-

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 044 512 VT 011 906

TITLE Need for Subsidized Family Planning Services: UnitedStates, Each State and County, 1968.

INSTITUTION Planned Parenthood--World Population, New York, N.Y.SPONS AGENCY Office of Economic Opportunity, Washirgton, D.C.REPORT NO CEO-Pam-6130-6PUB DATE 68NOTE 246p.

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

EDRS Price MF -$1.00 HC-$12.40Community Agencies (Public), Community Services,*Economically Disrlivantaged, *Family Planning,*Females, *Health Needs, Hospitals, InformationNeeds, *National Surveys, Private Agencies, PublicHealth

ABSTRACTTo provide federal, state, and local health agencies

with information needed to achieve the national objectives ofimproving health, assisting families to escape poverty, and providingparents with fre,sdom of choice in determining the number and spacingof their children, information was collected from 3,072 United Statescounties. Data from a variety of public and professional sources andfrom surveys conducted in 1969 requesting data on numbers of patientsserved are summarized into 34 categories of service, need, anddemographic, health, and resource information, for selected counties,cities, states, or regions, In 1968 there were an estimated 5,367,000medically indigent women of childbearing age in need of subsidizedfamily planning services, but only 773,000 (less than 15 percent)were reported as patients in public and private health agenciesoffering planning services. Services were identified in 1,200 of the3,072 counties with 200 counties serving 1,000 or more patients andthe remaining 1,000 counties serving less than 500 patients.Approximately 41 percent of the patients received services from thepublic health department, 27 percent from public and voluntaryhospitals, 27 percent from Planned Parenthood Affiliates, and 5percent from other agencies. These and other data are providedtabular and chart form. (SB)

miv--1 Need for Subsidizedin-46 Family Planning Services-4. United States,cD

W Each State and County,w1968

Summary for the U S., each region, stale and county: of needsubtidized family planning services; current service levels; relalhealth, social and demographic indices; and available resources ,expansion of family planning programs.

A Report Produced byCenter for Family Planning Program DevelopmentThe Technical Assistance Division ofPlanned ParenthoodWorld Population

for theFamily Planning ProgramOffice of Health AffairsOffice of Economic OpportunityExecutive Office of the President

a Ota ;KIM Of fit Oat. laic aft JR011if aRt

rye OOCV03 I acesrORfiiObutO

tRatilf as IMMO MIR tut WOO* OR00,1110fRATIOR CROONII!RO R Poems Os

OR 01411:10% PM, 00 Rd ROOS1.0110 RaAtifff tf0004. OfFtt t*ea OM fOOTIOR OR reset

The research reported herein was perforrne3 pursuant to a contract(No. B 89-4588) with the Office of Econornk Opportunity, Wash.tngton, D. C. 20508. The opinions expressed herein are those of theauthors, and should not be construed 11.1 representing the opinionsor policies of any agency of the United States Government.

CENTER FOR FAMILY PLANNING PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

Frederick S. JaffeDirector

Raymond C. Lerner, Ph.D.Director of Nanning

Joy C. Dryfoos, M.A.Chef of Flaming Methods

Benjamin M. Pape 11Senior Plannhg ASIOC401*, Data Processing

Cults Jo Br nsolinPlanning Atrodate

Emil W. DieckmannPlanning Anacleto

Ann Ridayhemming Associate

Toni R. HeislerPlanning Assistant

James K. RobyPlanning Assistant

Jill W. SheffieldPluming Assistant

Kay L RutherfordStatistical Ashton:

Richard tineEdam of Pablinstione

Daniel R. Weintraub, D.D.S.Special Assktent for Coordination

Panel 0 ConsultantsThe staff of the Center for Family Planning Program Developmergratefully acknowledges the assistance of the following group cresearchers who constituted the Panel of Consultants on this stud)Their advice and counsel in reviewing the design and methodologfor the study was particularly helpful. The Center, of course, takefull responsibility for the conduct of the study and its conclusions.

Arthur A. CampbellDeputy DirectorCenter for Population ResearchNational Institute of Child Health and Human Development

James Cooney, Ph.D.DirectorBureau of Research ServfuesAmerican Hospital Association

Cary D. London, M.D.DirectorHealth Services OfficeCommunity Action ProgramOffice of Economic Opportunity

Donald C. Reidel. Ph.D.Assoc:ate Professor of Public HealthYale UniversitySchool of Medichre

Sam ShapiroVice Presiden; and Director of ResearchHealth !mart* Plan of Create New York

MindelC Sheps, M.D.Professor of BiostesticsSchool of Publit Her tthUniversity of North Carolina

Eleanor M. Snyder, Ph.D.Director of ResearchPlanned Parenthood-World Population

Cer aid SparerChisfProgram Planning and EahrationOffice of Heakh AffairsOffice of &ohmic OpportwIty

Frank tieProfessor ofDttnistretine MedicineSchool of Pub& Health and Administrative MedicineCambia thriven*,

Samuel M. Wishik, M.D.Diode,Program Destiopment atia L'eshsetkoInternational Institute for the Study of Mew ReproductionWreak Vairenity

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Prefacesvi Family Planning end the Poor by Gary D. London, M.D.vii Timetable for Action by George Con tis, M.D.

SECTION 1.Introduction

4 National Overview11 Conrentnstiort of Need and Service In Metropolitan Areas17 No Metropolitan Counties and Rural AreasIS Counties with No Identifiable Family Planning Progrnms:8 Family Planning and Infant Mortality19 Migrants and Indians21 Distribution of Current Serv.:os among Principal Delivery Agencies21 Medicaid and the Private Physician26 Changes Since 1966.67 In Large SMSAs26 Conclusion27 Acknowledgments

SECTION II. DETAILED TABLES

32 1. Need for Subsidized Family Planning Services: Current Programs, Resources and Related indices for U.S., Each State andCounty, FY 1968

175 2. 313 Counties Containing Half of U.S. Unmet Need for Subsidized Femily Planning Services: Need, Service Levels, Existingand Potential Resources for Program Expansion, FY 1968

183 3. 616 Counties Containing Half of Each State's Urmet Need for Subsidized Famiiy Plann r.g Services, by 0E0 Region andState: Need, Santee levels, Existing and Potential Resources for Program Expansion, FY 1968

203 4. Unmet Nod for Subsidizer. Family Planning Services in 984 Counties with More than 30 Percent Farm Population,by 0E0 Region and State, FY1968

207 5. 438 Counties with No Identifiable Family Planning Programs: Potential Health and Orientational Resources for ProgramDevelopment and Related Indices, FY 1968

219 6. Nod for Subsidized Family Planning Services In 2110 Counties with Highest Number of Excess Infant Deaths:Need fY 1968, Excess Deaths, 1961.65

227 7. Need for Subsidized Family Planning Services in 17 Counties Containing Half of U.S. liome.Bssed Migrant Population:Ned, Service Levels, Existing and Potential Resources for Program Expansion, FY 1968

231 8. Need for Subsidized ramify Panning Services in 50 Counties with 76 Percent of Indian Population Served by the IndianHealth Service: Need, Service Levels, Existing and Potential Resources for Program Expansion, FY 1968

tECTION III. DEFINITIONS, SOURCES AND LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA

237 A. OeogrephIc Coding and Consolidations

237 B. Population Estimates

238 C. Need for Subsidized Famiiy Planning Services

240 D. Current Family Planning Sella Levels

245 L Selected Meth and Demographic IndicesInfant Mortality ante bass Infant DeathsEstimated fertility RatesBirth Order, legitimety and Premetarity

246 F. Existing end Potential Resources for tomb Planning ProgramsPhysiciansWOW* end Medical Schools0E0 heroinOther Federal and Local Resources

247 O. Survey Instruments

PREFACES

Family Planning end the PoorCary D. London, M.D., Director, Health Servjces Office,Community Action Program, Office of Economic Opportunity(198740)

Nearly five yaw ago the federal government, through the Office ofEanomk Opportunity, made its first experimental grant to a familyplanning project. It was a modest grant (18,000) to a fairly smallcommunity (Corpus Christi, Tam). But this little publicized, firstexploratory effort of 0E0 to bring what the United Nations has sub-sequently defined as a 'basic human right" to poor women in a smallTexas city opened the way for today's federal investment of more

millionthan $30 in family planning services for the poor nearlyhalf of it through the Office of Economic Opportunity.

Today it is genera/1y recognized that full and free acres tovoluntary family planning services is one of the most effectiveavenues for escape from poverty, as well as for improving the totalhealth of mothers and children. It is recognized not only by acedern-ice, lawmakers and government officials, but most important bypoor people themselves. Fa it has been the initiative of the poor,through their local Community Action Agencks, which has beenprimarily responsible for the growth to the number of 0E0's familyplanning projects from 14 in five states in'1008, to over 230 to 42states and Puerto Rico today.

And it was the cleat evidence that the poor wanted modernfamily planning services and would use them effectively to achievetheir own desks to have less children than they were having that ledthe Congress to declare family planning a Special Emphasis Programof the War re Poverty and a high priority program in maternal andchill health service's of the Department of Health, Education andWelfare

Today, I em pleased to my, a number of federal agencies aresupporting the development et femili planning programs in the U.S.The Mfieen's Bureau of DREW hu recently allocated sorra $12million for family planning projects in 79 cities. In ackliticr, DHEWMaternity and Want Care Propels, Model City peogramr, the IndianHealth Swvice HSMHA and the Department- of Defense en allproviding et least some motes in this area. Federally sponsoredresearch efforts to Improve contraception also have in.seuedconsiderably.

0E0 is proud of its role in stimulating the initiation of federallyfunded services for pot wawa in many communities, lust as weare proud of having pioneered the int comprehensive neighborhoodhealth centers (48 of them), the training and utilization of indigenoushealth workers to ouch out into poverty communities, and theteasel involvement of poor people in making their own decisionsabout pegrams invoking their lives and health. A Presidentialremmittee on Population and Family Planning reconstaxled last,lanuary that the Weill government raMehtlicrease its expendouresfor 0E0, !MEW and abet fedeselli family pkumh4 secy.Ices until an maul outlay of $130 theca is reedsed to solve lyemillion wanes. It declared that the actociphshivent of this goalwould feria the atthe participation of retest* physicians, hospi-

tab, health departments, voluntary agencies, antipoverty programsand welfare deparfinents," and acknowledged tht a variety of cam-elementary federal programs would be needed to activate thesediverse groups.

Money, of course, is an essential ingredient in supplying volun-tary famgy planning services to all who want and need them. Butthere are other probiens, too. Enthusiasm, for exemple;might beenough to advance a program carried out by a single agency in aunal: community serving a few hundred women. But there is asignificant difference in scale and complexity when one talksabout a program designed to serve some five million women through-out the country that will coordinate and enhance the eff xts of nu-merous governmental and voluntary agencies and institutions onnational, state, county and local levels. Enthusiasm alone will notsuffice.

The Center for Family Planning Program Development wascommissioned to undertake this study of national family planningneed, services and resources to help create the information basenecessary for effective program planning in today's complex andchallenging situation. Such data have been collected for each of thecountry's 3,072 counties for the fiscal year 1068. Thirty-six categoriesof service, need, demographic, health and resource information arepublished in the malt table of this report; and many mote ere pub-fished here for selected counties, cities, states or regions. Such a studyis a vital first step toward intelligent planning and implementationof effective, efficient and coordinated family pluming programs.

It is only, of tour*, a first step. The study itself uncoversnumerous inconsistencies, duplications and lamas in the servicedata turn:ally beitg reported; therefore, for effective planning andprogram development, there must be established a national systemfor reporting service statistics which is consistent, emirate andrelevaet.

Nearly two years ago, the OW began to investigate ways ofproviding systematic peogram

repottingfrom it funded.from the pro

More recently, as the result of discussions with the tWdren's Bureau,the Health Services any Mental Health Ado/Ant:003m and MannedParenthood, it was agrees! that a national system tot reporting servicestatistics would be . -ped and operated by the National Centerfoe Health Statistics. 0E0 and Cheldren's Bureau projects are now

to participate in an intesim system, anticipating the h-itt/It:sof a-fully developed national system ally in IWO whichwill include most governmentfunded and voluntary agency familyplanning dirda in the mutiny.

But to ea) this study a first slept'. not eo sninimite it. The esti-mates which appear here are the list eves amusbled foe the hake 'as a whole, and foe la Abided regions, states and counties. Theypreside a basis, albeit an "proximation, fa moving ahead rip*to achieve out eitioeal objectives.

Timetable for ActionGeorge Contis, M.D., Director, Family Planning ProgramOffice of Health Affairs, Office of Economic Opportunity

In his July 18, 1989 message to Congress on Population and FamilyPlanning, President Nixon clearly expressed his concern over thepopulation growth in this country and abroad. lie noted that thoughthe present U.S. growth rate of about one percent was not as great asthat of developing nations, it presented a serious challenge for oursociety. At a time when this nation is renewing its efforts to ensurethat its resources are available to all Its citizens, the President's mes-sage has particular significance.

As President Nixon pointed out, our social institutions mustkeep pace with the demands of a steadily increasing population.Program planning in the vital areas of education, housing, urbandevelopment, and health must receive increased emphasis. As anin:egral part of any health care program, family planning informs-Hos: and ctrvices must be made available to all those who want andneed them. The President has called for the accomplishment of thistask within the next five years, recognizing family planning as one ofthe surest and least costbways of breaking the poverty cycle.

It is for this reason that 'Need for Subsidized Family PlanningSenices: United States, Each State and County, 1968" is an espe-cially important report. For the first time, need for family planningservices on a county by county basis is described. Health officials,private otganizations, and all those interested In this problem willfind the Information extremely valuable in mapping a course of actionto bring family ;harming to those among tie poor who want it. Thereport is a milestone in the family planning effort in this country.

at

rw*wirAPPLIA0r*INSHIS

Section INeed for Subsidized Family PlanningServices: United States,Each State and County, 1968

SECTION I. NLED FOR SUBSIDIZED FAMILY PLANNINGSERVICES: UNITED STATES, EACH STATE AND COUNTY, 1966

INTRODUCTIONFederal support of family planning programs, administered by theOffice of Economic Opportunity (0E0) and the Department ofHealth, Education and Welfare (DIIEW), has three objectives: Toimprove the health of the American people, to assist families toescape from poverty, and o provide parents with freedom of choicein determining the number and spacing of their children. Since pub-lic policy on family planning began to shift :-t the early 1900s, thenumber of governmental and private sector health agencies involvedin the faintly planning field has increased rapidly. In 1967 familyplanning was articulated as national policy when Congress adoptedthe Economic Opportunity Amendments designating family planningas a "special emphasis" component of the anti-poverty program.'Congress also emended the Child Health Act of 1967 to earmark forfamily planning service protects not less than six percent of the fundsappropriated for maternal and child health programs administeredby the Chiidren's Bureau, DIIEW, to require the states to extendfaintly planning services progressively throughout their fictionsby 1975, and to require the states to offer and provide fa nily plan-ning services to all appropriate public assistancelxtplersts. Theseenactments made explicit for the first time the national commitmentto provide modern voluntary family planning services to all Ameri-cans who need and want them, particularly to those who cannotafford private medical care.

to achieve these objectives of national policy, Federal, state andlocal health agencies, public and private, have a need rot bask in-formation for use in program planning. &soh information should esti-mate the size of the imputation in need of ednidized family planningservices, approximate the level of services currently being providedand identify existing health and related resources which might par-ticipate in an expanded program. This report, based on all availableinformation, seeks to provide such estimates for fiscal year 1968(July 1, 1907 June 30, 1968). It Is one of a series produced by theCenter foe Family Planning Program Development, the TechnicalAssistance Division of Planned Parenthood-World Population, to pro-vide program planning information useful for the expansion of familyplanning services. The study on which it is based is supported by acontract from the Orvce of Economic Oppodunity (Is'o.11 89-4SS8).

A subtle Ma) body of information was assembled for each of the3.072 U.S. counties. The data Include: Population estimates; incomelevels; health, demographic and social indices (such as infant mot -tahty numbers of infant deaths, births, birth rates, and fertilityrates); existing health resources; available federal programs; andcurrent family planting servko levels. (For definitions, sources andtirnftations of data included in this report, see Section III.)

In ikklftica to collecting existing information from a variety ofpublic and professional sources and organizing it to factlftate a sum-hoary assestuneut of the situation In each county, the Center con-dieted sumer early in 1909 of all identdable organized family plan-ning reopens requesting data on numbers of patients served. Pro-grams sumeyed inciuded clinics operated by public )with depart-inewivbbe and "kmtirf hosP4as, local grams ailliated withPlanned Parenthood -Weld Population and ohm ateticies. The r Im-p/et:ion rite Foe these surveys was close to 100 percent, although therewas aide variation in the quality of data received. (See Section lit-DI A broader array of information relevant to family planning needs,service levels and actual and potential service resosces Ice alcounties and states and for the nation as a *bole has thus beenassembled than has heretofott been available.

lkt. so M. ties st. Sae. letta40 ika. WM. taw v. low& Si* Mk. Sohn tasa rt. Sac PM a.

The report presents and analyzes service data is reported di-tectly to the Center for Family Planning Program Development byhospitals, Planned Parenthood Affiliates and other service agencies;state health departments reported service data for the county heal hunits under their turisdietion. These data are approximations whichWe se accurate as the state of local recordkeeptng will permit at thistime. Wherever possible, the figure reported by the service agencywes accepted and entered into the file; follow-up queries clarifiedsome ambiguities. Mali of toe service agencies do not keep recordswhkh enable them to distinguish numbers of patients served fromclinic visits; their estimates of patients sen-ed, therefore, were gen-erally recorded, although, in some cases, it was necessary to translatethe visit data supplied into on approximate number of patients.

All service reports, clinic kcatiens and sponsorships for eachcounty were entered on a county worksheet which facilitated sortingout of obvious reposing duplication. Such duplication surnetimesoccurred when more than one agency (e.g., a health department andhospital) shared respobsibility for providing the service at a par-ticular location, and both reported the patients saved at that loca-tion. While it was possible to deduct apparent dupPcatkos frorneach county's service total, the information available was not ruffl-(tent to determine which agency was primarily responsible for pro-viding the services. Thus the county's overall service figure wascorrected but the duplicated patients were not aectibed to one oranother of the service agencies. Instead, cc e agency's column in thefile shows the number of patients claimed Li the agency in its report.

Less obv ous duplication, however, could not be eliminated. Nordid the data permit classification of patients served by agencies otherthan Plenned Parenthood according to medical indigency status.For these reasons, the number of medically indigent family planningpatients reported as served by organized clinics in FY 1968 is prob-ably overestimated. (For a discussion of the methods employed toanalyze and interpret the survey responses, see Section Ill-D).

'the report does ..ot attempt to estimate how many low-inconewomen received family planning care in FY 1968 through privatephysicians, either at no charge, financed with their own funds orthrough such public programs as Medicaid. No systematic data existwith which to estimate this number nationally, much fess for eachcounty; fragmentary data from Medkakl programs in several statessuggest that less than ten percent of low-income women may haveePoctive access to private physicians for family planning care. (Seediscussion below.)

Nor does the report attempt to deal with the issue of the qualityof services rendered in existing programs, or of continuity of are andof fertility control practice. These related questions ant of consid-erable significance in assessing the impact of any family planningprogram. in the light of the current state of recordkeeping in thefield, ft is virtually nnpossible to secure national data relevant tothes issues from the diverse family planning service agencies. Untilthere is a more trniforw national reccedkeeping and repotting system,quahly- and continuity of care will mote feasibly be assessed inspecial local studies. A national study of this kind can presentlyestimate only the extent to which programs have been successfulat least enrolling the population in need. This is a necessary leststep toward systematic evaluation of any program.

fohlity Control and the PoetDemographic studies illustrate two as sects of the fertfifty behaviorof the poor: I) They appear to be considerably less successful thanhigher-income couples in having only the slumber of children theywart; it) many already use some methods of fatally control, butoften these are the most ineffective ones.

The disparity betwiert high and low-income capita in fertilitycontrol has been amply documented. Despite the expressed milt-elves of both groups for an average of three children, the non -ponehad an average annual FertilRy rate is 19404tS ct 9P t births per

1,000 women aged 15-44, while the poor and near-poor had a rate of152.5 a rite 55 percent higher.' The effects of this disparity vo beseen In the pmfile of U.S. poverty: Nearly half of the children inpoverty In 1988 were growing up In families with five or more chil-dren under 18; and the risk of poverty increased rapidly from ninepercent for one-child tunilies to 42 percent for families with afar ormore chtldren.

Even these recent high fertility rute, of the poor, however, areconsiderably lower than the rates that would be expected if the poormade no effort to control fertility. National studiesdemonstratethat many low-income couples attempt to practice fertility control,but most of them have to rely heavily on the least effective non-medical techniques. From st -dies of medical care for the poor, ftseems probable that even those who do use the rr...xe effective meth-ods have had Inadequate medical consultation and Instruction andcontinue to have only sporadic contact with qualified physicians. The55 percent difference In fertility rates betrteen poor and non-poorseems to stem largely from this considerable difference in the meansof fertility control to which the poor have had access.

The objecthi of national policy is to remedy this inequity byproviding low.int erne couples with effective access tone saneern method! of fertility control which higher Income Americansenjoy. The need for family planning assistance among low-Incomecouples uho are already attempting to control their fertility mayappear less absolute than for those who do not yet practice any formof family linftation and spacing. These coupler, however, must beconsidered as part of the thtiverse of need since they require eitherboom to the more effective medical techniques or more adequatemedical supmision to Insure safety and Amy. To do otherRisewould be to perpetuate ineffective fertility control practices underInedequake or no medical supervision among poor Americans.

A Nets on Tomlin:4ovIn this report, a number of concerti we presented which may berelatively unfamiliar. Poll definitions are presented in Section IIi;to facilitate reading, following are brief definitions of major terms:

Medkisik Indigene Women to Need of Subsidised Fondly :olartningStrobel is used throughout the report to denote all low - incomewomen of reproductive age who are st risk of pregnancy and are notsterile, pregnant or seeking a deskr,1 pregnancy. This group is alsoreferred to as 'women in need' and t 1.te "total In need*.

A Forney Planning Smite is defined in this study as the provisionof aannyy medical means by which conception is prevented or post -poned. (It is *1st celled fertility regulation, contraception, birth con-trol and planned perenthooti, and includes the rhythm method.)

A Fussily Plowing Mime is defined as a person reported as ftctivittg a *iffy planning *mkt from ne ergiunited program.

A Po* Plenelne horse is defined .s any identifiable mange-meet &met which an agency provides fastik plerialng strokes.

Maw Need of Medic* to lime Wow* iro Need ei SubsidisedFoss* Planning Services No, Smolt are the total Dumber of armeeM Deed Minns the toted total ember of patLets reported isteething services en lift from otgantred programs. TNs group

A. A. baste*. Me Oen of hoar fOorsoine M ma Rofatoso of emoteMils M Loft. me Oho haft sox. mil 1,44

" k Orshorelot. 'Ms Slap of Pam* in IPSIL` Sodoll sewn, 11.0olokIforth Hew _

64414X P. R. 1010.1601/4 A. IL toroot4fr ace 1. E. Ponorrsork Newt ant roofPromo* so tin Mono* OW* Potosolto. teat see R. troollook P. R.

A. A. torhollollt bib Poona* Oloyett *of Poporesosbook Stir so IA OS.

is also referred to in the text er.d tables as the "unserved'; the pro-portion that they represent of all women in need is called the "per-cent unserved" or "percent of unmet need'.

The Medically Indigent, as used In this report, Is an approximationof the number who fall below the poverty and near-poverty levelsformulated by the Social Security Administration. The term is usedin the report interchangeably with "pout* and low-income".

ResourcesSince family planning is a health service, the foundationof any expanded program consists primarily of the community'she' "es resources, I.e., hospitals, health departments, comprehensiveheatth centers, medical schools, voluntary health agencies, physiciansand such programs as 0E0-funded family planning projects andMaternity anti Infant Care projects. In addition, a key administrative,funding or catalytic role in developing programs may be undertakenby the community's organlsotional resources, such its CommunityAction Agencies or Model City programs. The report and tablessummarize for each county these resources which may be potentiallyavailable for the development of family planning programs.

hire I S.4 Malice Women titivated le Se le Neel el Sobskind FennyHamlet Senittes, and Need, FT 1961.

hobo si sled telty lefteet Wow (400s):

11111 Nana is Rectiviat Wag PIsna ng Solos From All Kam

1E1 hbk and Prints *miss

Nat bOorta as Itecehltg holt Nogg Services

NA/10f4AL OVtRYItWIs rt 1486, there were an estimated 3,.51,000 medic* Indigentwomen of tbildbearing aft an need 01 toteldited far* planningservices in the SO states and the Diserkt of Waggle. Iley rem-seated one net of every fine U.S, women of reproductive age whoIn 108 needed protection against unmated pregnancy. The esti-mate of 3,307,030 eras obtained by applying the Dryfoot-Polgat-VatIty Formula (see Section 1.11-C) to Census Burma estinwhi ofthe mamba of women aged 1S-44 in ION ift each oototy. h Is theresidual inter of women after subtracting from the total numberof laeriftecafte erteses of tilatibeirieg age an estimate of those who

are sterile, pregnant or seeking a desired pregnancy. The estimatingmethod assumes that low-income parents want to have the averageof three children that they, like other Americans, say they prefer,and that they would be potential family planning patients only whenthey are not having or seeking these desired pregnancies.

In FY 1968 only 773,000 women were reported as patients ofall known public and private sector health agencies which offeredfamily planning. This represents less than 15 percent of all whoneeded these services. About 4,594,000 women, or 85.6 percent ofthe total in need, remained unserved (Figure 1, previous page).

For each county and state, detailed data on estimated familyplanning need and service levels, selected health and demographicindices, and existing and potential resources which might be avail-able for program expansion are presented in Table 1 (Section II).

In the country as a whole, some family planning services, pro-vided either by public or voluntary hospitals, health departments,Planned Parenthood Affiliates or other agencies, were identified in1,200 counties. The aggregate figure, however, tends to create amisleading impression of a much broader availability of family plan-ning service than Is actually the case. In the overwhelming majorityof these counties, the number of patients served is so minimal thatthese counties can hardly be described as having programs that makesubsidized family planning services available. Indeed, in almost 1,000of these 1,200 counties, the FY 1968 programs reported serving lessthan 500 patients or could provide no service figures at all. (It is ofinterest that in more than half of the 130 counties which report serv-ing 1,000 or more patients, there were 050 family planning projectshi FY 1968.) The scope of existing programs is illustrated in Table Awhich aggregates the service figures reported by all agencies in thesecounties, and in Figure 2 (below and right column).

Available information indicates that the programs In most of the countiesfor stitch service figures could not be secured ere generally quite small andserve few patients.

Figure 2 1,200 Counties with Identifiable Family Planning

Programs, by Number of Patients Served, All Agencies, FY1968

Number of Counties where Services are provided to:

rai

Less than 101) patients (or No Service Figures Available)

100499 Patients

500.999 Patients

1,000 or More Patients

TABLE A. FAMILY PLANNING NEED, SERVICES AND UNMET NEED IN 3,072 U.S. COUNTIE3, BY NUMBER OF PATIENTS REPORTEDSERVED IN IDENTIFIABLE PROGRAMS, ALL AGENCIES, FY 1968

Counties (Number)

Total

No iden-tillableProgram

Identifiable Programs, by Number of Patients Served

Total

No ServiceFiguresAvailable

Less than10

1049

50-99

100-499

500-999

1-.:`,00 orWI,

3,072 1,872 1,200 122 63 215 194 403 73 130

Cumulative % - - 100% 10.2 15.4. 33.3 49.5 83.1 89.2 100.0

Medically IndigentWomen In Need ofFamily Planning(000s) 5,366.7 1,429.7 3,937.0 179.5 52.5 232,5 255.5 915.4 340.9 1,00.7

Medically IndigentWomen Served

(000s) 773,1 - 773.1 Unknown .3 6.3 14.0 90.1 50.4 612.0

Medically IndigentWomen Not Served(000s) 4,593.6 1,429.7 3,163.9 Unknown 52.2 226.2 241.5 825.3 290.5 1,348.7

Percent Unserved 85.6 100 80.3 - 99.4 97.2 95.0 90.2 85.2 68.8

5

p or w of

I /h Jou.40*61- ad rift

14114 tlirobt21,- -711P

Zi.Prat

IN ^

irooftoei slat"p 41*t

o'

About all that can be said for most of these counties, therefore,is that as of FY 1968, only a tentative beginning had been madetoward providing family planning services to the population In need.

In the remaining 1,872 counties more than 60 percent of allU.S. counties there were no identifiable family planning programsof any ldnd. These counties accounted for an estimated 1,430,000women in need, or nearly one-third of all medically indigent womenwho were still without access to modem family planning services(Figure 3, previous page).

Comparison with Previous EstimatesThe FY 1968 service total of 773,000 patients in all public and pri-vate sector agencies is substantially lower than previous estimates.For example, the Bureau of the Budget projected from DHEWestimates a figure of one million low-income patients served in FY1968; the President's Committee on Population and Family Plan-ning stated that the DHEW and OEO programs alone "now reachabout one million needy women"; while an independent estimatemade in the fall of 1968 put the total number of patients enrolled inall public and private sector programs at approximately &50,000."These earlier projections were based on aggregate national estimateswhile this report is based on detailed surveys of the state and localagencies providing services. In this study, each survey response wasanalyzed, an attempt was made to clarify ambiguities throughqueries to the service agency, and the most obvious reporting dupli-cations were eliminated. The current report, therefore, is likely topresent a more reliable estimate of the number of patients servedin FY 1968.

As would be expected from previous reports,f the largest groupof women in need of subsidized family planning services is locatedin metropolitan areas: 47.3 percent live in Standard MetropolitanStatistical Areas with more than 250,000 population and another7.8 percent live in smaller SMSAs. The remainder, 44.9 percent, livein counties which are outside SMSAs. These non-metropolitan coun-ties are not, however, synonymous with "rural" or "farm" areas; onlyone-fourth of the non-metropolitan women in need or 600,000live in counties where more than 30 percent of the population liveon farms.

In fiscal 1988, approximately 41 percent of all family planningpatients were reported as receiving services from public health de-partments, 27 percent from public and voluntary hospitals, 27 per-cent from Planned Parenthood Affiliates, and five percent from otheragencies (Figure 4, right column). This should be regarded as onlyan approximation of the actual distribution of services because of theduplication of reporting among agencies which jointly participate inproviding services. This distribution should not be confused with thefinancing of these services which often tends to be complex; the OEOprogram, for example, operates through delegate agencies and pro-vided major financial support in FY 1968 to 188 local family plan-ning projects operated by most types of delivery agencies.

Bureau of the Budget, Special Analysis of the FY 1970 Federal Budget. PD.166-7.

President's Committee on Population and Family Planning, Population andTway PlanningThe Transition from Concern to Action, November 1968,p.16.

F. S. Jaffe and A. F. Outtmacher, "Family Planning Programs in the U.S.,"Demography, 5419, 1968.

t G. Yarby, it al., Five Milton WomenWho's Who Among Americans In Needof Subsidized Family Planning Services, Planned ParenthoodWorld PopulaVon. 1967; F. B. Jaffe and C. J. Bernsohn. Closing the Gap tn SubsidizedFamily Planning Services In 110 Metropolitan Areas with More than 250,000Population, Planned ParenthoodWorld Population, 1967.

Figure 4 Approximate Distribution of Family Planning Services: Percent ofPatients Reported Served, by Principal Service Delivery Agency, FY 1968.

Percent of Women Reported Served by:

E Hospitals

Health Departments

Planned Parenthood

Other Agencies

Figure 5 Humber of Patients Reported Served in Health DepartmentFamily Planning Programs in 1,031 Counties, FY 1968

Number of Counties where Health Department Served:

less than 50 Patients (or No Service Figure Available)

50.199 Patients

200499 Patients

500.999 Patients

1,000 or More Patients

Public health departments were reported to be providing somefamily planning services in 1,031 out of 3,072 counties. Most of theseprograms, however, are very small and the impression of widespreadavailability h again misleading. In 169 counties, the health depart-ment claimed to be providing services but no service figures couldbe secured; other information indicates that these programs servevery fo, patients. In 130 counties, health departments reported pro-viding Family planning services to fewer than 25 persons, and in an-other 287 the number served came to less than 100. It appears thatin FY 1968 nearly three out of four health department programsserved less than 200 patients or provided no service figures at all( Figure 5, previous page).

Number of Patients Number of Counties Cumulative Percent

No figures availableLess than 25

25.4950.99

100.199200-499500.999

1000 or more

TOTAL

1691301191681681695157

1,031

16.429.040.556.873.189.594.6

100.0

Figure 6 Reported Family Planning Services Provided in 4,305 U.S.Non-profit General Care Hospitals Reporting Births, FY 1963

Number of U.S. Hospitals:

Of the nations 4,305 non-profit general care hospitals whichII Reporting Family Planning Services

to be among hospitals with the largest maternity services: WhileEi Reporting No Family Planning Servicesreport births, only 435 offered family planning services. These appear

constituting only 10 percent of all non-profit hospitals reportingbirths, they accounted for 26 percent of births reported in thesehospitals throughout the country. Nevertheless, there remained3,870 hospitals accounting for 74 percent of U.S. births in non-profit hospitals which did not appear '..ts provide family planningservices in FY 1968. Some of these hospitals are likely not to treatmedically indigent patients and others might be precluded fromproviding family planning services on religious grounds. Even aftertaking these facto.s into account, however, it is apparent that a sig-nificant component of the maternity care system in many communi-ties is not yet participating in the delivery of family plan services(Figures 6, 7, right column).

A total of 128 local groups affiliated with Planned Parenthood-World Population operated medical clinic-., at 525 locations in 173counties. Finally, family planning services were provided in 29counties by 30 agencies other than hospitals, health departments orPlanned Parenthood Affiliates. (These are referred to in this reportas 'other agencies"; see Section 111-D.)

The group of 1,872 counties with no identifiable organizedservices includes many counties with small populations and rela-tively few existing resources to form the nucleus of family planningprograms. The most prevalent community health and organizationalresources in these counties appear to be hospitals, health depart-ments, Community Action Agencies and private physicians. Thisgroup of counties, in aggregate, contains 2,215 hospitals which de-livered 950,000 babies in 1987, 32 percent of births in all U.S. non-profit general care hospitals. Community Action Agencies functionedin 1,082 of these counties, while there were a total of 17,363 generalpractitioners and 1,787 obstetrician-gynecologists. A full or part-timehealth officer was designated in 1,229 of these counties in 1968. Number of Births in.

Figure 7 Reported Family Planning Services Provided in Non-profitGeneral Care Hospitals Reporting Births: by Number of BirthsReported, 1967.

8

Hospitals Reporting Family Planning Services

Hospitals Reporting No Family Planning Services

,Axtit'tro,*/'

5/

.240

;%*

1.

.I

II,

-

4:.:11IT)

Fig

ure

9 71

3,00

0 W

omen

Rec

eivi

ng S

ubsi

dize

d F

amily

Man

ning

Ser

vice

s, C

ompa

red

to U

nmet

Nee

d, b

y O

fficc

of E

cono

mic

Opp

ortu

nity

Reg

ion,

FY

196

8

v

,.,

Num

ber

of M

edic

ally

Indi

gent

Wom

en (

000s

):

IIIR

epor

ted

as R

ecei

ving

Fam

ily P

lann

ing

Ser

vice

s F

rom

All

Kno

wn

Pub

lic a

nd P

rivat

e A

genc

ies

ElN

ot R

epor

ted

as R

ecei

ving

Fam

ily P

lann

ing

Ser

vice

s

Geographical PatternsSince so many counties have no organized programs, it is notsurprising that only 341, or one out of ten, U.S. counties showed anunmet need of less than 85.8 percent - the percent unserved na-tionally. Only 36 counties, or one in 85, had an unmet need of lessthan 50 percent:

Percent of Medically IndigentWomen In Need of Family PlanningNot Served In FY 1968 Number of Counties

Less than 50%

50-59.960-69.970.79.980-85.585.6-89.990.100

TOTAL

36

23

55124

103

171

2,560

3,072

Twenty-four states had an unmet need of more than 90 percent;18 had between 80 and 90 percent; while only eight states and theDistrict of Columbia had less than 80 percent (Table B; Figure 8,page 9).

Regionally, unmet need in virtually all of the OEO regionsclustered between 80 and 90 percent ( Figure 9, previous page):

OEO Region

Percent of MedicallyIndigent Women In Needof Family PlanningServices Not Served inFY 1968.

I (Conn., Maine, Mass., N.H., N.J.,N.Y. R.I., Vt.)

it (Del., D.C., Ky., Md.,N.C., Pa., Va., W. Va.)

III (Ala., Fla., Ga., Miss., S.C.,Tenn.)

IV (III., Ind., Mich., Minn.,Ohio, Wisc.)

V (Ark., La., N. Mex., Okla., Texas)

Vi (Colo., Idaho, Iowa, Kans., Mo.,Mont., Nebr., N. Oak., S. Oak., Utah,Wye.)

VII (Ariz., Calif., Nev., Oreg., Wash.,Alaska, Hawaii)

79.9%

TABLE B: PERCENT OF UNMET NEED FOR SUBSIDIZEDFAMILY PLANNING SERVICES, BY STATE, FY 1968

Above 90% (24) 80-90% (18) Below 80% (9)

Arkansas 95.2 Alabama 81.0 Alaska 54.2Hawaii 92.2 Arizona 82.7 Colorado 71.0Idaho 99.1 California 80.0 D.C. 11.7Indiana 94.3 Connecticut 83.3 Delaware 32.5Iowa 91.9 Georgia 87.6 Florida 78.7Kentucky 91.9 Illinois 80.2 Maryland 65.8Louisiana 91.3 Kansas 89.2 Nevada 68.7Maine 99.2 Michigan 81.4 New York 71.7Massachusetts 92.1 Minnesota 88.1 Rhode Island 79.7Mississippi 90.2 Missouri 85.9Montana 92.3 New Jersey 85.1Nebraska 95.1 New Mexico 84.5New Hampshire 99.2 North Carolina 87.2North Dakota 98.2 Ohio 82.6Oregon 92.7 Oklahoma 88.8South Dakota 98.2 Pennsylvania 87.8Tennessee 93.4 South Carolina 83.9Utah 97.5 Texas 88.8Vermont 99.1Virginia 95.5Washington 91.3West Virginia 95.5Wisconsin 96.5Wyoming 99.4

While there is thus some variation in the development of familyplanning services in the different regions, the range is much narrowerthan between the individual states and counties. There is more varia-tion in the contribution of the different regions to overall nationalneed and unmet need. More than half of the total national need andunmet need for family planning is clustered in Regions II, III and IV(Table C, page 14).

CONCENTRATION OF NFED AND SERVICE INMETROPOLITAN AREASBoth the need for subsidized family planning services and the or-ganized programs provided thus far are concentrated in the natiores

86.6 largest metropolitan areas. Of the estimated 5,367,000 women inneed, 2,540,000 live in 318 counties which comprise the 124 Stand-ard Metropolitan Statistical Areas' with more than 250,000 popula-

85.5 tion. Approximately 802,000 women in these SMSAs were reportedto have received family planning services in FY 1968. Thus, existingprograms In these SMSAs provided nearly 78 percent of all reported

85 .2family planning services throughout the U.S. About 1,938,000women, or 78 percent of all who need services in these large metro-politan areas, remain to be served. The largest metropolitan areas,

90.0

89.0 A Standard eietropolitat Statistical Am is &Vinod as a county or group ofcontiguous counties which contatne at lent ono city of SOAP, inhabitantsor more. In eddieon ta the county or counties, contiguous counties are In-cluded in the SIASA If they are entntialiy metropolitan in character and Sr.

82.4 socially and economically integrated with the central city.

11

Table D. Family Planning Hoed, Servicts and Unmet Ned, U.S. and Each State, by !MU Status and 0E0 Region, FY 1968

TotalsSPASA3 with Mors than

250,000 PopulationSMSAs with less than250,000 Population

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

liiis2I if.u.

11zit..

11

ill..1;

IA

15 g

111i'e rlitlit

1I7;

it1 A.ileill..

1 fl=1.

li.....

41

iiii,E1111m3...

i.hitm3

1

II.3

G.'

