 

totheir own educational attainment (table E), and 

women were more likely to work during the first 

pregnancy resultingina live birth than during later 

pregnancies regardless of other factors. Thus, 

theincrease in the employment rate forincreased 

levels of the wife’s education was heightened by 

the parallel increase in the percentage having 

their first live birth. However, since the percentage having a first live birth did not increase 

in the same fashion when the women wereclassified by their husband’s education, there was not 

the same reinforcement. 

The high rate of employment during pregnancy of nonwhite mothers whose husbands were 

in the lowest and highest educational categories 

and the relatively low rate for those whose 

husbands had some high-school training was similar to the pattern for the mother’s own education. 

For white mothers the reverse seemed true, although there was considerably less variation in 

their employment rates. 
REFERENCES 

~Stewart, A.: A note on the obstetric effects of work during pregnancy, Btit.J.prev.soc .Med. 9:159-161, 1955. 

2U.S. Department of Labo~ 1965 Handbook on Women 

Workers. Women’s Bureau Bulletin No. .290. Washington. U.S. 

Government Printing Office, 1966. 

3Freedman, R., Whelpton, P. K., and Campbell, A. A.: 

Family Planning, Steri?ity, and Population Growth. New York. 

McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1959. pp. 136-142. 

4National Center for Health Statistics: Methods and response characteristic, National Natality Survey, United 

States, 1963. VitaZ and Health Statistics. PHS Pub. No. 1000-

Series 22-No. 3. Public Health Service. Washington. U.S. 

Government Printing Office, Sept. 1966. 

5U.S. Department of Labo~” Marital and family characteristics of workers in March 1964. Special Labor Force Repott, 

No. 50. Reprinted from Monthly Labor Rev., Mar. 1965. 

6U.S. Depa~ment of Labo~ Educational atkinment of 

workers, March 1964. Special Labor Force Report, No. 53. 

Reprinted from Monthly Labo? Rev., May 1965. 

7Kiser, C. V., and Frank, M. E.: Factors associated with 

the low fertility of nonwhite women of college attainment. 

tiilbank Mere. Fund Quart. XLV (4):427-447, Oct. 1967. 

8.Klsh, L.: Sr.wvey Sampling. New York. John Wiley & Sons, 

Inc., 1965.0.559. 

‘Nation;l Center for Health Statistics: Vital Statistics of 

the United States, 1963, Vol. I. Public Health Service. Wasliington. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964. Sec. 1, table 

1-46. 

10McCarthy, P. J., Simmons, W. R., and Losee, G. J.: Replication Technique for Estimating Variances From Complex Surveys. Paper presented at a joint session of the Epidemiology and Statistics Sections at the Ninety-Third Meeting 

of the American Public Health Association. Chicago, 111. Oct. 

18, 1965; and National Center for Health Statistics: Replication, an approach to the analysis of data from complex surveys. 

Vital and He ah% Statistics, PHS Pub. No. 1000-Series 2-No. 

14. Public Health Service. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, Apr. 1966. 

000 

10

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

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

DETAILED TABLES 

Page


Table 1.


2.


3.


&.


5.


6.


7.


8.


9.


10. 

Number of mothers and percent distribution of mothers, by last trimester of preg­


nancy during which they were employed according to color of mother and employment


status: United States, 1963 legitimate live births


Number of mothers and percent distribution of mothers, by employment status ac­


cording to color and age of mother: United States, 1963 legitimate live births----


Number of mothers and percent distribution of mothers, by employment status ac­


cording to color and live-birth order: United States, 1963 legitimate live births-


Number of mothers and percentage of mothers employed during pregnancy, by age of


mothez and live-birth order: United States, 1963 legitimate live births-----------


Number of mothers and percentage of mothers employed during pregnancy, by color,


live-birth order, and age of mo~her: United States, 1963 legitimate live births---


Number of mothers and percentage of mothers employed during pregnancy, by color,


live-birth order, geographic region, and metropolitan status: United States, 1963


legitimate live btiths------------------------------------------------------------


Number of mothers and percentage of mothers employed during pregnancy, by color,


live-birth order, and 1962 family income: United States, 1963 legitimate live


btiths----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Number of mothers and percentage of mothers employed during pregnancy, by color,


live-birth order, and employment status of father: United States, 1963 legitimate


live births


Number of mothers and percentage of mothers employed during pregnancy, by color,


live-birth order, and educational level of mother: United States, 1963 legitimate


live births-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Number of mothers and percentage of mothers employed during pregnancy, by color,


live-birth order, and educational level of father: United States, 1963 legitimate


live births-----------------------------------------------------------------------


12


13


14


15


15


17


18


19


11

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

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

--- ---

---

---

---

---

---

---

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

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

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

---

---

---

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

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

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

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

---

Table 1. Number of mothers and percent distribution of mothers, by last trimester of pregnancy


during which they were employed accordingto color of mother and employment status: United


States, 1963 legitimate live births


Number of I Trimester 

Color and mothers Not Total Unknown employment status in employed 

thousands Firat Second Third Unknown 

All mothers Percent distribution


Total 3,797 100.0 67.5 4.3 9.9 14.6 2.2 1.4 — 

Not employed---------------- 2,564 100.0 100.0 . . . ... . . . . . . 

Employed 1,179 100.0 . . . 14.0 31.7 47.1 7.2 

Full time only 855 100.0 . . . 15.3 32.8 45.9 5.9 

Both full and part time--- 91 100.0 . . . 0.8 22.0 69.2 8.0 

Part time only------------ 232 100.0 . . . 14.1 31.6 42.5 11.7 

Unknown--------------------- 55 100.0 100.0 

White


Total 3,315 100.0 67.8 4.4 10.0 14.1 2.1 1.5


Not employed---------------- 2,248 100.0 100.0 ... ... ... . . . 

Employed 1,016 100.0 ... 14.5 32.7 46.1 6.7 

Full time only------------ 755 100.0 ... 16.2 33.5 44.5 5.8 

Both full and part time--- 83 100.0 ... 24.1 69.6 6.2 

Part time only------------ 178 100.0 ... 14.0 33.1 42.2 10.8 

Unknown 51 100.0 100.0 

Nonwhite


Total 482 100.0 65.5 3.6 8.8 17.8 3.5 0.8


Not employed---------------- 316 100.0 100.0 ... .0. ... . . . 