,...N

U.S. Total 5,366.1 173,111 4,593.6 85.6 Z539.9 602,054 1,937.9 16.3 418.9 42,077 376.8 90.0

REGION I Total 613.9 135,157 538.7 79.9 513.0 132,138 380.8 74.2 26.8 372 26.4 98.6

Conn. 40.8 6,803 33.9 83.3 32.0 6,631 25.4 79.3 3.8 172 3.6 95.5Maine 27.7 219 27.5 99.2 6.8 6.8 100.0Mass. 93.2 7,318 85.9 92.2 87.2 7,268 79.9 91.7 2.7 50 2.6 98.1N. H. 13.9 110 13.8 99.2 4.0 4.0 100.0N.J. 114.9 17,125 97.8 85.1 80.3 16,211 64.1 79.8 9.5 150 9.3 98.4N.Y. 351.3 99,228 252.1 71,8 294.1 97,874 196.2 66.7R. I. 11.0 4257 16.8 79.8 19.4 4,154 15.3 78.6Vt. 10.9 97 10.8 99.1

REGION II Total 972.2 130,682 841.6 86.5 376.4 96,683 279.7 74.3 75.0 1,979 61.0 89.4

Del. 10.8 4,053 6.8 62.6 6.1 3,251 2.8 46.3D. C. 20.8 18,333 2.4 11.8 20.8 18,333 2.4 11.8Ky. 141.8 11,473 130.4 91.9 24.2 4,276 19.9 82.3 7.0 1,519 5.5 78.2Md. 73.7 25,195 48.5 65.8 53.5 22,079 31.4 58.7N. C. 231.1 29,424 201.7 81.3 31.6 10,983 20.6 65.2 34.8 4,549 30.3 86.9Pa. 263.6 32,011 231.6 87.9 183.0 31,068 151.9 83.0 11.1 336 10.7 97.0Va. 150.5 6,648 143.9 95.6 51.5 6,000 45.5 88.3 10.3 10.3 100.0W. Va. 19.8 3,545 76.3 95.6 5.9 693 5.2 88.2 11.8 1,575 10.2 86.1

REGION i II Total 1,064.7 154,060 910.6 85.5 370.1 81,871 288.2 71.9 68.2 7,247 60.9 89.4

Ala. 175.3 33,240 142.1 81.0 49.3 14,936 34.4 69.7 29.7 3,387 26.3 88.6Fla. 229.0 43,716 180.3 78.7 128.7 30,759 97.9 76.1 12.2 1,951 10.3 84.1Ga. 205.2 25,311 179.9 87.7 60.7 15,455 45.2 74.5 20.2 1,715 18.5 915Miss. 135.9 13,303 122.6 90.2 11.3 1,280 10.0 88.7 6.0 194 5.8 96.8S. C. 133.1 21,310 111.8 84.0 44.9 7,838 37.1 82.6Tenn. 186.1 12,180 173.9 93.5 75.1 11,603 63.5 84.6

REGION IV Total 856.4 127,121 729.3 85.2 451.2 116,959 334.2 74.0 76.3 8,830 67.5 8.8.5

III. 197.3 38,892 158.4 80.3 123.2 38,401 84.8 68.8 11.3 334 10.9 91.0Ind. 109.8 6,225 103.6 94.3 41.1 5,055 36.1 87.7 18.1 892 17.2 95.1Mich. 173.6 32,220 141.4 81.4 105.3 26,380 78.9 14.9 17.9 5,495 12 4 692Minn, 79.9 9,459 70.5 88.2 27.8 9,349 18.5 66.4 .9 .9 100.0Ohio 216.7 37,517 179.1 82.7 130.7 35,020 95.7 732 22.7 2,109 20.6 90.7Wisc. 79.1 2,748 76.4 96.5 23.0 2,748 20.2 88.0 5.6 5.6 100.0

REGION V Total 801.1 79,892 721.2 90.0 300.1 52,503 248.2 82.5 105.3 11,174 94.1 89.4

Ark. 106.5 5,092 101.4 95.2 15.8 1,153 14.6 92.7 11.1 488 10.6 95.61.a. 170.9 14,777 156.1 91.4 61 '7. 12,631 48.6 79.4 14.8 14.8 100.0N. Mex. 31.9 4,942 27.0 84.5 6.6 1,925 4.7 70.8Okla. 92.0 10,323 81.6 89.8 29.2 3,664 25.6 87.5 6.7 !61 5.8 87.1Texas 399.9 44,758 355.1 88.8 187.9 33,130 154.7 82.3 72.7 9,825 62.9 86.4

REGION VI Total 442.9 48,526 394.3 89.0 114.9 36,359 78.5 68.4 43.0 3,634 39.4 91.5

Colo. 45.5 13,187 32.3 71.0 20.4 10,989 9.4 46.0 7.5 1,022 6.5 86.4Idaho 15.9 135 15.8 99.2 2.0 123 1.9 93.8Iowa 69.8 5,584 64.2 92.0 9.0 2,321 6.7 74.3 8.5 1,201 7.2 85.8Kansas 55.5 5,984 49.5 89 2 14.0 3,011 11 0 78.4 3.2 428 2.8 86.7Mo. 137.9 19,388 118.5 85.9 55.3 18,063 37.2 67.3 7.3 420 6.9 94.2Mont. 15.8 1,209 14.6 92.4 2.9 2.9 100.0Nebr. 37.3 1,813 35.5 ';'5.1 7.5 1,476 6.0 80.2 3.2 300 2.9 90.6N. Dak 17.6 314 17.3 98.2 1.2 140 1.0 88.2S. Da k. 21.8 384 21.4 98.2 1.9 1.9 100.0Utah 19.9 493 19.4 97.5 8.8 493 8.3 94.4 5.3 5.3 100.0Wyo. 6.0 35 5.9 99.4

12

Outside SMSAs Percent of Total NM(Cols. 6,10 or 14 + Col. 2)

Perm( of Reported Swim(Cols. 7, 1,, of 15 + Col. 3)

Percent of Vomit Need(Cols. 8,12 or 16 - Col. 4)

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

V 15 1allita,...

hlia

I0II

1

li- i11

Mi8

A

.g

I1

do

2,407.9 128,980 2,2783 94.6 47.3 7.8 44.9 77.9 5.4 16.7 422 8.2 49.6 U.S. Total

134.1 2,647 131.5 98.0 76.1 4.0 19.9 97.8 .3 2.0 70.1 4.9 24.4 REGION I Total

4.9 4.9 100.0 78.5 9.4 12.1 97.5 2.5 74.7 10.7 14.6 Conn.?0.9 219 20.7 99.0 24.5 75.5 100.0 24.7 75.3 Maine

3.4 3.4 100.0 93.5 2.9 3.6 99.3 .7 93.0 3.1 4.0 Mass.9.9 110 9.8 98.9 28.8 71.2 100.0 29.0 71.0 N. H.

25.2 764 24.4 97.0 69.9 8.2 21.9 94.7 .9 4.5 65.5 9.5 25.0 N. J.

57.3 1,354 55.9 91.6 83.7 16.3 98.6 1.4 77.8 22.2 N.Y.

1.6 103 1.5 93.6 92.3 7.7 91.6 2.4 91.0 9.0 R. I.10.9 97 10.8 99.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 VI.

520.9 26,020 494.8 95.0 38.7 7.7 53.6 74.0 6.1 19.9 33.1 8.0 58.9 REGION ii Total

4.8 802 4.0 83.2 56.0 44.0 80.2 19.8 41.5 58.5 Del.100.0 101.0 100.0 D. C.

110.7 5,678 105.0 94.9 17.0 4.9 78.1 37.3 13.2 49.5 15.3 4.2 80.6 Ky.20.3 3,116 17.2 84.6 72.5 27.5 87.6 12.4 64.7 35.3 Md.

164.7 13,892 150.8 91.6 13.7 15.1 71.3 31.3 15.5 47.2 10.2 15.0 74.8 H. C.69.6 307 68.9 99.1 69.4 4.2 26.4 97.1 1.0 1.9 65.6 4.6 29.8 Pa.

88.7 648 88.1 99.3 34.2 6.9 58.9 90.3 9.7 31.6 7.2 61.2 Va.62.1 1,277 60.8 97.9 7.4 14.8 77.8 19.5 44.4 36.0 6.8 13.4 79.8 W. Va.

626.5 64,942 561.5 89.6 34.8 6.4 53.8 53.1 4.7 42.2 31.6 6.7 61.7 REGION III Total

96.3 14,917 81.4 84.5 28.1 16.9 54.9 44.9 10.2 44.9 24.2 18.5 57.3 Ala.88.1 16,006 72.1 81.8 56.2 5.3 38.5 63.1 4.0 32.9 54.3 5.7 40.0 Fla.

124.3 8,141 116.2 93.5 29.6 9.9 60.6 61.1 6.8 32.2 25.1 10.3 64.6 Ga.

118.6 11,829 106.8 90.0 8.3 4.4 87.3 9.6 1.5 88.9 8.2 4.7 87.1 Miss.88.2 13,472 741 84.7 33.7 66.3 36.8 63.2 33.2 66.8 S. C.

110.9 577 110.3 99.5 40.4 59.6 95.3 4.7 36.5 63.5 Tenn.

328.9 1,332 327.6 99.6 52.6 8.9 38.4 92.0 6.9 1.0 45.8 9.3 44.9 REGION IV Total

62.8 151 62.7 99.8 62.4 5.7 31.8 98.8 .9 .4 53.5 6.9 39.6 !II.50.6 278 50.3 99.5 37.5 16.4 46.1 81.2 14.3 4.5 34.8 16.6 48.6 Ind.50.4 345 50.1 99.3 60.7 10.3 29.1 81.9 17.1 1.1 55.8 8.7 35.4 Mich.51.2 110 51.1 99.8 34.8 1.1 64.1 98.8 1.2 26.3 1.2 72.5 Minn.63.3 448 62.8 99.3 60.3 10.5 29.2 93.2 5.6 1.2 54.3 11.5 35.1 Ohlo50.5 50.5 100.0 29.1 7.1 63.8 100.0 26.5 7.4 66.1 Wisc.

395.1 16,215 378.9 95.9 37.5 13.1 49.3 65.7 13.9 20.3 34.4 13.0 52.5 REGION V Total

79.6 3,451 76.2 95.7 14.8 10.4 74.8 22.6 9.6 67.8 14.4 10.4 75.1 Ark.94.9 2,146 92.8 97.7 35.8 8.6 55.5 85.5 14.5 31.1 9.5 59.4 La.25.3 3,017 22.3 88.1 20.7 79.3 39.0 61.0 17.3 82.7 N. Mex.56.0 5,798 50.2 89.6 31.8 7.3 60.9 35.5 8.3 56.2 31.3 7.1 61.5 Okla.

139.3 1,803 137.4 98.7 46.9 18.2 34.8 74.0 22.0 4.0 43.5 17.7 38.7 Texas

285.0 8,533 276.4 97.0 25.9 9.7 64.4 74.9 7.5 17.6 19.9 10.0 70.1 REGION VI Total

17.6 1,176 16.4 93.3 44.7 16.6 8.7 83.3 7.8 8.9 29.0 20.2 50.8 Colo.13.9 12 13.9 99.9 12.5 87.5 91.1 8.9 11.8 88.2 Idaho52.3 2,062 50.2 96.1 13.0 12.1 74.9 41.6 21.5 36.9 10.5 11.3 78.2 Iowa38.3 2,539 35.8 93.4 25.2 5.8 69.0 50.4 7.2 42.4 22.1 56 72.2 Kansas15.3 905 74.4 98.8 40.1 5.3 54.6 93.2 2.2 4.7 31.4 5.8 62.8 Mo.13.0 1,209 11.7 90.7 18.2 81.8 100.0 19.7 80.3 Mont.26.6 37 26.6 99.9 20.0 8.6 71.4 81.4 16.5 2.0 16.9 8.2 74.9 Nebr.16.4 174 16.2 98.9 6.7 93.3 44.6 55.4 6.1 93.9 N. Dak.19.8 384 19.4 98.1 8.8 91.2 100.0 9.0 91.0 S.Dak.5.8 5.8 100.0 44.1 26.7 29.2 100.0 42.7 27.4 29.9 Utah6.0 35 5.9 99.4 100.0 100.0 100.0 Wyo.

13

Table 0. Faintly Planning Heed, Services and Unmet Need, U.S. and Each State, by VASA Status and 0E0 Region, EY 1966 continued

Totals SMSAs with More then250,000 Population

SMSAs with Less than250,060 Population

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1

Iix

ali_...1.b.E le

III3u.

1flIA1123

ita.z

fig23....

glis0 .l

1;....

tagliri..91

lit23ia.

111igli

it23

11 ,,,2.1a.

ill23

leg

=./

li....

. .

t gla WP

I].i..Ei

ilai23u.

11isil23

1.

11ilit23

ii..1.

1g

REGION VII Total 555.6 97,673 451.9 82.4 413.8 85,541 328.2 79.3 24.3 2,841 21.5 88.3

Ariz. 48.2 8,287 39.9 82.8 32.3 6,635 25.7 79.5Calif. 378.5 75,361 303.1 80.1 319.4 70,417 248.9 78.0 9.9 452 9.4 95.4Nev. 7.7 2,417 5.3 68.1 5.9 2,269 3.6 61.4Oreg. 42.9 3,12! 39.8 92.1 16.3 2,623 13.6 83.9 8.6 120 8.4 98.6Wash. 59.8 5,154 54/ 91.4 35.6 4,939 30.6 86.1Alaska 5.0 2292 2.7 54.3Hawaii 13.5 1,041 12.5 92.3 10.2 921 9.3 90.9

with about 24 percent of the population in need already undercare, are somewhat ahead of the rest of the nation in developmentof family planning programs (Figure 10, following page).

Even in these large SMSAs, however, there Is considerable un-evenness In the growth of family planning programs. Only in fourhave as many as half of the women in need received service, andonly in 16 have between 30 and 50 percent been served. In 79SMSAs, less than one-fifth have been served. In 17, the number ofpatients reported for FY 1968 totals less than 300 each; in five, therewere no Identifiable family planning programs at all.

As would be expected, the distribution of need and services inthese large SMSAs varies considerably by OEO region, dependentprimarily on the extent to which the region is composed of largemetropolitan areas. Large SMSAs account for 78 percent of overallneed in Region I, for example, but only 28 percent in Region VI.These relationships are presented for each state and region inTable D (page 12, 13, and above).

In each region, the proportion of reported family planningservices located in large SMSAs is higher than the proportion of thetotal population in need which lives in those areas. This may beexplained by the fact that the health service systems in these largemetropolitan areas are more highly developed than in smaller cities

and rural areas. The large SMSAs have more hospitals, more physi-cians per capita, more fundior ing health departments and a largernumber of voluntary agencies than other areas. Additionally, thePlanned Parenthood organization ha 1,-14ioned in these large met-ropolitan areas for a considerable period of time.

As a result, the percent of the nation's unmet need located inthese large U.S. metropolitan areas is lower (42.2 percent) thantheir proportion of all U.S. medically indigent women in need offamily planning (17.3 percent), a relationship which is reversed fathe smaller SMSAs and in the non-metropolitan counties.

Smaller SMSAs with populations below 250,000 comprise 128counties and contain 419,000 women in need of family planning serv-ices, or 7.8 percent of the U.S. total. Approximately 42,000 of thesewomen are reported to have received services, leaving 377,000 un-served. This represents 8.2 percent of all U.S. women not served.Here again, the range of variation is fairly wide among the regionsand states.

In the 2,828 counties located outside of SMSAs, approximately2,408,000 women - 45 percent of all U.S. women in need of services- live. As would be expected, the proportion already served in thesecounties is considerably lower than in the metropolitan area counties:Only 129,000 women, or 5.4 percent of those in need, v,cre reported

TABLE C: FAMILY PLANNING NEED, SERVICES AND UNMET NEED, BY OEO REGION, FY 1968

OEO Region

Medically indigent Womenin Need of Family Planning

Medically Indigent WomenServed

Medically Indigent WomenNot Served

Number % U.S. Total Number 0/0 U.S. Total Number % U.S. Total

I 673,858 12.6 135,157 17.5 538,701 11.7II 972,238 18.1 130,682 16.9 841,556 18.3

III 1,064,685 19.8 154,060 19.9 910,625 19.8IV 856,425 16.0 127,121 16.4 729,304 15.9V 801,072 14.9 79,892 10.3 721,180 15.7

VI 442,854 8.3 48,526 6.3 394,328 8.6VII 555,615 10.4 97,673 12.6 457,942 10.0

Total 5366,747 100.1 773,111 99.9 4,593,636 100.0

14

Outside NSA* Percent of Tots Need(Cols. 6,10 or 14 -r. Col. 2)

Percent o Reported Services(Cob. 7,11, or 15 -i- Cot. 3)

Percent of Unmet Need(Cols. 6, 12 or 16 -r Col. 4)

14 15 16 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

A.

Hi

III

hII

I I11

ii'i

+

14

x

g

A

I

ga

I1

gIm

I1a .1 1

g

I

m

i117.5 9,291 108.2 92.1 74.5 4.4 21.2 81.6 2.9 9.5 11.7 4.7 23.6 REGION VII Total

15.8 1,652 14.2 89.6 67.2 32.8 80.1 19.9 64.5 35.5 Ariz.

49.2 4,492 44.8 90.9 84.4 2.6 13.0 93.4 .6 6.0 82.1 3.1 14.8 Calif.1.8 148 1.7 92.0 16.1 23.9 93.9 6.1 68.0 32.0 Nev.

18.1 318 17.7 91.9 37.9 19.9 42.2 84.0 3.8 12.1 34.3 21.2 44.5 Oreg.

24.2 215 24.0 99.1 59.5 40.5 95.8 4.2 56.1 43.9 Wash.

5.0 2,292 2.7 54.3 130.0 100.0 100.0 Alaska

3.3 114 3.2 96.5 75.8 24.2 89.0 11.0 74.1 25.3 liawall

to have received services in FY 1968. In these counties about2,279,000 remain unserved. This represents almost half of all U.S.low-income women who are without access to subsidized family plan-ning services.

Within the largest SMSAs, the need for family planning services

Figurel0 Women Estimated to be in Need of Subsidised Family PlanningServices, by Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs), FY 1968.

419,000 (7.8%)

600,000 (11.2%)

No. of Women In:

Counties outside SMSAs

Counties with More than 30% Rural Farm population

SMSAs of Less than 250,000 population

SMSAs of 250,000 or More population

is concentrated In counties which contain the nation's largest cities.'Pm counties, three of them in New York City, contain 11 percent oftotal ITS. need for family planning services, 29 percent of all re-ported services and eight percent of the nation's unmet need(Table E, page 17).

Essentially, the same picture of concentration is shown inTable 2 (Section II) which selects the 313 counties in 41 stateswhich contain half of all U.S. unmet need and appear to hold the keyto development of an accelerated national family planning program.All but 52 are located in metropolitan areas. Organized family plan-ning programs are operational in most of these counties and appearto be somewhat more developed than in the rest of the country:Their overall unmet need is 79.7 percent, compared to a nationalaverage of 85.6 percent. Yet 64 of these counties served less thanfive percent of the population in need in FY 1968, and In 45 therewere no identifiable programs at all. Table 2 also shows that thereare many existing health and organizational resources In 'hese coun-ties which could be utilized in an effort to extend services to thosewho remain unserved, Health departments provide some familyplanning services in only 186 of these counties. A total of 1,219non-profit hospitals reporting births do not presently provide familyplanning services; these hospitals accounted for nearly 1,300,000births in 1987 or 43 percent of all births in U.S. non-profit hospitals.Only 75 of these counties have 0E0 family planning projects, al-though 280 have functioning Community Action Agencies. In addi-tion, 45 of these counties have Maternity and Infant Care projectsand 82 have Model City grants. The health significance of an ex-panded program in these counties fs suggested by the fact that in1961.65, they accounted for 85,528 excess Infant deaths, or 58 per-cent of the total in the nation (Figure 11, page 16).

Similarly, only 516 counties account for.half of the unmet needfor family planning services within each state; In 29 states, halfof the unmet need is concentrated in 10 counties or less. Table 3(Section II) presents these data for each state and summarizes cur-rent family planning services and potential resources for expansion ineach of these counties.

Another way of illustrating the same relationships is shown InTable F (page 17) which analyzes seven large industrial states andpresents their unmet need percentages for the state as a whole andfor the areas in each state which are outside of the largest SMSAs(where family planning services are more developed). Outside of thelargest SMSAs these states show percentages of unmet need whichare as high as in the more rural states.

15

tia(II

la.4441/4

.NIN

_Nnam

.

Ozone%

) si0 tupA

likowim

s.6w

1IN

°A4 _is V

%*144141

IN

do.84.- sr "7-wrotott- i

a Imilishli` m

um:

141%10 pg

te.04

APIL

guntafivSob

iaarm

4.11"--2ed #,t..e,,..... .,...... iiiSreSafe

PlajiallAi

tiliNE

IO

CIPIr

g ftm04 1/44. 1 4.1.r.,.1,

7,I

c11.5/1ff

1dr i s gIVllil.

it0eZi1

gi giam

g0.

.40m..,0i 14

0*

ft ic itl3, V

a0

a -6%

or.U

.IImm ITI A

.0,aghetl %aow

ri4n

a1ltr ,.;.e "44 ',."P0A V

a'

0ter,1aj 1:,sjs4V

%1

V

o4b.rm1zR

as,.4l.4e s1e

.4l0to4a ilw

W.2

I1l1.1d101_,4 A.1

1

0

'OA

P6

may.

alir

A'mM

on111, 1 111i1ll1k

-%gz-st

iiiir%444-A

%areiV

equirrAPA

IMA

tirM

rst1411 0,4e.

P4,2 Alte itPlaw

oa ogiser

alb "-amkfte#04,46.446:20gisontir:

iteddes IN orm

somm

i

.4e0,gettreirats..A

NIft4vA

amm

"bdrPsgreirag'91sialliteeN

esA

vest.O

wnim

imm

esm..."..4.

arm

Raft

so4+0841,,iryek

vospb,4410,4906suggimil

INteere

11- rairsiK

it"i..

ledi ,P*4

4 40,to Sw

at0

+M

IMI'

aressiillta,,,., a

01IpIPA

Ir lift 0--Paz

sir aw Inum

shmaivim

iragilla:. a

2. AV

-la

llgialle

hem.

Asa 0

W 5.

10 00IV

I1gp, 4.

go.3 v.

Obis

.A W

arrA

ar*,"%

IOW

0%

gyp"1,111$

Imm

oit.'

cassifrasest

tvarmoi

.0.71)a

mom

ismaliksw

,A

gole

muL

*AV

APitrill".111:

mat

-8

1,104141.41--"T

`

1.1AO

s

Vhs

I&drag

"4-4

11.4ffivearfardal

ILA

" rsinft/8411$41t#

.444Stiii Patti

IV

ima

lipotro,- A

AP-

IN

ow-

6*pi* 3zr4;

TABLE E: FAMILY PLANNING NEED, SERVICES AND UNMET NEED IN 10 LARGEST COUNTIES, FY 1968

County State City

Medically IndigentWomen in Need of

Family Planning

MedicallyIndigent Women

Served

Medicallyindigent Women

Not Serval

Los Angelis Calif. Los Angeles 126,348 32,519 93,829Cook III, Chicago 82,490 38,311 44,179Kings N '.' New York City 63,973 21,956 42,017Wayne Mich. Detroit 59,380 20,704 38,676Philadelphia Pa. Philadelphia 49,469 17,513 31,956New York N. Y. New York City 49,183 29,762 19,421Harris Texas Houston 45,014 13,780 31,234Bronx N. Y. New York City 36,441 19,112 17,329Dade Fla. Miami 36,077 8,955 27,122Baltimore Md. Baltimore 32,006 17,914 14,092

Total 580.381 220,526 359,855Percent of U.S. Total 11% 29% 8%

NONMETROPOUTAN COUNTIES AND RUlt:.1. AREASNearly half of the nation's unmet need for family planning servicesIs located In counties outside of SMSAt These counties, however, arenot as "rune as the non-metropolitan designation might imply.Many include smaller titles of less than 50,000 population, townsand villages.

In 1988, analysis of a special tabulation by the Bureau of theCensus Indicated that only 7.5 percent of women in need of subsi-dised family planning services lived on farms.' It is not possiblefrom the present data directly to identify the population In needby farm residency. Need, rerrent services and unmet need, however,are available for each county, clammed by the proportion of thecounty's total population which lives on farms. Table 4 (Section II)presents these data, au:merited by state, for the 984 countieswhich have a resident farm population of more than 30 percent, acutting point which Is regarded as defining a significantir rural area.Many of these counties have qufte small populations - the smallesthas only 808 people and more than nine out of ten contain less than

Vaelri. 64 64 .tea

2.5,000 people. But they range in population up to 93,000, There are600,000 uromen In need, or 11 percent of the U.S. total, in thesecounties. Since not all of them are farm residents, this finding appearsto be consistent with the 1060 study.

Table 4 also details the status of current family planning pro-grams in these counties, as well as the potential resources availablefor development of expanded family planning programs. As wouldbe expected, these counties have fewer existing family planning pro-grams - and fewer resources for service expansion - than more metropolitan counties. Only 29,000 women were reported to havereceived serviom to FY 1988, leaving 571,000 or 93.2 percent un-served. Health departments report providing tome services in 248 ofthese counties, but they generally serve few patients: AU but 77reported 'ening less than 100 patients In Fl 1963 or could provideno service figures at all. Services are also prAid..cl by 1I hospitalsand four Planned Parenthood clinics. Only 14 counties have 0E0-funded family planning pro;-ccts, two have Neighborhood HealthCenters, six have Maternity and Infant Core Pro)ects and one has aModel City grant. But 583 of these 984 counties have functioningCommunity Action Agencies; and there are 665 hospitals in thesecounties repotting births which provide no family planning services.

TABLE Pr PERCENT Of UNMET MARY PtA1iN1N0 NEED IN SELECTED STATES, STATEWIDE AND OUTSIDE LARGEST SUM,IT INS

Seale

........,

StatewideStatewide Outside of Largest SWIM In State

largest SNISM.

NewsNori

Netted Unserred

Oeitiornia 80.0% 89.5% San Francisto-Osklend,Los kolas 69.3%

Mint* 80.2 99.4 Chicago 60.9Mattatchattetts 92.1 99.2 Boston 86.3Mithistai $1.4 892 Detroit 73.3New York 71.7 89.1 New Vora City 61.5OW 82.6 86.1 Cleveland 63.8Pennsylvania 87.8 95.2 PhRadelpitia, Pittsburgh 79.3

17

These rural counties Include many with high infant mortalityrates. Nearly half of the 984 counties had rates above 24.9 infantdeaths per 1,000 live births in 1961.65, the national median rateduring that period.

COUNTIES WITH NO IDENTIFIABLE FAMILYPLANNING PROGRAMSAs noted previously, no organized family planning programs couldbe identified In 1,872 counties. The need in these counties totaled1,430,000 women, or 31 percent of all unmet family planning needIn the country.

It is almost axiomatic that most of these counties would be ruralcounties containing anall populations. Yet this obscures another andperhaps more interesting finding: In each of 438 of these counties,there are between 1,000' and 10,000 women in need of subsidizedfamily planning services. All told, these 438 counties account for810,000 women In need, or 17 percent of the nation's total unmetneed. These 438 counties warrant special attention since they appearto present meny opportunities for development of family planningprograms which could rapidly reach a significant number of cur-rently unserved women. Table 5 (Section II) identifies each of thesecounths and summarizes the available data. The counties are dis-tributed among the regions, as follows:

0E0 Region

Counties with No identifiable Family PlanningProgram and with 1,000 or More Women inNeed of Family Planning

III

V

VIVII

Total

546811

1271154419

438

While many of these counties have relatively small populations,half contain mote than 50,000 persons:

Counties with No Identifiable ramify PlanningProgram and with 1,000 or More Women in

Population Need of Family Planning

Loss than 10,00010,0W. 24,99925,000.49,999$0,000.99,999

100,000-249,999250,000 449,949Total

0 062

15513163

7

14.235.434.514.4

1.6

438 100.1

These (mantles appear to have considerable existing health andprogram resources which could be utilized fat development of familypluming services. Only 59 counties, for example, have no non -profithospeals reporting births wliOe 223 have two or more there are, In

Ile Ames et 1A00 *coma no net is resented es a 'roes nets etaIlereoine as area nisi een14 eteitoretteny km as roe ensnire4 terra,pionnit* oriorilok tome 1.000 pst.ents brown*, 4404 be nerved in Ire hen,day dint imtlens ereentr.

18

all, 752 hospitals in these counties which delivered 433,000 babiesin 1967, or 15 percent of all births in U.S. non-profit hospitals. Simi-larly, 310 of these counties had a functioning Community ActionAgency. In these counties as a whole, there were 9,129 general prac-titioners and 1,329 obstetrician-gynecologists. As would be ex-pected, however, there was only one Maternity and Infant Careproject and only 14 counties had Model City programs.

FAMILY PLANNING AND INFANT MORTALITYPrevious studies have demonstrated the relationship between infantmortality and related adverse pregnancy outcomes, on the one hand,and high parity and short Intervals between births, on the other.The incidence of infant mortality and of prematurity, mental re-tardation, congenital malformations and brain damage is sub-stantially higher than average among fourth and subsequent births,births to older women and among first births to girls In their teens.The incidence of infant mortality also increases considerably whenbabies are born to close together. These relationships are com-pounded and intensified when too many pregnancies occur toorapidly to impoverished women whose health has been underminedby poor living conditions, malnutrition and inadequate medical care.Nowhere in the health field is poverty translated as directly In thecost of human life.

For these reasons, the relationship between need for familyplanning services and the incidence of preventable infant deathshis received special attention. The principal medical measures avail-able to reduce infant mortality are comprehensive maternity cure,improved infant and child care and family planning.° Compara-tive analyses of these programs by DHE1V In 1966 led to the con-clusion that family planning is the most cost-effective health measureavailable to reduce infant mortality, outranking the next most el-teethe program (intensive care of "high risk" newborns) by amargin of 8 to l in infant deaths prevented for any given level ofprofessional and financial resources expended. '

in 1967, the Children's Bureau published its first report on theextent of "excess Infant deaths" for each US. county foe the period1956 -80, derttnollet;excess Infant deaths" as the difference betweenthe actual number of deaths and the number that wouldhave occurred if the county's Infant mortality rate had been equalto the rate in the county ompying the tenth percentile position ina national array.I The study revealed that SO metropolitan coun-ties accounted for one-third of all excess infant deaths from 1956-60. A subsequent analysis by Planned Parenthood-World Populationindicated that these counties also accounted for 28 percent of overallU.S. need for subsidized family planning services.I I

The present study permits the relationship between incidence ofexcess infant deaths and need foe subsidized family planning senices

Ct. k't OSMOle. N. 15. IkAyet and 0. 0. bentsarn. PerMate1 144001, lend n.ma: I. renostalfer. **110444 at Pt1104,41 en e e eilbe+4 at Kayak" MSS-eon IcirritO et Obstetrics iind erneettlegn, 11111 TM 1. 5. want, and E. itB ishop Atneriean inertial et 06stetrce ant Ornetoteer, 0'411, 1St N.Pteateenbe, '10stetts1 Ate 564 Meet Order Ootre1s1ieni," ktntatien 164544t5/1.444, 1004: IMF J. k Neat' and a. It Maris. "Secist act Betoiticel Fedor,Is Went Ilietlaft Variation el ttlettolki yr* itelnert Ate end Patty,*teernat at Obstetrics en. 417**44,8nor el the Orkish ttroire. It M. 1$11.

An,ose.n 110 0.W Assecleben Committee on Mateens1 and Infant We. 14-One*. Intsm Me tang." Ammo, of 04 American hied.cof Asibelotion. 1614,Mr 14. 1611

Ceit14. 014.4. et the Assistant trotter,' for Provirn Ceerti,nabett. Meternb,OM OW Meth COM Otrbirbffif. Ottotott 9$4; U I P,,Wie Ittalt% Wont&D oss. at 6114441 Servitet. An tionntref heron to diodoti InPot4 MMtoot', Ansyst 1164

I U S 1,414ren's lloortes. Want act Perinetel liortslitt /wok bp Ate ellOder; U.S. teen Still sal Casey, 1051-M101446. 1141.

11 Punned Partoortee4 Want Population. dornify ibionnire ant Mford ffertaW0nAnere.'s M Prioritiskin,

to be analyzed for a later period and for a much larger number ofcounties. Datx on excess infant deaths for each county from 1961.66,derived from the second Children's Bureau report, were integratedinto the file to facilitate a direct comparison. Table 6 (Section II)lists the 290 counties with the highest number of excess infantdeaths from 1961-65 (defined as those in excess of a rate of 17.8per 1,000 live births) and details the overall need for family plan-ning in these counties. These counties, in aggregate, accounted for62 percent of all excess infant deaths a total of 92,706 unnecessarydeaths and for more than 50 percent of overall need for subsidizedfamily planning services 2,6S6,000 women (Figure 12, below).

Figure 12 Percent of Need for Subsidized Family Planning Services andPercent of Excess Infant Deaths In 250 Nigh Excess Infant Death CountiesCompared to 2,782 Other Counties.

Percent 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

29

10

0

hears) of:

3,072 Coedits

Tout Need for Sobslfand Firmly Planning in the U S. (1968)

CIInfant Deaths in Excess of 17.8/000 live hits 0961-651

As would be expected, most of the counties with the highestnumber of Infant deaths tabulated in Table 6 also appear among the313 counties with half of U.S. unmet need fot family planningtervkes listed In Table 2. Yet the two lists of counties are not totally

More than one-quarter of the high excess infant deathcounties are not among those counties with the largest number ofwomen still unserved, and abc,ut one-third of the latter counties atenot Included among the former.

in the high excess Want death counties, approximately 24 per-cent of women in need were reported as having received services InFY 1968. Nevertheless, 2,057,000 women In these counties remainedunserved 45 percent of total U.S. unmet need. In 42 of thesecounties, existing family ptanning programs reported serving lessthan five percent of the population in need while in 56, the numberof patients reported served in FY 1968 totaled less than 300. Twelvecounties reported the existence of an organised program but pro-sided no data on patients served, while In 38 counties there were noidentifiable family planning programs of any kind.

U.& etliteren's fern.. Infant ant Perinatal Meetsplity *Ot by Ant andCola; Li S. tech Siete and teeny. I tt$40. 195111. It6S

S/nce the period covered by the Children's Bureau study, theU.S. infant mortality rate has declined, from an average of 25.1 per1,000 live births from 1961.65, to 21.7 in 1968. It is of interest thatthe most rapid growth of organized family planning services hasoccurred since 1965, particularly in the larger of these 290 countieswhit!) currently have the country's most highly developed networksof family planning services. The extent to which the increased avail-ability of family planning services since 1965 has contributed to re-duction of the overall national infant mortality rate cannot, however,be assessed based on the data in the present study.

MIGRANTS AND INDIANSOf special interest from the vantage point of both poverty and healthare two groups of Americans migrant workers and AmericanIndians. Data from 1)1IEW permitted counties containing significantnumbers of members of these groups to be identified. The servicedata secured from these counties, of course, covered services pro-vided to all residents; those provided to migrants and Indians werenot separately Identified. But an assessment of the family planningsituation in these counties offers at least some insight into the avail-ability of family planning services for those impoverished groups.

The DHEW data identified 332 counties in 29 states containinga Iotal home-based migrant population of 418,000 persons. Morethan half of these counties are in five states Texas, North Carolina,California, Mississippi and Florida. While most have small popula-tions, nearly one-fourth of the counties contain more than 100,000persons each, and a number include such large cities as Miami, SanDiego, Los Angeles and Detroit. This may help account for the factthat, overall, the unmet need in these counties is 83.1 percent a

lower figure than for the nation as a whole. However, there were noidentifiable family planning programs in 127 of these counties.

More than half of the migrants enumerated by tinny arebased in only 17 counties. The data for these counties are presentedIn Table 7 (Section II). Family planning p >grams are operational In13 counties, provided by 10 hmpitals, 10 local health departmentsand five Planned Parenthood Affiliates, supported by eight 0E0family planning propet grants and four MIC grants. In four coun-ties, however, no program was identifiable. In seven counties, therewas no reported health department program and in the group of 17as a whole, there were Sti ho vitals not poviding family planningservices. The counties include 18 Community Action Agencies andfour Model City progra.ns.

Two hundred and seventy-six counties in 24 states were identi-fied in which the Indian Health Service has responsibility for themedical care of 403,000 Indians and Aleuts. Nearly half of thesecounties are concentrated In Oklahoma, South Dakota, Minnesotaand Nevada. Like the migrant counties, most have small popula-tions; only eight contain more than 100,000 persons.

The family planning situation it these counties presents some-thing oft paradox: Although there were no identifiable familyplanning programs of any kind in 172 counties, the overall percentof unmet need in the group of 278 was 88.4 percent slightly higherthan the national average but Iowa than in other counties el similarsize and degree of rashly. The explanation appears to lie In thefamily planning senices provided by the Indian Health Senice.

Thee-quarters of the Indians and Aleuts enumerated byDHEW live In only 50 counties. The data for these counties arepresented in Table 8 (Section 11). Fotty.four hospitals, 19 healthdepartments and five Planned Parenthood Affiliates provide familyplanning services in 38 counties which lave seven 0E0 familyplanning pealed grants. in 14 counties, there are to identifiablefamily planning programs. In 31 counties, there is no reported healthdepartment program and in the SO counties overall, there are 97he spaals which do not provide family planning services. The countiesInclude 37 Cemmunky Action Agencies, five City programsand one Neighborhood Health Center.

19

Table G. Mediu Ity logged Meats Reported as Recthing Foxily im* Services. by 0(0 hen sod Pr locIpal De Ivory /limy. FY 1%1

Regiossad

State

Patients

Nee-ProfitHospitals

Heat&Liepartmeeis

Massed Parent-hood Mfilates

OuluWicks

Total Reportedillgocies

Nooks % Number % Number Number % Number %

2 3 4 6 7 10

U.S. TOTAL 224,636 26.8 346410 11.6 224,974 26.9 39,623 4.7 831,643 100.0

REGION 'hill 71,660 51.1 15,850 11.3 51,914 37.0 152 .6 140,176 100.0

Conn, 5,012 70.3 2,118 29.7 7,130 100.0Me. 123 561 96 43.8 219 100.0Mass. 6829 93.3 489 6.7 7,318 100.0N. H. 33 30.0 17 70.0 110 100.0N.1. 5,141 28.7 541 3.0 12,206 682 17,888 100.0N.Y. 54,511 52.8 15,276 14.8 33,197 322 161 .2 103,157 100.0R. 1. 38 .8 4,219 99.1 4,257 100.0Vt. 97 100.0 97 100.0

REGION 11 Total 38,111 26.? 10,450 49.4 28,859 20.2 5,149 3.6 142,591 100.0

Del. 250 5.7 691 15.6 3,483 78.7 4,424 100.0D. C. 6,908 28.4 14,010 57.6 3,384 13.9 24,302 100.0

16:1,2687,893

11.031.3

),315 63.812,167 48

2,8905,135

25.220.4

11,47325,195

100.0

100.0N. C. 5,589 16.8 26,189 80.6 849 2.6 33/27 100.0Pa. 15,518 46.3 13,708 40.9 4,300 121 33,526 100.0Y. 648 9.7 6,000 90.3 6,648 100.0W. Va. 59 1.6 3.478 91.6 259 6.8 3,716 100.0

REGION NI Total 31380 18.4 127,410 14.1 10,682 63 968 .6 110,410 100.0

Ala. 713 2.0 26,650 15.6 7,634 21.7 233 .7 35,230 100.0Fla. 3158 8.0 45,499 92.0 49,451 100.0Ca. 10,74? 41.6 12,348 47.7 2,761 10.7 25,856 100.0Miss. 692 5.2 12,611 941 13303 100.0S. C. 3,941 16.3 19,494 80.7 735 30 24,170 100.0Team. 11,329 S0.5 10,808 48.2 287 1.3 22,424 100.0

KOOK Di ?Oil 39,043 28.6 40,181 29.5 56143 41.7 248 / 136,415 100.0

18. 10,215 8.3 17,317 44.5 11,272 29.0 88 .2 38,892 100.0lat 467 7.4 271 1.4 5,603 1112 6,346 100.0Mich. 9,099 24.5 13,693 361 14,351 38.6 37,143 100.0Milk 3,305 33.3 3240 32.6 3,317 34.1 9,932 100.0Oble 11,058 36.4 5,152 13.7 20,484 19.5 160 .4 41,354 100.0Wet 899 32.1 1,149 672 2,748 100.0

REGION V Total 10,753 11.9 23,594 26.0 31,111 11.6 8,539 20.5 40,547 100.0

k5. 133 16.4 4,89 83.6 5,092 1000ta. 535 3.6 14,452 96.4 14,917 100.0N. Met. 1,555 31.0 1,891 37.1 1,568 312 5,014 100.0053s. 2,345 16.5 5,121 351 3,589 25.2 3,189 22.4 14,246 100.0Teas 5,485 10.1 12,321 24.0 32,554 63.1 191 11 51,258 100.0

ROM 11 total 12,519 23.1 22,341 412 _..._ 11,915 34.8 486 .1 54,391 1001

Cola. 4,099 8.4 3190 34.0 6.562 40.6 S 16,156 1000Idaho 135 100.0 13S 100.0lots 2118 46.0 134 2.1 3,093 411 III 3.0 6,336 1000Rms. 1330 18.1 5,011 68.5 973 13.3 7,314 100.0Ns. 2,131 11.1 1 ,012 49.7 1,110 31.4 ISO .7 20,069 1000N.M. 403 33.3 306 66.6 1,20 1000Nek. 641 35.4 STS 31.7 07 32.9 1,813 1000N. Dalt, 114 313 144 301 140 AI 454 100.03. DA 314 1001 314 10.1Utall 393 79.1 100 201 433 1001VI* IS 100.0 15 103.0

RECO VII Uri 11,088 20.1 48,521 41.1 19)30 193 11,411 11.1 103,016 100.0

k1t. 2,249 26.3 3451 40.4 7,144 132 WI 1001CAL 14,094 20.1 37972 471 12,931 16.1 13,351 16.6 10,304 100.1Am 141 5.1 720 190 134 5.1 Me 1000

212 8.1 1,121 311 1,791 57.3 3,131 10).rA. OA 54.1 2,152 45.6 5,154 100.1Alaska 1,141 14.6 SI 113 2192 100.1Naval 444 42.7 597 573 1,041 1001

to

:teaties&tell

(Coiteess10

motto % Glom It)

12 11 14

64,532 7.7 773,111

5,019 3.6 135,157

327 46.0 6,803219

7,318110

763 43.0 17,1253929 3.8 99,228

4,25797

11,909 8.4 130,682

311 8.3 4,4535,969 24.6 18,333

11,41325,195

3,803 11.4 29,4241,515 4.5 32,011

Mg251 6.6 3,545

16,380 9.6 154,060

1,990 5.6 33,240741 1.5 44,116545 2.1 25,311

13,3032,860 111 21,310

10,244 467 12,180

9,294 6.8 127,121

38,192In 11 6,225

4,923 13.% . 32,220473 41 9,431

3,771 9.1 31,5772,741

10,81 t1 79.192

5,092210 1.4 14,717

72 IA 4,9423,923 273 10,323

MCC _.WI 101 41,526

2168 11.4 11,117ISS

752 111 5,5141,330 112 5,114

681 3.3 19,3111,2091,813

140 101 314384433IS

5,353 52 97,671

294 3.1 UV4,143 6.2 13,311

131 11 2411A1$ 34111

5,154

2.2121)041

DISTRIBUTION OF CURRENT SERVICES AMONGPRINCIPAL DELIVERY AGENCIESAs of FY 1968, available data show that no single pattern hasemerged for the delivery of subsidized family planning services.Among the regions and states there is very wide variation in theextent of responsibility for family planning undertaken by publicand voluntary hospitals, health departments, Planned ParenthoodAffiliates end other delivery agencies. These differences appear tostern both from historical factors such as the states In which thePlanned Parenthood organization has functioned and regional andstate variations in the pattern of delivery of general medical are forlow-income persons.

Table G (previous page) presents data on patients reported byeach of the principal delivery agencies for each state and region.

In many cases agencies which jointly participate in programs atthe same location reported the same patients in their responses to thesurveys; while it was possible to eliminate this duplication from theoverall service total for the county, the data did not permit the dupli-cated patients to be ascribed definitively to one or another of thereporting agencies. The proportions of services reported by each ofthe principal delivery agencies therefore should be regarded as onlyan approximation of the actual distribution of services.