Employed 163 100.0 ... 10.8 26.1 52.7 10.4 

Full time only------------ 100 100.0 ... 8.8 27.8 56.7 6.8 

Both full and part time--- 8 100.0 ... 9< 9< * 9< 

Part time only------------ 55 100.0 ... 14.7 26.8 43.8 14.8 

Unknown--------------------- 4 100.0 100.0 

12

------

------

------

Table 2. Number of mothers and percent distribution of mothersz by employment status according 

to color and age of mother: United States, 1963 legitimate live births 

— 

M2ployment status


hnber of


Color and age mothers Total BO th
 of mother in


thousands Not Total Full time full time Part time ~knom


employed employed only and only


part time


All mothers Percent distribution


All ages- 3.797 100.0 67.5 31.0 22.5 2.4 6.1 1.4 

Under 20 years- 468 100.0 61.4 36.5 27.1 1.8 7.6 2.1 

20-24 years---- 1,354 100.0 61.6 36.7 28.6 3.2 4.9 1.8 

25-29 years---- 992 100.0 69.3 29.6 20.7 1.9 7.1 1.0 

30-34 years---- 583 100.0 76.6 22.8 14.4 2.1 6.4 0.6 

35+ years 402 100.0 76.9 21.1 12.9 2.2 6.0 2.0 

White


All ages- 3,315 100.0 67.8 30.6 22.8 2.5 5.4 1.5


Under 20 years- 407 100.0 61.7 36.2 28.3 2.1 5.8 2.1


20-24 years---- 1,197 100.0 59.9 38.1 30.7 3.4 4.0 2.0


25-29 years---- 861 100.0 70.5 28.6 19.4 2.0 7.2 0.9


30-34 years---- 505 100.0 78.9 20.4 13.1 2.2 5.1 0.6


35+ years 345 100.0 79.5 18.2 11.3 1.5 5.3 2.3


Nonwhite


All ages- 482 100.0 65.5 33.7 20.7 1.7 11.3 0.8 

Under 20 years- 60 100.0 59.8 38.3 18.9 19.4 1.9 

20-24 years---- 156 100.0 74.6 25.4 12.7 1.4 11.3 

25-29 years---- 131 100.0 61.4 36.5 29.1 1.1 6.2 2..1 

30-34 years---- 78 100.0 61.5 38.5 22.8 1.2 14.4 

35+ years 57 100.0 61.2 38.8 22.4 6.1 10.2 

13

Table 3. Number of mothers and percent distribution ’ofmothers, by mplo~ent status according


to color and live-birth order: United States, 1963 legitimate live births


Employment status


Color and Number of II I mothers live-birth Total Both in order thousands Not Total Full time full time Part time Unknown employed employed only and only


All mothers


Total----


First child----


Second child---


Third child----


Fourth child---


Fifth child and
 over----------


White


Total----


First child----


Second child---


Third child----


Fourth child---


Fifth child and


over----------


Nonwhite


Total----


First child----


Second child---


Third child----


Fourth child---


Fifth child and


over---------­


part time


Percent distribution


3,797 100.0 67.5 31.0 22.5 2.4 6.1 1.4 

989 100.0 40.8 57.5 46.9 5.0 5.5 1.7 

912 100.0 72.9 25.6 17.5 1.6 6.5 1.4 

714 100.0 76.4 22.4 13.9 1.5 7.0 1.2 

494 100.0 80.0 18.8 11.8 2.1 4.9 1.1 

688 100.0 80.5 17.9 10.7 0.8 6.5 1.6 

3,315 100.0 67.8 30.6 22.8 2.5 5.4 1.5 

910 100.0 39.4 58.7 48.3 5.4 5.1 1.9 

823 100.0 73.6 24.9 17.5 1.5 5.9 1.6 

639 100.0 77.1 21.7 14.0 1.5 6.2 1.2 

425 100.0 81.8 17.2 11.3 2.2 3.6 1.1 

517 100.0 85.7 12.6 6.5 0.6 5.4 1.7 

482 LOO.O 65.5 33.7 20.7 107 11.3 0.8 

79 100.0 57.4 42.6 31.0 1.4 10.3 

89 100.0 67.1 32.9 17.5 2.9 12.5 

74 100.0 69.9 28.6 13.3 1.6 13.7 1.5 

69 100.0 69.3 29.2 15.2 1.7 12.3 1.5 

171 100.0 64.9 34.1 23.1 1.2 9.7 1.0 
-------- -------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----------

Table 4. Number of mothers and percentage of mothers employed during pregnancy, by age of mother 

and live-birth order: United States, 1963 legitimate live births 

Age of mother


All ages--------------------------------------------


Under 20 vears--------------------------------------------


20-24 yeaks ------.-


25-29 years


30-34 years


35 years and over-----.-- -


AH ages 

Under 20 years


20-24 years


25-29 years


30-34 Years


35 yea$s and over


Live-birth order


Total 1 2 3 4 5 and over II 1 I I 

Number of mothers in thousands


3,797


468


1,354


992


583


402


31.5


37.3


37.3


29.9


23.0


21.5


9891 9121 714 I 494 \ 688


I I I I
 321 111 * 

470 461 2;; 12: 

125 241 233 192 2% 

53 

-2 

68 

31 

126 

73 

1;; 220 

216 

Percentage of mothers


employed during pregnancy


58.5 19.1 18.2
 =4= - —


42.4 26.8 19.9 -k


65.8 24.7 20.3 17.5 16.;


70.8 29.4 22.9 19.0 23.9


67.6 28.5 22.8 19.8 12.2


-k 10.5 30.9 19.5 19.2


I 

Table 5. Number of mothers and percentage of mothers employed during pregnancy, by color, livebirth order, and age of mother: United States, 1963 legitimate live births 

Age of mother


All ages 

Under 20 years 

20-24 years 

25-29 years 

30-34 years 

35 years and over 

AH ages-------------


Under 20 years


20-24 years


25-29 years


30-34 years


35 years and over


All mothers White Nonwhite


Second Second Second


Firs t child First child First child
 rotal child and Total child and Total child and


over over over


Number of mothers in thousands


—


468 321


1>354 470


992 125


583 53


402 -k


Percentage of mothers employed during pregnancy


31.5 58.5 22.0


37.3 42.4 26.0


37.3 65.8 22.0


29.9 70.8 24.1


23.0 67.6 18.5


21.5 -2 20.8


II


31.111 59.9


37.0 43.1


38.9 68.0


28.8 72.5


20.5 65.0
-k
 18.6


II


20.3


21.9 39.1 35.9 

22.2 25.4 39.4 

21.9 37.3 * 

16.0 38.5 * 

17.9 38.8 -k 

II 

R.


125


72


56


32.3


42.3


21.3


37.3


34.2


37.5


15


403 
---------

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

-----------

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

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

-----------

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

-----------

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

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

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

-----------

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

-----------

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

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

-----------

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

-----------

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

-----------

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

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

-----------

Table 6. Number of mothers and percentage of mothers employed during pregnancy, by color, live-


birth order, geographic region, and metropolitan status: United States, 1963 legitimate live


births


All mothers White Nonwhite


Region and


metropolitan status


All regions


Metropolitan


Nonmetropolitan


Northeast


Metropolitan


Nonmetropolitan


North Central---------


Metropolitan


Nonmetropolitan


south-----------------


Metropolitan


Nonmetropolitan


West


Metropolitan


Nonmetropolitan


All regions---------


Metropolitan


Nonmetropolitafl


Northeast


Metropolitan


Nonmetropolitan


North Central---------


Metropolitan


Nonmetropolitan


South-----------------


Metropolitan


Nonmetropolitan


West


Metropolitan


Nonmetropolitan


Second Second Second


First child First child First child
 Total child and Total child and Total child and
 over over over


Number of mothers in thousands


415 98 317 406 97 309 * 2% 

3,797 

924 248 676 265 

607 161 446 482 135 347 125 26 

582 129 454 442 113 329 140 * 

640 193 447 579 181 398 61 * 

471 149 322 421 138 283 50 * 

169 44 125 + 158 43 115 * * 

989 2.808 3,315 910 2,405 482 79 

2,453 679 1,774 2,138 619 1,519 315 60 

1,345 310 1,035 1,178 291 886 167 * 

877 240 638 796 224 572 81 * 

700 201 499 625 186 438 75 * 

178 39 139 171 38 134 7’< 7’C 

1,090 267 824 1,016 257 759 75 * 

675 169 506 610 160 450 65 

1,189 290 900 :F41 

* 

Percentage of mothers employed during pregnancy


31.5 58.5 22.0 

32.6 61.1 21.8 

29.4 52.7 22.5 

31.5 65.1 18.9 31.8 I 66.0 

31.7 

30.9 

64.3 

69.0 

18.5 

20.3 

32.2 

30.4 I 65.5 

68.3 

31.4 62.2 21.7 31.5 63.5 

33.0 66.0 22.2 33.6 67.9 

28.9 55.6 20.9 28.4 56.3 

+ 

31.0 48.2 25.5 28.8 49.7 

33.3 50.5 27.0 31.9 53.6 

28.7 45.3 23.9 25.5 -+-- 44.9 

32.4 60.9 20.2 33.2 61.4 

32.7 62.9 18.8 33.8 63.3 

31.8 54.2 23.9 31.8 55.5 

-+ 

20.3 34.0 42.6 

20.6 31.4 42.2 

19.8 39.0 * 

18.3 29.0 ?’< 

18.0 27.8 * 

19.6 * * 

20.9 30.6 -k 

21.6 27.8 -k 

19.9 >k * 

21.2 38.6 39.2 

23.4 38.6 34.2 

18.8 38.6 * 

20.5 24.7 -k 

19.5 23.1 * 

22.9 i< * 

403


255


148


66


60


*


65


56


*


224


1;:


49


39


*


32.3


28.8


38.3


23.6


22.5


*


30.7


26.8


*


38.5


39.7


37.5


17.7


13.2


*


16

----------

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

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

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

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

Table 7. Number of mothers and percentage of mothers employed during pregnancy, by color, live-


birth order, and 1962 family income: United States, 1963 legitimate live births


All mothers White I Nonwhite


1962 family income Second 

Total First g- child 

child	 and


over


Number of mothers in thousands


All incomes 3,797 989 403


Unknown 

Under $3,000--------------- 819 257 

$3,000-$4,999-------------- 1,030 276 

$5,000-$6,999 920 201 

7,000-$9,999-------------- 667 154 

$10,000 and over-----------T306 85

55


Percentage 

17 l~m~

of mothers employed during pregnancy


unknown ---II ---1 II ---II ---1 ---l 

All incomes---------- +===l=Al===l 42.6 5’”’!20”3!34”0 32.3 

Under $3,000--------------- 27.0 38.1 21.9 26.4 40.9 17.5 28.3 22.8 29.3 

$3,000-$4,999--------------

$5,000-$6,999 

29.5 53.3 20.8 28.5 

31.8 67.2 21.8 31.3 

53.2 18.7 35.3 55.1 

66.9 21.2 41.5 .A. 

31.5 

34.4 

$7,000-$9,999--------------

$10,000 and over-----------

36.9 80.9 23.8 36.1 

37.5 75.4 23.1 36.8 

80.2 22.9 63.5 -< 

76.8 20.9 J< .L. 

-k r *

Table 8. Number of mothers and percentage of mothers employed during pregnancy, by color, live-


birth order, and employment status of father: United States, 1963 legitimate live births


17

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 9. Number of mothers and percentage of mothers ‘employed during pregnancy, by color, live-


birth order, and educational level of mother: United States, 1963 legitimate live births


All mothers White I Nonwhite 

Educational level of
 Second Second Second
 mother 

Total First child Total First child Total First child


child and child and child and
 over over over


Number of mothers in thousands


==4=== 

Elementary----------------- 488 48 440 375 43 332 113 * 108 

High school---------------- 2,525 676 1,848 2,217 619 1,598 308 58 250 

1-3 years 928 197 731 767 177 590 161 20 140 

4 years------------------ 1,597 479 1,118 1,450 442 1,008 147 37 110 

College 730 248 482 673 232 440 58 16 41 

1-3 years 461 148 312 414 136 277 47 ~~ 35 

4-IAll levels----------- 3.797 989 2,808 2,405
years----------------- 270 100 170 259 96 163 * 

* * 

Unknown 55 17 38 51 34 

*I ;k * 

Percentage of mothers employed during pregnancy 

All levels----------- 31.0 57.5 21.7 30.6 58.7 20.0 33.7 42.6 32.0 

Elementary----------------- 24.7 27.9 24.4 19.8 31.1 18.3 41.2 -k 43.0 

High school---------------- 30.6 55.9 21.3 30.7 56.5 20.7 30.0 49.9 25.4 

1-3 years 23.2 32.3 20.7 22.9 32.6 19.9 24.6 29.7 23.8 

4 years 34.9 65.7 21.8 34.8 66.1 21.1 35.9 61.0 27.4 

College-------------------- 39.1 71.2 22.5 38.9 74.1 20.3 41.4 30.0 45.9 

1-3 years---------------- 36.7 64.0 23.8 36.1 67.3 20.8 41.8 * 47.0 

4+ years----------------- 43.1 81.9 20.3 43.3 83.8 19.5 ?? >? * 

Unknown

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 10. Number of mothers and percentage of mwthers employed during pregnancy, by color, live-


birth order, and educational level of father: United States, 1963 legitimatelive births


All mothers White Nonwhite 

II 

II I
 Educational level of


father Second Second Second


First child First child First child
 Total child and Total child and Total child and
 over over over