For the country as a wh&o, health departments appear to ac-count for approximately 41 percent of current patients; public andvoluntary hospitals, 27 percent; Planned Parenthood, 27 percent; andother agencies, five percent. These proportions apply to the kiViCeSwhich the various agencies reported that they provided and do notIndicate the funding sources for these services. OEO family planninggrants, for example, finance services provided through each of thedifferent types of delivery agencies: health departments, hospitals,Planned Parenthood and other agencies. The health departmentBguret include services financed by local funds, federal Maternal andChM Health formula grants and OEO grants; they also includeMaternity and Infant Care grant - funded services which are actuallyplovided by health department staffs, as well as an undeterminedamount of klIC family planning eenices provided by hospitals orPlanned Parenthood Affiliates wtddi could not be distributed backto th;ae agencies.

Within these limits, the reported figures provide an approxi-mate picture of the state of the field in FY 1968. The range of earls-don among the states is very wide; In some states almost all of theknown services are provided by a single agency, and there appearsto be Mlle or no involvement of other agencies. On a regional basis,hospitals account for more than half of repotted services In the meth-east (Region I) where there has been a longtime pattern of hospitaldelivery of outpatient care for poor persons. In the southeast (Region111), mid- Atlantic (Region 11) and western states (Region VII), onthe other hand, health departments are responsible for the largestshare of family planning senices; this appears to be related to thegreater involver.ent in there states of health departments in the pro-vision of personal health senicet Planned Parenthood Affiliates con-tinue to be the principal petty-Men of family planning wieices in thecentral (Region IV) and southwest (Region V) states (Figures 13-19, right and pages 29 and 23).

Table H (pages 24 and 23) rumens:12es the distribution offamily planning clinics and facilities among the carious deliveryagencies by state and region. The patterns here parallel those amongreported patients sewed in Table G.

MEDICAID AND THE PftfttATIE PHTSOCIAKAs noted earlier, the present study does not estimate the extent towhich modern family planning seniors may be provided to medicallyindigent women by private physicians. Not do the national heftystudies conducted in 1963,19130 and 1965 provide a basis for estima-tion. An answer to this question would require., at minimum, an In-

Figur. 13 135,000 Women Receiving Subsidized Family Planning ServicesIn Office of Economic Opportunily Re Von Approximate Percent Served,by Principal Service Delivery Piencles, FY 196$.'Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey,New York, Rhode island, Vermont.

Percent of Women Reported Served br

Hospitals

Health Departments

Planned Parenthood

IIOther Agencies

rigors 14 111,000 Women Receiving Sobsland Nob Naming ServicesOffice of (work 0/941.104 Iktioo Appraise to Fenced bodedSorted, by Principal woo Delivery Agtocies, FY 1StDelawaro, Mid of Colombis, kentutly, Marylon& North Grew%hoosytnels, Virginia, West Yogi*

Percent of Patients ROOM Se M by

Ho ssh

EjHula Depot***

111 Planned Parenthood

IIIOther Agonies

PI

Figure 15 154,000 Women Receiving Subsidized Font Planning ServicesIn Office of Economic Opportunity Region III! Approximate PercentRepor1N Served, by Principal Service Delivery Agencies, FY 196S.'Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee.

Percent of Women Reported Served by.

Hospitals

Health Departments

NPlanned Parenthood

IIIOther Agencies

feta 127,000 Woo ketiviogReoleSoloppol roe* hawk Servicesat

%cotV Semi, lacHtiPrfaihrtito DeorkwitilAk5141414.F1 INA

Percent of Wow* WON Served b

Hospitals

Mese Deportment'

113 Same. PateMbool

IIDi* Petits

Figure 11 19,900 Women Receiving Subsidized Family Planning Servicesin Office of Econonrk Opportunity Region 11: Approximate PercentReported Served, by Principal Service Delivery Agencies, FY 1968.'Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas.

Percent of Wolin Reported Served *

Hospitals

Health Departments

Planned Parenthood

IIIOther Agencies

Moak SantosPettoot

aseale41.1461.North Dot*,

111m 11 41,500 Woos Whig SiksiteedAlltow2mtela Deo ot Nook Oopetotiti Itteloo YI:*Ricotta Semi, ky PflocIpol So*. WaryVolorolo, Mato, 413, ham krismori, Moot"Sao Dakota, VIA Wy01114.

Percent it Women Reported Semi by:

Mosplats

144111 Depertments

01 Planned Parenthood

IIIOther Pocks

Figura 19 97,700 Women Receiving Subsidized Family Planning Sarkisin Office of Economic Opportunity Region VII: Approximate PercentReported Served, by Principal Service Delivery Agencies, FY 1963.'Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Washington.

Percent of Women Reported Served by:

0 Hospitals

Health Departments

Planned Parenthood

Other Agencies

depth national survey of a representative sample of medicallyindigent women in their child-bearing years, or perhaps, a recallsurvey of physicians who treat low-income persons. Neither type ofstudy was feasible in view of time and budget coAstraints.

Some information bearing on the question is prosiclecl by theprelim:nary Endings of an independent study conducted this year bythe Center for Family Planning Program Development. Forty-threestates and territories with approved Title XIX (Siediclid) planswere sun-eyed in March 19e9 to determine eligibility requirements,aenices offered and approved providers of senates. The state agen-cies administering the programs were asked whether the number ofpatients teething family planning services through Medicaid couldbe determined ot estimated, and the instruments ot methods throughwhich such a determination of estimate could be made (e.g., Invokeor billing systems, reports, etc.). Replies were received from 41 furls -diction. Only 37 states (and three Territories) had Title XIX pro-grams operating foe all or part of FY 1968 - the study year for thisreport. All 37 of these states replied to the questionnaire.

The responses made clear that eligibility tot ter services underMedicaid is limited to a rtdativety small pert of the medically indigentpopulation. Coverage encompused mainly the *categorically needyand categorically related needy" - those who receive ot are eligibleto revive cash assistance under the four federal welfare categoriesof Aid to the Blind, the Disabled, the Aged and Families with De-pendent Children (AFDC). Occasionally the 'categorically relatedmedically needy' - indhiduals with the same social or physical char-eciethitks as those six, receive cash assistance but who are deemedto NOS sufficient ineeene Foe their daily needs other than medical are

Center ea harry Planning Progresi Oevelepovnt "loner of timer Rei-ning Services Ungee liefica4" 0,1PDWIA40".14

- were covered. Fourteen states provided the minimal coverage,while twelve others included the "categorically related medicallyneedy"; in this latter group of states, the median level of medicalindigeney defining eligibility for care was $3,460 for a family of four.

In the remaining nine states eligibility was extended to a largergroup of individuals who comprise the "non - categorically relatedmedically needy" - those persons who, regardless of social or physi-cal characteristics, have enough income for their needs except formedical care. With the exception of New York, however, few adultsaged 21 to 64 who were not receiving cash assistance were covered;those in need of family planning, ot course, fall largely in this group.

In May 1968, in the 26 states with sure limited coverage,about 75 percent of the total number of individuals for whom medi-cal vendor payments were made were recipients of cash assistance.In the nine states with more liberal coverage, payments were madeon behalf of only 236,000 adults; 219,000 of these, however, werefound in the New York State program, which has since curtailed itscoverage sharply.

Since Medicaid coverage is thus limited primarily to welfarerecipients who comprise no more than 15 percent of the women inneed of subsidized family planning services,'' eligibility restrictionsalone appear to rule out the likelihood that Medicaid is currently pro-siding family planning services to a large proportion of those in need.This conclusion is reinforced by the restrictions on services offeredunder the program even to those who are eligible.

All states provided physicians services, outpatient hospital serv-ices and laboratory services. However, these services were oftenlimited by local restrictions. Maryland, for example, required thatTitle XIX eligibles use health department services whenever avail-able and seek care from a private physician only with authorizationof the local health officer. Thirty-three out of 37 states reported pro-viding drugs; however, this also was often restricted by local regula-tions, such as the California requirement that drugs be provided onlyto patients in or lust discharged from a hospital, or the requirementin other states (e.g., Louisiana, South Dakota) .1 at ally drugs whichcannot be self-administered be made available through the program.

In repotting on the nature of the physicians' services pros"Treatment," *Diagnostic" at -Preventhe" - all 37 states indicatedthat treatment was provided, but 11 reported rosiding no preven-tive care.

Thirty of the Medicaid program director indicated that theycould not determine or even estimate the number of persons receiv-ing family planning services through Medicaid. Two state directorsindicated that an estimate could be, but has not been, made eitherbecause it did not seem important enough or because the annualcompilation of data had not been completed. Two states providedpartial estimates iota particular month. Three states provided annualfigures. Where estimates were made, they were derived from cariousinvoice and biffing mechanisms. When the estimates were aggregated(including one state with Incomplete tabulations tot which an esti-mate could be derived from previous data), a maximum number of30,000 inclhiduals could be identified for whom tome payment hadbeen made for tome type c ' family planning service.

In two states, the estimates were based on payments for contra-ceptive drugs through local pharmacies. Interestingly, these estimatesseemed to match closely the number of welfare recipients receivingfamily planning care and physicians' services throegh the localPlanned Parenthood Affiliates. (These Planned Pcenthood physi-cian' senices were not reimbursed by Medicaid it FY 1963, but theprescriptions issued by the physicians were filled at local drugstores.)

The Ferrel to Vie Ina *rem csef time Pic/ is tar mccionini twitso et Orersevs sterleit awing Ilse most pt P4 rrttht rair.

hart!. iisk

23

Table H. Organized ramify Plaiudag Programs, Chic location, sad Resairtas far hafnium Exweslee, U.S. sad Each St.tte, by 0E0 Rothe sad Prlacipal Mirky *Lacy. FY 1966.

nigoisnisthsgrais Stilted Nut* eW °fp. Infieul Remand

Pars.ttUMW

CalmPeeer

ASesch$

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 I6 17 IS

jI

ilII

1,11

IIIladi

hif

ih

I

iiii11

Ili

;ill

iliIIIIII

1

I

Illg1111

1111

Ii Iliill

11

itii

U. S. Tob1

REGION I Total

Coon.NemMass.X H.N. 1.

N.Y.R. 1.

H.

REGION II Total

Oda.O. C.

14.R. C.K.Va.

W. Vo..

REGION IR total

51610/115 fob'

24

3,072 1,200 1.172 113 435 173

150 61 89 35 124 34

t 4 4 12 416 2 14 1

14 8 6 1910 2 I 2 1

21 IS I 7 26 862 2 6 3 6 26 ES 21

5 3 2 1 314 1 13 1

447 210 187 114 79 24

3 3 $ 2 31 1 11 5 1

120 76 44 9 6 323 t3 68 9 2

100 ik 6 667 tS 42 44 1458 41 51 10 4SS 11 44 I 1 I

515 412 33 t52 Si

67 67 2 467 6 7 14 7

162 51 III71

7 22

2

46 45 1 42 395 13 22 75 10 1

523 0 443 93 17 31

102 4 IS II 10 412 4 14 11 4 4$I 34 49 25 19 5Il 4 81 7 6 3N 8 63 25 24 1571 3 CI 4 2

502 140 142 111 .40 17

75 ss 36 44 1U 6 SI 1

32 17 IS II I 271 47 t II 1

251 31 228 SO IS 13

52S N 3,166 733

104 6 410 51.0

10 20 42.12 44 94.5

67 43.41 29 100.0

24 52 51.16 9 4 172 52.0

3 $ $2.01 II 100.0

71 4 474 69.6

5 4 30.46 4 2033S

71 17.131 57,3

3 9951 1 153 613

62 NA1 43 13.4

19 3 411 763

5

ItIS9911

1 68

21

/11 3

10 2 KS 71.9

IS 1 701 N.?21 53 89.333 1$ MS

7 IN 15358 1 IN 41.31 142 91.;

12 8 411 ?SI

SI 90,6 67 7/3

1 31 N.5If 17 91.411 221 76.5

2,041 2,016 1069 170 31 79 115

135 134 75 22 7 10 25

S 7 3 2 1 416 16 14 3 1 214 14 6 1 1 5

1 10 1 1

11 21 5 6 1 653 48 24 11 6 5 5

5 4 2 1 1

14 14 13 1

215 347 132 19 8 15 19

1 3 1

1 1 1 1

44 91 31 I 3 S 419 1 1 1 1

7 10 4 $ 3 467 58 35 6 t 2 651 43 It 2 1 245 41 37 1 1 2

35 311 28 13 1 13

44 5 211

1

2/ 1 2 1 /3 31 1 1 21 1 1 2

24 1$ 19 1

470 407 331 21 3 t2101

5604 4457

31 4

253 /7 44 7 1

H 76 I72 It 61 10 t 2 7

1 49 47

310 2S3 142 41 1 9 11

37 41 24 t 7 1

S8 31 25 5 I17 22 7 1 2IS 60 15 19 1 1

733 5! 11 tt 2 6

Table K. &gutted Family Ptanalag Prop les, CI* lecatloss, sad Warm lee Program Expaaske, U.S. lad Led State, by 0E0 Reese ald Prtacipat Delivery Agucy, FT 1961.

continued Fa at Ilya Piliarias Prein el ssarcu se9 Or:aeist.' knownRelated Mean th

MusedPstestboodMates ,

Gemkemail

7414d as

1 J 2 3 4 5 4 7 II 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 19 17 18

a

II 1

II

II

;II

iiiIII

111

III11 II

A15

II

I11V

11b

II1I

1

91141

III

IIII

III

11

1

all1 i i1111

Iibl

liQI 11Will!

Ifsiv

1

1ig

ii

REGION 11 Total

I>J10.

IdahoIowaKos.Mo.Mork

N. Dati.S. OakIAAto.

IttGION 1II Taisl

Cait.Net.

Maki

Nandi

J. h

746 84 662 78 37 37 68

63 14 44 23 4 19 2S3 4 3

9419 13 811

2 5 1 910 10 95 21 1 3 5

114 13 101 10 S

56 5 51 12 393 4 89 4 2 2 7

S3 3 50 1 267 6 61 7

29 2 27 4 323 1 22

10 73 96 123 57 II 30

5$14 $ 6 22 IS 2 3

45 13 $0 27 6 2217 4 13$6 $ 2$ $ 1 2 331 S 34 9 2 1 2

1 1 14 2 2 4 2

2 690 86.8

1 58 85.841 100.0

1 106 86.8121 95.0

78 80.641 96.490 9441 KS

1

45 92.425 61924 100.0

5 491 11.5 105

S 215? 521 10

11.9 16

5512

1491.4

.3 1

215

$6 $4M.6

3410 O

11 24.4

701 370 244 21 5 6 11

50 14 4 3 2 3 2

41 18 16 1 1

97 99 II 5 1

96 26 19 2 1

104 114 101 7 3 1 2

54 18 16 2 2

91 35 33 1 1

52 1 1 1

67 21 18

27 11 9 1

22 1

124 67 15 6 $ 12

14 6 t 1

397 13

6 10 $ 3 1

1

21 15 1 1

I1

29 24 2 2

2 4 3 2 1

In the other states, both fairtint planning prescriptions and physi-cians' services were purchased Title XIX, but again the numberof patients (and the number of reimbursements to Planned Parerhood Affiliates for such patients) seemed to indicate that relativelyfew Individuah were receiving services outside of organized clinicisedities.

CIIM4E11 SINCE 194447 IN LANE IIMSAsScene measure of the rovoth of family planing services in the lastseveral years is afordM by comparing the results of the present studyfor FY 100$ with an earbee study of 110 large SNISAs for 1000-07.While the data base and methodology of the two studies are not com-pletely temperable, they are similar enough to make possible at leasta gross assessment of the rate of change.

In the mkt study, patients reported served by all service agen-cies In the 110 ShiSAs totaled approximately 452,000. The Apse inthe present report fcr these SNISAs is 501,000, a gain of 30 percent.Scene of this increase is prohably doe to more complete reputing inthis study, but most of it appears to represent an actual increase inservice levels.

As measured by the change in percent of tame need, however,the 110 SMSAI present a much less uniforus picture. Indeed, nineshow higher percentages of unmet need in the present report than in

end Ihirrach OP. eel.

the 1980 -87 study, possibly because of improved reporting. An addi-tional 35 SNISAs show current unmet need figures which are lowerthan 1000-67 by five percentage points oe less, a chiference whichcan be regarded as insubstantial in view of the approximate nature ofthe data in both studies.

The remaining 00 SMSAs show current unmet need Igureswhich are more than six percentage points lower than in 100047:

Diktat** in Peewit*1 Unmet Nod, 196111 1 W447

6.10% lower11.20% lowerMore than 20% tower

MAW. elLarge SPASM

2435

7

66

These gains appear to represent signectat borax, Misr°gnashing. These findings, coupled with the data presented earlier,suggest strongly that a very large part of the national increase is.organized family planing vertices in the period from 190087 toFY 1908 has been concentrated In these 60 SNISAs with mote than150,000 population.

2$

1111111~Iseselwe

CONCLUSIONSince this has been the first attempt to assess systematically theadequacy of existing family planning programs throughout thecountry, it is difficult to measure precisely the growth of these pro-grams in the last several years. The present data suggest that therehas been a significant increase in achieved national service levelssince 1968. While previous estimates were based on considerablyless data, a comparison Indicates that the overall national gain hasbeen on the order of 25 percent. This gain has coincided with theincreased availability of federal funds.

The data show, however, that 84 percent of currently reportedservices are concentrated in about 200 counties. The balance isscattered in small programs in 1,000 countess. In nearly 1,900 coun-ties there are no identifiable programs at all.

The report also shows that there are considerable health andorganizational resources in marry counties which do not yet par-ticipate in the delivery of family planning services. These resources

vide a base on which an accelerated national program could bebunt. Such a program would attempt as rapidly as possible to In-vohe these resources the counties which have been identified ashaving significant nurnbers of women without access to modemfamily planning services. It would also begin a serious effort to solvethe critkal problem of delivery of services in sparsely settled ruralareas.

In a handful of counties, current programs appear to havereached and enrolled more than four out of five of the women Inneed of subsidized family planning services. Since there is little basisfor assuming that pot couples In these counties have sul,stantiallydifferent values and aspirations than In other counties, ft would seementirely feasible to taped that similar results could be achieved else-where. Thus, the family planning goals set by the President's Corn-rnittee on Population and Family Planning, and articulated by Presi-dent Nizon's Message to Congress, appear .Aslizable, given a corn-mitinent of sufficient national resources to establish the requiredprograms and of sufficient attention and study to solve the problemsremaining In the delivery system. This study, hopefully, will ilium!.rate somewhat the shape and direction of such an accelerated na-tional program.

1,4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSft is impossible, In a study of this magnitude, properly to acknowl-edge the many individuals who have assisted with data, advice, in-formation and consultation. Mention must be made, however, of thefollowing for their special help in providing major components ofdata which went into this study:

John P. BowenBio-Dynemics, Inc.

James Cooney, PhD.DirectorBureau of Research ServicesAmerican Hospital Association

Royal A. Cryst alChiefCommunity Profile Data CenterCommunity Health ServiceHSMHA, USPHS, DHEW

Johan W. Eliot, M.D., Ph.D.Associate Professor of Population PlanningUniversity of MichiganCenter foe Population Manning

Jerome M. GlynnPopulation DivisionBureau of the Census

Robert D. Grove, Ph.D.DirectorDivision of Vital StatisticsNational Center foe Health StatisticsHSMHA, USPHS, DREW

Dodd Harting. M.D.DirectorFamily ManningAmerican Public Heath Association

Robert A. Israel, M.S.Deputy Director 'DivisPe of Vital StatisticsNational Center for Health StatisticsHSMHA, MHO, DHEW

Spencer A. Lane% M.D.Aettag Atststard Chief

stemsMeant Protects

Comprehensive Care Systems BranchDivision of Health Care Setrioes

rnseurtity Health Service:HSMH, MRS, DREW

4

Patricia MameOffice of Eccoomic Opportunity

Hessen P. MawChefPopulation DivisionRumen of tk Centre

Jock OwesDkectorNew Jersey Hospital Association

John E. PattersonChiefNatality Statistics BranchDivision of Vital StatisticsNational Center for Health StatisticsHSMHA, USPHS, DREW

Gerald SparerChiefProgram Planning and EvaluationOffice of Health AffairsOffice of Economic Opportunity

George SpataforeChiefOffice of Program Planning and EvaluationIndian Health ServiceHSMHA, USPHS, DREW

Donald E. StarsinioChiefState and Local Population Estimates BranchPopulation DivisionBureau of the Census

Allen A. StoneDirectorDivision of Data CollectionAmerican Hospital Associatice

Terrance SwansonOpeeatlons Research AnalystOffice of Economic Opportunity

Everett E. WhiteSpecie/ Assistant for the Ora.* ofProgram Mewing and &Week**Indian Health ServiceHSMHA, USPHS, DREW

Cram K. WhitePublic Iltkh AnalystProgram Review BranchDivision of Health Care ServicesComrouney Ileakh ServicesHSMHA, units, DREW

John F. WonsanErma** DirectorHospital Association of Pennsylvania

Meyer VitaAssistant ChiefPopolation Division&weft of the Census

_

Figure 20 UnmetFamilyPlanningNeed inthe 3,072

Counties ofthe UnitedStates: PerCent by

Count)

Per Cent of UnmetFamily

Planning Need

CD 100 PerCent (1,994

Countiesrt*

90-999 PerCent (566

Counties)80.89 PerCent (274

Counties)NI

Less than 80 PerCent (238

Counties)1/Including

122 counties*here

servicesare believedto exist,

but noservice

tlitires havebeen repotted.

2!

Section IIDetailed TablesIn all the Detailed Tables, calculations were performed priorrounding.

SECTION II. DETAILED TABLES

TABLE 1. NEED FOR SUBSIDIZED FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES:CURRENT PROGRAMS, RESOURCES, AND RELATED INDICESFOR U.S., EACH STATE AND COUNTY, FY 1968

NOTES TO TABI E 1.To facilitate reading of this table, brief explanations are providedfor each column heading; a full definnion and sources of data maybe found in Section III as noted.

Column 3SMSA Designation: Counties located within or outside of StandardMetropolitan Statistical Areas. Number is related to size of popula-Hon In SMSA; blank indicates county is located outside of SMSA(Section 111.A).

POPULATION AND SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS (COLS. 4.7)Column 4Population: Total population for 1966, as estimated by U.S. Bureauof the Cense:, (Section 111.8).

Column 5NomeBased Migrants: Estimated number of migrants with perma-nent residence in county (Section 111.B).

Column 6Indians Under Indian Health Service Jurisdiction: Estimated num-bers of Indians in counties where the Indian Health Service of theU.S. Public Health Service (Health Services and Mental Health Ad-ministration) provides medical care (Section 111-8).

Column 7Women 1544: 1966 estimate by U.S. Bureau of Census (SectionHIB).

ESTIMATED FAMILY PLANNING NEED AND SERVICE LEVELS(COLS. 8.11)

Column 8Medically Indigent Women In Need of Family Planning: The totalnumber of women who are fertile, exposed to risk of pregnancy, notcurrently pregnant or seeking a desired pregnancy, approximatedby applying the DrjloosPolgarVarky formula, to Census 1966 popu-lation estimates (Section IIIC).

Column 9Medically Indigent Women Served: Total number of patientsreported for Fiscal 1968 by all known family planning services inhospitals, health departments, Planned Parenthood Affiliates andother agencies, in response to CFPPD survey of service agencies(Section 11ID).

Column 10Medically Indigent Women Not Served: The total in need (Column 8)minus the total reported as served (Column 9), or unmet need forsubsidized family planning services.

Column 11Percent Unserved: The total urserved (Column 10) divided by thetotal need (Column 8), also referred to as "percent of unmet need."

SELECTED HEALTH AND DEMOGRAPHIC INDICES (COLS. 12.18)

Column 12infant Mortality Rate: Five year average rate of deaths to Infantsunder 1 year per 1,000 live births, by residence of mother, 1961.65(Section lilt).

Column 13Number of Infant Deaths in Excess of 17.8 per 1000: The differencebetween the actual number of infant deaths between 1961-65 andthe number which would have occurred at the rate of 17.8 per 1000births (Section ill -E).

Column 14Estimated Fertility Rate per 1000 Women 15.44: The number ofbirths In 1966 to women aged 1544, divided by the estimated num-ber of women aged 15.44 in 1966 (Section 111E).

Columns 15.16Live Birth Order as Percent of Births: The proportion of live births in1966 in the reported birth orders to all live births, by residence ofmother. First births are presented In Column 15, fifth or higherorder *the In Column 16 (Section III-E).

Column 17Out-of-Wedlock Births per 1000 Live Births: The proportion of out-of-wedlock births In 1966 to all live births, by residence of mother(not reported for 16 states) (Section III-E).

Column 18Premature Births 2,500 Grams or Less (Percent of Live Births): Theproportion of live births weighing 2,500 grams or less at birth In1966 to all live births, by residence of mother (Section IIIE).

EXISTING AND POTENTIAL RESOURCES FOR FAMILY PLANNINGPROGRAMS (COLS. 19-36)

Columns 19.24Non-Federal Physicians In Patient Care: Data are for 1968 andexclude physicians employed by governmental agencies, interns,residents, fellows and those primarily concerned with research, ad-ministration and full-the'teaching (Section 111-F).

Column 19Total number of physicians with office address in county.

Column 20Ratio ofphyskians per 100,000 population in county.

Column 21General practitioners: The number of physicians (as defined above)who identify their primary activity as general practice.

Column 22Ratio of general practitioners per 100,000 population in county.

Column 23Obstetrician-Gynecologists: The number of physicians (as definedabove) who identify their primary specialty as obstetrics and gyne-cology.

Column 24Ratio of Obstetrician-Gynecologists per 100,000 population Incounty or state.

Columns 25.27Hospitals: Data are for 1967 end include short-term, general care,non-profit hospitals reporting births, operated by private agencies,nonFederal governmental agencies, Public Health Service and theIndian Health Service (Section 111-F).

Column 25NonProfit General Care: The number of defined hospitals, in thecounty or state.

Column 26Births: Total number of births reported for 1967 by all defined hos-pitals in the county or state.

Column 27Number Reporting Family Planning Services: Hospitals that reportedproviding organized family planning services during Fiscal 1968,in response to CFPPD survey (Section III -D).

Column 28Counties with Medical School: Bullet denotes location in a county ofone or more approved medical schools as of 1967 (Section Ill -F).

Column 29Counties with Community Action Agancy: Bullet denotes county withone or more active CAAs as of August 1968 (Section III-F).

Column 30Counties with 0E0funded Family Planning Project: Bullet identifiescounty with one or more OEO- funded family planning projects as ofNovember 1968 (Section 111-F).

Column 31Counties with OEO Neighborhood Health Center: Bullet denoteslocation of one or more OEO comprehensive health centers In countyas of October 1968 (Section IIIF).

Column 32Counties with Model City Program: Bullet denotes county with oneor more Model City Planning grants as of December 1968 (Section111-F).

Column 33Counties with Maternity and Infant Care Project: Bullet denotescounty with one or more MIC project grants as of Fiscal 1968 (Sec-tion 111-F).

Column 34Counties with Public Health Service Neighborhood Service ProjectBullet denotes county with one or more NSP projects as of April1969 (Section 111-F).

Column 35Counties Where Health Department Provides Family Planning Serv-ices: Bullets identify 1,031 counties where local health departmentswere reported as providing family planning services In Fiscal 1968;for some of these counties no estimate of patients served could beobtained. Lack of symbol indicates no reported health departmentservice (Section 111-F).

Column 36Counties Where Planned Parenthood Affiliates Provide Family Plan-ning Services: Bullet identifies county where a local group affiliatedwith Planned Parenthood-World Population provides medical familyplanning services (Section 111-F).

33

Table 1. Need for Subsidized Family Planning Services: Current Programs, Resources and Related Indices for U.S., Each State and County, FY 190

Population and SelectedCharactertatScs (0001)

Estimeted Fern] Is Planning Needand Semite Wets

Selected Health and Demographic Indices

Intent Modality1961.1965

EatFart.Rate

Live BirthOrder as

Id Births

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

1Is

I1

iI

iik

14

it

a 1i

1

2M

I...

i

115

in V

flE.

le

I I

I.IIfii

.t.

1gz

Ig.

1IIM

liii

§v 4g t

ti ---

NI;e

1 eI;

U.S. TOTAL

3072 COUNTIES 195,699.2 411.8 403.5 39,542.8 5,366,747 173,111 4,593,636 88 25.1 148,709 91 34 15 88 8

ALABAMA67 COUNTIES 3,510.3 3.1 744.9 175,321 33,240 142,081 81 31.2 5,111 89 34 18 124 9

1 AUTAUGA 228 4.9 1,321 274 1,047 79 35.1 44 89 28 23 172 102 BALDWIN 1 54.1 .2 11.0 Z 533 333 2200 81 29.5 71 94 33 18 100 63 BARBOUR 25.7 .1 5.4 1,825 565 1,260 69 37.8 59 89 27 22 169 124 BIBB 15.1 3.1 1,025 106 919 90 40.3 36 94 31 27 114 95 BLOUNT 26.6 5.5 1,423 23 1,400 98 28.8 27 79 37 14 27 10

6 BULLOCK 13.0 2.4 891 293 598 61 39.5 35 100 32 30 293 157 BUTLER 22.8 4.4 1,463 333 1,130 77 302 34 102 36 21 159 78 CALHOUN 5 100.8 22.7 4,550 21 4,529 100 31.0 144 85 37 15 78 89 CHAMBERS 39.1 7.9 1,811 252 1,559 86 388 83 96 30 21 159 13

10 CHEROKEE 17.0 3.6 900 6,1 837 93 29.8 17 73 34 14 68 11

11 CHILTON 26.9 5.4 1,609 221 1,388 86 36.7 46 79 36 19 79 612 CHOCTAW 19.0 3.9 1,297 311 986 76 J4.4 35 107 31 21 185 913 CLARKE 27.3 5.3 1,700 ass 1,232 72 31.5 64 110 33 22 179 11

14 CLAY 13.1 2.5 762 91 611 0: 38.1 25 84 29 15 138 615 CLEBURNE 11.4 Is.4 695 58 631 92 281 12 84 33 22 30 6

16 COFFEE 32.7 6.8 1,850 257 1,593 ES 26.0 29 87 41 14 100 717 COLBERT 5 51.2 11.2 2,170 248 1,922 89 23.5 31 85 34 10 102 818 CON1WH 16.5 3.2 1,098 129 969 88 30.9 25 86 30 29 131 919 CTJSA 10.7 2.2 657 24 633 96 35.2 17 19 31 19 170 15

20 COVINGTON 385 7.8 2,137 165 1,972 92 37.2 70 86 36 14 77 9

21 CRENSHAW 14.2 2.8 1,043 98 945 91 35.0 23 82 32 24 153 7

22 CULLMAN 51.3 10.9 3,080 214 2,866 93 29.4 54 79 37 11 12 10

23 DALE 45.9 .1 9.9 2,352 10 2,282 97 287 59 104 44 12 50 624 DALLAS 57.1 .4 11.4 3,378 1,380 1,998 59 40.8 185 127 33 25 223 925 DE KALE 43.6 9.0 2,676 81 2,595 97 22.4 19 80 39 9 38 1

26 EIMORE 1 34.0 6.7 1,760 84 1,676 95 35.4 64 102 29 22 122 727 ESCAMBIA 36.1 .9 7.4 2,030 335 1,695 83 32.4 66 103 28 20 131 828 ETOWAH is 1 95.4 20.4 4,162 60 4,102 99 31.7 129 82 37 15 89 929 FAYETTE 180 3.8 1,113 16 1,037 93 31.4 30 72 32 22 87 830 FRANKLIN 24.1 5.0 1,404 216 1,188 85 27.2 23 86 38 15 37 5

31 GENEVA 21.6 4.3 1,323 34 1,289 91 33.2 35 95 36 17 107 332 GREENE 13.1 .1 2.5 951 388 563 59 44.4 43 106 37 30 318 5

33 HALE 18.6 3.4 1,247 490 757 61 52.9 92 122 25 28 316 834 HENW 15.1 .2 3.1 1,057 152 905 86 35.5 29 76 31 22 126 835 HOUSTON 56.0 .1 12.2 3,201 216 2,985 93 35.1 104 84 32 20 85 9

36 JACKSON 37.6 8.0 2263 24 2,239 91 28.6 41 83 39 16 33 10

37 ./UFERS0N 2 642.6 136.5 25,685 8,982 16,703 65 27.3 629 79 36 14 142 11

38 LAMAR 15.3 3.2 880 28 852 91 40.9 29 76 34 12 65 10

39 LAUDERDALE 5 67.3 14.3 2,936 222 2,114 92 17,9 1 84 31 13 70 7

40 LAWRENCE 28.5 6.0 1,808 62 1,146 97 20.1 1 108 28 18 124 8

41 LEE 60.2 13.9 3,403 622 2,181 82 369 114 84 37 16 107 11

42 LIMESTONE 1 425 9.1 2,432 208 2,224 91 25.4 36 97 32 15 98 643 LOWNDES 14.7 2.6 996 547 449 45 45.0 60 127 27 39 339 13

34

Existing and Potential Resources for Family Pla sing hems (o Designates Location of One or More Programs or Resources within County)

NonFodenl Physicians In Patient Can Hospitals Med.Sch.

0E0 Programs Other FederalPrograms

HealthDepts.

P.P.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

iiti

gi.

11 t ox

sy

1

gi

itsl

1

qi1

s2

u

IfLE he

ii31

ti

fiII a

1sl

l'v.,PAgvail

. a

iI Psilstl

g aIli0 iad4-

t1

I

1E

:7a

U.S. TOTAL204,666 105 62,700 32 13,967 7 4,305 2,983,551 435 66 2,016 170 37 115 79 17 1,031 113 3012 COUNTIES

ALABAMA2,326 66 842 24 169 5 87 47,408 2 1 44 5 2 I 2 67 4 67 COUNTIES

3 13 3 13 AUTAUGA 1

24 44 16 30 1 2 2 417 BALDWIN 2

14 55 11 43 1 306 BARE1OUR 3

5 33 4 26 BIBB 47 26 6 23 1 352 BLOUNT 5

6 46 4 31 1 91 BULLOCK 613 57 8 35 2 251 BUTLER 7

57 51 18 18 6 6 2 1,493 CALHOUN 817 44 10 26 1 443 CHAMBERS 94 24 4 24 1 192 CHEROKEE 10

8 30 6 22 1 353 CHILTON 11

6 32 6 32 1 291 CHOCTAW 12

11 40 7 26 2 315 CLARKE 13

4 31 3 23 1 186 CLAY 14

2 18 2 18 1 37 CLEBURNE 15

17 52 10 31 2 6 2 298 COFFEE 16

28 55 13 25 3 6 1 793 COLI3ERT 17

6 , 36 5 30 1 10 CONECUH 181 9 1 9 COOSA 19

21 55 17 44 4 651 COVINGTON 20

6 42 5 35 1 67 CRENSHAW 2119 31 11 21 1 2 1 712 CULLMAN 229 20 8 17 1 333 DALE 23

40 70 8 14 3 5 2 554 DALLAS 2412 28 10 23 1 559 DE KALB 25

13 38 8 24 1 125 ELMORE 2618 50 15 42 2 601 ESCAMBIA 2772 75 17 18 4 4 2 1,604 ETOWAH 286 33 6 33 1 212 FAYETTE 29

17 70 6 25 : 2 8 FRANKLIN 30

9 42 9 42 GENEVA 314 31 4 31 1 62 GREECE 32

4 21 4 21 1 114 HALE 33

4 26 4 26 1 72 HENRY 3449 87 13 23 5 9 1 693 HOUSTON 3S

13 35 10 27 2 710 JACXSON 36682 106 137 21 62 10 8 8,510 1 JEFFERSON 37

6 39 6 39 1 101 MAR 38

51 76 11 16 4 6 1 1,390 LAUDERDALE 399 32 6 21 LAWRENCE 40

28 47 11 18 2 3 1 745 LEE 4112 28 9 21 1 662 LIMESTONE 423 20 3 20 LOWNDES 43

35

Table I. Need for Subsidized Family Planning Services: Current Programs, Resources and Related Indices for U.S., Each State and County, FY 1968 continued

Population and Selected Estimated Family Planning NeedCharacteristics (000s) and Service Levels

I

Selected Health end Demographic IndicesInfant Mortality Est the Birth

1961.1965 fut. Order asRote of Births

9 10

31

fz

3

;6.

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

] I 4#4R

15

g 73; glALABAMA

44 MACON 24.8 5.0 1,602 1,100 37.5 41 97 30 25 213 11

45 MADISON 1 1880 456 7,293 916 6,377 87 26.8 188 91 35 12 81 8

46 MARENGO 26.9 5.1 1,6% 930 766 45 42.2 87 115 26 26 234 1

47 MARION 24.8 5.3 1,650 31 1,619 98 31.4 29 81 40 13 23 848 MARSHALL 57.1 12,5 3,025 273 2,152 91 26.6 50 82 38 11 53 8

49 MOBILE 1 330.2 .1 69.5 12,867 3,793 9,074 71 27.0 384 97 32 20 131 10

50 MONROE 22.4 4.3 1,310 181 1,189 87 42.7 11 113 26 27 176 8

51 MONTGOMERY 1 114,2 37.3 7,709 1,686 6,023 78 35.9 347 81 33 22 182 952

53

MORGAN

PERRY

76.9

17.5

16.9

3.63,496

1,338

434132

30621206

8890

25.426.2

61

1897

BO

3531

12

31

77

197

87

54 PICKENS 20.6 3.9 1,199 339 860 72 30.6 33 109 26 27 212 1]55 PIKE 28.7 60 1,985 167 1,818 92 51.6 102 93 36 24 156 7

56 RANDOLPH 19.1 3.8 1,114 146 r;68 87 27.9 20 84 36 13 111 11

57 RUSSELL 1 49.2 .1 10.5 2,843 120 2,723 96 36.6 124 104 30 22 135 11

58 ST. CLAIR 26.3 5.5 1,401 18 1,383 99 34.8 44 86 35 14 109 13

59 SHELBY 2 34.2 7.4 1,986 267 1,719 87 30.7 50 81 28 18 90 9

60 SUMTER 19.0 3.5 1,334 194 1,140 85 49.5 77 104 30 34 297 7

61 TALLADEGA 68.3 14.7 3,630 163 3,461 96 38.0 157 93 29 20 131 10

62 TALLAPOOSA 31.4 7.7 1,919 250 1,669 87 39.9 86 91 24 13 99 11

Fl TUSCALOOSA 1 121.6 .4 27.2 6,349 433 5,916 93 29.1 133 71 36 16 133 12

64 WALKER 2 57.2 11.9 3,384 1,441 1,943 51 3.3.6 95 94 36 15 59 965 WASHINGTON 15.4 .2 3.0 896 206 690 17 30.0 23 110 25 27 133 10

66 WILCOX 17.8 3.3 1,287 292 995 77 44.1 65 129 26 35 353 1

67 WINSTON 161 3.6 1,051 304 747 71 45.2 42 86 39 9 39 10

ARIZONA

14 COUNTIES 1,602.8 42.0 967 327.0 48,153 8287 39,866 83 28.0 1,856 99 31 20 8

1 APACHE 46,7 2.9 287 9.4 2,193 239 2,554 91 41.3 179 152 21 41 9

2 COCHISE 57.5 .3 .1 10.7 1,501 1,507 100 27.7 71 125 33 19 9

3 COCONINO 58.1 2.9 151 12.3 1,885 379 1,506 SO 39.7 167 109 31 27 84 GILA 27.8 3.5 5.3 896 119 711 87 52.8 133 137 30 24 8

5 GRAHAM 16.1 1.3 3.0 537 537 100 42.1 47 99 26 32 11

6 GREENLEE 10.3 .2 21 173 173 100 29.9 13 8] 27 18 4

7 MARICOPA 2 8381 10.0 85 114.5 23,656 4,355 19,301 82 23.7 530 94 33 17 8

8 MOHAVE 14.6 .6 3.0 503 503 100 27.6 13 114 35 13 89 NAVAJO 487 2.9 24.5 9.4 2,215 503 1,712 77 44.5 205 153 20 38 10

10 PIMA 1 314.8 3.8 7.8 64.3 8,619 2,280 6,399 74 23.7 200 85 32 17 8

11 PIM!. 54.0 15.0 5.6 12.0 2,224 379 1,345 83 37.5 173 118 26 28 812 SANTA CRUZ 14.6 3.2 62, 620 100 180 90 28 28 5

13 YAVAPAI 34.4 .6 6.5 1,024 1,024 100 29.6 31 79 37 13 7

14 YUMA 57.1 4.2 1.6 11.4 1,441 33 1,408 98 31.3 :.: 116 31 19 7

ARKANSAS

75 COUNTIES 1,955.6 .6 389.5 106,454 5,092 101,362 95 27.5 1,983 88 34 18 9

I ARKANSAS 266 5.3 1,339 153 1,186 89 27.8 29 96 30 24 8

2 ASHLEY 26.2 5.3 1,351 7 1,350 99 25.4 22 97 33 20 10

3 BAXTER 11.9 2.2 655 34 621 95 161 12 39 10 8

36

Ed: Upg and Potential Resources for Family Plans

Care

ng Programs to Designates

Hospitals

Location of One or More Programs or Resources within Coump)

Nos-Fedora Pipskians In Patient Med.Sch.

0E0 Programs Other FederalPrograms

HealthDepts.

P,P.

9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

1

11

1 I

I1V

1E.d...

gi13

3 1

2a

IIlii3 i

11ii/IA31

111

s32

10

ig16.I3.=

1Is

1

111ill.IMsl]

I1 ._ gr,

1111111 Pi51'sllsc.',1

u tI4i

1ia=

10

127

11

11

29

1, 307` , 7

', 165

1- 61

4

4068:41 :

44 :51

93.,

31 ,95 ',.

7923 `

4

3911

7

23

80

7

.3.; 1J` 4

16

21

41

28

40

24

31

18

3023

Q 8 39 t '`. 6 ';'°.

!1 $ 28' : 8 28

3 15; `,- 2 1012 24 f 8 164. 7

27 -'' 7 27

14 41 -:. 10 29t 5 6 ;22 ` 4 21tl 29 4 15 22` 18

01

48 ,8P '

16

31

4326

28 49 ,:- 21 30t , 3 19 ;', , 3 19

',."P 5 28 ; 4 227 43 t -", ', 6 37

1,622 101 , 494 31

LS 8 17 3 631 54 r, 19 3339 61 18 31

17 61 , 12 43.); 1 44 7 44

i,015 121 291 3510:69: 7 4811 23 41, 8 16

376 119 62 20

34 53 s 24 379 62 6 41

28 81 21 61

32 56 15 26

%,

t4 Vt,

1,393 71 658 34:

15 56 13 49t; 12 46 n 9 34

11 93 8 67

12 6,

, I 4...

27 8

-, 16 9 ,

R' 5 6 :

,t ; ', .,,

" - : 1

' ti

1 6

i' 1

109 7

1

2

74

T. 28

2 ,,. , 1,4821 3,053I 4402 ', 1723 1,268

5 6,8291 . 2764 2,5311 %. 94E,

1 101

1 1881 338

1 359

2 1,3173 , 6491 2,145

,..-I !.- 828I , 181

- 1

=

52 25,654 15 14 2 1 4 2

4 1,172 1

5 6684 1,205 2

4 601 1

r

15 L4,031

1 2536 1,281 34 ; 3,478 1

4 1,080 1

841

2 4214

2 , 1,182 1

y,"

76 C.: 59 24,E06 48 1 7

1 413

4{ , a'. 302134

ALABAMA

MADCON 44MAISON 45MARENGO 46

ION 4/MARSHALL 48

MOBILEILE 49MMONTGOMERY

5051

MORGAN 52PERRY 53

PICKENS 54

PIKE ' 55RANDOLPH 56RUSSELL = i 'r 57ST. CLAIR 58

,SHELBY 59SUMTER 60TALLADEGA 61

TALLAPOOSA , 62TU3CALOOSA 63

WALKER 64WASHINGTON 65WILCOX .: 66WINSTON ) !i-; 67

ARIZONA' "14 CCONTIES !!'.!

KACHE 1

COCHISE 2

COCONINO 3GRA 4

GRAHAM rtr 5

GREENLEE 6MARICOPA [.7MOHAVE 8[AVM 9PIMA 10

FINAL , 11

SANTA CRUZ .-! 12

YAVAPAI 13

YUMA 14

ARKANSAS

75 COUNHES

ARKANSAS

ASHLEY = -.4 2

BAXTER 3

37

Table 1. Need for Subsidized Family Planning Services: Current Programs, Resources and Related Indices for U.S., Each State and County, FY 1968 continued

Population and SelectedCharacteristics (000s)

Estimated Family Planning Needand Service levels

Selected Health and Demographic Indices

Infant Mortality1961.1965

EstFart.Rate

Live BirthOrder as

% of Births

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

i8=

iA i

Ii

jg0Zs

s

1z

.4

lA.1,E11

fir1i.ERIg.t.v§.1zu.

111i82lsm

1

1il8itz

.1;',1:')

;d I

IER

look'V 1..:

$'B

g

§

k

i4i1

ii

itIsi

§.ls'g9

6---

E f

1$16I

b

ARKANSAS

4 BENTON 43.8 8.4 2,153 2,153 100 25.8 30 85 38 10 10

5 BOONE 17.2 3.4 982 982 100 20.7 5 71 38 12 11

6 BRADLEY 14.5 2.8 790 790 100 21.7 5 76 31 20 7

1 CALHOUN 6.3 1.2 439 439 100 29.1 4 45 39 14 7

8 CARROLL 11.5 2.0 626 626 100 23.1 5 79 32 20 9

9 CH ICOT 20.8 3.8 1,341 45 1,296 97 34.7 39 112 22 32 13

10 CLARK 22.8 5.0 1,425 59 1,366 96 262 15 68 33 15 4

11 CLAY 21.8 4.3 1,258 1,258 100 19.1 3 76 33 13 4

12 CLEBURNE 10.2 2.1 706 706 100 24.7 6 64 36 15 913 CLEVELAND 6.7 1.2 411 411 100 41.3 14 18 23 25 4

14 COLUMBIA 26.6 52 1,442 1,442 100 25 1 19 85 36 19 915 CONWAY 17.9 3.7 1,082 28 1,054 97 267 14 78 31 20 11

16 CRAIGHEAD 51.5 .1 11.0 2,597 197 2,400 92 24.6 36 74 36 8 617 CRAWFORD 1 24.2 4.7 1,319 1,319 100 19.8 5 85 33 13 618 CRITTENDEN 2 52.2 10.1 3,26L 26 3,243 99 40.9 168 120 23 32 10

19 CROSS 20.6 4.1 1,269 1,269 100 39.5 50 108 35 26 820 DALLAS 10.1 1.9 613 92 521 85 29.2 11 78 43 15 7

21 DESHA 20.4 3.6 1,112 50 1,062 96 25.6 21 116 32 31 11

22 DREW 161 3.1 991 991 103 29.7 20 74 41 22 5

23 FAUMNER 32.1 7.3 2,068 44 2,024 98 27.9 26 66 40 14 9

24 FRANKLIN 11.3 2.1 657 657 100 30.7 13 81 34 15 7

25 FULTON 7.8 1.5 559 559 100 30.5' 7 56 34 27 5

26 GARLAND 51.3 9.9 2,851 405 2,446 86 26.2 39 82 31 14 10

27 GRANT 9.5 1.9 556 4 552 99 32.8 10 46 33 16 528 GREFIE 24.6 4.9 1,417 1,417 100 24.3 16 61 34 16 7

29 HEMPSTEAD 20.7 3.9 1,217 30 1,187 98 211 9 79 34 19 7

30 HOT SPRIG 22.3 4.1 1,081 1,081 100 22.8 9 69 40 12 7

31 HOWARD 11.4 .1 2.1 592 8 584 99 24.7 8 94 31 19 632 INDEPF.NDENCE 22.7 4.5 1,517 1,517 100 22.8 9 69 45 10 933 11ARD ' 6.6 1.2 433 433 100 85 59 42 14 8

34 JACKSON 23.7 5.0 1,347 292 1,055 78 28.2 27 80 28 21 10

35 KIFFRSON 1 1 18.0 4,621 271 4,350 94 28.4 103 98 34 21 10

36 JOHNSON 12.6 2.4 802 802 100 21.8 4 81 36 9 4

37 LAFAYETTE 10.2 1.8 642 642 100 32.0 16 99 32 22 9

38 LAWRENCE 17.2 3.3 1.099 1,099 100 22.6 8 80 41 12 1

39 LEE 23.9 4.5 1,610 1,610 100 36.3 50 104 22 40 12

40 LINCOLN 14.2 2.4 810 810 100 41.4 35 120 34 28 841 LITTLE RIVER 9.6 .1 1.8 534 534 100 31.6 13 93 29 16 642 LOGAN 17.6 3.1 1,069 87 982 92 17.1 85 25 23 543 LONOKE 269 5.2 1,486 187 1,299 87 31.2 39 93 29 27 8

44 MADISON 10.3 1.9 680 680 100 22.8 4 62 32 13 10

45 MARION 67 1.2 438 438 100 23.6 2 75 35 7 2

46 MILLER 1 34.2 6.9 1,904 102 1,802 95 2E1 28 94 3) 13 13

47 MISSISSIPPI 76.1 14.9 4,594 569 4,025 88 39.1 221 105 35 22 10

48 MONROE 17.8 3.4 1,131 9 1,122 99 34.5 35 104 37 24 10

49 MONTGOMERY 5.5 1.1 346 346 100 17.8 76 39 24 10

Existing and Potential Resources for Family Planning Programs to Designates

Hospitals

Location

Piled.Sch.

of One or More

0E0 Programs

Programs or Resources 'Rhin

Other WentPrograms

County)

HealthDepts.

P.P.HonFederal Physicians In Patient Can

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

14

1

li

1

il

11

Ji

Ii.3§.

IRla

45glIs i

i i

,Ip.LI

li

1Js;

iI

11ilsv

I

if

tba

6mI

gl

11sg

1;.I;sa

Vllqiial

11

%z11

IIIifisil

ffi II

w

/11.11.L41z..silsOi

w .

°Iilr Iii

1

II'.3

ARKANSAS

24 55 19 43 3 687 WON 417 99 10 58 1 6 1 592 BOONE 55 35 5 35 1 232 BRADLEY 61 16 1 16 CALHOUN

7 61 7 61 1 32 CARROLL 8

9 43 8 38 1 169 CHICO T 912 53 10 44 2 367 CLARK 107 32 7 32 CLAY 11

10 98 9 88 CLEBURNE 121 15 1 15 CLEVELAND 13

16 60 12 45 1 271 CAMBIA 147 39 6 33 1 343 CONWAY 15

45 87 16 31 3 6 1 830 CRAIGHEAD 167 29 6 25 1 158 CRAWFORD 17

18 35 9 17 2 4 1 515 CRITTEITCN 18

7 34 6 29 1 349 CROSS 197 69 7 69 1 200 CALIAS 209 44 8 n 1 230 DESNA 215 31 4 25 1 6 1 167 DREW

13 41 11 34 1 514 FAIRER

4 36 , 3 21 FRANKL IN 244

... 7451

1443

193837 4 8

1

2128869

RILTON

GARLAND

2526

: 4 42 4 42,

GRANT 2712 49 9 37 I 398 GREENE 28

9 44 9 44 HEMPSTEAD 2912 54 11 49 351 HOT SPRING 306 53 6 53 156 HOWARD 31

17 75 14 62 INDEPENDENCE 323 45 3 45 IZARD 33

1052

4259

413

1715 5 1 1,358 a

JACKSON

JEFFERSON

3435

7 55 7 55 55 JOHNSON28 47

20 ' 26 3205 1

152203

LAFAYETTE

LAWRENCE

3738

5 21 5 21 LEE 393 21 2 14 LINCOLN 404 42 3 31 1 140 . LITTLE RIVER 417 40 6 34 1 0 LOGAN 428 30 8 30 LONOKE 43

3 29 j 2 20 MADISON 443 45 3 45 1 60 MARION 45

26 76 6 18 4 12 1 447 MILER 4630 39 19 25 1 1 2 384 MISSISSIPPI 478 45 8 45 1 265 MONROE 48

MONTGOMERY 49

Table 1. Need for Subsidized Family Planning Services: Current Programs, Resources and Related Indices for U.S., Each Slate and County, FT 1968 continued

Population and SelectedCharactaistice (000s)

Estimated Family Planning Needand Service Levels

Selected Health and Demographic IndicesInfant Mortality

1961.1965EstFart.Rats

11ve BirthOrder as

46 of Births

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Z8

1A

$

A

14I az I'

59

11

11I #g o.. z

1.1

M

1.15gill

.1..s i0 g m'61 g txxit.

t.Y.j.p.0 5t gz

6gx

1x:13

1Uaz

1;=v .9

IA..-

§44A k.5'41

g*8.

I51§--cE

f0g

4bb

41

E

fts

11§

v -rgg

si ^4175

1-8ris

ARKANSAS

50 NEVADA 11.2 2.0 676 68 608 90 30.2 12 tJ 23 21 14

51 NEWTON 6.4 1.3 494 494 100 6.2 83 42 13 8

52 OUACHITA 32.0 6.6 1,772 21 1,751 99 23.3 16 78 32 18 9

53 PERRY 4.6 .8 283 32 251 89 22.7 2 88 41 15

54 PHILLIPS 46.9 8.9 2,845 33 2,812 99 28.8 67 116 28 27 10

55 PIKE 8.8 1,7 561 561 100 26.5 6 90 29 17 856 POINSETT 29.8 5.9 1,784 1,784 100 21.0 13 104 37 23 9

57 POLK 12.1 2.4 751 24 727 97 20.5 3 13 32 14 1

58 POPE 264 5.5 1,563 68 1,495 96 22.5 11 83 35 10 11

59 PRAIRIE 11.0 2.2 603 603 100 34.4 16 78 21 29 5

60 PULASKI 1 280.0 58.9 11,157 1,076 10,081 91 21.6 313 92 38 13 10

61 RANDOLPH 11.4 2.0 633 633 100 26.8 11 106 25 26 6

62 ST. FRANCIS 34.6 .2 6.3 2,133 341 1,792 84 36.2 91 136 27 31 10

63 SALINE 1 32.1 6.4 1,361 51 1,310 96 23.7 16 84 40 13 7

84 SCOTT 8.3 1.5 554 111 437 79 13.0 83 43 11 11

65 SEARCY 8.9 1.6 573 573 100 38.8 15 84 40 16 9

66 SEBASTIAN 1 73.6 14,5 3,212 115 3,097 96 18.3 5 92 34 12 9

61 SEVIER 12.1 2.3 633 633 100 20.9 3 71 36 22 5

68 SHARP 6.4 1.1 3% 396 100 31.1 7 74 31 10 7

69 STONE 7.1 1.5 608 5 603 99 13.3 55 46 15 5

70 UNION 50,3 10.0 2,20 164 2,226 93 23.0 26 78 31 20 10

71 VAN BUREN 7.4 1.3 481 481 100 32.2 8 72 33 17 8

72 WASHINGTON 72.6 .1 161 3,676 69 3,601 98 23.1 35 77 41 11 8

13 WHITE 38.7 83 2391 85 2,306 96 23.9 20 12 34 13 814 WOODRUFF 14.4 2.6 895 79 816 91 34.5 28 109 21 37 9

75 YELL 13A 2.5 186 45 741 94 23.9 7 73 39 11 9

CALIFORNIA

58 COUNTIES 18,802.2 43.7 .1 3,866.1 318,496 75,361 303,135 80 22.5 8,474 87 36 13 8

1 ALAMEDA 3 1,030.5 210.6 20,881 8,548 12,333 59 21.8 413 85 38 I I 8

2 ALPINE .4 .1 14 10 4 29 545 44 6

3 AMADOR 11.1 1.9 233 6 227 97 16.5 75 32 14 1

4 BUTTE 105.3 .2 21.7 3,017 185 7,832 94 22.3 40 76 39 12 7

5 CALAVERAS 12.4 2.3 287 287 100 15.4 60 32 13 7

6 COLUSA 12.7 2.4 264 3 261 99 23.9 8 81 36 15 4

7 CONTRA COSTA 3 514.4 113.7 8454 1,528 6,926 82 19.8 93 76 35 10 8

8 DEL NORTE 16.7 3.2 290 3 287 99 25.6 15 89 38 15 6

9 EL DORADO 45.9 .2 9.9 129 769 86 26.3 29 65 37 14 9

10 FRESNO 1 414.3 2.0 86.6 11,034 1,85? 9,182 83 24.7 30 92 32 18 7

11 GLOM 189 3.6 461 6 455 99 22.1 7 75 34 13 5

12 HUMBOLDT 101.3 19.1 1,806 3 1,803 100 25.1 87 88 35 13 5

13 IMPERIAL 78.9 10.8 .7 14.7 1,933 1,933 100 28.4 105 124 26 24 7

14 INYO 13.5 2.6 367 26 341 93 24.4 7 78 42 12 5

15 KERN 1 325 2 1.4 67.3 8,366 1,199 7,167 86 22.6 174 91 34 15 8

16 KINGS 67.7 1.1 14.3 2,044 46 1,998 98 28.6 81 102 34 15 817 ME 18.6 .6 3.1 572 572 100 30.1 13 67 35 17 9

40

Existing and Potential Resources for Family Planning Programs (ri Designates location of One or

Programs

More Programs or Resources within County)

Hon - Faders Physicians In Patient Care Hospitals Med.Sch.

OEO Other FederalPrograms

HealthDepts.

P.P.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 21 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

qA 8it

i ':

44

1

I

iiMI

1

II

iggt

S1.1

a

IVI

11teitRN

IJ._lg.SZ

Iu

liEZt§S'k

ii1.2 r

iltEttn.

6g

v]ttt41

14.ril

Sz

itaI!

11ST,

11.,Ez,

vls

ttiSii

1

t till

11

ll

't,tS:`,;1

s]A

11

3

ARKANSAS

4 36 4 36 NEVADA 50

1 16 NEWTON 51

20 62 13 41 1 3 1 411 OUACHITA 52

2 44 2 44 PERRY 53

19 41 17 36 1 437 PHILLIPS 54

5 57 4 45 PIKE 55

9 30 9 30 PORSETT 56

6 47 4 32 1 8 1 218 POLX 57

16 61 8 30 1 4 POPE 58

2 18 1 9 PRAIRIE 59

382 136 74 26 32 11 5 6,211 1 a e PULASKI 607

16

6246

614

53

41

1

1

204

595

a

a

RANDOLPH

ST. FRANCIS

61

62

21 65 11 34 1 325 SALINE 63

3 36 3 36 1 72 SCOTT 64

3 14 3 34 SEARCY 65

114 155 24 33 9 12 2 2,018 SEBASTIAN 66

10 83 9 75 1 388 SEVIER 67

3 47 2 31 a SHARP a2 28 2 28 STU& 69

46 91 18 36 4 8 1 677 IRON 70

5 68 4 54 1 33 VAN BUREN 71

68 94 27 37 5 7 2 1,369 WASHINGTON 12

26 67 20 52 WHITE 73

4 28 4 28 WOODRUFF 74

10 75 8 ED I 114 YELL 75

CALIFORNIA

26841 143 7,674 41 1,756 9 302 277,665 27 3 59 10 5 7 3 2 42 6 58 COUNTIES

1,619 157 407 39 122 12 15 16,741 2 a a ALAMEDA 1

ALPINE 2

16 145 14 127 1 131 MOOR 3

132 125 55 52 7 7 4 1,533 BUTTE 4

16 129 12 96 CALAVERAS 5

10 79 8 63 1 145 COLUSA 6

621 121 179 35 42 8 8 6,847 CONTRA COSTA 7

7 42 6 36 1 319 DEL NORTE 8

36 78 24 52 1 2 2 479 EL DORADO 9

422 102 139 34 28 7 7 6,594 1 (FEW 10

9 48 9 48 1 242 GLENN 11

91 93 50 49 2 2 6 1,578 HUMBOLDT 12

54 68 22 28 4 5 5 1,551 IMPERIAL 13

12 89 6 44 2 258 14

281 86 98 30 17 5 5 4,663 1 KERN 15

42 62 29 43 5 10 IUNGS ' 16

18 97 13 70 1 162 IAJIE 17

41

Tolde 1. Need for Sabsidlead Family Nanning Services: Comet Program, Samuels and Related Indices for U.S., Each State end Coo , FY 1968 continued

Ppeletioe sad SelectedMa nwterlatia (000s)

Estioatae fanny Planning Needsad Service Levels

Selected Walla and Demgrapt.'s Indiceslatent itedaity

10611965Est.

PeaRate

IM lardOrder esel Ilidis

1 2 4 5 6 7 I 9 10 11 12 13 Ili 15 16 17 18

1I1

fS1

A

11Jili

lsV

titill

i11iH IL;

leifv2ig I

is !

ik145;-'5

11

z

i41;!ii6

ggaz11

xt

iia

is-6iI b

CALIFORNIA

18 LASSEN 184 3.8 341 341 100 270 13 62 35 10 1019 LOS ANGELES 4 6,814.5 2.9 1,3753 126,348 32,519 43,829 14 210 3,557 89 3 13 820 MADERA 436 89 1,466 245 1,221 83 278 46 87 32 20 621 KARIN 3 1886 .6 38.4 2,464 810 1,654 67 186 13 19 38 8 822 MARIPOSA 62 1.1 185 165 103 24.8 3 68 35 11 5

23 ME1D0CI40 51.1 .6 11 1016 36 1,040 97 24.1 28 85 38 12 524 MERCED 101.3 .2 22.2 1331 613 2,724 82 24.8 89 98 34 15 625 MODOC 7.5 1.4 116 156 103 25.6 5 66 40 15 426 MONO 31 .1 45 41 103 252 2 76 32 7 II27 MONTEREY 1 2219 .4 41.6 4,787 23 4,764 140 21.4 90 110 35 14 6

28 NAPA 1 782 .6 111 1,452 12 1,410 97 201 14 67 31 12 4

29 NEVADA 25.9 4.8 6% 218 478 69 24.4 13 71 t8 13 530 ORANGE 3 1,171.4 .4 2756 22,102 2,691 19,405 18 212 382 12 34 13 1

31 PLACER 2 155 .2 15.4 1,171 588 989 63 227 30 /2 32 14 532 PILIMAS 12.1 2.4 220 220 100 341 21 83 34 16 10

33 RIYERSU 3 4116 2.6 851 12164 399 11,765 9? ?SS 297 8? 33 16 734 SACRAIMNT 0 2 597.7 .2 1215 4,504 MO 1654 91 2311 192 $4 35 12 1

35 SAM BENITO 111 3.1 433 139 294 68 24.1 12 91 31 21 636 SAP4 IMMO' 3 6219 12 1299 16,193 615 1S,STS % 231 331 89 34 IS $37 SAN DIEGO 3 LIM 19 232.6 25,611 1,962 23,649 92 24.7 872 91 36 12 I

31 SAN FRANCISC 3 114.6 1411 12.801 9,118 3,613 29 23.9 411 X 44 9 939 SAN 10401.11 I 283.5 20 17.4 6,707 227 6,480 I? 204 61 SS 36 13 640 SAN LIAS 081 97.3 .2 III 2,434 517 1,911 79 21.4 33 79 38 13 7

41 SAN MATEO 3 5111 .6 1010 5,670 1,612 4,058 12 112 20 13 39 I 1

42 W41411A3*AR 1 25.3.4 .5 54.1 4,162 2,756 2,104 43 20.6 11 11 31 11 i43 SANTA CLARA 2 9'c91 .5 209.9 15,609 1,205 14,404 92 113 48 $9 36 11 7

44 SANTA CM12 1129 1.4 204 3,65? 348 3,,309 90 223 38 77 37 14 1

4S SHASTA 755 162 1,140 1,840 103 23.2 3$ 79 3$ 12 146 S9J014 16 .5 49 44 103 421 3 90 13 19 14

41 SISIWOU 35.0 61 612 02 140 Xi 20 SS 41 10 6

4$ UAW I 1691 332 3,446 381 3,259 89 214 109 101 31 11 749 43141:444 S 133 1 .6 392 5240 994 4,216 11 223 13 17 36 II 1

SO STAXISLAUS 5 117.3 I8 381 3,575 300 5,175 IS 117 33 $4 34 14 1

SI SUTLER e s s s 19 go 15 915 9 8 250 32 45 3$ II 652 ?EMMA 210 SS 680 4 676 99 21.5 2? II 31 1 1

S3 TRIM 12 1.5 135 135 140 32.4 11 67 32 I 12S4 NM 190 6 2 310 1081 111 1490 !I 254 111 43 31 11 1

SS TULIN 11.6 31 451 XI 140 17.7 72 36 11 11

16 MIRA I 3391 .1 7!) 1,409 1,271 1131 83 21.6 111 116 31 16 1S/ YOLO 818 2 112 1,431 654 414 19 20 2 20 44 31 13 6

58 VIA 469 .2 1.7 1,302 15 1,287 99 21 22 102 32 12 6

COLORADO

83 COATIES 1,%S.4 18 16 4005 41.491 111117 32,312 11 255 1198 11 35 13 11ANL

I ADAMS 1531 34.1 2,283 139 1,144 68 21.4 49 33 30 ISt MAMMA 10 I 22 369 X/ KO 322 19 13 3? 14

49

Ens* sod Patna amerces let Family nasals* Prevails (a Des !pates locatlea at Oas et Mete Promos at Resources within County)

Nea-red mal Physidaus h PaReet Can llosoltals MetSch.

0E0 Proposes Other FederalPrograms

WithDeets.

P.P.

19 20 21 22 23 21 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

II 11 t 1I

MI

11

tili

Ilit

litih

1

lili

1

18

li

IItiii

41illI]I

1 1

Ilia-.Ilso

11

i =CALIFORNIA

810,427

2634

6

16

74

4

4

264

166

211,547

9212

461

7648

MO1,551

2,010

30)142

765386

1,550117

171

23

In261221

3024

6151II

3 3 9

13

11

44153

60206

97

149

6453

115115

212104

132

120

95

111

12842

106

131

291

100

146

14?

152

16?

148

12I?I66

13139

121

11 '13

/38312

1 0 6

15

SI

62,997

2373

5

2131

43

72

4712

4783910

114

2406

230e h

339107

0122

IN

2716833

2

la

42120IS11

20

67/11

1 1 3

21

1

3344

533981

5329

S3

8631

604641

51

71

424031

314 2

473950

24

32

V61

4471

51

25II4540M

7341

663 1r1/

'

1

6761

21

36

16

7

3101

5

3060

451 1 1

12718

55325

1255

4

1212142

10

724

J

5 1 19710 64 100,531

2 2 33411 1 1,545

1 56

6 3 3786 3 1,222

1 1081 24

1 5 3,060

9 2 86412 4 4619 8 14,3707 2 1,020

3 151

7 9 8,61110 6 8,589

1 2161 14 %,2189 IS 14,607

11 i56 5 4.2695 3 562

10 S 3%710 6 3,223

11 11 11,3244 4 2,243$ 3 1,716

1 231 183

1 4 2,3056 4 On1 1 t$07S 2 70

3 441

1 70

5 1 31462 155

4 / kW6 2 173

6 2 431

61

2

I

1

1

6

1

2

1

I

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

aa

a

to

a

a

a

a

I

4

a

a

LASSU1

LOS ANGELES

MARAMlMARIPOSA

MEXXXITIOMERCED

MO=MONO

MONTEREY

NAPA

NEVADA

ORANGE

PUCCIPUMAS

PJYERSIEE

SACRAMENTO

WI BENITOSAN MIMAROISAN DIEGO

SAN FRAKISCSAN JOAOUM

SAFI L UM 081

SAN MATEO

SANTA SAMAR

SANTA COAASANTA CRUZ

SHASTA

SOMASISIUYOU

9C0/0107044SI MIASSUTTER

MAMA

WYTULARE

TOULUIME

VENTURA

Ytt0

YUBA

1819

2021

n2324

252627

23293331

32

3334353631

3839404142

4344

454641

414950Si52

3354

5656W

56

0101174102,446 123 667 34 174 N,414 11 19 63 OCANTES

51 311

$$ 73 3 1 161 s APRS

11 IV 56 1 )24 7031031

43

Table 1. Need for Subsidized ramify Planning Services: Corrent Programs, Resources and Related Indices for U.S., red Stets and County, TT 1968 continued

Popo letion and SelectedCbarecterlstics (0005)

Estimeted Family Planning Reedend Service Egrets

Selected Health and Demegnpbk IndicesInfant Mortality

1961.1965Est,FartRats

Use BirthOrder as

% M libths

1 2 3 5 6-

) a 9 I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

II11

iiA

iM

iII

Iil

iliili I

tv,liis

If

i1 /.11

11.'F

h

v G

IS=ih ;

s §1

itlg.

1

&

i g

Ig

illI;

&iia%

itii

COLORADO

3 ARAPAHOE 3 130.1 21.6 1,912 304 1,668 85 203 36 84 33 11 10

4 ARO#6ETA 27 .5 115 S 110 96 30.1 4 142 37 23 26

5 BACA 62 1.2 202 202 100 19.8 I I% 38 14 6

6 WO E 8 1.1 212 8 204 96 19.1 1 86 27 22 10

/ BOWER 3 101.6 214 2.554 294 2,260 88 24.2 62 79 31 8 11

8 CHAFFEE 98 1.8 302 302 100 283 10 121 21 IS 13

9 CHEiEtif 2.4 .4 57 57 100 191 64 40 27

10 CLEAR CREEK 3.2 .6 14 74 100 21.3 1 105 41 16 13

11 CONDOS 84 1.5 413 97 316 11 34.4 19 123 22 39 II12 COSTILLA 3.8 .7 230 22 208 93 465 15 117 26 26 8

13 CROMEY 3.3 .6 III 111 100 296 4 17 32 14 14

14 CUSTER 1.2 .2 56 56 100 23.3 70 29 2915 DELTA 14.4 2.5 553 553 100 25.3 11 81 29 15 816 OMR 3 4891 94.8 10,43? 9.02 185 s 266 479 92 38 11 1211 saws 1.6 .3 34 34 100 44.6 6 93 33 33

11 DOUGLAS 68 1.5 185 185 100 17.9 43 31 13 319 EAGLE S4 1.0 160 123 37 23 27.1 1 139 3? 16 11

20 ElBUtI 3.5 .6 124 124 100 167 48 14 29 7

21 El PASO 1 181.4 391 4,936 491 4,445 SO 33 5 248 79 33 13 1222 FREMONT 21.6 17 698 698 100 261 11 Pi 31 18 10

23 GANIELO 155 11 400 400 100 21.1 11 10 30 7 1024 GUM .1 .1 32 32 100 64.5 3 S? 3325 GRAM 35 .6 67 67 100 397 1 II 24 12 2026 GIJNSCM 1.9 1.9 2% 2% !CO 155 69 SS 9 S

21 1414SGA1E .2 6 6 100 111 100

21 14UE1EAMO 1.3 1.3 333 61 272 82 444 20 91 21 16 829 JACKSON 1.6 .3 19 19 100 III 4 66 22 11 3330 JEFFERSON 3 197.9 44.9 3,112 3112 100 19 2 21 71 31 10 931 8JOWA 20 .3 36 36 100 21.6 1 12 33 11 S

32 Mt CARSON 1.4 13 1.4 193 190 100 311 11 105 28 11 S

33 IAA 13 1.6 142 142 100 25.4 11 141 29 18 2034 IAP1A1A 163 .7 10 433 43 390 93 32.0 29 17 35 16 13

35 LAMM ?SS .9 160 2,364 120 1,244 95 213 36 75 42 9 1

36 LAS ANIMAS 164 30 674 181 493 73 315 23 89 39 16 11

3? 11400171 SI .1 128 128 10'1 113 14 33 6 6

38 IOW 114 .8 3.5 385 385 100 233 11 81 32 14 1

31 MESA 52.6 .3 10.6 1,131 24 1,307 91 261 34 75 35 12 140 MIMAAL _6 .1 26 26 10 23 8 93 9341 MI/ AT 65 12 II 91 100 266 1 SO 35 6 142 MON/UU98A 131 .8 2.5 410 410 100 20.6 4 113 21 16 1

43 MONTIOSE 115 3 6 5% 596 103 )4.8 15 13 34 11 944 MAW 19 .4 3.6 4% 498 100 223 10 100 32 I? 945 MO 24.9 .2 4 1 180 710 103 28 2 31 102 26 24 1046 CORO I S .3 46 46 IX 422 4 17 11 21 2?41 PA/M 14 .2 24 24 100 21 5 1 MI 20 20

41 PI M 41 A 92 92 100 111 74 21 14

44

Edstiag sad Moodie' Renames lor /404 Planing

Care

Prevails ( Ddgmates Locatioa of Oo or More Pr4reme m Walrus Vella Cent)

Ploo-redral Mirada's la Patient Hospitals Med.Stk.

0E0 Programs Other FederalPrograms

HealthDepts.

P.P.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 31

ukgX I

J

JJ

11

s v

u1

.:

IS,!

ti1=

flsi

ilt

14!

si

11e

11sl

illfil1,(311

1 1r rE111111 z.ic=sIls:,4

11r

11i

1i

COLORADO

112 86 29 22 9 1 1 1,013 ARAPAHO(I 38 1 38 ! ARCHAETA1 16 1 16 BACA2 30 2 30 BEM

131 135 40 39 II II 3 1,754 a BOULDER

10 102 8 82 1 234 CHAFFEE2 8$ 2 15 1 58 CHEANNE2 62 2 62 WAR CREEK2 24 2 24 I 212

MNFJC4COS11LIA

1 30 1 30 CRO'KEYI 84 1 84 CtISTIA9 62 1 49 1 1 1 209 MITA

1,119 243 110 31 96 20 9 13,764 3 Canmows

2 29 2

37

29 00UOUS3 56 2 EAGIE

BERT206 114 42 23 16 9 3 1,731 EL

EL

PASO12 56 11 37 2 255 MONT

12 71 1 1 2 269 GNIFIEW1 IX 1 1356 GUM2 57 2 5? CRAM3 IS 3 38 1 115 GOM

HINSOAIE

4 54 1 14 II 111ERFA14O

1 62 1 62 JACKSON115 68 53 21 11 6 1 1,522 AMIISCM

lUOCIA4 54 4 54 1 143 Kit CARSON

4 48 4 48 1 X? WI21 171 1 43 2 411 e a I LAMA73 $7 40 53 6 1 2 1,231 a 4 MOO1 49 5 30 1 6 1 155 LAS AM AS1 20 1 20 1111COUI

11 103 141 S4 1 320 LOOM61 121 21 SI 2 4 3 560 MESA

MINDtAlI 61 4 11 I 112 wopetiumAMMAT

9 69 5 19 I 4? s

10 54 6 12 1 233 MOK/10112 62 11 57

2356 MAAR

14 Si 13 52 2 521 OTERO

1 1 61

1 1412 1 72 1 li PAPA

MOAT

3 12 i 41 2 60 PHIIIPS

3

4

561

89

10

II12

13

14

IS16

1?

II9

2021

22

2n4

2$26

21

2$ts3011

P.

33M3$3631

3831IIi421

43

44IS

464?

41

43

TOM 1. Need for Subsidized Fangs Muhl Unites: Canal Programs, Warm and !Misted Indices for U.S., tack State and Casty, FY 1961 continued

Pas lar:ta sad Selectedtitles (0001)

Estimated Family Plum leg Nodlid Se, Ace Lush

Selected Hun u4 Dump* luausInfant Mortality

1961.1965FA

Fest.Rate

Lim lirlitOrder as

% of Illitis1 2 3 4 S 6 7 $ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 It

1A

A

I

1

IIVi

lig

IIIIill

-11

II

1

11

1

11';a i

iIRS8

ig;

g

k g

I

1

p

11

kis

NA1.Is

COLORADO

49 P111.171

50 PROVOSSI PUEBLO

52 RIO KAM53 7110 CRAW

ROUTT

SS SAGUAPIE56 SAMOANS1 SA111408E1

58 SEDGWICK

S9 SWAT60 TELLER

6261 W

KASHINGTC11

ID43 ANA

CONNECTICUT

8 CCONTI3

1 AMMO2 HARLEM)3 mono4 M0OLESC1

S KW HAVEN

6 KW LOKON7 TOUR.s MOAN

DELAWARE

30019416

I WO2 NW CASTLE$ SU3SEX

DIST. a COL

1 COUNTIES

1 Wawa

FLORIDA

67 writsoasis

2MT3 MT

4 NKOMO5 POW6 ININNIO1 C411110UN

1 °MOM44

3.213.8

111.2

4.810.4 .1

ST4.2 .1

1.0

1.9

3.6

.7 71 71 100 266 3 117 43 5 2027 420 420 100 32.6 24 113 35 11 5

221 2599 531 2068 80 266 102 94 33 11 13

.9 84 84 100 34.2 10 97 27 S 18

1.9 388 50 338 87 465 39 104 X 21 11

1.0 167 161 100 23.2 3 96 33 15 13

.1 181 67 120 64 396 14 100 34 24 1$

2 24 24 100 19 101 N.3 34 34 100 59.1 10 170 33 8 11

.6 70 70 DX 320 5 71 32 16

1.6 .3 17 17 100 265 2 184 33 8 17

3.3 .6 109 109 100 491 1 61 37 21 S

6I 1.1 158 158 100 21.1 2 60 35 12 9"/.2 160 2328 375 1,953 84 215 50 85 39 12 1080 1.1 249 249 100 18.8 1 82 34 11 2

2,1712 RV 40,751 6,803 33,948 83 220 LIU 91 32 13 9

7 157.6 1533 10,393 1,615 8778 84 21.6 264 13 31 12 9r 31.3 157.0 9,951 2,151 1,800 /I 23.4 436 42 33 13 I

1319 260 1,937 1,937 100 114 19 89 32 16 6S 107.6 21.3 1,525 1,525 100 11.3 89 33 10 1

1 707.2 1394 10,264 2,859 7,40S 12 226 332 91 32 13 9

6 220 2 43.0 3,814 112 3,642 95 223 116 111 31 12 11 127 21.3 1,317 1,377 100 11.1 11 33 12 s

11.1 155 1,484 1,464 100 20.5 21 91 33 16 9

*9 56

3 Mt

68914 321 12 1,1616

I S 94.8 2137.9 1.6

5 it 2 123115 2.1

212_5 411

1 VA4 121 .2 9141.5 1. 4

*7 3 6

513.0

119356$

11.6

104.3

15$73.5

153

164.1

10,823 4,053

2,312 311 1,995 16 24.2 63 112 X 15 94

6051 3,251 2,801 46 21.1 125 93 34 13 116 92,452 485 1,961 SO 33.1 143 DX 31 II Ill 10

20,711 18133

1667 KM 11,333

4,429

429

209661

6393

16884453164

6,110 13 81 331 994 34 15 122 9

2,448 12 313 1,5E0 99 40 IS $5 13

2,441 12 319 1,510 99

VI 1E01 X 212180 M9 Si 365111 2.518 N256 405 6

91 3

ntO

9S7 3,436 15

11

17 91

40 Is 30S

229,003 41,111 180,37 11 215 6.0% 11 31 15 130

11 144

2$

18

24 1

56 101 14 13 72

16 32 14 163

160 X 32 11 11

13

14

3 519 13,365 79 301 413 76 33 11 155 10

114 343 3 Xi 19 It 23 X 14 4

31 113 96 711 1 61 X It 94 1

Edit lig and Po lineal Remus Sao /amity noosing Programs to Deepen udot of Oes or Won Programs et Resoortts orkido Covey)

tioaredual linfilclais la Meat Coro Hospitals Motkk.

0E0 booms 019.1 FederalPropos

MuniDepts.

Pi.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 21 21 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

Ii I I x

I!II

I!

ii

11

li

1il

11

11I'

li

1

11

li

18

11

11iiv

li

111t/

111

1

illi ..

stiff!

11lr

z,

I

9 281 1 214 1 80$ 58 6 44 1 330

21 18 9 $ 2 2,0133 63 1 21 2 636 58 2

4 / I 461 24

1

1 103

1 1522 56 1 65

1 3031

111

1322 I

1

1,094

5 63 2 109

144

48

421

1

2

21

723

123

8311

71

41103

5256

124

30

413

4

6 15

3,832 133

1,059 140

1,127 144

141 105

121 112

1,039 147

244 III31 4064 82

DI 104

42 53427 120

a 14

1,734 215

1,734 215

6,310 101

121 141 t 113

38 516 4

sit M

603 1 14129

22 106

121 29 292 10 32 41,244

221 30 SI 11 1 12,106202 26 96 12 1 14,915SS 41 1 6 4 1))E439 36 5 S 1 1,266

210 30 76 11 $ 13,392

SI 23 11 9 2 3,54321 23 1 I 2 62621 21 6 8 1 121

14S 21 43 $ i 1,406

13 16 S 6 1 $2399 2$ 35 4 2 t)U33 43 3 4 3 1,235

211 35 135 17 9 24,130

211 35 IIS 11 9 24.130

1,616

211

4

17

S

SI

132 21

3 41

it SS

2/

SI

3/11

24

414 I 106 18,046

10 H 2 2,4901 13 1 91

3 5 1 /431 201

16 1 4 3,144

43 9 4 5179 13

1 1

2 112

COLORADO

PITNNPROWERS

4950

PUEBLO 51

FrA MANGO 52

RIO GRANDE S3

ROM 54

SAGUACHE 55

SAN ALAN 56

SAN 10G1E1 51

SEDGINICt 58

RUNT 59

MIER 60

1

WASHINGTON

'NE1061

62

YUMA 63

CONE11CUT12 I 1 2 4 1 1 4 1 MIMES

6 FAIRF1E10 1

4 a 111 HARTFORD 2

11Tof RD 311100115111 4

1 a NE11 OYE11 S

1 NE12100311 6TOWN 1

1,11104AN 1

DUMAN2 3 1 2 3 3 OWES

pzin 1

1 PEW CASTLE I1 SUSSCI 3

S 1 1 1 IINST. OF ca1 counts

II a a 11A51114G1011 1

MCAr X 2 11 61 14 COMM

aAMUItAin

o MTMOM

34

MOM S

I 46044110OUOM

61

CRAM 8

44,

Table 1. Need for Sabsidlzed Fem1ly Planning Services: Current MTnms, Resources end Related Indices for U.S., Each State and County, FY 196$ continued

Psdatioa end SelectedParaded:tics (000s)

I...-.V etaated ramify Planning Nod

end Wu hodsSelected Neeth sad NonatrzAkk Wks

talent Medan,1961.1915

Est.Fed.Rate

Us I MbOrder aof Res

1 2 3 4 S 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1$

iA

1

A

A

iIi II i I

2 r

ill'.1 ..11

1

1z1x

a4a

ie1 S

IIgi.