Number of mothers in thousand


All levels---------- 3,797 989 2,808 3,315 910 2,405 482 79 403
 —


Unknown *


Elementary---------------- 647 84 564 476 74 402 171 * 162 

High school--------------- 2,081 572 1,509 1,830 521 1,309 251 51 200 

1-3 yea~s--.-.-..----.-- 821 203 617 686 192 494 134 * 123 

4 years 1,261 369 892 1,144 329 815 117 40 77 

College 1,014 316 697 958 298 659 56 18 38 

l-3 years 472 160 311 435 148 288 36 * 24 

4+ years 542 156 386 522 151 372 20 * * 

1[ 55 17 38 51 17 34 * r* 

Percentage of mothers employed during pregnancy 

All levels---------- 31.0 57.5 21.7 30.611 58.7 20.0 33.7 42.6 32.0 

Elementary 27.7 43.6 25.3 22.3 I 43.5 18.4 42.8 * 42.7 

High school 31.3 54.5 22.5 32.1 55.9 22.6 25.6 40.7 21.7 

1-3 years 30.7 47.9 25.1 32.6 48.8 26.3 21.3 * 20.2 

4 years 31.7 58.2 20.8 31.8 60.1 20.4 30.5 42.6 24.1 

College 34.3 69.5 18.3 33.7 70.8 16.8 44.9 47.4 43.7 

1-3 years 38.7 69.1 23.1 37.6 70.4 20.8 51.9 * 51.1 

4+ years 30.4 

1[ 

69.9 14.4 30.4 71.3 13.7 32.0 * * 

Unknown ---II ‘--

19

APPENDIX I€

TECHNICAL NOTES ON METHODS€

Background of This Report 

This report presents estimates of the percentage 

of women employed at some time during the pregnancy 

which resulted in a live birth in 1963. It is based on data 

collected in the 1963 National Natality Survey. The survey, which was conducted by the Division of Health 

Records Statistics of the National Center for Health 

Statistics (in part under contract with the Division of 

Radiological Health, Public Health Service), was designed primarily to provide national estimates of the 

amount and type of exposure to ionizing radiation 

experienced by women during pregnancy. In addition 

to obtaining radiation data from physicians and medical 

facilities, certain socioeconomic and demographic data 

which were thought to be relevant to the study were 

obtained from the mothers. AH of the information contained in this report was obtained from the certificates 

of live birth and from the mothers’ responses. Various 

kinds of information from physicians and medical 

facilities are being published in separate reports in 

this series. 

The baaic source of information was the birth 

certificate; a questionnaire asking for more information 

was mailed to each mother. Additional mailings were 

made when the original was not returned or was returned incomplete. Finally, when there was no response 

after three mailings, a personal interview was attempted 

by Bureau of the Census interviewers if the mother was 

a resident of a primary sampling unit of the Bureau of 

the Census. 

Sample Design 

The sampling frame for the 1963 National Natality 

Survey was the file of microfilms of birth records 

received each month by the National Center for Health 

Statistics from the 54 birth registration areas of the 

United States. As a general rule, for each registration 

area these microfilm images are assigned a number 

prior to or during filming of the birth record. Each 

thousand consecutive images are defined as a “reel” 

and assigned a reel number starting from zero. Within 

each reel, the images are numbered from 1 to 1,000. 

The sampling for the survey was based on a 

probability design which made use of these preassigned 

reel and image numbers on the birth records. Each 

reel of the microfilm copies of the birth certificates 

constituted a primary sampling unit. Within each reel 

one record was chosen at random. Thus, a sample of 

1 out of 1,000 births was selected from the monthly 

shipment of records from the registration areas. 

The national sample included a total of 4,096 births 

for the year 1963. Of these 4,096 births, 214 were reported as illegitimate on the birth record. However, 

legitimacy is reported in only 35 of the 54 registration 

areas in the United States. Hence, a procedure was 

developed to infer legitimacy on the basis of indirect 

evidence on the birth certificate fdr the 19 registration 

areas not reporting this item. If the surname of the 

father on the birth record was different from the sur: 

name of the child or if the surname of the father was 

not reported, the birth was imputed to be illegitimate. 

On the basis of this procedure, 102 births in the sample 

were inferred to be illegitimate in addition to those 

mentioned above. 

The mothers of these 316 illegitimate births plus 

the mothers of an additional 54 births were not queried. 

The State of Missouri withdrew from the survey after 

June 1963, so that the 45 births selected in the sample 

from Missouri for the period July through December 

1963 were excluded from the survey. Nine additional 

births were excluded from the survey either because 

residence was outside the United States or because no 

usable mailing address was available. Thus, 

sample of mothers to whom questionnaires 

mailed was 3,726. Table I shows the size of the 

sample drawn from the birth records and 

sample of mothers to whom questionnaires were 

The Birth Certificate and Questionnaire 

the final 

were 

original 

the final 

mailed. 

Facsimiles of the Standard Certificate of Live Birth 

and of the questionnaire used in the survey are shown 

in Appendix III. 

Although not all States use the standard certificate, 

most do include the basic information used in this 

report. The major exception is legitimacy (item 23) 

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

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

-----

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

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

--------

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

-----------

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

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

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

Table I. Total number of births in the United were inadequate for certain essential items, further 

States and the number in the surveyof mothers: mail inquiries were made to obtain them. 

1963 National Natality Survey After the edited andcodeddatahad beentranscribed 

Item Size I 

Total count of births in the 

United States 4,098,000 

Number of births selected in 

the sample 4,096 

Number of births excluded from 

survey:


Number of ille~itimate births 316 

Number of birt~s from Missouri: 

July-December 1963--------------- 45 

Other 9 

Number of births included for the 

survey of mothers 3,726 

I 

which is not reported in 19 States. The procedure 

which was developed to overcome this omission is discussed under sample design. 

The questionnaire sent tothemother was designed 

primarily to obtain names and addresses of anyphysicians and medical facilities which shevisited during the 

year in addition to those named on thebirth certificate. 

In addition, there were six questions concerning the 

family income during 1962 (thelastcaIendar yearbefore 

the birth), the educational attainmentofthe parents,the 

father’s employment status at the time of the birth, and 

the mother’s employment at anytime during herpregnancy. 

Collection of Data 

Data for the 1963 National Natality Survey were 

collected primarily by mail. Using the addresses given 

on the birth certificate, questiomaires were sent tothe 

mother, the physician who delivered the baby, and the 

medical facility where the baby was born. 

For these mothers, followupprocedures consisted 

of a certified mailing2 weeks after the initial mailing 

and a regular first-class mailing 3 weeks after the 

certified mail. Telephone or personal interviews were 

conducted by Bureau of the Census interviewers with 

mothers who didnotrespond after allthreemailings and 

who lived in one of the field survey areas of the Current 

Population Survey program of the Bureau of the Census. 

These procedures resulted in a response rate of 86.4 

percent from mothers included inthesurvey (table II). 

Processing of Data 

The completed questiomaires were edited and 

codedin accordance with predetermined specifications. 

The questionnaires were checked both for completeness 

and for consistency of response. If the reported data 

onto punchcards the data were processed on electronic 

computers. The computer processing included consistency checks, interval edits, assignment of weights, 

and imputation for missing data. ~ 

Nonresponse and Imputation of Missing Data 

Failure to obtain response represents one of the 

main sources of error in a survey. The extent of nonresponse and imputation of missing data in the 1963 

natality survey are discussed below. 

A total of 508 mothers, or 13.6 percent, had not 

responded after all followup procedures were completed. Included among the 508 are 28 respondents who 

returned the questiomaires substantially incomplete; 

for the purposes of processing the data, these respondents were treated in the same manner as the women who 

did not respond at all. A large proportion of this nonresponse was accounted for by mothers in the younger 

ages. Almost 57.6 percent of the 508 mothers not responding, compared with 45.0 percent of the respondents, were less than 25 years of age (table 111). 

Besides these mothers who did not respond at all 

by mail or interview (“unit nonresponse’ ‘), those who 

returned questionnaires but omitted part of the information also affect the quality of data derived from the 

survey. Nonresponse to items on questiomaires returned by mothers was minimal in most instances and 

accounted for no more than 3.1 percent of the respondents for any single item. Table IV shows the percent 

not ascertained for specified items by age of mother 

and live-birth order. The principal problem of incompleteness in the returned questionnaires arose from 

failure to obtain information about the total income of 

the family, a problem which was found disproportionately among mothers under 25 years of age among 

Table II. Response received from mothers by


mailing waves: 1963 National Natality Survey


Response status Mothers


Total included in survey 3,726 

Percent 

Total response 86.4 

Response to original mail 45.3 

Response to second mail (certified)- 29.0 

Response to third mail 6.8 

Response to interview 5.1 

Total nonresponse 13.6 

21

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

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

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

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

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

years 

35 years and over-------y 

mothers who were having their first birth or fifth or 

later birth. 

Statistics derived from the survey ofmotherswere 

adjusted for unit nonresponse by imputing to nonrespondents the characteristics of similar respondents. 

Similar respondents were mothers who responded to 

later mailings within each of the 24 age-of-mother, 

color, and live-birth-,order groups. Two assumptions 

are inherent in this imputation procedure. First the 

three birth record characteriatics— age of mother, 

color, and live-birth order—which are available for 

responding as well as nonresponding mothers arerelated to the socioeconomic characteristics. Second the 

nonrespondents are more like those who respondedto 

the later mailings than those who responded tothe first 

Table III. Number and percent distribution by age, for respondents and nonrespondents to the 

survey: 1963 National Natality Survey 

Total II Respondents Nonrespondents 

Age of mother 

Number Percent I Number Percent Number Percent 

All ages


Under 20 years 488 13.1 373 11.6 

===EQ

115 22.6 20-24 years 1,252 33.6 1,074 33.4 178 35.0 25-29 years 1,056 28.3 948 29.5 108 21.3 30-34 549 14.7 486 15.1 12.4 

381 10.2 337 10.4 x 8.7 

mail. The latter assumption is basedon thepattem of 

response by mailing waves observed in relation tothe 

educational and income level of the respondents. 

Thus, anarray ofknown values was established in 

the computer using the respondents to later mailings 

within the24 age, color, and birth-order groups as the 

population from which values were imputed to the nonrespondents. Values in the cells of the array were 

continually replaced by successive known values as the 

file of records was processed; asa nonresponserecord 

was read, values from the last known record intheappropriate cell of the array were’imputed to the nonresponse record. 

Data are also adjusted foritemnonresponse. Imputation procedures for missing data on questionnaires 

Table IV. Number and percent of respondents for whom specified items were not ascertained, by


age of mother and live-birth order: 1963 National Natality Survey


Total


number Father’s


Age of mother and live-birth order of employment respond- status ents 

Percent not”ascertained


Total 3.218 3.1 0.2 0.8 0.1 0.7 

Age of mother 

Under 20 years----------------------------- 373 6.2 0.3 0.8 

20-24 years-------------------------------- 1,074 3.0 O.i 0.6 0.8 

25-29 years-------------------------------- 948 0.3 0.8 0.; 0.3 

30-34 years-------------------------------- 486 R 0.6 1.0 0.4 

35 years and over-------------------------- 337 3.9 0.3 1.2 ::; 

Live-birth order 

First child-------------------------------- 864 4.2 0.2 0.6 

Second child------------------------------- 777 2.1 0.4 0.4 

Third child-------------------------------- 595 2.4 0.; 1.3 

Fourth child------------------------------- 409 0.5 1.0 ::; 

Fifth child and over----------------------- 573 ::; 0.9 1.4 0.; 1.0 

22

returned by mothers were based on the premise that 

“the presence of several correlated variables permits 

a reasonably good prediction of the missing variable ....” 8 

‘Thus, missing data for items on employment of 

father, education of father, and famiIyincomewere imputed on the computer on the same principle as for unit 

nonresponse, that is, imputation was made by assigning 

within homogeneous groups the characteristics of 

respondents to later mailings with known data to those 

respondents with missing data. Age, color, and birth 

order used for imputation of unit nonresponse was also 

used for imputation of missing data on employment of 

father. Missing information on education of father was 

imputed using age of father and education of mother. 

Missing information on family income was imputed using 

age and education of father. 

Missing data on the employment status of mother 

during pregnancy for three cases and on the education 

of mother for eight cases were imputed arbitrarily. 

Birth Records 

With the exception of color of child for births selected from New Jersey, age of father, and completed 

weeks of pregnancy, the information on the birth record 

was in most cases complete. During 1962 the item on 

color of child was removed from the New Jersey birth 

record. Although this item was replaced in late 1962, 

almost all births occurring during 1963 were registered 

on birth records not containing the question on color. 

Thus, information on color of child was missing on 

approximately 100 records from New Jersey selected 

in the sample, Imputation for color of child was carried 

out by means of a procedure using detailed geographic 

information on place of residence of mother and proportion of nonwhite population in that location according to 

the 1960 census. 

In addition, information on completed weeks of pregnancy was unknown on 214 birth records; number of 

previous fetal deaths was unlmown for 92 records; and 

age of father was missing on 255 records. Imputation 

for these items was also carried out on the computer 

by substituting known values from the age, color, and 

birth-order array described earlier. For items such 

as birth weight, sex of child, and birthplace of mother, 

where the number of unknown cases was small, imputation was made arbitrarily. 

Estimation 

Statistics based on the survey are estimates prepared by the use of a post-stratified ratio estimation 

procedure. The purpose of ratio estimation is to take into 

account available relevant information in the estimation 

process, thereby reducing the variability of the estimate. This procedure was carried out for each of the 

following 24 groups: 

Group 

1 

2 

: 

5 

6 

i 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

H 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

Color and age 

White 

Under 20 years 

Under 20 years 

20-24 years 

20-24 years 

20-24 years 

25-29 years 

25-29 years 

25-29 years 

25-29 years 

30-34 years 

30-34 years 

30-34 years 

35 years or nwre 35 years or more 

Nonwhite 

Under 20 years 

Under 20 years 

20-24 years 

20-24 years 

25-29 years 

25-29 years 

25-29 years 

30-34 years 

30-34 years 

35 years or more 

Livebirth 

order 

1 

2+ 

1 

2 

3+ 

1 

3-: 

5+ 

1-2 

3-4 

5+ 

1-4 

5+ 

1 

2-1-

1-2 

3i1-2 

3-4 

5+ 

1-4 

5+ 

ALL 

For each group, the ratio of the number of births 

in the United ‘States in 1963 (based on a 50-percent 

sample) to the number of births in the sample was determined.g These 24 ratios comprised the sample 

weights used in estimating national totals for each of 

the 24 groups. The effect of this ratio adjustment was 

to make the estimates from the sample consistent with 

the complete count of births for each of the groups used 

in the estimation procedure. 