I

i

ii1

fiital

1i

PIL

lb

910

11

12

13

14

IS16

11

18

11

20

21

22

23

24

7'2

2$22

2$

29

10

31

3233

34

3S

3631

X

3940

41

42

43

44

4S

4641

41

41

SO

SI

97

S4

41

FICRIDA

r.ITRUS 13.2 2.4 720 41 679 94 27.5 9 99 23 20 108 6

CLAY 22.1 4.3 932 171 725 20 267 23 120 34 14 108 1COLLIER 280 68 60 1,297 413 884 68 328 36 91 29 16 133 10

COLUIABIA 24.1 4.9 1,185 IBS 1,000 84 314 58 111 31 22 162 7

DADE 3 1,093.6 11.0 .5 211.0 36,017 8,955 27,122 15 25.5 729 81 34 IS 139 10

DE S010 13.1 2.4 593 73 518 87 39.2 21 96 35 IS 154 10

DO3E 5I 1.0 303 141 156 51 21.8 5 140 22 16 43 9DUYA1 2 499.2 102.0 16,657 6,634 10,023 60 27.7 602 101 36 IS 143 10

ESCAMBIA 1 112.5 40.5 7,058 1,425 5,633 80 28.4 261 102 36 15 106 10

FLAMER 4,8 .7 .9 255 42 213 84 41.6 15 97 36 13 378 7

FRAM061 7.7 1.4 592 66 526 19 6.1 1 110 35 20 165 9

GADS:01 43.6 12 2,638 1,139 1,499 57 56.3 211 110 29 32 292 8

GILD/MST 3.0 .6 182 22 160 88 350 5 13 21 2S 1

GLADES 4.0 .9 .2 .1 197 86 111 S6 40.3 7 71 18 30 182 18

cu.' 9.1 1.8 393 234 159 40 284 13 105 31 12 126 S

HAMILTON 7.7 1.4 426 101 323 16 33.1 16 114 35 20 235 8MEE 134 2.6 614 90 S24 15 27.8 13 9$ 31 18 79 1

HENDRY 121 .9 .2 2.6 518 310 208 40 362 21 III 33 22 170 13

IIERItAKO 13 2 2.4 702 182 520 74 217 13 92 36 15 140 1

1101APOS 216 2.9 4.7 1,225 193 1,040 85 403 60 97 29 25 150 14

HILSBORCIACH 2 447.0 89.8 19451 3,473 14,985 81 288 506 95 36 13 114 1

HOLMES 11.3 22 112 21 689 Si 38.9 19 77 40 It 90 2

IMMI RIVER 32.6 11 1,356 213 1,143 84 32.1 46 93 30 20 112 1I1ACICSO4I 34.4 15 1,198 310 1,588 84 278 33 86 33 19 132 1

kliEltS011 94 1.1 550 321 229 42 45 8 32 112 28 31 290 4

LAFAYETTE 21 .5 114 47 14 6S 50.4 $ 93 26 I/ 17 11

WI 64.3 11.4 3.061 196 2,865 91 31.7 82 86 33 18 8S ILEE 768 38 141 3,418 1,101 2387 68 311 93 11 33 11 141 1LEON 1 17.3 210 4,0 453 3,397 19 33.4 114 72 40 13 108 8VT 1 t S 2.4 724 160 364 71 291 13 92 34 21 Ill 11

LIBERTY 3.0 .6 161 63 108 67 20.1 1 63 32 1I 214 4

lutioca 141 21 885 223 662 73 416 31 95 27 21 200 13

MIAMI 161 .1 12_7 3,3747 304 SOK 91 285 62 78 36 II 163 1

10.1421 63.1 13.0 3,468 504 2964 SS 324 V 91 34 20 138 1

MAIM 23.5 4.3 938 29 909 97 314 36 92 2S 21 112 11

IACSIOE 326 14 1,671 142 1,5I5 92 27.2 64 125 41 9 SS 0

/IMAM 171 31 630 136 W. 83 21 5 24 93 33 11 170 8CM DMA 71$ 161 2,511 257 2,261 90 225 48 101 34 12 43 9OPZEC/C0a 11 2.1 361 60 NI 13 331 II 103 28 11 92 .0

ORM 1 331.3 99 62_1 10,220 20 7112 72 219 268 91 33 14 11$ 1

OSCEOLA 20 7 36 1,054 162 194 15 314 31 II XI 20 13 11

PALM BEACH 1 717.1 210 54.3 11,133 2081 1074 11 311 362 19 13 20 170 9

PASCO 448 1.9 2.227 233 1,974 11 325 43 71 13 16 65 1

PINELLAS 2 4301 19 0 1142$ 2682 13,343 13 n 2 210 /I 34 I? 111 $PO111 S 7226 3 0 45 9 8411 t, S10 8901 73 27.0 NI 92 34 14 109 9

F1/114AAI 13 6 .7 i 5 1,671 213 1,445 17 n I 41 97 21 24 133 .7

1:1stiag and Potential Resources for Family Planning Programs ( Designates leatioa of One or

Programs

More Programs or Resources within County}

Morriederal Ptys Idol 1a Mont Caro Itimpitats Med.Sri.

KO Other Faders!Programs

HealthDepts.

P.P.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 21 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 34

Dhii11 1-

r 1-'

ft.igt

5a i

riliAk11

!!i3si

t

ifs

1.1

1

filk.IS

6

21

si

18.

si

IIli

si

112110

sil

1 1

111111I =Aga-silft!

4I

1 lea

1 5314 6333 114I 6 66

1,784 165

13 95

459 92144 15

3 53

I 1330 69

1 34

4 44

3 3110 756 508 EC

26 102

399 894 35

35 10113 33I 32

1 3148 15

90 11196 110

4 307 32

10 368 33

377 35

6 41

87 11

28 152 42

1 11A 23

1 34

4 44

3 399 615 415 38

15 59

105 234 3$

16 4910 293 32

1 3130 4124 31

15 11

S 40 4 32

$ 35 4 2823 3035 24

10 43

12 736 34

I) 162 20

68 22

7 34o n14 31

115 27

Se 26

64 4548 1511 12

30 Si6 34

24 34

S SI367 111

8 39357 124

19 42469 101223 91

2 36 1 21

FLORIDA

1 126 CITRUS 9

1 225 CLAY 10

3 11 1 495 COLLIER II2 8 1 402 COLUMBIA 12

109 10 10 15,926 I *Oa ell DADE 13

1 219 Of SOTO 14a 0 DOI IS

49 10 4 3,997 1 COAL 16

13 1 2 2,345 ISCAMBIA I1FLAGEER 18

1 39 1 RA10144 191 312 GADSOEN 20

GILCHRIST 21GLADES 22

I 140 OW 23

1 46 e HAMILTON 24

HARDEE 251 263 NOM 26

1 4 1 200 HERIWIDO 21

2 I 2 456 W14.M:4 28

33 1 3 4,531 HILLSBOROUGH 291 12 HOLMES 30

3 9 1 516 14944/1 RIVER 31

I 215 e AMON 321( 1 f EASON 33

LAF A YE TIE 342 3 3 657 ME IS6 1 2 93 LEE 369 14 2 1,649 LEON 37

1 46 a LEO 38

Mar( 39MANSON 40

5 1 1 994 MARATEE 41

4 4 1 990 81441011 421 4 1 260 MART141 43

t 4 2 n3 MOW( 441 204 . RASSAU 45

t 3 3 621 ORALOOSA 46OITECHOBEE 41

35 II S 6 402 a a ORANGE 4$

1 *2 OSCEOLA 4924 8 $ 4,385 PALM BEACH 50

1 294 a PASCO SI71 $ 5 VP 1 a PINEUAS V23 10 1 4,29$ 1 PM S3

1 3 1 355 NOM 54

49

Table 1. Iteed for Melding really Muhl Unica: Witold Progreso, beeline sod Reeled Mice for U.S., NA Stets sad County, FT 1361 continued

tied=IOW tied Selected folialeted hail, ?teaming Need

led Wee leveeSelected Hub gad Comeogreplic Imam

feud Weeny13611-1365

Es&felt.Rate

the PIMWee es

% el Was1 2 3 4 S 6 7 $ 1 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 11

iI

ii1 /

0i i izi111

h11

II

i d i

IAg

fkif Ps

it;

1

it

!

Ii1I

IIli.111IA

,I,M

IIIs

fbFLORIDA

55 ST. JOHNS 31.0 60 1,443 368 1,075 14 116 50 84 28 20 102 956 ST. LUCIE 41.0 54 11 2,082 329 1,153 84 41.6 114 107 30 21 161 95/ SANTA ROSA 1 320 61 1,126 13 1,053 94 218 33 142 38 10 44 658 SAMSOTA 5 949 .5 166 3,350 712 2,638 19 265 56 63 38 10 :32 10St SEMINOLE 1 614 125 119 3,223 501 2,116 84 30.7 94 99 32 17 132 11

60 SUMTER 116 26 174 193 581 15 14 28 96 33 23 161 1061 SUNAkfti 169 3.3 951 115 836 88 30.5 22 85 40 15 154 1362 TAYLOR 115 26 669 203 466 10 20.8 S 105 1 14 144 12

63 UNICtl 6.0 .9 224 82 142 63 201 1 14 21 21 121 664 YOLUSIA 161.5 295 1,392 500 6892 93 31.5 166 93 31 14 116 10

65 WAKULLA Si? 1.2 443 102 341 71 24.3 3 95 29 25 179 966 WALTON 141 28 824 113 111 X 295 16 69 35 25 III 1

67 WASHICTON 11.0 21 680 126 554 11 211 10 91 34 19 129 9

GEORGIA

158 COUNTIES 4,4454 I2 953.6 205,243 25,311 179,932 88 21? 3,934 93 35 16 9

1 APF1143 14.2 3.0 929 11 144 91 V.3 14 14 25 16 11

2 AMNSCW 66 1.3 417 61 425 V M../ 11 135 29 26 $3 BACON 12 I.? 514 20 SS4 91 391 It 93 31 11 14 BAJO 18 .1 253 19 234 92 52.0 15 102 29 265 BALDW/1 40.1 1.8 1,116 132 1.654 93 325 43 /0 32 22 12

6 WO ' 1.9 11 457 12 445 91 21.1 2 41 33 14 7

7 BARROW 156 3.? 782 41 141 95 32.0 22 102 IS 10 1?1 BARTOW 113 1.4 1,591 31 1,560 98 '331 SI 93 35 15 19 BEN Nil 111 21 824 117 641 19 333 11 1 43 11 1

IC 13021E1I 10.2 It 574 37 53/ 94 11.1 12 11 26 11 S

II 6160 1 ' 1142 .2 326 6,600 611 6991 91 326 250 16 36 14 11

12 ILECPIEV ' 10.1 21 511 49 521 92 14 14 $1 X 19 313 WAVY S.6 1.1 290 11 VI 96 462 11 101 29 22 114 NOM 141 27 896 84 814 11 Ai 31 123 X 28 9IS BRYAR 68 1.3 411 24 341 94 299 12 113 31 11 6

16 114111001 ' 114 63 1,03 /I 1,612 95 264 31 11 31 21 917 KM It./ 17 1,326 32 1,294 le 40 81 IX X 13 14

it SUITS 140 21 58S 140 44S 76 333 11 99 X 26 13

19 ODOM 71 24 524 12 512 91 34.9 16 115 26 A 11

20 0141DIA 101 23 419 31 448 91 44.5 31 115 24 22 9

11 CAW, 10 1.4 455 X 411 02 114 93 13 11 S

22 C NOM 421 19 2,011 I 7.011 100 XI 21 12 17 11 223 CATOOSA hi SI 117 11 103 V tit 12 10 0 6 6ti OWLIC01 SS 11 29S 10 28S I/ 364 IS 132 X 31 1IS MINA 1 117.4 366 7186 942 6,414 88 21.1 211 91 15 15 A

X 044110044 116 4.1 141 21 124 V 231 15 91 36 It 927 DOOM 217 16 1,346 1,34 104 AS 21 93 SS 14 421 Wilt SSI 135 2,799 214 2,515 90 31.7 1 V 41 1 98 OAT 4 5 .9 321 150 111 Si $71 X 99 Ii 51 4

30 CIAT1011 1 116 113 1,941 44 Lis I; 191 15 41 4.1 9 /

10

Edo lig_aad Mantel Resources for 'mai Planing Preplan ( Dos intes Location al On to More Programs et Resources

Oti!er PerlerelMertes

Mello Coady)

HealthDepb.

P.P.Nergederal Physician is Patten Care Rspite!' IOCSch.

OCO Mg ms

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 20 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

hI

11

1

x

Ig

ii

rlifil

I

i

Itih

11

tili

ItiIfili

Iii.

11

tih

ilill

l

Iii

1 1 11111111

dIA

1i

18

3)IS

58

6441

12

8

391/25

1

2

2

34

6155 163 45 41 8 828 41 9 13 2 3

1 7 1 7

5 30 3 18 2 12

52 5 37 1 7

6 99 3 93

153 95 SO 31 15 I1 18 1 18

S 34 4 21

2 HI 1 I

3,383 16 1,024 23 23 6

51

$ S

ISI1

21

51

S 61 5 61

73 182 9 22 3 7

1 13

7 45 5 32 1 6

$ 24 / 21

5 36 5 363 29 2 N

143 110 )9 26 13 12 20 2 20I II I 18

5 SS 5 351 15 1 15

13 44 4 14 1 3

7 31 4 20

4 40 3 303 41 3 41

8 ?5 6 56

4 51 4 57

17 65 15 36 2 5

10 * $ /03 54 2 31

I ?S 13 41 22 14 7

/ 36 6 31

11 41 7 26

62 116 I) 24 I 15

1 IS 2 4512 30 9 12 1 1

i1

I2

I

1

3

1

1

98

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

3

I2

1

386857143

1,148 I686

213

2,033

11683

13,851 1 2 1)0 2 1 S 2

202

211

100

368451

3,076 I

44$181

130

142

1429$46

3136 2

76 s

326 I1,731

96

151

e

*

I

e

I

o

GEORGIA

2 1 SS COSHES

FLORIDA

ST. JOHNS 55ST. LUCE 56SANTA ROSA 51

SARASOTA 58SOAIKLE 59

SUMTER 83SIINAIKE 61

TAYLOR 62UNION 63YOLUSUL 64

WAKILLA 65WALTON 66WASHINGTON 67

MANG I2AMMON

BACON 3

BAKER 4

DU/WM 5

SA/AS 6eARROW 7

SARTOW 8WI HU 1etRRIEN 10

$18$ 11

BUCKLEY 12

BRANTLEY 13

BROOM 14

SAYAN 15

SIM 16

BURKE I1OATS IICALHOUN 19WWI ZO

CAPOLIER 21

CATOOSA

CARROLL

2233

OK4/11(11 8CHATHAM 2S

oort00IGA 2tMOW 21CLAW 21OAT 21CLAM 30

81

Table 1. Reed for Subsidized Fondly Manning Unice': Wert Programs, Resources and Related Indkis to U.S., Each Stile end County, 1Y MS continued

rivotatIon and Saluted Estimated natty Plink/ Rood SOWN Reed sad )smograplik IndicesCharactsttstics (000*) and Unica Loy!: least Meaty Est Use W

13614365 fort WyssRats , of births

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 11

1I I 1 i li

1.1

si.11 11 1 1; i is iiz1

1 1 IJil.

j.

la1 g I i 41 i.f

I 2 I 4; ! 1 SI 1 bGEORGIA

31 CLINCH 7.6 1.5 599 64 635 89 60.4 46 130 27 2/ 932 C088 3 165.5 40.4 4,650 154 4,496 91 21.6 64 86 38 7 1

33 COFFEE 21.3 .1 4.2 1255 99 1,156 92 37.0 53 108 31 20 10

34 CCI.OUITT 32.2 6.4 1,645 119 1,526 93 33.4 61 101 32 1.' 11

35 CIXtRABIA 19.8 4.7 1,168 2 1,166 100 34.6 36 94 38 13 13

36 COOK 12.2 2.4 694 62 632 91 264 11 115 23 33 1

37 COWETA 31.0 64 1,615 156 1,459 90 21.1 23 IDS 33 18 938 CRAWFORD 54 1.1 400 96 305 76 34.5 12 112 17 43 939 CRISP 11.6 3.5 Loco 85 975 92 38.5 45 111 33 24 440 DACE 89 10 47i 23 456 95 213 5 98 43 8 11

41 DAWSON 3.6 .1 279 270 103 296 1 64 40 16 442 DECATUR 24.5 4.8 1,311 61 1,316 96 291 33 101 33 24 11

43 OE M 3 340.3 79.8 7,271 2,090 5,197 71 202 81 81 40 9 144 DODGE 163 3.4 939 5 934 99 358 31 62 32 21 545 DOOLY 10.8 2.1 612 El 604 90 346 24 125 26 28 10

46 DOUGHERTY I 888 .1 112 4,041 68 3,173 98 217 138 104 32 16 841 DOUGLAS 218 5.2 1,144 2 2 1,122 9 8 2 27 1 1 89 41 7 941 tARLY 114 2.6 961 9 952 99 31.7 24 104 Si 20 1049 CCIAS 11 .4 110 1 109 99 118 39 290 EFT KHASI 111 21 652 14 638 98 395 23 84 29 30 1

51 MOT 113 3.1 898 5 843 99 20.4 S 93 34 I? 1

52 (MAN R 20.2 4.2 1,212 33 1,239 91 26.6 18 193 36 19 8$ 3 E V A N S 12 16 416 6 9 401 16 29.4 I I 99 73 29 454 FRIAR 13 2 28 783 183 103 361 19 69 31 15 15$ F STEM 91 1.9 421 37 384 II 391 20 90 26 26 1

56 FLOYD 72.1 156 2,956 60 2,1% 98 291 it 79 29 13 11

51 FORSYTH 112 3.5 833 17 816 98 250 12 17 34 12 14

58 TRANTIN 131 21 781 3 755 103 281 13 11 35 11 1

51 MICA 3 616 3 .4 1321 24,611 19%9 14,609 59 30.0 141 93 31 14 12

60 UM 91 21 110 22 141 3? 231 4 80 3? 19 3

61 01/4SOCCR it .5 175 86 19 51 31.4 6 115 39 13 662 Gtila 50.4 101 2,206 65 2,141 41 21.5 60 102 39 13 1

13 CORDON 21.5 96 2,231 6 1,131 99 331 29 91 30 II 1

64 OM 115 I/ 1,221 15 1,046 93 394 41 34 21 22 4

65 GRUM 10.1 21 6i3 66 699 90 496 31 t? 29 3 1

66 CWHUI 3 56 3 It.? 2,467 10 2,391 97 21.4 53 99 35 13 8V Hilit194.41 114 4.1 993 53 940 95 23 8 12 II 3? 9 S68 HALL 552 122 2325 41 2,54 91 221 31 98 36 14 1069 HAICOCK 16 1.3 636 66 170 90 51.1 44 123 25 42 14

10 MASCO 113 14 799 It 161 IA 21.4 11 91 40 $ 11

/I HMS 111 2.4 745 116 629 14 325 1, 95 21 22 912 164.1 11.1 3 t 912 120 162 It 211 11 /9 28 11 17

13 FiN40 5$ 11 340 29 311 91 *6 9 86 26 21 II14 Mr 23 S SI 1,0117 41 1,036 13 30.3 33 * 25 24 14

75 MUSK I 512 It, 1,790 34 I* 34 26 2 61 19 34 14 1

16 IF*11 91 Li %I 40 541 93 216 12 101 36 26 12

U

Existiag sad Penes' Resources tot Family Ptenaleg Programs toHospitals

Designates tootles of One se More

Programs

Programs or Resoarces within toasty)

Noo.Fehtera Physk lags In Patient Care Med.Sch.

0E0 Other FederalPrograms

HealthDepts.

P.P.

39 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 26 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 ;.`8

II1

I

11it

11

il

If

i

ti

iis

t1

11

ilsv

11

11

1k1

d1

11

Is/

1

t:.

issi

fiis .

It

imsl

1 1r2 z1

thifi

isl

1r.,..iliiiii =ilksilsA

II fs1

A

1

i8.3

53124

415 24

n15 IS 9

9 42 33

15 47 8 254 20 4 20

4 33 3 25

21 68 7 23 1 3

9 51 S 453 34 3 34

12 49 6 24 1 1

178 52 4814

16 56 3? 3 1

4 37 3 28

225S

S

13 1

22

S 5 6

54 30 2 IS

3 2 3 2 1 S

9 49 8 441 35 6 30

I 36 1 24

4 30 3 233 13 3 33

IS 119 21 29 8 11

? 46 6 39

I 611 1 61

1,039 161 115 1$ 115 19

I 10

I 3? I 37

50 NI It 36 2 4

9 42 5 23 1 54 22 3 16

6 56 5 41

20 36 15 21

I 4? I 41

SI 12 8 14 S 13 31 1 21

6 31 5 13

4 34 3 26

3 11 3 17

2 36 1 364 1? 4 11

23 42 14 25 2 4

4 44 3 33

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

11

1

1

I

II1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

GEORGIA

236 CLINCH 31

2,724 COBB

48 7 CO fFEE

406 COMITY 34

COLUMBIA 35

211 COCK 36616 to CONEY A 3?

CRAM ORD 3$CRISP 3

DADE 490

DAWSON

306 DECATUR 42

2,730 I DE KA1B 43

117 DODGE 44!10% Y 45

1,616 CG M ATT 46

001 ,31AS 4?. WILY 4$

ECHOLS 49DI IOWA 50

315 12 4 EM SI2 ENAMIEL g

EVA,IS 53

I WEI 54

F AMIE SS

2,091 FlOYD 5

340 FORSYTH Si364

20,051 2

*a

FRA*1Fa TON

11

S58i156 0 CUR 03

I, CK 61,059

274 GVMORWDOO(N G62I220 GRADY 64

224 GRUM 0709 GWIIIET1 66

215 HABERSHAM 61

1,369 a MI 61I I HANCOCK 01

113 a WWI 10

HAMS 11

106 KAM 72

66 4 IfFAX) 13

WW1 14

498 HOT/SPA 15

IRWIN 16

Table 1. Nod for Subsidized Fees Planning Services: Coned Programs, Resources and Related Indices for U.S., Each State sad County, FT 196$ continued

Population and SelectedCharacteristics (000s)

Estimated Family Planning Needand Sella Levels

Selected Health and Demographic Indices

talent motility1941-1965

Est.Fart.Rats

Live DIMWu ss

% o1111rIfis

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 111

e:3

i. ia.

ME h ,.

A

ii 1

I

711

fiii

rog

I!I,

6

b

GEORGIA

77 JACKSON 19.8 4.1 977 58 919 94 24.6 14 8? 36 12 12

78 JASPER 18 1.1 367 79 288 78 47.2 20 111 32 31 10

79 JEFF DAVIS 9.5 1.9 553 15 538 97 29.1 12 92 46 11 6

80 JEFFERSON 18.6 3.7 1,263 8 1,255 99 37.8 44 107 28 26 8

81 JENKINS 9.1 1.7 545 84 461 85 44.0 32 98 35 28 8

,12 JOHNSON 8.5 1.7 478 38 440 92 22.9 5 100 35 31 7

2,1 JONES 10.5 2.2 628 47 581 93 26.4 10 79 29 19 11

84 LAMAR 9.7 1.9 404 47 357 88 27.0 11 80 27 18 26

85 LANIER 4.9 .9 289 39 250 87 21.8 3 98 37 26 13

86 LAURENS 34.7 6.9 1,951 181 1,710 91 49.2 125 101 27 20 7

87 LEE 6.6 1.2 363 10 353 97 25.1 6 104 27 31

88 LIBERTY 14.5 2.7 815 67 748 92 31.7 32 125 31 24 12

89 LINCOLN 5 5 1.1 376 2 314 99 54.9 20 86 29 2' 20

90 LONG 4.2 .7 251 7 244 97 19.4 1 59 30 30 4

91 LOWNDES 51.8 10.6 2,385 245 2,140 9t) 25.9 54 114 35 15 9

92 LUMPKIN 7.7 1.8 498 6 492 99 17.9 76 40 16 6

93 MCDUFFIE 13.9 2.9 854 10 844 99 39.8 39 112 31 14 15

94

'-. 95MCINTOSH

MACON

6.713.5

1.4

2.5

583

832 37

583795

10096

32.943.1

13

42

91

124

3419

2727

1313

96 MADISON 129 2.8 818 16 802 98 25.3 10 100 30 10 14

91 MARION '. 5.4 1.0 381 13 374 97 32.7 10 115 18 40 13

98 MERIWETHER 19.5 3.9 1,137 162 915 86 34.4 35 96 32 27 8

99 MILLER 19 1.3 452 452 100 18.4 103 20 28 4

100 MITCHELL ' 20.2 4.0 1,155 110 1,045 90 32.0 40 115 32 22 8

101 MOtfOE c 10.4 2.3 646 76 570 88 38.7 24 72 32 19 13

102 MONTGOMERY 7.2 1.4 460 11 449 98 38.9 16 93 24 30 11

101 MORGAN ; 11.4 23 657 25 632 96 35.2 23 113 20 34 9

104 MURRAY 13.8 3.1 131 731 100 22.7 7 70 31 13 8

105 MUSCOGEE 1 208.4 44.0 8,160 1,547 1,213 82 26.4 230 93 35 14 11

106 NEWTON - 23.9 5.0 1,097 52 1,045 95 41.5 67 109 38 18 9

107 OCONEE ',1 7.1 1.5 361 51 310 86 18.7 1 70 27 13 13

108 OGLETHORPE - 1.8 1.6 492 8 484 98 43.6 22 85 40 27 10

1.109 PAULDING , , 15.8 3.5 747 49 698 93 29.5 11 86 32 15 9

110 PEACH ''' ', '' 15.8 .2 3.4 847 106 741 87 39.8 40 99 31 23 13

' 111 PICKENS ! 17 ZO 539 1 538 100 15.3 91 31 15 4

112 PIERCE ,''r 10.0 2.0 565 75 490 87 30.1 14 101 32 15 14

113 PIKE -- - 7.1 1.4 417 11 346 83 38.5 18 105 30 26 16

'`- 114 P001 0 29.1 6.1 1,438 65 1,373 95 28.3 31 100 38 13 9

115 PULASKI 8.1 1.7 432 59 313 86 44.1 27 103 31 20 14

116 PUTNAM t t 8.3 1.7 470 10 460 98 21.3 3 93 26 33 4

117 CARMAN 2.5 .5 179 2 171 99 29.6 4 117 26 35 10

118 RABUH '' 1.7 1.6 456 14 442 97 25.9 1 75 38 8 5

1 119 RANDOLPH `1 9.7 1.8 626 98 528 84 27.4 11 88 21 29 4

120 RICHMOND ,, 1 ', 172.7 37.1 8,984 1,365 7,619 85 25.7 134 82 41 12 10

121 ROI:MALE ' ., 14.8 13 700 70 630 913 36.1 28 100 40 14 7,

122 SO4.EY 3.3 .7 244 23 221 91 24.6 2 92 29 19 13

54

Edith's .ad Potential amounts for Family Planning

CM

Programs { Oes lialtes

Hospitals

Lout

Med.Sch.

loo of One or Moro

0E0 Programs

programs or bourns

Other MoralPrograms

within County}

HealthDot&

P.P.Noa-Federal Physicians In Paint

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 31

a

_

a

i§g

eli1

1

i1,1

J 1

11

11ilII

a

.1

if1la.31

is

lial

iilleII.BimAsi]

m 1i rill1 4-11Psl l

fiiia:4

1

GEORGIA

7 35 7 35 1 246 JACKSON 773 52 3 52 1 77 JASPER 783 32 3 32 1 156 JEFF DAVIS 799 48 9 48 JEFFERSON 803 33 3 33 JENKINS 81

2 23 2 23 JOHNSON 822 19 1 10 JONES 835 51 4 41 LAMAR 843 61 2 41 1 107 LANIER 85

17 49 9 26 1 864 LAURENS 86

LE 872 14 2 14 LIBERTY 881 18 LINCOLN 89

LONG 9346 89 11 21 5 10 1 843 IOWNDES 91

2 26 2 26 LUMPKIN 928 57 8 57 1 84 MCDUFFIE , 931 15 1 15 MCINTOSH 945 47 o 5 37 MACON 951 8 1 ; 8 MADISON 96

2 37 2 37 , MARION 9713 67 -,; -. 6 31 ; MERIWETHER 983 44 ,... 3 44 MILLER 997 35 7 35 MITMELL 1004 38 ,. 4 38 110 101

3 42 2 28 MONTGOMERY 1023 26 3 26 1 213 ., MORGAI4 ' 1034 29 . 4 29 MURRAY 104

119 57 :-. 17 8 ; 15 7 2 3,044 MUSCOGEE 10510 42 : 8 33 1 461 NEWTON -.. 106

0006F-E ' 1072 26 OGLETHORPE 1084 25 ,.. 4 25 . PAULDING 1099 51 ; 7 44 1 294 PEACH , 1105 51 5 51 PICKENS 111

4 40 -- 4 40 .;, PIERCE 1121 14 1 14 PIKE 113

14 48 13 45 POU1 1145 62 5 62 1 254 PULASKI 1152 24 ' ' 1 12 !. ''. t PUT NAM 116

QUITMAN 1174 52 3 39 1 113 RABUN 1185 51 : 5 51 RANDOLPH 119

194 112 15 9 , 21 12 7,544 1 RICHMOND 1203 20 2 13 ROCKDALE 121

1 31 . 1 31 SCHLEY 122

55

Table L Reed for SubsIdleed Family Planning Soviets: Current Programs, Resources enci Related Indices for U.S., Each Stets and County, FY 1968 continued

Population and SelectedCharacteristics (OM)

,......Estlmeed Family Planning Need

and Service LevelsSelected Health end Demographic Indices

Infant Nodality1961.1965

EstFeetRate

Uve SirthOrder es

s ol Births

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

11N=

tS

1 11ii

il41

1 1

I Islin

iiz ii....

-e

it]

il l2 X

1

IZz

ag.1.

i

11,

Es §

A-r

0415 r...

gi;

1

aet

1

1

°

1 iIli2§'1P4gg

Si"

1 1

ifitpitf b

GEORGIA

123 SCREVEN 14.0 23 869 171 698 80 47.6 49 96 34 22 15

124 SEMINOLE 7.2 15 510 4 512 99 24.0 5 92 42 22 12

125 SPALDING 40.1 8.6 1,883 223 1,660 88 32.4 62 93 37 13 11

126 STEPHENS 19.6 4.3 1,026 68 958 93 22.1 8 81 42 6 10

127 STEWART 7.1 1.4 507 14 493 97 46.9 25 109 22 27 7

128 SUMTER 21.4 5,6 1,601 215 1,386 87 38.8 69 106 31 19 9

129 TALBOT 7.9 1.7 671 29 632 94 54.2 30 88 29 36 12

130 TALIAFERRO 3.1 .5 189 26 163 86 46.9 9 112 34 21 7

131 TAT1NALL 11.2 3.0 939 22 917 98 36.1 28 89 31 23 8132 TAYLOR 8.2 1.6 510 21 489 96 55.9 37 125 34 27 7

133 TELFAIR 12.0 2.2 744 34 710 95 18.6 1 113 32 28 4

134 TERRELL 11.9 2.2 743 743 100 60.5 62 140 30 25 10

135 THOMAS 37.4 7.5 1,965 1,'8 1,787 91 35.2 77 106 33 24 10

136 TIFT 25.9 5.4 1,564 15 1,529 98 267 21 105 33 15 7137 TOOMBS 19.2 4.0 1,115 71 1,041 93 35.9 40 £9 34 17 7

138 TOWNS 5.0 1.1 396 1 395 100 31.9 5 67 26 18 5

139 TREUTLEN 64 1,3 443 46 397 90 19.5 1 102 16 36 12

140 TROUP 45.9 9.5 2,409 228 2,181 91 32.8 70 87 35 17 1,.

141 TURNER 8.9 1.7 572 8 564 99 57.5 44 114 32 18 4142 TWIGGS 8.2 1.1 474 58 416 88 38.2 22 118 23 33 11

143 UNION 6.8 1.4 498 5 493 99 237 3 81 37 21 5

144 UPSON 24.2 5.1 1,046 1 1,045 100 34.2 41 75 34 14 9145 WALKER 1 48.5 10.5 1,917 92 1,825 95 232 26 87 37 9 8146 WALTON 23.5 5.1 1,184 61 1,123 95 39.'4 56 105 31 19 13

147 WARE 35.7 A 7.5 1,580 58 1,522 96 30.8 51 91 32 13 8

143 WARREN 7.0 1.3 463 102 361 78 48.9 28 109 32 27 17

149 WASHINGTON 133 3.6 1,121 74 1,047 93 52.7 89 95 25 30 8

156 WAYNE 18.0 3.7 951 15 876 92 32.2 33 94 39 12 6151 WEBSTER 2.9 .6 208 15 133 64 39.4 7 110 6 50 9152 WHEELER . 5.3 1.0 337 36 301 89 380 10 66 32 9 9

153 WHITE 7.4 1.6 418 56 362 87 18.8 1 15 28 12 12

154 WHITFIELD 52.2 12.0 2,215 115 2,100 95 30.8 72 94 36 11 10

155 WILCOX 6.9 1.3 441 31 404 92 41.1 16 74 36 15 5156 WILKES 10.1 1.9 570 46 ',IN 92 39.2 25 96 25 25 8157 WILKINSON 10.3 2.1 555 146 499 14 355 21 114 26 25 7

158 WORTH 14.9 2.8 905 25 881 97 40.2 46 122 27 28 6

1DAP.2

44 COUNTIES 691.3 1.1 4.8 135.6 15,892 135 15,757 99 23.3 430 95 32 17 7

1 ADA 1 99.2 116 1, 123 1,865 94 20 9 32 87 33 12 6

2 ADAMS 3 0 .5 61 67 100 14.9 90 8 . 13

3 BANNOCK 49.8 .1 .7 93 872 8 864 99 22.8 51 115 34 15 8', 4 BEAR LAKE 64 1.2 116 115 100 214 1 91 35 24 , 9

5 BE1EWAH 65 .3 .3 1.2 184 1M 100 34.6 11 111 35 20 10

6 BINGHAM 29.6 .1 1.7 5.6 681 fi81 140 23.0 20 109 27 22 97 BLAINE 5.4 1.1 134 134 100 282 4 95 34 12 8

66

Existing and Po toatial Ruourcos for Family Nanning

Coro

Programs (

Hospitals

Designates Location rot Ono or Moro P rams or buxom walla County)

Noir federal Ptiyoldoos In Patient IOCSch.

0E0 Programs Other federalPrograms

MethDoPts.

P.P.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 24 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

Ii11

_11

1

ii g,

i

g

II1II

11

liIIii

ii1 Isi

.i111

I

11111I

11

11

INi

111lij1

13

1 1iiiiii1 plt1E14

11

1

A

1

GEORGIA

6 43 5 365 69 5 69

3.3 82 6 15 422 112 9 46 43 42 3 42

14 51 4 152 25 2 25

4 23 3 17

3 37 3 37

6 50 6 505 42 4 34

39 104 t`8 21 2

17 66 10 39 l8 42 5 26 1

3 60 3 602 31 2 31

43 94 ''. 13 28 33 34 1; 3 34? 24 2 24

P i

3 44 3 4418 74 'N 9 37 11

18 31 1, 15 31 k

11 41 8 34

32 SI f11 31 -1"

1 29 2 29i1 59 10 53 q10 56, .""a' 8 44

3'i. FR .

5 68 5 6833 63 16 312 29 `o 2 296.60 $:.+- 5 504 39 t 4 39 1

6 40 6 40

10

20

5

45

7

6

1

1

1

68

813454

514

121

1 5121 456

1 126:. 1 76

2 768217

1

' 1 459

6 1 1,166

207

(--;

):.

SCREVEN 123SEMINOLE 124SPALDING 125

TEPHENSS

S

126TEWART 127

SUMTER 128TALBOT 129TALIAFERRO , 130TATTNALL : 131TAYLOR 132

,,TELFAIR 133TERREU. . 134THOMAS 135TIFF ,' 136TOOMBS 'r,!' 137

TOWNS 138TREUT1L/4 139TROUP 140TURtIR ''''''. 141

TWIGGS 142

UNION : 143UPSON 'tC'j'-, , 144WALKER ' '3 i 145WALTON '''`-1-4i 146WARE '.'''1,1 141

,..-f.,, ,-,e0 u- .r

WARREN 148WASHINGTON , 149WAYNE '.,1'..M .150WEBSTER ''' r' 151WHEELER :- 152

WH 1

WHITITEFIELD V: 15534WiCOX i ,; 155

, WINS 1 156WILKINSON '''' 151

. , ,. i r:- l,' . :,,i'

WORTH 158

519 83 269 39 30 4 41 12,180 - 18

IDAHO

3 , 44 COUNTIES

? , 123e..134

26 26 rc,I,c 9 9 c 2 1,775

k 50 1 100 1 13 26 5 10 ( 3 1,251

3' 41 `41 16 T1'. 1 16 ( 1 1804+ 62 4 62 1:: i s t. 3 t.-6? 86

t13 44 8 27 1 368

7 131 4 75 2 61S

ADAMSAMS

1

AD 2BANNOCK ":1 3BEAR LAKE '; 4BENEWAH 5

BINGHAM 6MAINE

57b,

Table 1. Nee4 For Subsidized Family Plannin Services: Current Fromm, Rommel and Related indices for U.S., Each State and County, FY 1968 ontim.:ed

Population and 5/WMClierecttristice (0300

Estimated Family Planning Needand Unite Lesub

Sefacled Reality andEst,hitRate

Demographic

Live BirthOrdeals

of Births

IndictsIntent Mortality

1961.1965

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 15 14 15 16 17 18

i1

itii

16111,...I if

Iali i

II

A2

i

Id

.§.

Ii41;

g

§ Ig

1

iIIfi.4vgt

al1iile1

Is

IDAHO

8 801SE

9 BONIER "10 BONNLNIUE

11 MARY12

., r ,'..

i 13 CAMAS ' l',

14 CANYON ; r

15 CARIBOU

16 CASSIA , '',1'

17 CUMet , , i

18 CLEARWATER

19 CUSTER to:_.4.l f

20 ELMORE .. it)21 FRANKLIN ''j,22 FREMONT

'!ITI 1523 GEM. '' .q,11

t 24 GOODING r=,t4

25 IDAHO ,. -,.r,r,t 26 JEFFERSON trf

27 JEROME

1 28 KOOTENAI ., -1.

t 29 1.ATAH 11M,30 LEM111,*;31 JA1.,

4 31 LEWIS I v.,%

32 LINCOLN. ,

33 MADISON

TigAA,t

34 MINIDOKA ' W35 NE2 PEKE Yf

36 ONEIDA ' i'11037 OWYHEE

tIr -11A1.38 PAYL1TE 1 leiVt

39 POWER . '%' y.il

.40 SHOSHONE W41 TETON .. '''.V

42 TWIN FALLS

-Pl ' '..I IOW43 VALLEY

44 WASHINGTON......ls

1.5

.- 151

. 51.7.. 52

3.3

.7,. 60.4'. 7.3

18.0

.6

9.02.6

17.8

, 8.09.4

9.1, 9.2

4 13.0

' 11.7

11.4

4 31.5

t 23.75.6

' 4.13.0

10.2

,., 11.1

30.43.1

6.3.

1254.9

4 20.2

>4' 3.1

44.1

3.7

8.1

.3

.2

.1

1

.1

.3

.2

.1

1.1

.2

.2

.3

2.8

10.4

1.0

.6

.1

11.9

1,5

3.5.1

1.1

.43.21.4

1.9

1.7

1.7

2.3212.2

624.81.0

.8

.5

2.23.56.1

.51.2

2.31.0

3.9.6

8.6

.71.6

3744380214352

161,814

141

, 37416

18376

. 448204227

255283288236323

803492

.. 197

61

55

243389692

. 73194

.

. 38193

318^ 871,061

.

68282

4

37 100

443 100

802 100

143 100

52 100

16 1001,814 100

141 100

374 10U

16 100

183 10076 100

I48 100204 100

227 100

255 100283 100

288 100236 100

323 100

803 100492 100

197 100

61 100

55 100

243 100

' r 389 100

688 9973 100

194 100

381 100

93 100

318 10087 100

1,061 100

68 100

282 100

161

26.4

18.5

20.7

24.9

15.225.4

14.9

30.1

28.6

30.8

22.1

27.315.3

27.7

14.4

19.6

18.9

19.9

24.8

24.7

20.0

22.04578.6

30.4

21223.6

22.9

16.6

22.2

44.730229.8

22.4

357222

11

5

23

45

28

1

12

1

30

10

1

2

3

7

195

2

11

14

15

162

5

13

284

20

7

3

86 870 37

120 31

81 8100 27

92 3386 32

122 30122 31

119 50

110 33

58 23

111 40105 19

82 20

82 29

69 40

102 23

118 3682 36

86 34

96 42

91.2162 38

80 29.

104 33

103 2282 3375 3083 32

62 22

88 37

107 3572 13

87 32

72 3784 36

42

12

19

21

27

17

15

2225

17

12

811

24

21

19

12

30

23

14

11

9

IS11

14

22

27

14

15

16

19

26

14

3513

22

11

. .

,

r

10

7

10

1

17

48

6

9

89

12

3

5

510

5

61

13

8

3

7

8

5

8

69

11

98

6

ILLINOIS

102 0001{iI p: 10,7859 2,017.0 197,309 38892 158,417 20 24.6 1,621 91 33 16 97 8

1 ADM t'srOti 51 2 ALEXANDER '4

3 BOW '1 efii1184 BOONE 1

5 BROWN 03

6 BUREAU

61915.0

13.6

2176.0

38.9

13.3

2.62.54.71.0

7.2

1,912173500460256

938

y 1,912 100;.0 173 100

500 100

460 100

i 256 100

s 998 100

11949.828.7

27.7

24.2

252

'

;

851

13

223

25

86 34

91 3483 32

100 3483 29

78 27

17

2616

13

24

15

61

2152943

39

1

11

687

8

Existing and Potontlei Resources for Family Planning Programs ( Dos Ignites

Hcspitais

Location

Ifed.Sch.

of On. or More

CEO Programs

Programs or Resources

Other WorldPrograms

within County)

HealthDepts.

P.P.NonFaders Miklos is Patisot Can

19 23 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 31

I.61

i1 et

SItli §

1iisa

I

iilb

v

112.1iitsil

1

tx

1.1111Si.11

4§1

A

ifi xl

Si)

1

iliP.

Sh

11

it't14.

O.

I1i

A

IM

11 73 8 53 1 1

56 108 14 27 7 14

3 58 3 58

2 60 2 60

1 135 1 135

60 99 26 43 1 2

3 41 3 41

12 67 9 50

6 66 5 55

5 28 5 28

3 37 3 374 42 4 42

4 44 4 4458

5462

47 5434

3 26 `;2 17

5 44 5 44

, 28 89 17 54

21 88 17 724 72 4 72

3 14 S 741 33 33

6 5 4 3 9 10

8 49/ 7 41

39 128 15 49 1

2 64 2 64

4 32 . 4 321 20 , . 1 20

`..' 13 64 ..,'..i 9 44

49.

1311

2' 15 34 1,,

.

5 134 , 5 134

2 23 2 23

1

2

1

'1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

IDAHO

6551,500

75

12

1,06392

472

149

92119

34

154

108

207

no

425478

99

44221

5059

44

114

152

767

8099

o

o

BOISE

BONNER

BONNEVILLE

BOUNDARY

BUTTE

CAMAS

CANYON

CARIBOU

CAARSSIA

CLARK

CLATERCOST

EARW

ER

ELMORE

FRANKLIN

FREMONT .,

GEM

GOODING

IDAHO

JEFFERSON ,

JEROME

KOOTENAI

I.ATAHLEMIIIt

LEWIS

LINCOLN

MADIMINI1E1 MEONEIDA

°EEt

PAYETTE

POWER

SHOSHONE

TWINTWIN FALLS ,,'

P ,

VALLEY

WASHINGION

89

10

11

12

13

14

15

161s

819

1

2021

22

2324

2627

28

2930

31

32

33, 34

353637

38394041

42

43

t.44

, ". )11 .r.1 r rt "itti ILLINOIS .1, ,,A,

10,789 100 3,715 3 4 = . ' ' , 721 I 7 211 t 186,424 10 1 r" 60 I .s 1 4 1 1 .L., 1 4 102COUNTiF.S ,),:%

16 109 0 12 17 , 6 , 9 1 2 v, 1,380 ADAMS. I1

841

59t 5 33t. 8 59

,.,

. 12791

ALEXAtaliBOW

812

16 67 ; 11 46 ,1 1 4. -, 618 BOONE

4 , 67. ,., 3.50 1 0 e BROWN 5

,, 26 67 16 41 ,-- , P.. 113 BUREAU i t6

rti

Table 1. Reed for Subsidized Family Main Services: Wrest Programs, Resources and Related Indkes for U.S., Each Stele and Co...r,ty, FY 1968 continued

Population and SelectedCbaracteristics (000s)

Estimated Family Planning Needand Service levels

Selected Health and Demographic IndicesInfant Mortality

19611945Eat.hitRata

LAM BirthOrder as

of Births

7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Ii_I

1

.1

ii..