Thus estimates of characteristics from the sample 

are produced using the following formuIa: 

x’=3u LYi i=l yi 

where 

x’	 is the estimate of the number of births with a 

particular characteristic in group i, 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

xi	 is the count of sample births with the characteristic in group i, 

YI is the count of all sample births in group i, and 

Yi	 is the total number of births in group i, based 

on the 50-percent sample. 

Reliability of Estimates 

Since the statistics derived from this survey are 

estimates based on a sample, they may differ from the 

figures that would have been obtained had a count of all 

births in 1963 been conducted using the same questionnaires and procedures. In addition to sampling errors, 

survey results are subject to errors in conceptual formulation, ambiguities in definitions and in the questionnaire construction, coding errors, biases due to nonresponse or incomplete response, mistakes in editing, 

and tabulation errors. 

The probability design of the sample for the survey 

makes possible the calculation of sampling errors. The 

standard error is a measure of the sampling variation 

that occurs by chance because only a sample rather than 

the entire population is surveyed. The chances are abut 

68 out of 100 that an estimate from the sample differs 

from the value for the entire population by less than the 

standard error. The chances are about 95 out of 100 that 

the difference is less than twice the standard error. 

The standard error of a difference between two sample 

estimates is approximately the square root of the sum 

of squares” of each standard error considered separately. 

Estimates of sampling variability for the statistics 

derived from this survey were based on 20 random halfsample replications. This technique yields overall 

variability through observation of variability among 

random subsamples of the total sample. It reflects both 

the error that arises from sampling and a part of the 

measurement error, but it does not measure any sys -

Table	 V. Approximate standard errors for estimated numbers shown in this report 

Size of estimate 

Relative 

standard Standard 

error error 

25,000 16.8 4,200 

50,000 12.0 6,000 

75,000 9.8 7,350 

100,000 8.5 8,500 

250,000 5.0 12,500 

500,000 3.3 16,500 

750,000 

1,000,000------------------

2.5 

2.0 

18,750 

20,000 

1,500,000------------------ 1.5 22,500 

tematic biases in the data. A general discussion of the 

development and evaluation of a replication technique 

forestimatingvariance has been published elsewhere. lo 

However, the procedures and computations requiredto 

estimate variances by this method in the 1963 natality 

survey are briefly described below. 

For this survey, each record from the entire file 

of records was assigned systematically to a random 

group between land40. Twenty pairsofrandom groups 

were created from these groups. A half sample was 

formed by randomly selecting one group from eachof 

the 20 pairs. This process was repeated until 20 

“replicate half samples” were formed from which 

variance estimates were derived. The composition of 

the 20 half samples was determined by an orthogonal 

plan. 

After the composition of each of the half samples 

was determined, all the estimation procedures used to 

produce the final estimates from the entire sample were 

applied separately to each of theresultinghalf samples. 

An estimated variance S~I of an estimated statistic 

x’of the parameter Xis obtained byapplying the following formula: 

where 

x’isthe estimate of Xbasedon the entire sample, and 

x~is the estimate of X based on half sample i. 

Rules to determine the approximate standard errors 

for estimates presented in this report areas follows: 

1. Estimates ofaggYegates: Approximate standard 

errors of estimates of aggregates, such as the 

number of births with a given characteristic 

are given in table V. 

2.	 Estimates ofpevcentages inapwcentdistvi bution: Approximate standard errors forpercentages are determined in one of the two following 

ways, depending upon the source of the base of 

the percentages: 

a.	 Where both numerator and denominator are 

estimates from the sample data, such asthe 

percentage of wives in the Northeast Region 

who had their third child in1963, theapproximate standard errors are given in table VI. 

b.	 Where the denominator is avaluefoundinone 

of the 24 ratio estimates cells shown onpage 

23 and is therefore notsubject to sampling 

error, the relative standard error of thepercent is equivalent to the relative standard 

error of the numerator, which can be obtained 

directly from table V. 

24 
-------

-------

-------

-------

Table VI. Approximate standard error for esti- 3. Difference between twosample estimates: The 

mated percents shown in this report standard error of a difference isapproximately 

the square root ofthesumofthe squares ofeach 

Estimated percent standard error consideredseparately.l%isforBase of mula will represent the actual standard error 

percent 

separate and uncorrelated characteristics, althougbit is only a rough approximation inmost w cases. 

Standard error expressed in 

percentage pbints Rounding of Numbers 

quite accurately for the difference between 

30,000------- 2.0 3.1 4.2 6.4


50,000------- 1.5 3.3 ::5 5.0 $; The original tabulations on which thedata in this


loo,ooo 1.1 ::: 2.3 3.1 3.5 3.8 report are based show figures tothenearestwhole unit. 

250,000------- 0.7 1.1 1.5 1.9 2.2 

5oo,ooo 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.4 1.6 H In the published tables, estimates of aggregates are 

l,ooo,ooo 0.3 1.0 1.1 1.2 rounded to the nearest thousand akhoughtheyarenot 

2,000,0(lo ::: ::; 0.7 0.8 0.9 necessarily accurate to that detail. All percentages, 3,000,000------- %$ 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.7 ratios, and averages were computed using unrounded 4,000,000------- 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 

figures. 

000 

25 
-------

---

-----------

DEFINITIONS OF CERTAIN 

Information From the Certificate of Live Birth 

Le@”timacy status. — For States reporting legitimacy on the birth record, it is recorded from the entry 

on the birth certificate. For States not reporting legitimacy on the birth record, it is inferred from other 

evidence on the certificate. The following 16 States did 

not report legitimacy on the birth record in 1963: 

Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, 

Georgia, Idaho, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, 

Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, 

Oklahoma, and Vermont. 

Live- biyth order. — Live-birth order is derived 

from entries on the birth certificate and refers to the 

number of children born alive to the mother including 

the sample child. 

CO1OY.—Color is recorded or derived from entries 

on the birth certificate. The category “white” includes 

births to parents classified as white, Mexican, or 

Puerto Rican. Nonwhite births include births to parents 

classified as Negro, American Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Aleut, Eskimo, Hawaiian, or part-Hawaiian. 

Age of mothev. —Age of mother is recorded or 

derived from entries on the birth certificate. 

Metropolitan status. — The place of residence of a 

member of the civilian, noninstitutional population is 

classified as inside a standard metropolitan statistical 

area (SMSA) or outside an SMSA according to farm or 

nonfarm residence. 

Re&”on.—For the purpose of classifying the population by geographic area, the States are grouped into 

four regions. These regions, which correspond to those 

used by the Bureau of the Census, are as follows: 

Region States Included 

Northeast Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, 

Massachusetts, Rhode Island, 

Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, 

Pennsylvania 

North Central Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, 

Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, 

Missouri, North Dakota, 

South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas 

South ----------- Delaware, Maryland, District of 

Columbia, Virginia, West Virginia, 

TERMS USED IN THIS REPORT 

North Carolina, South Carolina, 

Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, 

Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, 

Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, 

Texas 

West Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, 

New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, 

Alaska, Washington, Oregon, 

California, Hawaii 

Information Fram the Questionnaire 

Employment status. — This term covers the categories “not employed, ” “employed full time only,” 

“employed bath part time and full time, ” and “employed part time only.” 

Mother’s employment during ®nancy. —This is 

defined by the mother’s response that she was employed either full time or part time outside the home 

at any time during pregnancy. 

Fathev’s employment.-This is defined by the 

mother’s response concerning whether her husband was 

employed, either full time or part time, at the time the 

baby was born. This is employment at the termination 

of pregnancy as contrasted with the mother’s employment at any time during pregnancy. 

Educational attainment. — Educational attainment 

in this report refers to the highest grade of regular 

school completed. Regular school consists of elementary, high school, and college or university and 

does not include trade or business schools. Data are 

derived from the answers to questions concerning 

the highest grade of school attended by the person 

and whether or not that grade was completed. 

Family income. — Family income refers to the 

total of all income received during the preceding year by 

all persons related to each other by blood, marriage, 

or adoption and living in the household when the baby 

was barn. Income from all sources is included, such 

as wages, salaries, unemployment compensation, and 

help	 from relatives. 

Tvimestev. —This is computed by comparing the 

date when the mother was last employed with the date 

of the baby’s birth. 

000 

26 
APPENDIX Ill 

SOURCE FORMS 

Standard Certificate of Live Birth 

Fan removed,


Budcet Berm. No. @5S3742


.— .— CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH . .. . .. ..- ,TATE OF 0,”, ” m“. 

�LACE OF BIRTH 2. L&u&ssEsIEIENcXOF MOTHER \Wh:’hNd# mother lice~) 

o. COUNTY 

h CITY, ToWN. OR LOCATION c. CITY. TOWN. OR LOCATION 

c. NAME OF (IJmIt in hospila$, gice atrcet oddrem) d. STREET ADDRESS 

HOSPITAL	 OR 

lNS’E iUT!ON 

d.	 1SPLACE OF BIRTH INSIDE CITY LIMIT3? e. IS RESIDENCE INSIDE CITY LIMITS? f. 1SREEIDENCE ON A FARM? 

YES � NO n YES rJ NO � YES a NO � 

3, NAME Plral ,kfiddfe L@ 

(’rum or 0 prhll) 4 

r 

J 4. SEX 5a, THIS BIRTH 5b. IFTWINOR TRIPLET, WAS CHILD BoRN 6, DATE .Wnfh Day Ymr 

SINGLE � TWIN � TRIPLET � ISTD 2D o 300 BI%H 

7. NAME Fird Middle Lad 8. CDLOR OR RACE 

x 

$ . 

$ 9. AGE (At lime oflhis birth) 10. BIRTHPLACE (SfaN or fortign Coxnfrv) I la. USUAL OCCUPATION 1lb. KIND OF BUSINESS OR INDUSTRY & 

YEA17S 

12. MAIDEN NAME Fird >liddte Last 13. cOLOR OR RACE ~ 

17. 

z 

* 

g 14. AGE (At lime of /kis birfh) IS BIRTHPUCE (.Stafc or foreign Counfrv) 16. PRN1OUS DELIVERIES TO MOTHER (Do NOT includt lhiz birth) 

YEARS ., /r,w m“. b. How man. GTHER chit- . . Han m.” f<fal d.nth 

OTHER ch,rdrt,l ;= y:;, barn am but m w&c&r;op~:”,.v y 

INFORMANT .* “m Ih!n,r 

18, MOTHER3 MAILING ADDRESS 

18a, SIGNATURE 18b. ATTENDANT AT BIRTH 

1 hereby ctr(ijy 

that this chdd M, D. � D. O. � MIDWIFS � OTHER @Pec%O 

rum bgen ;1:: on 18c. ADDRESS I$d. DATE SIGNED 

atafcd aboce. 

19, DATE RECD. BY LOCAL REG. 20. REGISTRARS SIGNATURE 21, DATE ON WHICH GIVENNAMEADDED 

BY (Btgisfrar) 

FOR MEDICAL AND HtiLTH USE ONLY 

(Thti atcfion .W7JSTbe filled 0U4 

Ua. LENGTN OF PREGNANCY 22b. WEIGHT AT BIRTH 23, LEGITIMATE 

&WL:ETED LB, 02, YES � NO � I 

(sPAcE FoR ADDITION OF MEDICAL AND HEALTH ITSMS BY INDIVIDUAL STATES) 

27 
Survey Questionnaire for Mothers 

4’”” ‘%, 

: ; DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE 

; 

%* / PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE WASHINGTON %s, D. C. 

@ u*& 

r


L


The U. S. Fubl.icHealth Service is doing a national study to find out how


much and what kinds of medical and dental care women are receiving during


the year before the birth of a child. Nothing is known about the extent


of the care received by expectant mothers, even though such care is of the


greatest importsace for the fiture health ’ofboth mother and baby. A


knowledge of what is actually happening throughout the Nation will go a


long way in helping to improve the health of mothers and babies.


The information needed for this study will be based on the experience of 

the mothers of 4,000 babies out of the i million born during 1963. These 

mothers were selected as a random sample of all mothers who have a baby, 

and you axe one of those so selected. We are therefore asking you to emswer 

the questions on the followlng pages of this form, and to return it to us 

in the enclosed envelope which requires no postage. 

Please notice that in the first part of the form the questions ask about


every doctor, dentist, hospital, or clinic frcnnwhich you received any care


during the entire year before your baby was born. Your answers should not


be just for~c~~connected tith pregnancy, but for any and all medical


ad dental caxe or checkups during these 12 months.


All information about you and your baby will be kept completely confidential.


Your answers till be used for health research only and for no other purpose. 

As you might expect, it is particularly important that we receive your


answers and those of all the other 4,000 mothers, since each of you really


represents 1,000 mothers.


Youx cooperation In this study is deeply appreciated.