I1si

i+

6 I

Pr

15:1

ri;

g

! 1g

ii1g

III A

llaX

iiiiIfi

7 CALHOUN

8 CARROIL

9 CASS

10 CHAMPAIGN 1

11 CHRISTIAN

12

13

14

1516

17

18192021

2223

24

2526

CLARK

CLAY

CLINTON

COTES

COOK 4

CRAWFORD

CUMBERLAND

DE 1ULB

DE WITT

DOUGLAS

DU PAGE 4EDGAR

EDWARDS

EFFINGHAM

FAYETTE

.c 27 FORD

28 FRANKLIN

129 FULTON

30 GALLATIN .

31 GREENE

i32 GRUNDY

33 HAMILTON

34 HANCOCK

: 35 HARDiN

36 HEN DERSON

, ,,

37 HENRY -. 1

38 IROQUOIS

39 JACKSON

I 40 JASPER -41 JEFFERSON

) .41

1.42DAYESSa i43 JO

44 JOHNSON

45 KAM 0 Ak".. I : 446 IWIKAKEE -,' 5.. _ . .

4148

f 495451

ygistill AG;.' &IA

KNOX 'wa 5LAKE - ,:i.", 4IA ;eIA ''

t. - 4 DV :i52 LEE

6.4 1.1 224 224 100 13.0 93 23 33 38 419.6 3.6 549 549 100 30.0 22 85 38 12 45 614.7 2.8 476 4-6 100 21.8 5 84 32 15 43 5

150.3 32.3 3,491 334 3,157 93 24.9 95 72 43 9 70 636.6 6.7 985 985 100 22.3 17 91 31 19 32 6

16.3 2.9 583 583 100 28.5 15 80 21 13 42 615.2 2.1 47F. 476 100 16.2 89 39 15 25 525.5 4.1 667 667 100 15.9 107 25 28 20 446.4 9.6 1,326 1,326 100 20.9 12 67 41 11 46 6

5,3918 1,0215 82,490 38,311 44,179 54 26.2 4,998 104 33 16 130 9

19.4 3.6 546 546 100 21.0 5 65 41 10 42 810.2 1.9 257 257 100 19.7 2 68 26 13 12 964.2 14.5 1,463 1,463 100 23.3 32 74 35 12 22 615.3 2.1 403 403 100 24.3 10 96 30 13 38 418.5 3.5 453 453 100 18.2 1 82 34 16 35 6

400.7 83.6 3,591 3,597 100 11.9 4 86 26 15 25 622.7 4.2 777 777 100 26.1 16 79 37 13 65 8

7.1 1.2 260 260 100 22.3 3 69 40 10 71 1

23.7 4.3 618 618 100 20.0 6 103 21 21 23 1

22.2 3.8 789 789 100 20.9 6 88 34 15 36 1

16.9 3.3 461 461 100 19.5 2 72 27 11 25 639.3 7.1 1,577 1,577 100 22.7 14 74 40 12 23 842.0 7.8 1,115 1,115 100 19.6 7 80 35 10 29 51.7 15 444 444 100 23.4 4 81 33 15 50 12

16.5 2.9 564 564 100 17.7 103 36 19 88 6

25.6 SI 459 459 100 111 3 93 26 16 21 99.0 1.6 387 381 100 25.1 5 72 32 14 88 11

25.4 4.8 823 823 100 20.1 5 74 34 15 11 65.1 1.0 264 264 100 37.3 9 65 38 9 63 67.0 1.2 211 211 100 12.4 105 29 11 48 2

51.9 9.7 1,234 1,234 100 22.5 22 88 29 14 30 7

35.2 6.8 961 961 100 17.8 77 33 15 46 8

55.3 12.4 2,197 2,197 100 21.3 16 67 45 10 50 611.3 2.0 445 445 100 18.1 1 85 23 27 12 632.0 60 1,127 1,127 100 26.4 24 71 30 15 70 6

18.4 , 3.7 524 524 100 17.9 84 35 14 32 521.7 3.8 569 569 100 16.5 93 20 28 61 5

7.2 1.3 338 338 100 316 8 64 31 14 24 12243.0 47.4 2,916 2,916 100 24.9 181 99 33 14 49 7

t 98.4 17.1 1)73 1,173 100 2t3 65 102 31 18 12 7

23.7 4.9 425 425 100 22.3 II 85 29 11 38 561.2 11.5 1,156 151 : 1,005 87 20.4 14 82 31 10 36 9

342.9 66.0 3,974 3,994 1® 21.3 124 96 32 15 47 8109.0 117 1,628 1,628 100 21.5 41 94 32 15 38 9116 15 595 595 103 16.4 69 34 14 66 1

44.2 8.8 1,048 1,048 100 24.8 25 67 31 14 64 6

Existing and Potastial Rosorcis for Family Planning Programs lo Da Ignites Location ol One or Moo Programs or Rasourcas within

Other FederalPrograms

County}

HeathDapta.

P.P.Noa-Frodaral Physkiarts Is Patient Cara Hospitals Mod.Sch.

CEO Programs

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 7

Ilte.

11

28

11

1-si

29

11

txsi

30

II

1,sl

31

6

il

1si

32

Vt!si

33

.aIS

11sl

34

vjj184]

35

I IA

t tsil

36

1

ti...:

37

1

1

. I

38

1

i

12ii

I

I

ii

I

et

gsEli

ILLINOIS

2 31 2 31 CALHOUN 79 46 8 41 1 131 CARROLL 8

10 68 5 34 I 185 CASS 9156 104 39 26 13 9 3 2,3% CHAMPAIGN 1017 46 17 46 1 568 CHRISTIAN 11

5 31 5 31 CLARK 121 46 3 20 2 13 1 14/ CLAY 13

12 47 11 43 1 251 CLINTON 1434 73 17 37 1 2 2 942 COLES 15

6,519 121 1,958 36 451 8 64 100,657 9 COOK 16

16 82 13 67 1 178 CRAWFORD 115.49 5 49 CUMBERLAND 18

43 61 19 30 5 8 2 579 DE KALB 199 59 8 52 1 1 1 162 OE WITT 20

10 54 8 43 1 141 DOUGLAS 21

411 103 128 32 30 7 4 5,784 DU PAGE 2214 62 10 44 1 213 EDGAR 232 28 EDWARDS 24

19 80 13 55 1 610 EFFINGHAM , 2512 54 8 36 1 313 FAYETTE 26

12 71

22 5610

165941

22

339429

FORD

FRANKLIN

27

28

28 67 20 48 1 2 2 587 FULTON 29

4 . 52 4 52 GALLATIN 309 54 9 54 2 283 GREENE 31

10 39 . 1 27 1 355 slow32

2 22 2 22 1 70 HAMILTON 3312 47 11 43 1 143 HANCOCK 342 39 2 39 1 46 HARDIN 352 29 2 29 HENDERSON 36

29 56 23 44 3 718 HENRY 3123 6S 20 57 2 6 2 420 IROQUOIS , 3842 76 12 22 4 1 3 932 JACKSON 394 35 4 35 JASPER 40

20 63 11 34 1 3 2 464 JEFFERSON 41

6 33 6 33 1 278 JERSEY 428 31 8 37 1 90 XI DAYIESS 431 14 1 14 Min 44

251 103 20 33 18 7 6 6,233 KANE 45103 105 36 37 8 8 2 1,860 KANKAKEE 46

5 21 4 17 KENDALL 4763 103 21 34 6 10 2 1,072 KNOX 1, 4$

309 90 80 23 18 5 5 4,906 LAKE , ,.,,, 4986 79 47 43 3 3 41,844 LA SAME 5010 54 1 38 1 5 1 167 LAWRENCE 51

30 68 19 43 1 553 LEE 52

61

Table 1. Heed for Subsidized Family Planning Slakes: Current Programs, Resources and Related rndkei for U.S., Each Irate and County, FY 1968 continued

Pepu felon end SelectedCharecierlstics (000s)

Estimated Family Planning Heedend SMICAI UMW

Selected Health end

Est.Ferl.Rats

DernorsibtcUbe IllithOrder

j% ofse

Births

Indices

Infant Mortality 0

1961.1965

1 2 3 4 5 5 7 5 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 15

1

ii lh I.I

il .1.

I

h... ,...

g

! i

1

1m

11

.11gl

liLs

la/I

KLING S

53 LIVINGSTON 40.6 7.4 851 851 100 20.2 9 82 26 18 13 654 LOGAN 3.8 7.1 848 848 100 22.5 14 61 39 11 51 655 MCDONOUGH 31.6 6.5 997 997 100 19.6 5 69 42 8 54 7

56 MCHENRY 4 99.0 19.5 1,494 1,494 100 20.6 29 95 30 18 26 857 MCLEAN 1 95.6 20.2 2,163 2,163 100 18.4 5 75 33 13 40 6

58 MACON 1 124.4 24.5 2,454 2,454 100 24.5 84 94 32 13 81 7

59 MACOUPIN 49.1 9.1 1 456 1,456 100 19.0 5 76 ?9 12 32 4

60 MADISON 3 244.1 48.9 4,586 4,586 100 23.1 134 90 34 16 67 7

51 MARION 39.2 7.3 1,258 1,256 100 256 29 82 33 15 93 7

62 MARSHALL 12.9 2.4 342 342 100 20.7 4 90 30 22 47 9

63 MASON 15.3 2.8 400 400 100 21.5 5 90 12 15 00 8

64 MASSAC 13.5 2.6 560 560 100 30.9 15 64 25 14 108 8

65 MLNARD 10.1 1.9 253 253 100 26.7 8 83 33 17 51 8

66 MERCER 18.6 3.5 586 586 100 19.2 2 15 34 14 53 5

67 MONROE 19.1 3.7 402 402 100 19.4 3 88 33 17 18 3

68 MONTGOMERY 30.9 5.5 982 982 100 21.8 11 96 29 17 53 5

69 MORGAN 31.9 1.1 950 950 100 19.7 6 72 33 15 43 4

70 MOULTRIE 13.1 2.4 339 339 I00 14.3 88 38 15 75 9

11 OGLE 43.2 8.4 1,078 1,078 100 20.5 11 96 31 13 33 1

72 PEORIA 1 195.5 36.9 3,556 96 3,460 97 23.3 113 104 38 15 134 8

73 PERRY 21.6 4.1 744 744 100 19.1 3 77 38 6 32 5

74 PLATT 16.8 3.4 400 400 100 17.6 51 36 16 52 - 3

75 PIKE 19.7 3.5 749 749 100 11.7 81 38 14 13 7

76 POPE 3.8 .6 181 181 100 10.7 47 60 7

77 PULASKI 10.2 1.8 533 533 100 44.8 27 74 28 26 169 12

78 PUTNAM 4.5 .8 108 108 100 35.0 7 92 31 8 8

79 IWOOLPH ", 31.0 5.2 817 817 100 18.1 1 96 37 11 32 7

ECI RICHLAND '' 16.7 3.1 575 575 100 20.1 4 89 32 12 50 6

81 ROCK ISLAM/ I 1 163.9 31.4 2,567 2,567 100 26.6 148 103 34 13 53 8

82 ST CLAIR 1 3 270.7 52.5 6,903 6,903 100 27.8 310 102 28 20 153 9

83 SALINE 27.4 5.1 1,362 1,362 100 23.2 11 65 43 12 42 7

84 SANG AM* " 1 159.4 31.1 3,160 3,160 100 22.8 83 91 38 13 97 8

85 SCHUYLER ' 7.9 1.3 283 283 100 25.4 5 79 31 15 74 9

$6 SCOTT ' ''' 5.9 1.0 205 205 100 23.4 4 89 38 22 22 11

.$1 SHELBY '+'''- A'k ifili: 23.8 4.5 840 840 100 22.2 9 73 33 15 25 5

88 STARK 7.8 1.4 221 221 100 11.1 92 23 22 15 11

$9 STEPHEP6ON, ' 51.4 10.1 1,260 1,260 100 23.8 29 80 31 14 62 7

90 TAZEWEIL ' -; 1 108.4 22.0 1,603 1,603 100 19.7 22 98 33 11 23 4

91 UNION '''w-' 18.0 3.1 599 599 100 22.2 6 72 32 11 27 13

92 VERMIUON '',1!'" 5 95.8 1a.2 2,250 2,250 100 28.4 102 91 35 13 104 7

93 WABASH 13.3 2.6 333 333 100 226 6 87 29 10 54 4

91 WARREN' ''''' ;1 22.1 4.3 622 _ 622 100 27.1 19 86 33 14 38 . 6

95 WASHINGTON 1 ' 14.0 2.5 449 " 449 100 35.1 19 67 28 '3 12 ; 696

,WAYNE 440WHITE ..144A'

,t,,i;1.iP

18.0

17.83.43.4

646631

' 646 100. 631 100

.; i

19.8

26.03

12

6867

., .

41

35

12

10

26

61

'.:171: 3

99.,C

WHITESKX ii I

62.9 12.2 1,421 . 1,421 100 19.3 10 96 33 15 41 . 7

626

Existing and Potential Resources for :sly limning

Cars

Programs (I Designotos Location of One or More Programs or Resources within County)

Nonrocisral Physicians In Patient Hospitals Mod.Selo,

0E0 Programs Other federalPrograms

HealthDepts.

P.P.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2b 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

ig

1

....

h4 S

i

I

.IV V i

34

1.1

iz.ra

6g'

1

1

I8

ili

11

111_Si

11.1111111111soin

i

1siisckl

liw

ilz.

i1i

11s=

ILLINOIS

30 74 23 57 1 2 2 520 LIVINGSTON 53

28 78 22 62 1 . 425 LOGAN 54

18 57 9 29 1 485 MCOONUUGH 55

63 64 34 34 5 5 3 1,091 MCHENRY 56

78 82 23 24 6 6 2 1,152 MCLEAN 51

123 99 28 23 8 6 2 2,600 ' MACON 58

24 49 22 45 2 320 MACDIRIN 59

166 68 71 29 16 7 5 3,583 MADISON 60

33 84 19 49 2 5 2 649 MARION 61

6 46 6 46 MARSHALL 62

9 59 7 46 1 7 1 179 MASON 63

6 45 3 22 1 170 MASSAC 64

4 0 4 4 40 MENARD 656 32 6 32 I 48 MERCER 66

10 52 8 42 MONROE 61

18 58 16 52 2 571 MONTGOMERY 6836 95 9 24 2 5 I 743 MORGAN 697 53 7 53 MOULTRIE 10

17 39 : 16 31 1 2 1 361 OGLE 71

256 131 66 34 14 7 3 5,330 1 PEORIA 72

12 56 10 46 2 410 PERRY 73

7 41 7 42 1 84 PIATT 74

9 46 8 01 1 234 PIKE . 15

1 26 1 26 POPE 76

1 10 1 10 PULASKI 71

2 44 2 44 PUTNAM 78

18 58 15 48 3 731 RANDOLPH , 79

27 162 4 24 4 24 1 512 RICHLAND 83

148 90 48 29 12 1 3 3,462 RO:K ISLAND 81

170 63 68 25 15 6 5 5,497 ST CLAIR 82

19 69 11 40 1 4 1 121 SALINE 83174 109 36 23 18 11 2 3,146 SANGAMON 84

4 51 4 51 1 139 . SCHUYLER; ; , 853 51 3 51 ,,;.' 869 38 9 38 185 . SHELBY 81

3 38 3 38 STARK,

8840 78 , 13 25 1 968 STEPHENSON 8953 49 2 848 T 90

11 61 8 44 1 139 91

68 71 38 40 5 5 3 1,824 VERMILION 92

7 52 5 31 1 236 a WABASH ' 93

12 54 9 41 1 331 WARRiN 94

3 21 3 21 1 89 WASHINGTON .956 33 , 4 22 6 1 251 WAY? , 96

10 56 ... 8 45 1 186 WHITE 91

42 61 18 29 3 5 2 1,130 WHITESIDE 98

63

Table 1. /toed lee So Weed FIR Plano lip Services: Owlet Programs, Resources and Related Wilkes lor U.S., Each Slate and County, FY 11611 continued

/Weiss sod Selectedfillsredulstics (000s)

Estimated Family Plea lig Nodaid Serteci Loeb

foliatediiraiiiertality

1161.1365

Holt% and Demegrapik lidlessEst.

FartRate

Uve MSOrder as

%of Illeths

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 11

1A

ii

1

i 1

1.li

11

IIA

1

li..Iili

1kJ

ii

I

I1

i/

g/7"gla i

IIikIC.

g1

1 1A

I

1I

fillIIlieit

i

iv

ii,

1114436

99

100

101

102

WWIIILLIAM%WINGAGOW0001080

4 /258849S

1 23281 24.9

4869.7

46,74.6

3,4881,9163,828

496

3,488 100

1,916 100

3,828 100

4% 100

24.728423.0183

167

43133

1

9674

10293

29

3634

35

16

11

14

18

41

5814

14

87

8

6

DIANA92 COUNTIES 4,951.3 993.5 109,831 6,225 143,606 94 216 3,109 96 34 14 66 8

1 ADAMS 25.4 68 497 497 100 23.0 15 113 29 25 26 5

2 AUDI 1 2629 510 4,205 4,205 100 222 127 101 34 16 90 83 BARTHOLOMEW 55.0 11.3 1,159 1,159 100 250 49 113 33 10 27 84 8ENTOPI 11.1 20 287 287 100 20.4 3 89 33 14 22 1

S NADIORD IS? 3.1 329 329 100 15.1 92 39 10 56 4

6 BOCK 3 296 S9 108 108 100 20.1 7 80 35 9 34 5

1 BROWN 7.9 1.1 257 251 100 21.4 2 52 35 7 41 7

$ CANCll 147 3.2 446 446 100 21.6 15 86 29 15 29 69 CASS 420 11 936 906 100 264 35 86 30 13 34 7

10 COAX 1 67.4 14.4 1,567 1,561 100 221 31 84 35 13 54 7

II CM/ 1 23.6 4.5 717 717 100 250 14 81 34 13 60 4

12 C11411:44 *3 S9 733 713 100 20.4 8 $5 36 13 48 7

13 CRANTORD 84 1.6 395 395 100 295 9 IS 35 IS 29 3

14 DOES 213 5I 637 831 KO 29.5 28 82 33 16 24 9IS KARON 3 240 57 651 651 100 24.4 21 85 33 16 53 8

16 Ot CANA 21.7 4.2 665 655 100 222 11 91 28 19 IS S

17 DE v.48 30.3 59 617 61? 100 27.3 29 100 32 16 40 611 DELAWARE 1 121.3 262 2,115 220 2,595 42 260 107 96 41 11 64 1

19 DUBOIS 214 55 651 659 100 112 2 121 21 14 11 1

20 tUOIA31 5 121.2 251 3,684 3,684 100 229 63 93 3S II 60 ?

21 FAYE111 24.6 4.9 639 639 IX 24.9 II 102 29 11 40 1022 MID 1 511 119 1.425 1,425 1bl 27.6 SS N 36 17 S2 923 IOWAN 182 34 933 503 100 225 1 110 36 13 42 1024 FRA11.1 119 3.3 975 575 ICC 24.1 12 101 24 20 XI 4

IS MR* 160 3.0 39' 397 100 131 101 3$ 12 47 $

14 COCA 293 56 922 922 ICO 123 41 SO 41 11 It 4

21 60141 S 718 151 1$61 1,551 100 109 21 IN 34 12 60 7

11 WOE 259 5 2 1,0(5 1,089 100 211 24 $4 II 1 21 7

21 Mill/OPI 3 447 9 2 802 102 100 19 2 6 16 13 12 38 6'A HAVOCA 3 301 53 626 126 100 21.8 13 9/ IS I SS 6

31 WR490* 240 19 991 991 100 179 00 33 11 31 7

32 HE/CRICKS 3 41.3 91 $11 III KO ill 21 93 35 1 A 7

33 It*V 521 10.? 1,341 1,347 100 130 26 53 33 II 44 534 H0W* 5 Ai 161 1,446 1,44$ 100 21.0 116 114 35 12 31 13$ IIJIITINGT0 14 XI 11 164 X? 100 123 16 86 29 16 SI 6

36 3/03011 323 84 $91 161 IN 209 11 96 * 9 30 61/ 10101 181 12 435 435 Kg 112 3 112 18 I? 12 631 MI 281 81 563 SU IN 226 12 N 34 IS 29 $39 /111160! 2$1 St Si 141 103 16.1 N 81 34 17 41 1* SIONICS 117 (1 . 001 001 100 21.1 1 SS 30 12 45 10

En Wog sad Medial Imams la Family Planning Prom. n (aHospitals

Designates Loudon if One or Mon Programs or lesooros Mein Conotkr

PION-Weal Plink:Ian In Maul Caro MatLt.

0E0 Ninon Oltar FcGe AIProgram

N onDepts.

P.P.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2! 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

II1

1

i I

li11

it 1i

wiII11

1J

I II

Iqh

itiiit

ifII

I1E

ii

IIIS

il

IIIillill

Iill!it

11

II!t.

1

3

157 7028

254 10956

11 44

4,073 82

17 67260 106

46 846 54

10 64

23 781 13

9 SI3? 884? 70

1611

S37

2412? ES

15 12

12 SS

21 6994

6820100 42

XI11 45

11

10 SS

3 1$61

14 44SS I)12 4524 54

fa11

4420 4/40 2664 4219 S5

19 SI)9

14 SI2$ W4 X

1111140IS

58 26 13 6 2 3,940 WILI 99

17 34 2 73 44111P490N 100

62 27 17 1 3 4,8676 WIARBAGO 101

11 44 WCWORD 102

WPM1,732 31 197 4 97 90,223 4 1 54 3 2 4 6 92 COUNDES

15 59 554 ADAMS 1

102 39 12 5 5,668 Alla19

6 SSS4

6 38

3 S 1,544

281

BARTHOLOMEW

SEMONB1 me

34

s

14 47 1 3 414 BOOK13

1 42 CARROII $

313 1 1 2 626 CASS 9

30 45 1 1 844 CLARK 10

34 374 CLAY

11 X 414 C111104 12

2 24 CUNT:430 II7 2?

13 451 41 3

722

110 MDA

YMAROORTI

14

IS

40 46 350 DECANRSI I 3 506 DE MB 11

34 21 7 6 2,0X DEIAWARt ItIS SI I I 4SS OWNS Al45 37 S 4 2,724 MARI

10 656 ATM 21

44122 1 1,090 FLOYD 22

93 WAX 23

II " PS16 13 182 NAN

11 302 WWI 2622 21 3 4 101 C$111141 17

17 IS 351 ULM 2414 31 1 2 40 Nalt.1011 211 1 62 4550 WOO 30

1 44 XI 10.114011 31

20 42 1174)14CO3 3218 2 4 114 3323 21 6 8 1,841 HONNTO 34

13 37 1 3 104 414114GY01 IS

16 93 tsr 'AMON X1 243 OVER 37

371IS 1 4

442

3S5 IMT

ITUtSCXX31

S 25 11N4111111 46

68

Table I. Need lot Subsidised Family Planning Seeker: Wont rams, bourses slid Related Indices lot U.S., Era State and Coots, FT 1661 continued

Floosie lon sad Salutedgambol/Ski (000s)

Estimated Family Plashing Needsad Surto Levels

, Selected Health sod

EatFert.Ws

OsmorskbkUm DAOrder ss, O ak*

OdiumWait Mortality

1%1.1%5

10 II 12 13 14 15 16 11 1

i

i11

iiliitaI/I

Iti11

iiil isg 3

iik131%

et;

A

Ig

I

1g

II

IXi1!

ti

11ii

6

*APIA

41 1014115011 3 49.6e 42 MCI 41.7

43 KOSCIUSSO 46.844 1.1413RANGE 19045 LK 2 5219

46 111 PORTE 5 105.147 UNRENCE 31.148 MADISON 1 134.649 MARION : . 3 145.1

50 INS11411 1 32.4

51 MARTIN , 10 7

S2 1011 40.6S3 12101410( 80.354 MORTGOIIIRY 32.2SS IICR0A14 3 39.0_ .

56 onto 11.4

57 NOW 29.4SI 0110 4.159 ORANGE 16.265 OM 12.1

61 PARKS 14.2

62 PERRY 18.4

13 P11 11.864 PORTER 2 15.5

t 65 POSIT . , 21.0

16 KUM 11.9

67 Fi11/4/11 24.968 RU001.111 , 30.011 PREY 20370 RUSH , ; -- 21.2

n stbstni , 1 238172 SCOT/ 19871 S>'111111 - 1 37.3?I 511011 litZS IIPAII 2 11.4

74 i1t1.111t14 .,. 11077 Intl* 1 it 1ZS $10111310,1110) 63n 14/510 gartit: 1 9.1

_,.

'11 mot S 46It 11/041101101 1 I64413 104111011 1 III$1 10 1 MtSS 11N1.411 391

46 WAWA 11

105129.73.7

1011

20.41.1

27.0141.9

13

ZO

7.82006011

21SS

.43.023

25S 622

11641

213110I/4.2

Vet317.4

303.1

33141.1

11235

1.3

32130

11.371

11

8571,3551,197

5748, At

1,7411,121

2,60613,802

745

3311,0722,463

762971

325644121612442

459564413

1,109, 657

342647826610107

1103526453549OXI

45306

, 2231,955

424

1114,843

. S003,101

$61

. 241

525

4,133

261

424

IS

851 1001,355 1001,191 100

514 1001,671 94

1,741 1001,127 100

2.06 IDO9,412 69

749 100

331 IX1,072 1002,202 89

742 100979 103

325 100644 100121 10312 100442 100

459 100564 100413 100

1,109 ID)657 100

342 100647 10826 100610 103101 100

3,003 95524 100153 103344 103030 KO

493 100a 100ill w1

LISS424 100

117

4.221 11OXI 100

3,463 5.1

Id 100

217 100

22°177

22.423027.2

24.921.826.324.7229

23922.6I7.1211161

21.124.423.3238214

17.921.811021.1lit21.114.7206225111

21011923.481hi86lit8.620.21/.9

14.1

225114710till

81

1C;9°

14 46

21 92 34 10 22

12 130 24 27 37589 104 31 18 70

76 91 31 15 6815 87 35 1 51

121 99 34 12 03603 104 33 16 120

17 92 34 13 34

9 108 32 20 21

25 112 34 14 3274 45 7 33

28 98 32 13 31

103 34 15 41

5 80 21 11 23

20 97 35 14 252 103 31 1 n

14 104 33 IS 576 /9 34 13 3)

101 35 10 79

1 17 33 21 2986 28 13

29 91 32 14 362 it 36 16 36

4 101 31 15 2171 33 10 22

1 n 31 II 4210 104 26 IS 362 16 26 It 49

124 91 33 14 74

2 III 35 14 If29 19 29 11 4913 13 8 10 9411 IS 8 20 411 104 44 14 3S! 0 V 11 311

3 79 43 1 4527 100 41 1 II

$4 8 12 41

1 114 37 36 19

11 16 VI 14 117 66301/3SS N 39 IS IIIIS II It 14 II

S 11 31 14 39

5

669

810

898

961

47

83

17

62

97

695

631

61

111

iI

13

24S

11

3$$

2

Existing sad Potential ROSOOKIII ler /Hilly Planning Programs (6 *lessees tocatka .? w Moro Programs Of Assources within County)

Noc-liodoral Plysidum is Meat Caro Hospitals Met 0E0 Programs Othat Federal Health PP.kh. Programs Depts.

26 27 21 32 33 34

Vs

3S

1

vo,ANA

36 37 SS

34 61 20 40

42 101 12 29 324 51 I / 36

4 / 474091 17 178

934 2/

2 31 2 31

211 113 DJ IS H6 37 4 25

Hi 112 11 11 6N 74 It 11

2 23 2 n

103 N 38 36 5

25 66 16 42 296 71 51 38 4

851 114 220 30 50

23 / I 16 49

3 18 3 2817 42 13 3211 $9 23 21 4

22 68 12 I? 1

11 41 13 33

4 35 3 24

24

IS51

12 41 1

1

9 SS 1 553 25 3 89 61 1 497 3$ 6 U3 26 3 26

54 12 25 33 4

5 24 5 24

6 50 6 JO

11 74 13 5211 57 14 47 1

9 44 $ 1310 47 7 13

114 94 16 2$ 16

1 51 6 SI11 S6 13 354 24 4 24

6 31 6 31

N 56 1 33141 41 7 342 32 1 11

IN III ft n 1II 19 9 SI

I7 1

I45

5 2

5 1

3 37 6

2

1

S 1

3 1

1

1

3 1

1

1

S I

1

3 2

1

1 31

1

1

9

1

6

820804

11294,2/1 II

1,190622

2,50215,969 3 a a

649

4031,619

417520

165473 .2?1

a

NO

1,574

211

424

3,9E4 1

84561

II

V/

JOHNSON 41KNOX 42

IUSKO 43LAKOSCORANGE 44LAM 45

46U PORTELAWRENCE 47MADISON 48MARION 49

MARSHALL 50

51MARTIN

NM 52Win $SMONTGOMERY 54MORGAN SS

NEWTON 56Kat 51

seOHIO

OMNI 51OVAN 60

PARXE 61PERRY 62PIKE 13PORTER 64POSEY 65

"IASnItITN

65IN 67

tin( 63RUSH 70

ST OWN 11

SC011 12SHELBY 13

SPENIR 14

slur. n2 326I 3C6 sosSUISTW813111VanuvoN1

I 1982 11PFUNIOEI 353 11P TON

MA1 1734 V AKIEREILINGN

1 7% MOANI 2,220 VIGO

I 64? 114/491

1 26 WA1111

/17111

11

N

81NSI$4ss

Telles 1. Nod far Sato Idled ramTfy Pinning Services: Current Programs, Resources and Realm, Indices for U.S. . Esc A State mod Cep , FT 1461 continued

Puktfoo sod Waledtieroctorbecs (Ms)

Estfmatad has Musing Needaid Soaks lush

tended Hub sr!EstPert

at

14

DemorailikWelk%Order

%LI15

ssOlds

16

leans

17 I.

Wash1961.1965

Ifortaffti

137 II 9 10 11 12

iiII

il11

IIPIIli

11

ii

1

I11

62

i .!

1 ; 2

I

1 ia;

A

'1z i1

1i11

if12

'I1IiveIb

17431A1a

87 'MARRO 1 24 5.0 827 827 100 21.b 9 88 34 11 32 1

88 WASHINGION 18! 37 616 616 100 155 96 15 11 45 $89 WAYIE 5 716 157 1,115 11 1,758 99 22.4 38 35 34 13 n 6SO WEL1S 219 4.8 515 515 100 20.3 6 94 38 12 40 I91 MITI 20.4 4.0 508 508 NO 117 2 94 29 9 43 6

92 vinff 22.5 4.6 489 489 100 153 3 19 36 10 33 6

IOWA

99 COVIDES 2,160.2 .5 5164 69,719 5584 64,195 92 20.5 904 94 32 16 48 6

I ADAI1 10.3 1.8 404 404 100 213 3 13 39 20 2

2 ADAMS 56 1.1 251 251 100 10.1 56 19 22 31 63 ALUMNI 150 26 579 579 100 201 4 92 29 21 59 54 A P P I J I O O S E 156 26 632 6 3 2 100 250 9 81 3 3 1 1 28 65 ALOU8014 101 1.8 381 381 100 17.1 75 29 11 30 8

6 DE1A04 214 3.8 612 16 S36 11 17.4 91 33 IS SI 81 RACK HAWK 1 1211 24.8 1,432 94 1,838 95 211 65 96 33 IS 11 1

8 DON 253 4.6 616 616 100 23.3 12 74 31 10 35 SI MR 21.1 4.0 623 623 100 17.5 10 37 10 31 6

10 BI KAMAN 22.5 4.1 651 651 100 20.4 6 96 27 28 15 7

11 BUENA MIA 20.7 38 131 631 100 21.6 1 14 21 18 28 412 NM 17.1 3.3 519 519 100 11.9 86 31 8 14 1

13 CALHOUN 15O 21 464 464 ICO 111 1 84 26 23 44 414 CANAL 216 4.2 593 593 100 22.1 15 11I 1! 31 17 4IS CASS 161 29 544 544 100 124 102 29 9 41 S

16 CfDAJt 77.1 32 560 62 496 19 14.5 81 24 IS 61 5U caw ono 41.1 9.0 1,011 1,011 100 21.1 19 11 29 14 10 618 0 0 0 12E 11.1 31 54 3 5 6 3 100 110 202 3 2 I 1 51 619 CHICIASAW 14.1 25 440 401 100 153 115 24 25 14 520 CUM 80 1.4 296 296 100 111 10 36 12 40 6

21 CUT 11.1 3.4 562 562 100 121 2 12 30 IS 12 622 CUMIN NO 1.4 112 112 100 251 11 101 24 11 23 38 CLINICS 554 10 2 1,014 202 182 11 81 28 104 34 11 69 6N CialktORD 115 15 644 644 100 111 2 96 31 21 O 6PS DAUM 14 2 4.4 641 641 KO 21.4 1 84 21 16 31 I

26 DAVIS

11 DRAM - '15

II 2I S1 I

*I506

rt. to506 103

17.1

1811141

tt8

19 3411 42 6

21 *LAME It/ 33 104 101 100 252 Ii 115 IS 31 36 6ts *SIMS 456 11 341 a 118 V 112 1 13 A 15 44 S

31 DICUISCII 19 21 *5 395 100 NO 8 84 33 15 N 1

)1 MU 1 VS 115 kW 1,653 I* 214 64 124 13 21 N 63 2 1 1 4 0 t 1 142 26 4 2 3 423103 M 311 24 1561 313 F Aittfl 21.7 II 851 454 NO 253 22 100 IS 22 41 531 f La* 29 38 616 516 100 Ili 90 21 19 * S

IS MAINr,'

it) 25 40! el /* III * 33 16 40 4

11 M10111 1, 18 331 111 103 231 5 14 34 11 62 1I? Mt 113 23 412 412 *I 11.1 14 15 9 SS 4

Ea 10 sad Po lootial Itaaaarces lot rfilly 11 Imam' Moms ( resigarles

Hospitals

Location

Ned.O.

el pal of Mon

0(0 Prevails

Moms of Resource' *IAN County)

H11/01Dept.

Pl.Nee - Federal Plygclaas Is Patkat Caro 011w Wealrotram

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2$ 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 3b 37 38

h1 ^

11

11

i- I

iI§

1

m S

ii

vii f

11

1

11

1

11

liIIif

1ci11

Ii

11

ilcsi

11

111illii)

I 1/gigII

iINDIANA

67

$1

3812

13

243?

103

159

59

58

6 24

3?

31 398 34

11 54

9 40

23

I3 1

13 1

'

1

33?1,47?

20621?

ira

WARRICK

WASHINGTON

WAYNE

MISMITE

WM LEY

8718199391

92

IOWA

2198 K1 1,032 37 94 3 111 43,645 5 1 99 5 I 2 6 Si CataiES

1 10 1 10 'LAIR3 46 3 46 1 93 ADAMS 2

109

64

0310

964

60 1

1

168

193

ALLAA

AitANCOS1W1E

34

3 30 3 30 1 93 a AUDUBON

10 46 10 46 1 1 S?

122 96 31 V 6 5 1 2, ?V 1 BUCK HAWKHAWK 7

It 16 12 41 1 4 1 212 BOCK14 61 1 43 1 S 2 34323 102 1 M 1 263 WOMAN 10

16 1 S3

34

10 48

6 34

2 343 BUENA VIVABOAR

11

1 2

12 M 9 SO 1 109 MOM 1321 19 10 41 2 1 1 625 Mat 14

10 S9 7 42 1 253 CASS 1S

10 5? 1 51 MAR 1168 142 21 44 3 6 2 122 an° GORDO 1?

21 13 7 40 1 271 DIEPOKII It7 4? 6 41 1 157 DIKAASAW 11

5 13 5 61 1 103 fiAN1 20

10 56 10 % 1 302 CLAY 71

11

425576

10 SO

19 14 3

2S 3

144

1,063MATRAatm

9 41 $ 41 1 7,41 COMORO 241? 74 17 49 OWLS

1) I St 1 12 1 12 1 111 DAVIS

6 69 6 41 1 13 DECATUR 2/6

SO

26114

$1 M 3

1

7 2141

la17 II

MAIMWKSOtS

2$21

1 06 4 13 1 I21 tsquita4

V N L I I I 6 / t 20 e kilatt I!13 42 I 43 1 794 0012111 VI 11 61 7 411 I Mint11 M 13 11 RCM

1 M 6 X 1 143 MINA

4 41 4 41 1 M s 21040N1 X1 it 1 61 1 111 CCM I/

TON 1. NW far Sabah Rad Fenny Planning Sank's: Current Programs, Ramrod and Related Indkss for U.S., Each State and Ems", FY

Waded Ho SA

1116S

aidEsLFortRaid

continued

DemovashkWe SIrthSawn

Ss( Was

MicasNu latha and MastedOharacterlstica (000s)

Estimstad Family Plasaing Nodsad raolca Levels -Waal Modally

1541.156,3

2 3 4 3 4 7 $ I 10 11 12 11 14 13 16 17 1S

I

1 I

1 iIli

iiII11 I

IiiIII ii

I

i l

,la

.1I1111i g;

I

1zliI

iiI

fi12IIt

21 1

l'iI

bI

IOWA

33 GRIM 14.0 2.6 .24 424 100 161 81 25 10 11 S39 61111111 12.8 2.3 501 501 100 12.0 13 34 9 98 540 HAMILTON 20.5 39 529 f429 100 195 3 74 38 12 15 341 HANCO( 11.0 2.5 410 410 100 12.4 82 32 21 29 642 NAACO 221 41 623 623 100 114 3 75 32 12 32 4

43 HARRISON 160 28 541 54? 100 20.1 3 /9 23 21 54 S44 HURT 194 36 570 40 430 93 21.4 5 3 39 12 58 445 HOWARD 11.1 2.0 463 463 103 20.9 1 95 22 21 S3 346 IIJMOOLDT 123 2.3 308 338 100 221 C 73 30 12 22 441 IDA 19 1.1 314 314 100 125 11 24 11 3

41 IOWA 163 3.0 415 40 415 17 161 * 32 16 31 341 MDXSCR 200 3.3 589 66 523 19 24.0 16 133 22 30 14 650 MO 34.6 67 KO $10 100 11.4 * 34 15 S3 5SI JETIERSCN 116 36 525 525 100 263 13 64 IS 1 42 352 70176CN 61.4 134 1,605 266 1,339 13 155 101 42 10 29 S

93 MS 205 36 900 72 528 I* 23.3 11 91 29 19 39 454 IICIOJK 11.5 2.5 492 492 100 24.3 1 81 26 16 11 S55 KOSSUTH 211 4.2 123 223 100 111 3 103 2/ 23 38 5S6 lit 428 7.8 984 218 696 71 21.2 15 86 34 IS SI 1SP UM 1 MO 30.2 2,583 196 1,684 65 11.1 109 33 14 49 6

SI ANSA 1111 2.3 3S2 3S2 100 XI 9 75 40 12 59 6Si LUCAS 101 11 3S6 356 100 12.9 54 V 19 21 960 LYON 111 25 5!! 511 100 213 1 91 32 19 26 661 MADISON 12.2 1.2 411 411 100 112 Tt 32 12 31 S62 AWIASIA 22.1 40 6:1 615 M0 201 4 75 40 1 46 14

63 MARION 291 4.5 ?OS /OS 100 21.1 9 93 32 11 11 564 144194411 31.4 II 143 143 100 21.6 15 105 37 11 H 665 01115 125 23 442 442 100 11.1 16 31 1 34 666 MIletat 137 23 313 373 100 111 101 20 29 9 31/ MONONA 12.0 2.1 398 I* 100 11.1 1 70 27 22 14 5

61 MOM 9 1 1.4 301 §1 100 221 4 10 26 20 49 1MI 9401060111111 1.31 24 458 456 100 223 5 64 33 11 53 5* MOW 350 44 183 251 SIO 17 8.2 21 101 32 16 55 511 088611 17.7 11 538 530 100 It) 3 01 20 13 22 t12 %WU 11 1.4 211 211 100 119 1 121 II 23 35 6

n PACE It? 31 435 CIS 103 *4 I/ 64 n I 36 614 PALO 410 114 25 520 520 100 14.2 9 16 It 11 31 4/S P1/1/311111 XS 41 /93 193 KO 20 2 6 V 23 29 26 $/6 POCNIMAS 13 5 24 4t4 406 1i* HI 9 V 20 26 X 071 KU 1 tilt MI 6002 2,321 2,641 54 11.4 Hi 94 31 11 111 9

3 t011AWAHAJA 2 St/ 111 1,243 1.143 100 114 11 I* 29 1$ 21 619 P041E2410 11.3 32 539 $33 1413 1 S. / 11 79 14 40 910 12100010 it 1.1 321 V? KO 134 65 * 11 3

156 11 446 4 4 6 1 0 0 1 9 4 1 11 9 21 I? 6V scon 1 1363 11.1 2,192 UV 100 234 a 111 3! 11 0 1

U "fir lit tl 936 534 2 115 6 304 21 30 2 3

ti1

tdstlag ttatll Iteweren 1w Family Plaas las stms ( Des liwIts toutli I 04 it Moo Programs w Resources wItkla Cooky)

114-Fdrst Pt* 144114 Most Cut Hospitals Met 0E0 Program Othee Mewl 141118Programs Dept&

P.P.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Ida

26 27 28

ii

29 30 31 32 3) 34 35 3$ 37 rs

tJIF

1

A

IOWA

1

7 50

7 5510 496 43

13 57

9 5622 161 13

86 423 30

11 6712 0)11 S2

11 59124 202

14 684 28

10 4241 96

131 la

7 50

l 551 396 43

11 49

9 56

128

6268

6 413 )3

11

261

1 6014 4010 S4

26 42

412 51

21N .12

20 4?M 36

3 3PS

2 20 t 22507 3?

4333 4 33

1? 22 9 41

39 144

5614

4443

1 SO 4 329 66 51

23 9 25

3 32 1 R9 01 1 S)

20 52 13 32

11 it 10 $13 .13 1 SS

l65 SI

652 NW

1 St 1 45

145

116

104

20222?