Sincerely yours,


&e/$


O. K. Sagen, . D., Chief


National Vital Statistic Division


National Center for’Health St@.stlcs


Name of Child 

Date of Birth File Number 

28

COll FIOE#TIALITY has b.. n assur. d the individual a. P. bll shad i. tho F.dbrsl Register May 20, 1959 

FORM APPXOVED


BUDGET BU;EAU NO 68- E.S23


SURVEY OF MEDICAL AND DENTAL CARE 

PART 1. SOURCES OF MEDICAL AND DENTAL CARE DURING ONE-YEAR PERIOD BEFORE CHILDBIRTH 

L. Please provide the information requested 3. Wsre you seen by a dentist during this 

belcu about the physician, chiropractor or one-year period? 

midwife who attended you at the recent 

birth of your child. � YES � ll O (Go on toQuestion 4) 

Name 1 

Complete a .=cticm below 

Address for each den ti= t. 

—. Name City (&n) and State– 

Address’ flow LWanYt imea wi;e YOU seen by this 

doe tor during the one-year per; od? -1

City (tom)d State 

Z.	Were you seen by any other physician 

or chiropractor during the one-year I

HOW ~.”y t irtes were you seen by this 

psriod befors the recsnt birth of dent. st dur. ru! the one-year period? 

your child?


� YEs � MO (Go on toQuestion 3) I

Name 

1 I Address 

Complete a section below for II each doctor or chiropractor. City ( town) and State 

I J/am 

How ,ma”y times were you seen by this 

Address d=”tist d“rine the one-year neriod? 

I 4. During this one-year pericd, wers you trested City (town> and State or examined in a clinic or hospital not 

reported above? (Include health checkup. at 

HO. many tines were you see” by thi. work, visits te mobile health units, etc. ) 

doctor durir+? the one-year geriod? 

� YES I_JMo (Go on to next page) 

Name 1 

A&ret! Complete a section below for 

place where YOU were treated 

each 

or examined. 

n 

City”(tin) and State Name 

Row ~any times were you seen by this Address 

doctor during the one-year period? I 

City (tow) and State 

Address 

ITS 

City (tom’t) and State Address 

II 

How many times were You seen by this Ci ly (tin) ‘ail State 

doctor durin$ the one-year period? 

ES-4425-19 (m’. 2) 

-63 PIEASE GO ON ‘IO PART II— 

29 
----------

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

-----------

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

PART II. RELATED INFORMATION 

L. wsrs you employed outside your hornsat any time


during your racent pregnancy?


� YES (Answer aa.d � — llo (Go on 10

b below> Question 2) 

a. Did you work full-time at all during


your racent pregnancy?


Ii3endid you stop mrklng full-time?


~


b. Did you work part-time at all during


your racent pregnancy?


DYEs I-Jo


1


Whan did you stop working part-time?


Mm th I Day I Year 

?.	!Jzatwas the highest grade (or year) of regular 

school that you ever attended? 

(Circle highest grade attended) 

NONE----------------- o 

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL---- 1 2 3 8 5 6 7 8 

HIGH SCHOOL I z ~ ~ 

CO LLEGE 1 z ‘j , ~ 6+ 

Did you COMPLETE this grade? � YES Duo 

1. What was the highest grade (o! year) of regular


school that your husband ever attended? 

(Circle highest grade attended> 

NONE ----------------- O 

EL EMEIITARY SCHOOL---- 1 2 .3 8 s 6 7 8 

HIGH SCHOOL 1 2 3 4 

CO LLEGE 1 2 Y 8 5 6+ 

Did he CO14PLSTEthis grade? � YES � Mo 

1S-4425-19 (p... 3) 

63 

4. W= y,~ husband employsd at the time of YOur


childts birth?


� FULL-TIIIE7 DYES ~ Was he working 

(check one) 

� uo { lJpAIfT-Ti14ET 

5. What kind of work was your husband doing at the 

time of XOUF childts birth? (If he was not 

Workink then, please give information for his 

last ., iob)

GIVE FULL DESCRIPTION (For example: grocery 

clerk. auto mechanic, elementary school teacher) 

6. What was the total inccme of your family during 

1962? (In=Iude all income such as wage=, salaries, 

unemployment compensation, help from relative. , 

etc. , received by all members of the family living 

with you when your baby was born) 

DSOSE fJ$4.000 - S4,999 

@IOER si, ooo � $s,000 -$6.999 

IJsl.000 - S1.999 � s7,000 -$9.999 

~$2,000 - s2,999 fJ$lo, 000-$14,999 

�s9,000 - $3,999 � 615,000 OR OVER 

7, Where did you live when your baby was born? 

(Please give your h.rm .ddr=sa) 

Number and Street 

City (tom)tmd State 

County 

Is this place on a city lot (or in an


apartment building)?


DYEs all o 

“(N.mne and address of per.on completing tbi. form) 

PLEASE WE SACR PAGE FOR COMMSTWS


$i U. S. 60VERNM2NT PRINTING OFFICE, 1968—342040/3 \ 

30 
OUTLINE OF REPORT SERIES FOR VITAL AND HEALTH STATISTICS 

Public Health Service Publication No. 1000 

Series 1. 

SeTies 2. 

Sevies 3. 

SeYies 4. 

Series 10. 

Sem”es 11. 

Seyies 12. 

SeTies 13. 

Swios 20. 

Sew-es 21. 

SeTies 22. 

PYogYams and collection pyoce~u~~s.—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. 

Data evaluation and met?zods reseaych. —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. 

A~alyticaC 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 ~eports.— Final reports of major committees concerned with vital and 

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

and death certificates. 

Data fYom the Health Interview SuYvey. — Statistics on illness, accidental injuries, disability, use of 

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

in a continuing national household interview survey. 

Data from tile HeaMz Examination Szwvey.— Data from direct examination, testing, and measurement of national samples of the population provide the basis for two types of reports: (1) estimates 

of the medically defined prevalence of specific diseases in the United States and the distributions of 

the population with respect to physical, physiological, and psychological characteristics; and (2) 

analysis of relationships among the various measurements without reference to an esqiicit finite 

universe of persons. 

Data from the Institutional Population SzJYveys.— Statistics relating to the health characteristics of 

persons in irtstitutions, 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 Hospital DiscJzaYge Swvey.— Statistics relating to discharged patients in short-stay 

hospitals, based on a sample of patient records in a nationaI sample of hospitals. 

Data on mortaLity.—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, man-iage, anddivorce. — \7arious statistics on nata.lity, marriage, and divorce other 

than as included in amual or monthly reports— special analyses by demographic variables, also 

geographic and time series analyses, studies of fertility. 

Data porn t?ze Arationd Nataiity and Moytality Swveys. —Statistics on characteristics of births and 

deaths not available from the vital records, b&ecl on sample surveys stemming from these records, 

including such topics as mortality by socioeconomic class, medical es~e.rience in the last year of 

life, characteristics of pregnancy, etc. 

For a list of titles of reports published in these series, write to: office of Information 

Nation~ Center for He~th Smtistics 

U.S. Public Health Service 

Washington, D.C. 20201