124

251 1

155

10

11387

1654 ? 3,265 1

1 5 381

S 12 2486 4 3,465 1

155107

1 5 432

1 4 123

t 5 $30

2695$

21

162

217

225 101 62 21 2:

66 7$ 1$ 1f 1

9 52I LI 1 15

32115 14 33 24

1 II 2 45

tat

231

55011 1

1,3$1

117

2,321

GRUNDY 3$39

HAMILTON 40HANCOCK 41

MIN 42

HARRISON 43HENRY 44

MAAR° 45HUMBOLDT 44IDA 41

IOWA

SCM 414$

JACVI

JASPER 53JETTERSON $1

201/4501/ 52

KBES S3

RE M 54

tttiesvIN s3561111 52

LOUISA 5$LUCAS 59

YES 6014PASON 61

MAKIARA 62

IAARICM

IMSHALL 6634MILLS 65MOGIM

66C1064 1?

MARC(MONTGOMERY 69

0 MOM ?IMUSCAT* *OSCEOlA 22

4PACE

AL

1P2/0 IO 2

2

Pt rs

pai 1?

p4} AM 21PORESHER /9IMIGOOLD 11SAC 11SCOIT $2

MIT $3

11

Tibia 1. Mild for Subsidized fedly Mamieg Ioniser Curtest rats Resources and Reistsd Indkos foe U.S Each State sad Coiah, FT 1968 continued

Pu1stSsa sld Se WedChoratisrlstics (000s)

(Aosta! NO Mauls; Nodaid Sentica Lints

Selected Hob sad

EAratRes

Dosorsoisbkthe Nei sOrder as

% el ilrIbi

Mess!slut Walk

1%1.110

10 11 12 13 14 IS II 17 1$

iiit

I.

11

ii

IS

,..I.I

IliI1

li

iI

IN

.

4;

g

g

Ii11

11ii1Ial

tie

11ii

1ill

IOWA

84 SIOUX 261 4,9 889 e89 100 19.4 5 94 25 20 9 4

85 STORY 52.9 10.4 1,176 1,116 100 16.8 95 44 8 30 5

86 TAMA 21.6 .5 39 /15 2 113 100 24.0 12 86 28 11 48 4

87 TAYLOR 9.4 1l 439 439 100 24.9 1 69 32 9 35 5

88 (ROOM 13.0 23 479 479 100 24.7 8 82 32 16 11 10

89 VAN BUREN 89 1.5 342 342 100 20.0 2 100 23 14 14 4

93 WAPftIO 427 1.9 1,005 1,005 100 21.3 14 76 33 16 89 10

91 WARREN 21.1 4.3 578 578 100 151 101 32 11 28 692 WASHINGTON 18.5 3.3 544 66 478 88 11.4 103 32 16 29 693 WAYNE I 2 1.3 342 342 100 14.1 63 31 12 5

94 WEBSTIR 460 6 4 898 891 103 261 45 109 32 16 44 695 WINIEBAGO 118 36 414 414 100 20.7 3 70 34 14 22 10

96 WitttSHIEK 20 3 3 6 692 692 100 19 5 4 99 23 2/ 22 397 WIXOBURY 1 1021 189 2,285 211 2,074 91 /.33 61 IX 34 16 69 698 WORTH 9I 16 264 264 100 220 3 61 33 6 20 10

99 titICHT I? 6 3 1 452 452 100 11.3 IS 36 8 11 3

KANSAS

105 C011111ES 2,2753 .6 439.1 55,497 5,984 49,513 89 21.9 1,003 83 34 14 Se 7

1 KILN 15.3 2.7 532 S32 100 20.6 4 60 31 16 49 1

2 AMERSOtT 82 1.4 258 258 100 113 70 25 21 83 21 ATCHISON 208 4.0 53 54S 100 213 11 84 26 11 X I4 BARBER $ 2 1.6 208 208 100 14.1 9 37 1 22 I5 BARTON 32 2 6 2 604 604 100 152 29 29 14 48 I6 BOURBON 17.0 10 695 206 489 10 216 IS 68 41 5 58 I1 BROM 13.1 .4 24 514 514 100 119 2 66 32 20 Si 4

I BUITtlt 1 31.5 1.3 818 818 100 15.6 ?I 33 9 M 3I CHASE 4.0 .7 141 141 100 169 54 58 11 211

10 CHAUTAUQUA 56 10 231 231 100 260 3 64 42 13 32 3

11 OtROKEE 230 4 3 893 893 100 221 1 n V II 66 I12 MAKI 4.6 .8 13$ 13$ 100 250 3 St 10 1 16

13 COW 3.4 .6 100 101 103 12.1 4 71 41 11 I14 COY 112 20 344 RI 100 168 15 31 11 IIS W* 13 6 2 1 382 I*2 103 170 71 X X 22 II

16 cortrt 4 3 1.4 329 121 100 27.6 S 61 35 14 47 I17 °MUNCIE 2.9 .5 14 84 100 141 66 X 6II 00711EY 35 7 11 961 961 100 21.1 13 71 33 11 A I19 atABIORD 40 0 2.4 1,494 1,491 100 III 71 38 I? 41 10

24 DECATUR 60 11 185 10 100 116 67 42 II 56 S

71 acme 20 1 3 5 530 S30 100 264 16 75 33 17 16 t22 OCIIPRIX 10 3 1 I 332 332 100 166 BS 21 X X S

X DAMS 51.9 12.1 1,603 2,129 17.2 69 SI 1 33 1

24 EDWMOS 5 1 .9 143 143 100 XI 9 11 41 11 31

25 Elk 4 $ 3 178 1 rl 103 213 I 58 24 24 5

X Ell1S 717 51 704 704 100 756 21 80 40 17 18 1

11 E119/081/11 87 15 262 262 K. 21.5 1 65 36 4 I

72

idsVal lid Pobt41 imam III rug' Pin111 Pilgrim ( On Isides WOW Oa w Yon Minas w Reerces Wads Cooly)2144.2.414ral Plipichas M hthe1 Care Hospitals Wt. 0E0 Program OW( NMI Kula Pi.

Sch. rowans papa,

21

lI

21 a 26 21 21

10 3753 100

7 322 21

11 14

3 3442 VI

4 1113 PO

2 24

52 1131 58

11 54

112 1094 44

21 30 31 33 34 35 37

9 3417 32 3

7 322 21

5 X3 34

16 374 11

13 702 24

17 31 31 51

41 434 9 X 6

44

IS IS 13 74

3 4296 2 1,015

a

2 615

1 316

7 2 1,170

1 121

I 271

6 3 2,432

2 229

SIOUX

1

STO42AA RY ISbS

TAYI,OR VUN/ON

YAK BUR EN 19MO

W

IMARREN

91

WASHIKTON 92WAYNE 13

WEBSTER 91

MEMO 95WPM:SHIER 16110008URY Vvont

waft 99

1,113 62 149 33

IfS

66 1 5261 S 41

1 1 612 51

6 n 5 II30 13 14 43

19 112 1 41

1 51 7 SI11 41 11 292 I 24 7

S2

3 5504

7 X I XS NI 4 V6 51 S 45

20 141 4 21

3 X I

32 91 14 41IS 63 4 Xt

1

13 1 33

11 53 II 434 39n 4

442

IS 11 /

X33

X

22 i 2346 X4 3

94 4 121 30235 1 1 26

1

2

1

4

1

3

It

7

1

4

1

1

2

I1

1

1

1

21

2

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

216

32324

S20

299110

80

31

2245841

114

44

533481 46

123

*19V

4431 It

a

2 1 1 3 105 COUNt1FS

KAIGAS

MO 1

AMMON 2A tOISON 3MAO 4MATCH 5

BOURBON 61010,01 iSUM /OWE 1CHAUTAUQUA 10

MUM 11

01E117441 12

CUM 1)

ISPAY

A)14

CICI

COMY 14

COWINCOIWEY

11CRANttleOMA

INCISOR V00/111LAN 72001111AS nEDINIDS 74RR 11

EMSEll MORIN I/

TNN 1. fled fw Sebsidind :lolly MAN Salim: Comm1 Prairama, tenants end Wad ladko for U.S.. EachStata and Gm", FY 1%3 cc.atinued

Waded Health sad Dm !Wienhodatha azd lalataClisroivistIcs (4001)

tallatatad tuilti NUN Nodsad W*4 Idols got Mutat"

1%1.1145FAFutMa

UoNor as, of lifts

10 11 12 13 14 15 14 I? 13

ii1 1

11

IvIli h 1

Its+

I

ha;

g

III

ii

II

gib

2.1i

IIis

ifKANSAS

28 F MY 113 .2 3.6 406 30 316 93 228 II 104 2? 1? 31 12

29 FORD 211 4.2 460 433 100 266 22 91 34 18 4? 11

30 FRANKLIN 203 18 6% 6% 100 115 I 76 32 13 34 531 GEARY 35.4 66 1.121 1,128 100 23.1 34 104 41 12 SS 10

32 GOYE 4.0 .1 99 84 100 24.1 4 116 26 13 26

33 GRAHAM 50 .9 12? 121 100 11.1 32 11 11 8334 GRAM 62 1.3 10 SG 100 34.1 11 69 21 14 93S GRAY S4 1.0 154 164 100 230 2 61 37 14 29 936 Uttar( 2.2 .4 25 24 100 214 1 51 64 93? GKENVA000 10.0 1.1 290 290 100 202 2 96 39 10 50 4

31 likelkiON 2 7 .5 59 59 ICO 11.6 15 19 19 10

39 HARPER 9.3 1.1 199 199 100 93 62 30 11 39 840 HARVEY 21.6 65 589 29 10P 19.3 4 73 37 13 45 $41 WM 3.8 .8 S9 59 100 211 2 129 33 20 19 II42 1100304044 3.0 .6 /4 74 100 311 1 62 26 9 43 4

43 JACKSON 11.1 .4 1.9 390 MO 100 11.0 1 73 31 11 H44 ElfERSON ILO 21 314 374 100 21.1 4 78 29 19 12 S

4.1 PELL 69 1.1 249 149 100 91 62 21 24 946 10146011 3 191.1 41.9 i.044 I IS 1,969 94 113 3 11 33 11 X 641 KEARNY &I .6 /7 n 100 31.9 4 4S 29 1

41 KROANI 49 11 211 214 100 114 1 64 26 23 18 II41 VONA 4.5 .1 43 93 100 210 2 52 36 11 18SO MEM 211 13 1,156 1,156 ICO 256 18 61 36 19 44 651 INC 32 .6 11 71 103 101 II 29 21 11

52 LEAVENNORDI 54.2 59 1.269 1,269 100 20.1 13 n 34 11 SS 1

S3 ileCtN 60 .1 15: 158 100 31,1 6 51 42 I/ 4

54 1.N4 11 1.5 299 219 100 221 2 41 26 26 143 14

SS LOGAN 19 .7 % 95 100 112 III 28 13 100 356 lYCE 31.0 13 1,063 1,043 103 222 12 $1 40 I2 42 4V *MOO N./ 4.7 594 W IM 141 4 ?I 21 12 93 6

SI PAWS 113 21 42? UT KO 24.0 7 14 2S 20 10 S

5$ PARSNAll 194 24 43 475 100 21.1 1 t/ 31 14 31 1

14 MIME 4.1 .1 In In 100 211 4 44 16 11 26

91 MOM 114 14 526 US 100 191 16 31 11 54 1

62 MICHEIL IS 1.? 211 288 100 331 12 72 21 12 1

13 MONTGOMERY 10.3 1.1 1,112 78 1,291 94 24.5 23 11 41 13 12 IEA IONS 1.1 1.3 282 212 100 111 13 33 24 119 S

61 MORTON 16 .1 13 13 100 115 11 41 94* 1014/14 121 22 MO 480 100 19 1 1 12 70 225 * 4

12 *ONO II./ 33 VI 624 KO 180 I/ 10 30 11 56 S

61 KU 52 .1 164 164 100 242 6 62 11 V 11

0 MN 92 I./ 321 321 IOC 319 11 H 30 14 40 14

/I OSAGE 12.5 22 411 411 100 154 2 14 34 14 38 $71 OSODNE k I 11 241 ra 100 151 IL 21 73 31 612 Oil AMA 14 II IN 188 KO 1.1 V 20 II 3

73 PAWNEE 1l 16 202 24 100 111 It 31 II 19 $

24

---.iliairsi

-- .---..inicias

...is

... ...It/Meet Ws

r MIMI% EMI:rilll! 39

liplialssoma Lust*, 1 Oss W live

Program

Mr poi w Roam. MON Coraty)

1141111

Depts.Pi.Ida

Wt.010 Ode retail

Provosts

13 20 21 22 23 24 25 29 27 21 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

II 11

I

11

liii

I1

11

I il

1

fa. f 1

ii1

I1

1 I

iifii

PilliIt

vil

iii

I Iillli

jiif;1

1

I

,

1I

KANSAS

9 49 ? 11 1 42124 HO 5 23 2 9 4 43312 59 1 39 1 5 1 2??1 23

37 20 1 219

3 75 75

3 63 2 40 1 20 1 504 64 4 64 1 391 9 1 14

41 1 46

1

1 Si4041

4 40 114

2 73 2 73 1 526 (4 4 43 1

55 2003

11 40 3 11 3 46209

1 It 1 2I 33 1 33 1 1?

442X 4 X 1 110

135 4 33 1

29172

290 47

22295 9 5 t 1,431

1 HI

$ 93 5 50 1 62t 45 t 45 1 X

I $ 64 II 46 I 4

1 31 1 31 1 16

24 41 11 20 3 6 1 473

1 20 1 20 1 32I 11 1 H3 76 3 /6 I 76

2/ 41 9 24 1 t 51613 Si 1 32 2 2 242

9 51 7 44 3 174

/ 44 7 44 112

4 14 3 43 I X17 $1 1 41 1 5 1

1

HI5 U 2 21 /02

2? 6/II

X39SO 1 3 517

3 3 . 1 211I .. V 1 N 1 ?I

14 47 IN115 . X 161 X 1

ttX

3 SI 3 V 2 N

1. T4

6 41I IN

5 $1 4 49 1 3>i

3 4 I II

14 141 1 * 1 115

FIME1f 24RID 29FRAlir11GE BY. 31

X

C1011 32

GRAHAM 33GRAMGRAY 35dItaIr 36MAYO 3?

WIRYIY

1W*1114HAM

4390HASKEll 41HUM 42!

PASCO 431131U/14

4544

JEW&131f6C11 46

4?

1104.411K

4$IM 49

aBitit 5051

tuaffoni 52

RCM Si$4

Ora$6

5LYON XMC140:101 5?

17.4,10C44

1041011.ISMit

N

un111tTrAtt

tr.

liStralltrl 6364

NXIC44 NNW&NOSIO V

Nowt

ONONE0

n1140A 71

Mkt n

7$

Tittle 1. Heed for Sutaldind Family Planning Services: Current Programs Resources and Related Indices for U.S., Each State and Coo , FY 1963 continued

Population and SelectedCharacteristics (000s)

ESUMI tad Family Planning Needand Service Levels

Selected Health and

Est.FortRats

Demographic

MI BirthOrde as

% of Births

IndicesInfant Modality

1961.1965

7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

1

3 xx

ISillmg:!

I411

2

1

ig

.

rEd A

I..1

gcs4

Ie

I

et IV.

i1

g

la11

qgg

Elti16

ts

KANSAS

14 FIIILLIPS 8.8 1.6 296 296 100 18.6 1 61 30 15 38 815 PO11AWATOM1 11.6 1.9 361 361 100 15.0 81 25 19 1

76 PRATT 11.5 2.1 270 270 100 27.1 9 83 28 12 22 371 RAWLINS 5.2 1.0 146 146 100 14.0 74 35 30 81 818 REM) 5 62.4 12.0 1,435 1,435 100 20.7 17 83 38 11 50 5

79 REPUBLIC 9.6 1.6 379 379 100 14.3 10 33 11 35 5

80 RICE 14.0 2.6 296 296 100 24.6 8 62 28 18 38 5

81 RILEY 43.6 8.2 1,184 1,184 100 21.0 17 74 49 6 46 5

82 ROOKS 8.5 1.5 209 209 100 28.8 10 81 25 18 66 883 RUSH 6.7 1,2 179 179 100 34.3 8 53 28 13 31

84 RUSSELL 11.9 2.3 244 244 100 20.7 3 64 33 10 14 8

85 SALINE 39.0 5.8 598 46 552 92 20.7 22 129 32 12 64 9

86 SCOTT 6.1 1.2 125 125 100 21.2 2 80 33 16 82 12

87 SEDGWICK I 356.2 73.2 6,941 173 6,768 98 23.9 241 96 36 14 89 9

80 SEWARO 16.1 3.2 248 248 100 18.3 1 83 33 17 60 6

89 SHAWNEE 1 150.8 29.3 3,222 428 2,794 87 21.0 59 94 35 12 68 8

93 SHERIDAN 5.0 1.0 160 160 100 22.6 2 63 13 32 6

91 SHERMAN 7.8 1.6 182 182 100 22.4 3 82 36 19 16 11

92 SMITH 1.8 1.4 303 303 100 14.0 66 31 20 22

93 STAFFORD 7.5 1.4 236 236 100 28.2 6 42 17 10 34 3

94 STANTON 2.2 .4 40 40 100 32.3 4 116 21 25 42 4

95 STEVENS 4.7 1.0 73 73 100 23.1 2 84 39 7

96 SUMNER 23.5 4.3 545 545 100 24.0 12 70 32 15 46 9

97 THOMAS 6.5 1.2 120 120 100 11.9 109 30 14 16 5

98 TREGO 4.8 .9 125 125 100 23.6 3 84 19 33 3

99 WABAUNSEE 6.6 1.1 226 226 100 5.9 71 21 21 26 13

100 WALLACE 2.5 .5 75 75 100 13.9 104 23 8101 WASHINGTON 10.8 1.8 432 432 100 28.9 9 73 25 18 5

102 WICHITA 3.4 .1 .6 83 83 100 27.6 4 91 27 30 61 10

103 WILSON 12.5 23 424 424 100 27.5 9 60 34 13 44 6

104 WOODSON 5.1 .8 180 180 100 21.5 1 51 33 14 5

105 WYANDOTTE 3 193.7 .3 38.1 4,137 2,729 1,408 34 25.0 163 96 34 16 103 8

KENTUCKY

120 COUNTIES 3,181.1 641.0 141,841 11,473 130,374 92 26.7 3,048 90 34 17 70 8

1 ADAIR 13.9 2.7 880 S80 100 24.4 8 88 26 19 59 9

2 ALLEN 12.9 2.5 837 32 805 96 24.6 8 82 43 15 29 63 AtiDERSON 9.3 .. 1.9 368 11 357 97 25.5 7 79 27 10 82 5

4 BALLARD 83 1.6 401 407 100 23.0 3 65 45 12 59 4

5 BARREN 30.3 6.1 1,715 1,115 100 25.1 21 83 32 16 32 5

6 BATH 9.3 1.7 560 19 541 97 21.4 9 89 35 23 39 5

7 BELL 34.1 7.1 2,906 197 2,709 93 36.3 72 93 33 20 61 10

8 BOONE 3 26.0 5.4 555 32 523 94 19.6 5 98 29 19 30 6

9 BOURBON 19.1 3.8 784 73 711 91 22.8 10 98 34 14 127 10

10 BOYD 1 53.7 11.0 1,1196 79 1,817 96 18.4 3 81 34 14 35 8

11 BOYLE 213 4.2 997 30 967 97 32.7 31 81 39 14 115 4

*i6

Existing and Potential Resources for Family Planning Programs ( Designs as Location of One or More Programs or Resources within County)

tionFederal Physicians In Patient Care Hospitals Med.Sch.

0E0 Programs Other FederalPrograms

HealthDepts.

P.P.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

B

li11igi

1

O..

_i

8

§.

tzk1

F...1

RI

.oViSAS

ieg

.o

t 5

illi

v#:SI

6

iltIt4]

1

5.

o.3

SA

11

,ti

Si

iilte =

1. io

811

gg i1 rIli

o .0gz.SgISO

11rii

ic.1 I

..n

KANSAS

4 45 3 34 1 97 PHIL LIPS 14

9 78 9 18 2 69 POTTAWATOMIE 15

9 78 4 35 1 9 1 138 PRATT 76

4 77 4 77 1 38 RAWLINS 77

48 77 17 21 3 5 2 885 RENO 78

7 13 . 6 62 1 174 REPUBLIC 79

8 57 .* 8 57 2 128 RICE 8029 67 12 28 3 7 2 608 RILEY 81

4 47 4 47 ROOKS 82

2 30 2 30 1 33 RUSH 83

6 51 5 42 1 131 RUSSELL 84

58 149 ' 9 23 5 13 2 848 SALINE 85

4 66 4 66 1 99 SCOTT 86351 99 97 27 23 6 4 ' 6423 SEDG WICK 87

12 75 4 25 1 6 1 266 SEWARD 88

225 149 24 16 11 7 2 2,532 SHAWLCE 891 20 1 20 1 56 SHERIDAN ' 936 77 5 64 1 93 SHERMAN 91

8 102 ' 6 71 1 117 SMITH 92

4 53 4 53 2 42 STAFFORD 93

STANTON 94

3 63 3 63 1 59 STEVENS 9510 42 8 34 1 149 SUMNER 96

5 77 5 77 1 139 THOMAS 97

3 62 3 62 TREGO 93

3 45 2 30 VIABAIRiSEE 991 40 1 40 WALLACE 100

4 37 4 37 2 64 WASHINGTON 101

1 30 1 30 1 14 WICHITA 102

8 64 1 56 2 151 WILSON 103

2 39 " 2 39 WOODSON 104

172 89 46 24 13 1 5 4,511 1 WYANDOTTE 105

KENTUCKY

2,464 11 959 30 141 4 82 47,868 6 2 97 1 3 4 5 76 3 120 COUNTIES

43 5 36 1 262 ADAIR 1

7 54 7 54 ALLEN 2

4 43 3 32 ANDERSON 33 36 3 36 BALLARD 4

26 86 12 40 768 BARREN 5

4 43 4 43 BATH 6

21 79 11 50 2 6 2 864 1 BELL . 1

16 62 . 14 54 1 4 BC#f 8

16 84 8 42 1 247 =MA 955 103 17 32 4 8 1 1,356 BOYD 10

29 136 11 52 2 9 BOYLE 11

77

Tibia 1. Need for Subsidized Family Planning Sereltes: Currant Programs, Resources and Related Indices for U.S.. Each Stale and County, FT 1968 continued

..Populetion and Salutedsnaractaristica (0001)

Estimated Family Planning Readand Seeks Levels

NEW Nal* and Demographic Ind Icasintent Morten,

1961.1965Est.Fart.Rats

Lire BirthOdor as

a/ girths1 2 3 4 5 6 7

111111111

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

21an

fcil

1I

I1Aiii

in11;411

/i§3

Ilsliz..5.12

ill3v.

lii vs

ifz g

1

IEl.1;

;='1..h 1

iE§aaA.15

gi.

g1

!z

Ig

ii'4

fi11TA

gg

Iii--

if

1isIs

KENTUCKY

12 BRACKEN 7.0 1.2 287 16 271 94 25.3 6 95 27 33 33 1013 BREATHITT 15.2 2.9 1,192 1,192 100 22.2 8 107 28 32 82 1114 BRECKINRIOGE 14.8 2.7 770 88 682 89 33.7 23 84 31 15 61 415 MAIM 19.9 4.3 705 705 100 33.2 36 102 34 17 32 1016 BUTLER 9.3 1.8 577 64 513 89 19.3 I 65 32 22 68 5

17 CALDWELL 13.2 2.5 639 639 100 186 1 78 34 18 103 518 CALLOWAY 25.2 5.3 1,342 1,342 100 13.5 60 54 4 19 519 CAMPBELL 3 87.9 17.0 1,840 1,840 100 26,4 84 103 29 21 51 720 CARLISLE 50 .9 230 230 100 267 5 63 28 28 69 321 CARROLL 7.8 1.5 355 10 3'4 ^7 29.8 10 89 41 16 74

22 CARTER 21.2 4.4 1,186 1,186 100 256 16 83 26 21 33 923 CASEY 13.1 2.5 816 876 100 15.8 90 31 19 61 1224 CHRISTIAN 54.6 9.7 2,483 2,083 NO 489 162 83 30 21 146 125 CLARK 23.7 4.9 972 170 802 83 29.2 29 98 36 12 83 1026 CLAY 21.3 4.2 1,663 141 1,522 92 27.8 31 122 29 26 62 9

27 CLINTON 8.7 1.7 635 22 613 97 43.1 25 77 27 23 228 CRITTENDEN 14 425 425 100 21.3 2 93 34 10 90 1329 CUMBERLAND 1.5 505 92 413 82 24.9 5 90 35 18 76 830 DAVIESS 5 75.4 15.7 2,532 108 2,424 96 20.1 21 99 31 15 55 1031 EDMONSON 3.3 1.7 560 15 545 97 2! 8 5 74 44 19 16 8

32 ELLIOTT 6.4 1.3 418 418 100 14.2 100 29 21 16 833 ESTILL 13.6 2.8 ....:1 880 100 28.5 14 100 27 23 49 1334 FAYETTE 1 162.9 35.7 5,598 3,519 4,079 73 24.0 106 90 40 10 92 835 FLEMING 11.8 2.3 648 648 100 21.9 4 81 39 20 64 1136 FLOYD 40.3 8.5 3,047 251 2,79E 02 217 18 91 30 25 46 1

37 FRANKLIN 34.0 7.2 931 59 872 94 23.0 16 84 37 12 50 938 FULTON 10.8 2.0 509 7 502 99 51.7 34 102 37 16 96 139 GALLATIN 4.5 .9 204 58 146 72 164 106 39 10 41 2040 GARRARD 104 2.1 521 521 100 32.9 14 59 30 14 41 541 GRANT 9.8 L9 313 26 347 93 22.9 5 107 35 17 60 1

42 GRAVES 30.8 5.8 1,325 3 1,322 100 29.0 29 77 31 14 50 143 GRAYSON 15.6 2.9 920 10 910 99 22.3 7 95 31 25 50 1I44 GREEN 10.9 2.1 549 28 521 95 22.9 5 78 38 15 24 II45 GREENUP 31.2 68 1,301 25 1,282 98 261 26 86 29 15 48 346 HANCOCK 5.7 1.1 289 3 286 99 10.5 82 39 15 87 11

47 HARDIN 79.4 823 2,394 2,394 100 262 89 129 37 16 29 848 HAFIAN 44.7 9.1 3,254 410 2,844 87 26.4 42 93 32 26 118 949 HARRISON 14.9 2.8 510 84 486 85 41.0 33 80 25 20 26 1050 HART 13.7 2.6 763 763 100 34.7 26 92 34 24 92 451 HENDERSON 1 33.6 6.7 1,313 1,313 100 24.4 24 99 40 14 84 9

52 HENRY 10.4 2.0 467 54 413 27.5 11 82 45 7 953 HICKMAN 68 1.2 337 337 100 44.2 17 82 40 18 160 1254 HOPKINS 40.6 8.1 1,933 5 1,928 100 23.6 22 84 34 16 82 855 JACKSON 10.5 20 785 25 7E0 97 152 92 37 20 53 756 JEFFERSON 2 662.4 136.3 17,092 4,165 12,927 76 26.3 612 89 35 14 90 10

57 JESSAMINE 14.8 3.3 708 109 599 85 35.2 27 81 36 12 75 15

78

Existing and Potential Resources for Family Planning Programs ( Designates Location of One 4;

Pray

More Programs or Resources within County)

NonFederal Physicians la Patient Cue HoNils Med.Sch.

0E0 me Other FederalPrograms

HealthDepts.

P.P.

It 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

I

oi..Mg

7'it

IwiIf"1411

sjaVIal

z.

glilaZ2,5

h

11eaIPA

1sa'1

al

s1

05ts(0

11sAasVEal

111#.8wElcatoal]

isferVIt RI17'.alLW.

§

1g;'..

r3

1a

.11

g

;KENTUCKY

2 29 1 14 1 14 BRACKEN 12

3 29 3 20 BREATHITT 13

6 41 5 34 BRECKINRIDGE 14

5 25 5 25 BULLITT 15

3 32 3 32 BUTLER 16

6 45 6 45 1 312 a CALDWELL 17

16 64 6 24 2 8 1 421 CALLOWAY 18

64 73 33 38 5 6 1 1,886 CAMPBELL 19

2 40 2 40 CARLISLE 20

5 64 4 51 1 241 CARROLL 21

3 14 2 9 1 5 CARTER

4 31 3 23 1 124 CASEY

45 82 17 31 2 4 1 526 CHRISTIAN 24

13 55 10 42 2 233 CLARK 255 23 5 23 CLAY 26

2 23 2 23 CLINTON , 27

1 13 1 13 I 73 CRITTENDEN 28

3 40 3 40 CUMBERLAND . 29

70 93 19 25 6 8 3 2,259 DAVIESS 30

2 24 2 24 MUNSON 31

2 31 2 31 ELLIOTT 323 22 3 n 1 236 ESTILL M

294 180 36 22 20 12 4 3,869 1 FAYETTE 34

4 34 4 34 FLEMING 3518 45 8 20 1 2 3 510 2 FLOYD 36

33 97 11 32 3 9 1 586 FRANKLIN 37

9 83 8 74 FULTON 381 22 1 22 GALLATIN 393 30 3 30 GARRARD 404 41 4 41 1 110 GRANT 41

16 52 6 19 1 3 GRAVES 426 38 5 32 1 302 GRAYSON 437 64 6 55 GREEN 44

8 26 7 n 1 286 GREENUP 452 35 1 17 HANCOCK 46

26 33 14 18 1 852 HARDIN 47

38 85 14 31 2 4 1 676 i HARLAN 481 47 7 41 1 266 HARRISON 496 44 6 44 HART 50

28 83 12 36 2 6 1 658 HENDERSON 51

4 38 4 38 HENRY 522 29 2 29 1 69 HICKMAN 53

42 104 11 21 3 7 1 754 HOPKINS 54

1 9 JACKSON 55803 121 173 26 60 9 9 12,784 1 a a JEFFERSON 56

6 40 4 27 JESSAMINE 57

79

Tali 1. Need for Subsidized Family Planning Services: Current Programs, Resources and Related Indices for VA, Each State and County, FY 1968 continued

Population and SelectedCharacter Mks (000$)

Estimated Family Planningand Service

NeedLevels

1.............-.....-.........10 11

Selected Health and Demographic IndicesInfant

1961.1965

12

Mortality

13

EstFartRate

14

liveMaras

% of15

Birth

Births

16 17 182 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

II1:3

r.i

1

g

I,

i,,.

i gx z

ig fi

Is 8

2 gJ 3x

3

ggA

Ile&Ai8 5 .t.IlimAu.

11A:3 5lia

agA

itX...1A a1z

aig°.t,il 2

I.s§gagot.Is rs

g;

g1

§a&

IIZ

I4iP

ggle.1

§11'4

g9

ti-Elra 11

6IKENTUCKY

58 JOHNSON 18.6 3.8 1,297 217 1,080 83 30.3 24 76 3s 24 54 7

59 KENTON 3 122.9 24.1 2,780 2,780 100 23.5 81 105 30 18 56 9

60 KNOTT 18.1 3.9 1,619 207 1,412 81 26.0 16 78 30 29 53 7

61 KNOX 25.8 5.3 2,184 210 1,914 88 24.9 20 88 29 25 68 962 LARVE 10.2 1.9 467 4 463 99 21.6 4 78 34 17 79 4

63 LAUREL 26.1 5.3 1,704 156 1,548 91 21.6 12 96 32 21 35 964 LAWRENCE 11.9 2.3 787 787 100 26.9 11 92 31 25 66 5

65 LEE 7.7 1.5 529 31 492 93 22.0 3 84 33 21 95 1366 LESLIE 10.9 1.9 840 840 100 24.2 14 168 34 27 133 5

67 LEINER 283 5.9 2,228 46 2,182 98 29.9 40 95 32 23 90 11

68 LEWIS 12.3 2.3 641 132 509 79 30.0 19 91 32 28 61 7

69 LINCOLN 15.8 3.1 893 893 100 25.4 13 90 32 16 109 97D LIVINGTON 1.4 1.4 386 30 356 92 17.5 68 42 10 21 2

71 LOGAN 21.5 4.1 1,087 1,081 100 28.9 25 91 33 19 70 872 LYON 5.4 .8 208 208 100 44.3 11 53 41 227 14

73 MCCRACKEN 56.4 114 2,040 191 1,849 91 27.1 47 12 41 9 87 874 MCCREARY 13.5 2.8 1,231 152 1,079 :.: 35.6 29 103 28 20 62 10

75 MCLEAN 8.8 1.6 405 6 399 99 26.9 8 78 47 14 47 676 MADISON 40.3 9.5 2,314 130 2,244 95 28.0 38 67 37 11 72 877 MAGOFF IN 11.6 2.2 860 860 100 8.9 119 33 22 68 5

78 MARION 17.0 3.4 BOO 800 100 40.7 55 112 22 36 112 979 MARSHALL. 18.0 3.6 758 758 100 20.8 5 78 39 6 43 12

80 MARTIN 9.9 2.0 798 81 711 89 32.9 19 107 19 40 92 881 MASON 18.4 3.6 732 19 713 97 24.6 14 98 31 20 96 7

82 MEADE 17.9 3.9 540 83 457 85 32.9 21 69 39 18 22 4

83 MENIFEE 4.1 .8 298 22 276 93 35.9 9 97 24 37 53 3

84 MERCER 15.8 3.3 148 5 743 99 32.8 23 87 40 11 71 885 METCALFE 88 1.7 511 571 100 29.0 10 92 37 13 51 8

86 MONROE 11.6 2.2 782 1 181 100 38.3 25 98 33 19 46 987 MONTGOMERY 15.2 3.2 811 811 100 32.6 22 96 34 18 92 6

88 MORGAN 11.3 2.2 140 17 723 98 24.4 8 103 29 32 9

89 MUHLENBERG 27,7 5.6 1,468 24 1,444 98 29.2 29 76 32 13 52 690 NELSON 23.8 4.8 954 954 100 30.4 39 107 27 30 63 7

91 NICHOLAS 6.7 1.3 349 15 334 96 39.9 13 94 38 18 83 10

92 OHIO 17.9 3.4 1,044 1,044 100 19.1 2 70 37 16 67 8

93 OLDHAM 14.7 2.6 393 393 100 28.6 13 100 30 21 86 4

94 OWEN 7.8 1.4 318 79 239 75 21.6 3 62 35 12 7

95 OWSLEY 59 1.1 449 92 357 80 18.2 123 28 25 43 996 PEN(ETON 9.7 1.8 314 17 357 95 22.1 5 99 27 23 22 3

97 PERRY 32.5 6.5 2,522 479 2,043 81 29.6 53 116 25 32 55 10

98 PIKE 65.1 14.1 4,950 106 4,844 98 28.4 80 86 31 n 36 999 POWELL 7.1 1.4 422 27 395 94 27.1 9 95 27 15 30 7

10 0 PULASKI 34.7 7.0 2,221 12 2,155 97 30.1 42 81 40 20 45 7

101 ROBERTSON 2.5 .5 .140 140 100 17.5 70 38 6 13

102 ROCKCASTLE 12.2 2 4 832 42 790 95 22.0 6 108 39 19 69 5

103 ROWAN 16.1 3.8 1,087 51 1,036 95 25.6 12 74 33 12 43 7

BO

Existing and Potent;a1 Resources for Family Planning Programs Designs as Location or One or More Programs or Resources within County)

Non-Federal Physicians in Patient Can Hospitals Med.Sch.

0E0 Programs Other FederalPrograms

HealthDepts.

P.P.

19 20 21 22 23 21 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

g

ig 1

gX

....

o

k

X z

ElIfUfa

1 Yu.

1;I]311

1

1116a

11

IIILsAl

j11It32

l11Sz

1glig31

;IIICSg]

gligilI.JPIIPSg§:311.

s

i11I:3

KENTUCKY

13 70 9 48 DIMON 58102 83 38 31 6 5 2 2,850 EPA 59

38

17

3!3

517

19 1 249KNOTT

KNOX60

3 30 3 30 LARYE

9 35 6 23 I 338 LAUREL 639 75 8 67 LAWRENCE 64

2 26 2 26 LEE 65

4 37 2 18 1 285 LESLIE 6614 50 11 39 1 4 1 342 LETCHER 67

2 16 2 16 LEWIS 68

4 25 3 19 1 125 LINCOLN 695 67 4 54 LIVING TON 70

11 51 8 37 1 395 LOGAN 11

4 74 4 74 LYON 72

68 120 9 16 8 14 2 1,060 MCCRACKEN 73

2 15 2 15 . MCCREARY 74

4 46 4 46 MCLEAN 7524 60 14 35 1 2 3 1,642 MADISON 16

3 26 3 26 MAGOFF IN 77

9 53 6 35 1 634 MARION 78

9 50 7 39 MARSHALL 79

2 20 1 10 MARTIN 80

12 65 8 43 1 5 1 527 MASON 81

3 17 3 17 MEADE 82

1 24 1 24 MENIFEE 83

11 70 11 70 1 281 MERCER 84

1 11 1 11 METCALFE . 856 52 6 52 1 283 MONROE 869 59 7 46 1 438 MONTGOMERY 87

3 26 3 26 MORGAN 8811 , 40 7 25 1 394 MUHLENBERG 899 38 1 29 1 389 NELSON 90

2 30 2 30 1 M NICHOLAS 91

7 39 6 34 1 163 OHIO 92

10 68 8 54 1 7 1 78 OLDHAM 93

2 26 2 226 1 79 OWEN 94OWSLEY 95

2 21 2 21 PENDLETON 96

18 55 10 31 2 468 1 PERRY 97

33 46 15 23 I 2 1 1180 a PIKE 982 28 2 28 POWELL 99

24 69 14 40 1 870 PULASKI 103

1 40 1 40 RO6ERTSON 101

2 16 2 16 1 123 ROCKCASTLE . 102

9 56 6 37 1 439 ROWAN 103

81

Table 1. Reed tor dudiddlidd polo, rural Services: Currant Procrams,

Population and SelectedCharacteristics (0001)

I

ResourcestlRelated Indices lot U.S., Each

Estimated Family Planning Mudand Service Levels

St2zilljun , FY 196$ continuedSelected Health and Demographic !ndkn

In!ent Mortality1961.1965

Est.FortRate

14

LiveOrderof Illrt.__SL..j.r..._s

15

Pinkas

16 17 182 4 7 8 10 11 12 13

i 1 1

%Iia...9

11.1

ilil

i1

11

I.5 1

IIg

8 1-1

1i li12g

tiii13t

Y

104

105106107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114115

116117

118

119

120

RUSSELL .' :SCOTT ce:t ;i' uSHELBY ! 11'''"1

SIMPSON ''');'-'SPENCER :P '

TAYLOR ! ,,,:.

TOOD ,3 4,..TRIGG 1' 1

TRIMBLE '4; ' '..' ',

UNION !-- -41

WARREN `''.8 nWASHINGTON '

WAYNE -7 h, iWEBSTER '',Y- 1

WHITLEY !' f :

WOLFE ht -r-r:','WOODFORD

,

' 10.6182

' 11912958

15.9

10.9

1 8.65.3

14.3

53,511.9

15.1

14.2

24.6

' 6.2127

2.04.03,7

2.61.2

3.32.0

1.6

1.1

2.8

1E62.4

3.1

2.64.9

1.2

2.6

717803702691265

734587

488235663

2,686600

1,195674

1,765

470431

48

36

22

6

121

11

247

62

58

717

755702

655265

712587

488229663

2,565' 600

1,184674

1,518

408373

100

94

100

95100

97100

100

97

103

95100

9910086

8787

27.4

31.7

25.1

20.821.7

20.4

27.0

11820.7

30.2

36.320.1

31.1

27.0

32.7

25.2

25.4

10

2514

42

5

11

1

218

91

321

11

38

612

8275

818793

8597

928087

7992918285

1696

32333630

45

39

31

423528

39292827

35

2835

19

10

13

17

20

14

12

25

7

23

13

2624

23

22

20

15

36 260 7

104 10

89 7

54 9

57 6

92 14

42 11

47 9107 7

61 836 556 7

75 1386 6

109 1340 7

AA LOUISIANA "NI64 COUNTIES 3,616.7 1.6 753.8 170,865 14,177 156,088 91 30.4 5,423 102 31 21 125 10

'1

-13A5

61

89

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

1920

2122232425

26

ACADIA ''ALLEN _." ,

ASCENSION ''.;.,

ASSUMPTION ';

AVOYELLF.S 'BEAUREGARD ,

BIENVILLE , ''..'

BOSSIER : ),,' 1

CADDO ". ",--; ICALCASIEU - 1

CALDWE1L 4.,::CAMERON _ - r'-re.

CATAHOULA

VAIBORIfCONCORDIA 13

DE SOTO ......' ' f'

EAST BATON li 1

EAST CARROLL

EAST FELICIA ' '

EVANGELItt 11

FINNAN li'lGRANT ,- .'' ` ') I

IBERIA '' A..' -,*

113ERVILLE ,7-;JACKSON ''''

EFFERSCO' 3

52.021.033.7

19.6

41.4

22.017.3

60.92260135.2

4 167.1

12.5

17.1

24.0

23.7

?61.614.4

19.6

34.0

25.414.5

57.631.1

17.1

88.8

.1

.1

10.24.17.0

3.882

4.43.2

13.0

46.426.8

1.9

1.3

2.4

3.15.0

4.661.32.7

3.2

65

4.92.8

11.3

5.93.4

65.8

2,7881,1521,881

1,2842,819

1,2891,0922,610

10,1754,645

"621238819934

1,365

1,450

9,784917

1,0512,225

1,577

9662,4121,944

948

1,436

226

2,015

2,7881,1521,861

1,284

2,819

1,2891,0922,6709,9494,645

621

238, 819; 934

1,365

1,450

7,709917

1,0512,225

'' 1,577

9662,4121,944- 948

1,436

100

100100

100

100

100100

10098

103

100

100

100

100

100

100

79100100

100

103

100

100

100

100

100

29.930.527.534.2

35.7

29.038731.2

30.6

27.6

34.027.4

30.1

37.9

31.9

35.225.7

43.8429386

43.321.0

31.1

33.6

30.6

22.2

8332394479

2936

103

345180

15

9

16

3637

48231

5551

84

7913

111

6823

144

120

104114

124106

77

9610596

106

83109989294

9889

126113102

103

101

128

120107

98

262926

27

24

33

2633

3529

29

2532

37

33

33

3519

3526

31

2428

2631

30

28

2221

2/29

19

21

18

17

19

21

2617

26

25

22

14

41

2428

27

19

2633

22

16.

70 9112 9

98 8160 10

94 9

81 8123 . 10144 10

253 '-. 1289 9

51 10

28 13233 10317 .' 13

192 10

303 9122' 9359 _ 14

221 , 1354 '' 11

231 ' 863 10

90 : 10150 8122 ' 10

49 10

Existing and Potential Resources for Family Planning Programs ( Designs ea location of One or More Programs or Resources within County)

NonFedera Physicians la Patient Care Hospital' Med. 0E0 Programs Other FederalSch. Programs

19 20 21 22

1

1

I

23

o8

24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

.1 E

HealthDepts.

P.P.

35 36 37 38

g SI ifliti,g-11,r:Sgl

1wa. r

tjigl

g

1

A

E

I...

KENTUCKY

3 28 3 28 RUSSELL 104

9 4 6 33 1 200 SCOTT 105

8 42 6 32 SHELBY 106

7 54 6 47 SIMPSON 107

4 69 4 69 SPENCER 108

7 44 6 38 1 6 1 277 TAYLOR 109

2 18 2 18 TM 110

6 70 5 58 1 99 TROIGG 111

2 832 2 38 TRIMBLE 112

6 4 5 35 1 178 UNION 113

51 95 15 28 3 6 1 1,143 WARREN 114

5 42 5 42 WASHINGTON 115

5 33 5 33 WAYNE 116

4 28 4 28 WEBSTER 117

21 85 13 53 1 498 MILEY 118

1 16 1 16 WOLFE 119

8 63 8 63 I 315 tiOODFORD 120

LOUISIANA

3,093 86 937 26 267 7 72 62,799 5 1 31 5 I 6 64 COUNTIES

32 62 17 33 4 8 2 585 ACADIA 1

10 48 8 38 1 5 ALLEN 2

10 30 9 27 ASCENSION 3

5 25 5 25 ASSUMPTION 4

17 41 18 39 AVOYELLES 5

5 23 4 18 2 407 BEAUREGARD 6

6 35 6 35 BIENYILLE 7

18 30 8 13 2 3 1 430 BOSSIER 8

284 126 54 24 17 8 4 5,466 1 o CADDO 9117 87 36 27 12 9 4 3,045 CALCASIEU 10

4 41 3 31 CALDWELL 11

3 42 3 42 1 33 CAMERON 12

3 24 3 24 CA TAHOULA 13

12 70 11 64 2 128 CLAIBORNE 14

7 29 6 25 1 171 CONCORDIA 15

4 17 4 17 1 91 DE SOTO 16

324 121 74 28 31 12 2 6,300 1 EAST BATON R 17

4 28 4 28 EAST CARROLL 18

19 9/ 6 31 1 5 EAST rum 19

13 38 10 29 EVANGELINE 20

10 39 10 39 FRANKLIN 21

3 21 3 21 GRANT 22

41 71 25 43 3 5 1 73 IBERIA 23

16 51 12 39 IBERVILLE 24

7 41 7 41 1 69 JACKSON 25

178 62 42 15 25 9 2 1,568 JEFFERSON 26

83

Table 1, Need for Subsidized Family Hamlin Services: Current Programs, Resources and Related Indices for U.S., Each State and County, FY 1968 continued

Population and SelectedCharacteristics (000s)

Estimated Fatally Planning Needand Service levels

Selected Health and Demographic IndicesInfant Mortality

1961-1965EaL BirthFart.

DmOrder as

Rata 4% of Births

2

e§

4 7 12 13

LOUISIANA

27 JEFFERSON DA 28.8 5.5 1,315 1,315 100 29.6 45 111 34 23 85 9

28 LAFAYETTE 1 103.5 22.9 4,529 4,529 100 30.8 171 103 30 22 87 11

29 LAFOURCHE 65.0 13.6 2,707 2,707 100 23.2 49 131 27 24 47 7

30 LA SALLE 15.0 3.0 837 837 100 24.8 10 90 31 16 52 10

31 LINCOLN 34.7 8.8 2,512 140 2,372 94 33.6 47 62 36 20 164 10

32 LIVINGSTON 32.3 7.2 1,741 1,741 100 263 32 98 32 13 62 9

33 MADISON 17.5 34 1,172 1,172 100 40.8 49 127 31 32 362 9

34 MOREHOUSE 34.8 7.0 1,864 1,864 100 33.2 67 118 34 25 295 10

35 NATCHITOCHES 36.4 7.7 2,631 2,631 100 40.4 84 83 34 25 201 11

36 ORLEANS 3 6419 131.1 26,579 10,330 16,249 61 31.6 1,049 104 34 20 138 13

37 OUACHITA '" 1 111.4 .1 23.3 5,605 5,605 100 26.1 114 110 32 18 152 938 PLAQUEMINES 267 5.7 1,117 1,117 100 26.8 31 127 35 19 69 9

39 POINTE COUPE 23.1 4.3 1,406 1,406 100 412 69 111 28 31 179 10

40 RAPIDES 5 118.6 .2 24.5 6,566 1,606 4,960 76 31.9 184 92 30 20 105 12

41 RED RIVER 10.1 1.9 720 720 100 35.2 19 87 36 22 198 14

42 RICHLAND 24.6 4.8 1,419 1,489 100 39.4 73 112 29 29 222 10

43 SABINE ', ' '' 21.1 4.2 1,313 1,313 100 32.4 32 99 33 22 82 10

44 ST BERNARD 3 45.7 11.4 1,135 1,195 100 23.6 26 82 31 16 28 645 ST CHARLES 25.9 5.4 1,059 1,059 100 27.7 34 121 26 25 58 7

46 ST HELENA 9.1 1.7 569 569 100 24.0 6 94 21 31 160 15

47 ST JAMES 19.6 3.9 1,017 1,017 100 29.3 33 141 26 27 148 15t 48 ST JOHN THE 22.1 4.5 1,239 1,239 100 32.3 43 127 24 24 98 13

49 ST LANDRY 84.3 17.1 5,322 5,322 100 37.9 227 121 26 29 132 9

50 ST MARTIN 32.3 6.6 2,162 2,162 100 369 8] 120 25 29 90 12

51 ST MARY 59.3 12.3 2,750 2,750 100 30.5 105 125 30 20 17 11

52 ST TAMMANY 3 57.6 .1 12.8 3,346 3,346 100 29.7 67 98 34 16 91 8

53 TANGIPAHOA 669 .8 13.7 4,138 4,138 100 38.5 169 112 29 21 126 9

r. 54 TENSAS 11.1 2.1 759 759 100 40.5 31 102 25 34 333 15

55 TERREBONNE 72.5 15.1 3,065 3,065 100 31.5 147 136 29 21 58 956 UNION :-' 18.9 3.6 1,096 1,096 100 27.7 19 93 29 26 118 7

57 VERMILION 41.3 1.9 2,022 2,022 100 24.0 31 108 2, 21 45 958 VERNON 59.1 14.6 4,635 4,635 100 32.8 45 33 32 16 46 11

59 WASHINGTON 45.1 .1 9.4 2,220 2,220 100 37.1 99 89 34 22 125 14

60 WEBSTER 40.8 8. 5 2,154 400 1,754 81 25.3 33 89 30 17 181 9: 61 WEST BATON R 112 3.3 853 853 100 34.4 38 128 28 25 124 11

62 WEST CARROLL 114 3.1 997 997 100 27.3 16 100 33 23 218 6

63 WEST FELICIA 11.3 1.7 569 569 100 51.3 36 91 22 36 308 964 WIM1 165 3.2 1,113 1,113 100 29.6 19 75 33 16 131 11

MAINE

16 COUNTIES 977.6 .4 185.2 27,749 219 27,530 99 24.2 703 100 32 17 46 7

I ANDROSCOGGIN 6 819 17.4 2,238 2,238 100 21.8 39 99 30 17 57 92 AROOSTOOI( 968 17.4 3,245 3,245 100 26.2 116 122 30 22 30 7

3 CU ADD 6 192.2 37.1 4,56i29 4,572 100 24.5 139 94 34 14 58 6

4 FRANKLIN 19.7 3.9 629 100 25.2 18 100 33 12 52 6

5 HANCOCK 32.2 5.8 1,154 1,154 103 29.6 37 94 30 15 47 9

84

Existing and Potential Resources for Family Planning Programs ( Designates locatton

Med.Sch.

of One or

CEO Program

More Programs or Resources within County)

NonFedera Physic lens In Patient Care Hospitals Other FederalPrograms

HealthDepts.

P.P.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

81-

1.3i4

ig1:1

1

i4 oS

tr.il

I.v1Zie.fil

...IA,vt;Si

M

1EIRH

lixliit-SI

11.61ItS2

k

Pk.gao3Si

E

P s

ii.-Si

gli'Tc&Pia.13 itoSgl

it.i.'':cgg/;ge,

A.1IVS:.41

gliAg S

F.

I I..3

LOUISIANA

16 55 13 45 1 3 2 801 JEFFERSON DA 27115 111 31 30 7 7 3 5,023 UVAYETTE 2838 58 19 29 5 8 2 1,483 LAf OURCHE 298

18 553262

40

6 2 6 1 349LA

LINSALLECOLN 3301

5 15 3 9 1 86 LIVINGSTON 324 23 4 23 1 65 MADISON 33

17 49 16 45 1 338 MOREHOUSE 3414 38 10 27 1 274 NATCHITOCHES 35

1,084 167 164 25 106 16 10 20,738 3 ORLEANS 36

114 102 28 25 11 10 3 4,167 OUACHITA 375 19 5 19 FLAQUEM INES 386 26 6 26 1 317 POINTE COUPE 39

120 101 25 21 10 8 3 3,378 RAPIDES 404 40 4 40 RED RIVER 41

11 45 10 41 RICHLAND 4212 57 11 52 SABINE 4312 26 8 17 ST BERNARD 4412 46 9 35 1 166 ST CHARLES 452 22 1 11 ST HELENA 46

9 46 8 41 1 461 ST JAMES 414 18 4 18 ST JOHN THE 48

52 62 25 30 6 7 2 821 ST LANDRY 495 15 5 15 ST MARTIN 50

32 54 18 30 3 5 2 1,143 ST MARY 51

46 80 15 26 4 7 2 125 ST TAMMY 5229 43 18 27 4 6 2 717 TANG IPA140A 5:

3 21 3 27 1 19 TENSAS 444 61 18 25 5 7 1 1,633 TERREBONNE 55

6 32 5 27 UNION 56

26 63 14 34 3 7 3 581 VERMSLION 577 12 6 10 VERNON 58

25 55 12 27 3 7 3 962 WASHINGTON 5920 49 12 29 1 2 WEBSTER 603 19 3 19 WEST BATON R 61

3 19 3 19 1 53 WEST CARROLL 623 21 2 18 WEST FELICIA 637 42 5 30 WINN 64

MAINE

882 90 326 33 47 5 45 14,782 1 16 3 2 1 16 COUNTIES

94 106 25 28 7 8 2 1,805 a ANDROSCOGGIN I55 57 27 28 3 3 6 1,421 AROOSTOOK 2

246 128 68 35 18 9 6 3,391 a CUMBERIAIC1 5 76 9 46 1 44 1 FRAMIN 442 131 19 59 3 9 4 516 HANCOCK 5

85

Table 1. Need for Subsidized Family Planning !mien: Current Programs, Resources and Related Indices for U.S., Each Stott and Counts,. FY 1968 continued

Population and SelectedClianderfetice (000s)

Estimated Featly Planning Needand Servka Levels

Selected Health and Demographic

Un BirthOrder as

% of Blahs

IndicesInfant Mortality

1%1.1965Est.FortRata

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

1

I Aii

I,ii

iI V- .IR

1111 I

i1

11

1.

ilii

15_ .1.;91

la I i

I

IA§

:iii-si

g

gk

I1

ii11

ii.1111vo

x4

4 -

li1 i16I

b

MAINE

6 KENNEBEC 90.4 17.4 2,309 2,309 100 24.0 60 91 31 20 58 87 KNOX 28.0 5.1 910 910 100 26.6 23 50 34 14 35 88 LINCOLN 19.9 3.7 699 699 100 20.2 4 92 31 18 40 99 OXFORD 43,7 8.1 1,143 1,143 100 21.9 19 92 30 19 43 7

10 PENOBSCOT 5 125,2 .2 23.6 3,191 195 2,996 94 22.9 82 108 32 15 32 8

11 PISCATAOUIS 158 3.1 501 24 477 95 19.6 3 89 39 15 51 S12 SAGADAHOC 23.3 4.3 5% 596 100 20.9 8 104 31 14 49 9

13 SOMERSET 43.1 8.4 1,222 1,222 100 23.5 25 100 31 17 67 614 WALDO 22.3 4.2 789 789 100 27.2 23 101 36 15 62 9...15 WASHINGTON 301 .2 55 1,525 1,525 100 30.7 38 88 27 16 82 7

16 YORK 105.2 20.3 3,026 3,026 100 24.3 69 97 30 17 24 6

MARYLAND

23 COUNTIES 3,610.9 .3 7583 73,732 25,195 48,537 66 25.5 2,946 94 34 14 9

1 ALLEGANY 5 86.4 11.5 2,965 221 2,744 93 20.6 23 79 32 12 62 ANNE ARUNDEL 3 260.0 54.2 4,578 1,268 3,310 72 22.8 133 87 32 14 93 BALTIMORE 3 1,4886 302.7 32,006 17,914 14,092 44 27.0 1,494 96 34 15 11

.., 4 CALVERT 18.3 3.5 567 159 408 72 33.0 31 131 27 28 7

5 CAROLINE 19.9 3.8 790 176 614 78 27.8 21 95 36 17 12,.,

6 CARROLL 3 63.3 13.0 1,714 182 1,532 89 23.8 34 85 33 13 7

7 CECIL 1 53.0 10.4 1,303 177 1,126 86 27.8 66 210 36 16 68 CHARLES 39.6 8.1 1,091 126 965 88 34.2 87 92 29 26 > 109 DORCHESTER 30.9 6.1 1,325 173 1,152 87 45.1 76 79 41 17 8

10 FREDERICK 83.5 18.2 2,409 365 2,044 85 22.0 36 81 36 13 7

11 GARRETT 22.0 4.5 1,061 26 1,041 98 21.1 7 92 26 21 10. 12 HAREORD 3 102.8 22.1 2,341 457 1,884 80 24.8 79 94 32 12 8

13 HOWARD 3 49.1 10,7 947 293 654 69 27,0 46 73 27 18 7

14 KENT 150 2.9 552 164 388 70 30.5 21 88 40 12 II15 MONTGOMERY 3 440.3 90 3,849 815 3,034 19 21.4 147 80 32 12 7

16 PRINCE GEORG 3 5550 127.9 6124 913 5,751 86 23.1 328 108 37 12 8Ii QUEEN AN`f-S 17.5 3.4 671 159 512 76 23.1 10 82 37 13 818 ST. MARYS : 42.0 7.8 1,239 243 996 80 28.1 13 151 31 21 819 SOMERSET 19.0 3.6 949 90 859 91 31.3 24 75 39 15 220 TALBOT .: 22.9 4.4 824 105 719 87 31.8 32 88 40 13 10

21 WASHINGTON 5 101.3 21.0 2,832 304 2,528 89 23.6 56 86 34 12 822 WICOMICO , 54.1 11.1 1,818 462 1,356 75 30.5 61 81 38 11 11

23 WORCESTER 26.1 .3 51 1,171 343 828 71 36.9 49 91 35 20 c 15

MASSACFIUSETT

14 COUNTIES 5,403.0 1,049.1 93,232 7,318 85,914 92 21.2 1,844 93 44 12 8

1 BARNSTABLE 81.7 158 2,009 2,009 100 219 45 86 35 13 7

2 BERKSHIRE 6 144.8 27.0 2,675 50 2625 98 20.4 39 90 31 15 83 BRISTOL ? 6 4156 81.4 10,152 10,152 100 21.3 142 91 36 14 1

4 DUKES 6.0 1.1 169 169 100 23.3 , 2 12 44 10 ' 10

1. 5 ESSEX 8. , .

614.9 1188 11,088 50 11,038 100 21.1 195 81 31 13 1

6 FRA110.04 57.2 10.8 1,135 1,135 100 19.3 8 81 36 11 5

Existing and Potential Resources for Family Planning Programs ( Designs es Location of One or

Programs

More Programs or Resources within County)

Non-Federal Physicians In Patient Care Hospitals Med.Sch.

0E0 Other FederalPrograms

HealthDopts.

P.P.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

11I8

29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

e iVI t

I

i

I2.R...

.., i

Jig m .1 i

1

v.1

.1"

1iAalivV 8

V..0jxv,11"g4.'

ij

x

212=

I

Pil.,11li

i-.I.ezSt4f.H

iP

2 w0 4

fS7.0

I,E0

MAINE

107 118 28 31 5 6 4 1,861 KENNEBEC 633 118 12 43 2 409 KNOX 7

14 70 9 45 1 96 LINCOLN 8

26 60 17 39 2 542 OXFORD 9105 84 23 18 9 7 4 1,725 1 0 PENOBSCOT 10

11 66 11 66 2 175 PISCATAOUIS 11

17 73 8 34 1 190 SAGADAHOC 12

26 60 14 33 4 660 SOMERSET 13

12 54 7 31 I 202 WALDO 14

17 56 15 50 2 339 WASHINGTON 15

62 59 34 32 2 2 3 1,009 YORK 16

MARYLAND

4,121 114 939 26 374 10 40 55,266 9 1 19 1 1 1 1 23 2 23 COUNTIES

(17 101 24 28 7 8 3 1,921 ALLEGANY 1

176 68 39 15 16 6 2 1,676 ANNE ARUNDEL 22,132 143 416 28 213 14 16 31,740 7 BALTIMORE 3

6 33 6 3.1 1 410 CALVERT 4

8 40 7 35 CAROLINE 5

58 92 22 35 2 3 702 CARROLL 626 49 21 40 733 CECIL 7

13 33 8 20 494 CHARLES 831 100 11 36 3 10 1,616 DORCHESTER 962 74 25 30 4 5 1,162 FREDERICK 10

6 21 5 23 334 GARRETT 11

65 63 25 24 8 8 HARFORD 12

26 53 12 24 1 2 HOWARD 13

13868

87197

8129

5329

1

697

16 41 3

C32458

1

KENT

MONTGOMERY

14

15

288 52 93 17 30 5 3 4,546 1 PRINCE GEORG 16

7 40 5 29 1 6 OMEN ANKS 17

21 50 13 31 1 2 1 652 ST. MARYS 18

14 74 13 69 1 108 SOMERSET 19

37 162 6 26 4 17 I 840 TALBOT 20

89 138 26 26 7 7 WASHINGTON 21

74 137 15 28 7 13 1 1,650 WICOMICO 22

14 54 10 38 WORCESTER 23

MASSACHUSETT

7,414 137 1,865 35 445 8 86 77,014 19 1 14 1 5 1 14 COUNTIES

114 140 49 60 2 2 2 1,091 BARNSTABLE 1

188 130 53 37 12 8 5 2,584 1 BERKSHIRE 2

380 91 116 28 ' 27 6 6 7,285 BRISTOL 3

9 151 5 84 1 79 OWES 4

627 102 198 32 43 7 11 8,880 I ESSEX 5

56 98 26 45 4 7 2 665 FRANKLIN 6

87

Tells 1. Reed for Sebeldind Family Planning Servkrs: Current Programs, Resources and Noted Indices for U.S., Each State and County, FY 1e68 continued

Pepatatios and SetectrfOftiractirtetke (000o)

Winged Family Planning Needand larks lyres

Selected Ifis Ith and Demographk IndictsInfant liaising

1361.1%5Lk

Fs&Rats

LIvs IfirthOrder se

, of Shills1 2 3 4 S 6 1 d 9 10 11 12 13 II IS 16 11 II

1

1

iilii

n

liI

111

I

II

I

II

6 i a;

i

1

ifIIvgl

kil

I115

gIIb

MASSA

HAMM 1 441.1 84.8 1,603 100 7,503 99 Pas 123 94 34 13 8S 11AI4:571VIE 1 112.6 254 2,191 2,191 100 21.0 30 63 35 12 69 MCCUSEX 8 1,321.4 257.8 11,854 112 16,944 95 20.2 329 96 44 12 1

10 NANTIICAEI 3.8 .6 86 16 103 216 5 112 33 6 11

II N3110171 8 515.9 115.5 6,150 200 5,950 97 20.2 12? 84 62 9 7

I2 FtliblUlli 6 3030 60.5 5,121 20 5,401 100 21.1 101 100 38 14 813 SUFI OtA 8 114.4 133.6 15,882 5,818 10,064 63 23.0 421 106 59 10 911 WORCESTER 1 610.1 1159 10,815 168 10,647 98 22.3 211 92 39 14 7

INMAN/3 CONIC 1461.6 14.5 1.1 1,1089 113,573 32,220 111,353 81 236 5,153 91 34 15 75 11

1 A/CON1 63 1.1 205 205 100 23.3 3 29 32 9 45 92 AlGUI 13 1.5 256 256 100 20.7 3 19 23 20 66 103 ARIGAN 036 11.9 1,214 1,211 100 20.8 19 41 28 20 38 4

4 ALMA 29.2 5 6 601 601 100 223 11 93 25 22 23 6S ANTRIM 10.7 20 389 319 100 21.2 10 7$ 23 20 S

I ARINAC 9.6 1.$ 329 329 100 214 S 81 36 11 41 1I SOMA 1.8 .3 1.4 283 213 100 219 1 126 21 11 23 11 VARY 341 69 791 191 100 22.1 16 El 31 11 54 6I SAT 1 112.3 53 223 2.041 2,041 IX 220 S3 101 32 11 31 6

16 8CP4LNE 19 .1 12 203 203 100 331 13 12 25 20 31 2

11 OMEN 5 1351 .1 34.0 3,264 3,264 100 24.5 lit 100 34 IS V 112 811.4201 31.1 1.7 946 946 100 19 1 S 70 31 11 46 1

13 CALIC4.11 S 1421 213 2,549 105 2,444 96 24.3 101 95 31 12 110 114 CASS 315 11 425 925 160 216 20 84 34 16 51 11

15 CHARLDOIX 14.1 26 414 414 100 233 9 104 31 12 29 7

14 CHESOYCAN 14.9 V 141 448 100 21.9 7 105 22 21 21 4

11 041PPE1NA 368 .1 61 913 913 100 254 41 115 33 1? 41 6II COX 129 2 5 486 486 100 251 10 101 32 11 32 IIt CtIN/ON 1 0.7 10 915 915 100 24.4 32 104 31 16 32 620 DIA1001413 59 11 721 221 100 214 6 13 72 24 19 4

21 0(114 13 3 60 155 10 715 12 254 29 11 73 24 42 4U 00174S041 24.6 4.5 111 39 100 95 24.2 14 04 21 21 47 S

2 3 EATON 1 551 1 1 6 1,131 1,131 100 17.? 96 35 1i 21 624 Rift 115 31 489 484 103 234 14 99 38 15 12? 1

25 MESE/ 1 4221 861 1,484 7.942 4,542 il 234 305 113 34 IS 75 1

26 GI MINN I14 23 401 101 IX 111 71 43 II $4 427 MSC 201 3 6 667 667 100 31.6 24 12 20 21 94 121 GAMO RAM 36 0 20 61 855 155 100 25 2 28 I5 29 19 62 529 GRATIOI 391 71 957 951 100 201 14 106 32 13 41 630 1111.1504tt 34.7 61 975 975 100 20 9 11 88 36 12 46 1

31 liCtICHUN 34 3 51 1155 1,155 100 733 11 95 31 20 25 3

32 1111011 33 5 6 2 1142 1,142 100 250 71 101 28 23 41 $1 1 N A A S 1 2 4 6 9 S I 4 4S11 126 1.045 $4 21 : 91 % 40 11 63 13 4 1 C N A 427 1.6 K S 1 2 6 100 MS 42 106 33 1 1 45 1

35 10900 231 4 3 691 691 100 23 5 21 111 31 15 20 5

Distill eat Pendia Resource, for Fee, Or Plano lug Programs (I Winks loutio*

Med.Sch.

of Ono or

GEO Programs

Heft PrOdraltle if Resources within County)

HealthDepts.

P.P.Nosfederal Physician la Meet Can Hospitals Other FederalPremiss

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 21 21 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

1

1

1...

ii11.

11

1

A

I..II

pi11

iiiI

tiII

jiiilit

1

11

li

i1

isi

11

Isiisi

/IItillesil

I I

z-ilk.stlstl

iii

iIi

11ASSACHUSETT

490 III 118 27 31 8 S 3,895 2 HAMPDEN

108 96 42 3? 5 4 2 1,511 HAMPSHIRE 81,641 124 428 32 94 1 20 20,536 4 MIDDLESEX 9

8 210 5 131 1 78 NANTUCKET 10

962 161 221 39 19 IS 7 7,505 1 NORFOLK

236 18 B9 29 15 5 3 2,185 1 PLYMOUTH 12

1,994 279 311 44 82 11 7 11,249 1 4 SUFFOLK 13

601 99 198 32 35 6 13 9,471 2 WORCESTER 14

MICHIGAN

7,402 8? 2,114 2S 6)? 1 158 140,261 19 3 11 1 6 1 30 9 83 COUIft 1ES

2 32 I 36 ALCOM 1

4 48 3 36 1 12 1 91 ALGER 2

32 53 19 31 3 5 3 112 ALLEGAN 3

21 12 10 34 3 10 1 640 AUPENA 4

4 3? 4 31 AVIA 5

S S2 4 42 MAC 63 39 2 24 1 163 SAMOA 7

12 34 8 23 2 6 1 441 MY $84 75 30 27 S 4 2 2,059 BAY I

S 72 5 72 I 115 WM 10

114 69 41 25 7 4 4 2,770 MARRA 11

23 61 8 21 2 5 1 602 scam 12

121 IS 33 23 5 4 4 2,552 WOW 13

14 3$ 11 28 1 3 1 256 CAS 14

1 49 6 42 1 199 CHARLEVOIX I5

7 47 6 43 1 235 CHEICITCNI 16

19 S2 10 21 1 381 CHMENA 1?

6 46 $ 39 CLARE 18

10 22 / 16 1 753 ClINION II1 101 3 S 1 1 1? 1 201 CAA NORD 20

21 63 11 3.3 2 4 CELIA 21

11 65 11 4.$ 1 514 DICIUNSON 22

I 8 32 IS 32 7 94 EATON 2340 Ht. 1 42 3 II 2 491 Mit 24

332 ?I 110 26 2$ 6 4 1,092 1 GENESEE 25

S 44 4 35 CUMIN 26

11 S3 10 48 2 326 GOGEBIC 21

20 105 13 16 3 1 1 146 GRAM RAVER 23

24 61 12 31 1 3 1 111 GRA 001 291 7 49 13 17 1 322 1L1SO4tt 30

21 61 11 32 2 SS4 NOUGNION 31

20 60 12 34 1 1 I 11? HURON 32246 100 17 2? 22 9 4 5.201 1 s a INGRAM 33

26 61 13 )) 1 406 IONIA 34

1 19 1 30 1 III IMO as

69

rot 1. Reed For Sobs Weed Family Planning Services: Current Programs, Resources and Related Indices for U.S., Each State and County, FY 1961 continued

Population and SelectedCharacteristics (0301)

Estimated Family Planning Needand Santo Lusts

Selected Real* and Demographic IndiesInfant Modality

1931.1965Est.feetRate

Live likthOrder as

% of Birth'1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 It

1si

S

I1

iI1

iii713

ill1ilII

II11.1

I.

1 2

isihrt''t

a

4 1g

1

1i

1 1

li14li

Li

NI&I.t

h"OMAN

36 Ifilf4 i52 2.8 463 40 423 91 260 10 61 24 23 64 337 ISABELLA 38.6 88 1,173 1,173 100 20.4 11 19 32 21 49 1

38 JACKSON 1 1369 268 2.215 2215 100 24.4 96 98 34 15 56 1

39 KAI.A144200 1 1883 .8 40.3 3,313 443 2,870 87 221 62 82 31 12 16 940 KAVASKA 4.9 10 190 190 100 261 4 101 35 15 42 4

41 ILNI 2 391 2 77.9 6,881 1,578 5,303 11 21.7 113 101 33 15 68 742 riVENAYI 2.1 .3 72 12 100 261 2 5043 WI 51 .8 235 235 100 362 9 102 23 25 136 744 LAKER 1 47.6 10.0 1,124 1,224 100 21.4 31 95 32 14 44 $45 ltEl MAU 9.1 .5 1.8 321 121 100 23.3 S $4 24 15 21 5

46 IENAMI 80.0 .8 11.1 1,764 1,764 100 222 34 90 36 14 53 1

41 liv1NG31074 44.2 H 935 935 100 263 31 101 39 13 34 648 LUCE 6.8 1.2 211 217 100 3.3.4 9 58 38 12 59 341 1AACtu7IAC 10.1 11 287 287 100 21.8 13 04 31 II 62 550 MACOMB 3 553 1 121.9 8,357 58 8,299 99 20.8 191 100 29 IS 32 7

SI wasItt 19 6 3 6 460 6 454 99 24.5 14 100 32 13 S3 $S2 11NiOUETIE 61.8 132 1,841 2 1,839 100 215 2$ 91 34 14 46 6S3 MASON 21.1 4.1 533 6 571 99 21.$ 8 $4 32 14 23 454 KOOS/ A ?SI 5.2 914 974 100 181 2 62 40 16 31 S

Si MUCIONEt 231 .2 4 2 613 11 612 93 212 i 89 23 23 38 5

56 HOMO SS 6 11.5 965 965 103 111 102 34 13 32 157 imss.sait 61 1.1 220 220 100 213 2 94 29 15 11

S8 140/.0( 2 1120 .8 231 2,142 2,142 100 209 19 100 31 11 41 659 MONICALM 404 80 1,161 1,161 100 231 24 91 35 11 41 S

60 MailMORFACY 4.6 .8 193 193 100 18 5 75 26 23 3

61 MOSAA3084 1 1521 29.1 2,841 493 2,348 83 269 165 101 36 16 101 $62 PiEWAYGO TS? 4.9 801 601 100 20 5 1 94 29 12 35 463 043QM0 3 0121 169.1 11,346 363 18963 97 211 213 62 34 14 54 7

64 OCEANA 17.0 12 474 411 100 17.3 90 34 II IS 365 01114411, 101 19 399 399 100 2611 1 70 33 21 61 5

66 ONTONAGON 10 6 I 1 288 286 100 200 3 97 22 28 51 S67 OSaCtA 1 I. 9 26 448 44$ 100 20 2 4 98 29 li 31 116$ OSCODA 4.1 .1 141 140 100 24.2 2 ?3 43 4 4SI 0/SEGO 12 1 S 245 245 100 303 12 III 22 20 43 3TO 011ANA 2 1124 .1 231 IASI 9 1,642 HA TO 3 31 98 30 IS 33 6

71 PRESQUE ISLE 121 2I 298 296 100 221 6 96 2$ 18 Kt 9II ROSOCNIMICS II 14 326 328 10 274 S 64 32 11 64 573 SWAMI 1 210 2 20 420 3,764 2,462 1,262 34 24.3 158 1 II 33 17 84 974 S1 CUM 5 114 1 22 9 2,871 6 2,112 100 241 83 9 85 29 18 53 1015 S1 ;ZEN 464 t 9 968 968 10 221 23 88 33 II 46 I76 Shag )4.3 6 5 IASI 1,068 103 231 19 81 2$ 20 31 ?

11 $003,CRM1 10 1.4 283 263 100 213 3 19 33 n 63 I71 SRANASStE 602 122 1.168 1,168 103 219 V 106 34 14 51 1

IS 111900lA IS 1 91 1.211 1 211 100 235 2$ 15 27 19 54 i80 WI N A N 550 108 1.471 1,478 100 /I $ 60 II 32 11 41 S

81 NASNINAW 1 203 1 46$ 3,613 2,011 1,608 44 202 50 15 43 8 64 1

go

16

11 110131)6YM

N 1111111 WI it IftX1S01 111 MOMS U 1011011XIOS SI NMS st Rao ts 71 W1(10 IS CI MOMS Cl 6100111035011

11 PSI 3110S304

01 IMMO O 00X10 a vocKm 11 nooso a M00010010

0 WAX* 011(300 49 OlitIVO

19 YNA It MOH 03 ANCPAPIDOX Si MINIM a mon IS DIMISSIII X Off= S5 MOOR IS Al O M ES WW1 4 uttnom IS 3315SMI

OS PICKAX 0 %WW1 It 30(11 It 11010NIAll 9t WW1

St rtYWY13:11

ff WW1 Et ten tt Atonal

int PErl11//

6E 0011170101 It NOSIOYI It VIUSYSI

NOM

I Or, 1 11 U IA VS 311 Kt

501 1 X IR II IR lit t U II it 4

Ott I E C 11 01 ' 11 IR 01 I 4 1 4 $ 1% 1 It ti 9 /I 14 1 1 1 SS SI 11 V

NS1 I 1 04 SI 61 ' 11 it till t I 11 61 4 4 UI a 1 IN I

ill 1 II 1 SI t 101 I t t * It 90 11

01 1 K 1 . II i

U 1 Si 1

01 1 = X S 0 9 0 1 0 5 II I

S91 1 it $ k . 1 is 1 St i Si 9

I aril t pi ut a NI ' to 1 ?Si Eli i t SE I IS SI

1 S111 1 1 ft U 4 U 111

a II 1 I 4 II 0 0?

NCI 1 1 1 11 PI it 0 VI 1 6t' 1

ItY 1 1 El 1 a Si a to

tit I u 1 it 6 911 1 II I 0 11

Kt 1 SS II tl 91 Ell t I I a It Id -

OS

NI 1 S 1 X 5 IS 01

1641 1 1 It 11 19 4 XI CE1 1 05 1 EC 5

01 1 ti S I* 01 49 1 it 11 IS 9?

1 ti .1 t I ? 0 St II IS

0 1 9 I 19 9 114 ? t ? I? El IS a

U t 0 S

1 1101 t 01 X 61 91 101

119

19 t 19 £ 1 JIVE t 6 it It 65 911 611

COS'? C t 9 HZ X 4 011 301 1 S i U 6 U 4 01 Z 6E 9 0 1

110610111

Pifil 'till/ il I 1

tli 111

If*

!-.1

II

il

El 9'

fi Is

I

il 16

p

1

h 1

I[ is

4, all

1

III f

II 11

I If

ti 1

li

it a tt St ft ft nucleus:a si Utz tz u Id OZ SI

T41 oo IR.splVIN

um*

se Word ImPlInG0 ilitaild ON

pm is no Is vownei

IPS 'PH 014611

a) seelIN l eigueli Wm w3111614 vinePttold tloi-old

Wnrj turmi xi irtiki,/ scrap,' isi =wag meow pet Segipi

Table 1. PM ler Sobsidized Ramify Nailing SIIVICtig Current Programs, Resources and Related Indite, for U.S, Each State and County, FY 1968 continued

Pwalatioa sod Setectadtharectultrics (000s)

Estimated Family Planning Needand Sarnia Lento

Se !Wad Health and Demographic lodkas!stint Modality

1961.15EstFortRes

the BirthOrd* as

% of Pike2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1U 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16

1

11

II11

IIJ

Iii li

I

-1is I

I

11.8 r.gi

i

11

if1/

1.1

Ell'i1

itiMICHIGAN

82 WAYtt 3 2,7048 .8 5123 59380 20,704 38,676 65 251 2,170 91 35 16 113 10

83 WEXFORD 195 3.8 590 590 100 31.9 28 100 31 15 94 6

MINISOIA81C011111ES 3,5123 10.9 675 2 /9921 9,459 70468 88 21.0 1,333 99 30 18 61 6

1 A11111 120 .1 2.0 513 513 00 11.9 15 21 22 66 I?2 ANOKA 3 127 2 27.1 1,269 1,269 00 114 11 127 26 II 34 63 BECKER 2S II 1.2 t 5 944 944 CO 20.4 1 101 26 2S 82 7

4 13611RAMI 261 29 5.1 1,011 35 916 97 283 29 86 34 23 161 6S BENTON 19 2 3.4 539 S39 00 20.5 1 125 21 26 33 6

6 BIG STONE 8 II 1.6 382 382 CO 216 8 104 26 21 122 107 FLUE WITH 509 10.6 1,512 1,512 03 19.5 9 15 X I? 43 68 BR0 Y04 291 5.4 900 903 00 23.7 18 101 25 26 40 7

9 CARLTON 21.4 .5 53 S32 S32 00 20.7 9 91 24 19 41 5

10 CARVER 24.1 t 6 597 591 00 11.4 99 21 22 22 6

I I CMS 15 3 17 28 738 15 663 90 24.1 11 86 21 23 115 612 ClOPPEWA 161 2.9 569 569 100 15.4 85 21 23 8 5

13 CIRSAGO i4.1 24 371 379 100 259 10 90 23 26 74 614 ClAY 1 426 18 853 153 100 220 20 86 a 14 44 6IS CUARWATO 87 .3 15 356 3% 100 20 1 2 83 19 21 31 5

16 COOK 3 ? .2 .6 61 61 100 11.9 101 30 10 103 7

1/ C011014A000 15 1 2.7 503 533 100 132 82 21 23 9 418 mow WING 33 2 6.1 999 999 100 119 1 82 30 2S 103 S

19 DAKOTA 3 1082 218 1,315 1,315 100 20.9 41 Iii 26 19 28 620 DOW 114 2.4 445 445 100 118 59 34 20 42 6

21 DOUGLAS 20 1 31 799 799 100 11.4 61 X 18 16 672 F ANOMIE 220 31 613 613 100 211 8 17 26 25 4? 4

73 FILLMORE 129 4 0 168 168 100 162 86 22 26 46 62 4 M O 086, 365 11 876 1171 100 24 1 25 13 33 18 411 S

25 COME 341 .2 11 829 821 100 111 86 35 15 64 5

26 GRAM 8 8 I $ 317 311 100 215 3 ES 30 22 63 371 WWII 3 8811 174.9 13,115 1007 7,121 54 131 191 11 36 13 $4 1

28 HOUSICO 17.2 1 0 502 5042 100 21.4 7 103 II 11 45 4

19 ILIBBAPEI HI 5 .1 I I 452 452 100 72 2 S 02 21 1? 80 330 WM 11.0 3.4 605 105 100 141 76 A 20 24 3

11 ITASCA 361 .4 6 8 1,090 1,03 100 at 34 IS 30 20 63 4

32 mascot 14 3 25 SSi 651 100 213 S 86 26 29 41 4

33 RAMBEC 11 I8 364 364 100 115 83 31 23 27 1

34 PA/W011 216 4 9 848 848 100 11.1 86 I? 15 38 4

35 10111011 12 1.4 251 251 100 21.4 I 30 21 11 52 9

* IL00013CHIC 119 .3 14 316 316 100 303 22 73 JO 20 90 5

37 MN M I L I 1 1 74 W 417 103 119 68 24 It 15 4

38 1A* 12 9 2 3 193 133 100 13 5 3 196 36 19 57 5

39 WI OF BC 4 3 .7 140 163 100 216 S S 19 75 23 11

40 ILE 2.1133 211 31 641 611 I* 114 11/ 26 22 20 6

41 1111(001 18 15 360 301 100 It 6 1 16 73 30 11 7

tot

Webs and Potential Resources for Family riming Proven' ( Designates

Hospitals

locplon

Med.Sch.

of One w Mae

0E0 Program,

Programs w Resource!'

federelPren'

within County)

Health.Depts

Now leders1 Phviciertslo Pant Care Other P.P.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 26 29

Iti11

30

I1iiIII

31

ti

1

II

324...

a3

11

01

34

Iillif' if'lcii

35

1 1/JissIst.1

36 37 38

_I i1 II

i

II

t 11 S

11

13

1J

11

11

I

si

Itll! I 1

I..3

2,718 100 649 24 238 9

14 12 3 IS 1

3,719 104 1,312 37 189

4 33 4 33

34 27 20 16 5 4

14 54 12 47

17 65 10 IS 1 4

7 36 6 31

91 ? 7950 13 X 4 825 86 17 58 1 3

19 65 16 S4

19 11 16 65

6 37 4 2511 fa 10 62

7 49 1 41IS IS l4 1 2

4 46 4 IS

3 43 3 23

11 ?2 10 65X 15 16 48 1 3

39 29 2/ I I6 45 6 45

18 115 15 72

13 59 13 51

11 48 11 4827 14 14 38 2 5

32 12 12 X 4 11

3 3 /41,2S3 112 107 35 36i X

4 4 X13 76 1 53

2S 61 1 1 4 6

1 41 6 427 72 6 it

322

1124 2 10I

3512

1S 4932

I 454:

II 62 $ 4?

t 41 2 41

10 4? 8 X

4 45 4 45

35

16?

I21

2

1

25

2

2

1

I2

1

1

3

23

22

2

1

2

1

IS211

33

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

MICHIGAN

51,256 12 WAYNE 82WEXFORD 83

MINNESOTA

63,556 6 1 81 3 2 1 2 3 87 COUNTIES

121 WW1 1

2,004 ANOKA 2

383 BRAD 3

433 1 &tTRAMI 4

8011011 5

126 BIG SICK 6

1,039 BLUE (ARM 1

122 BROWN 8

368 CARLTON 9

419 CARVER 10

69 I CASS II189 0014111A 12

263 0(1SA00 13

56? . CLAY 14

1580 CUARWATER

COOK 16

253 COTTOMPOOD 17

543 C11011 WING II1,07 DAAOIA 19Mt 20

365 DUOS 71

282 /AMU) 22

113 FILLMORE 23

6153 FlitBORN 24

569 GOINUE 25

57 GRAKI 26

1117$ t a KAMM 2?

142 MANN 21

210 I HUMAN) 29?SI Will JO

Sed ITASCA 31

111 AMON 32e ILIMEC 33

472 MANTON 34

61 811301 IS

275 80001011110 X96

164

s LAC WI XM

PATARE

37

X12 LUZ OF DE 39

500 It 51.1EUR 40

225 1 INCCU1 41

93

Table I. Need for Sobskrized Family Planning Services: Current Programs, Resources end Related Indices for U.S., Each State and County, FT 196/1 continued

Populace) and SelectedCharactertatke (000s)

Esti meted Family Planning Reedand Service Levels

Selected Health and Demographic IndicesInfant Medea,

19414965Est.

FartRate

Live SirthOrdet as

NI *I IRAs

10 11 12 I 13 14 15 16 17 1$

11

II11

liiti 11

I

ti1

I.I

6 i

i

isg1;

5

1 Ig

f

1I

li.1ill!

li

11fi

g

14114NESOI A

42 LYON 21.043 10100 26644 164/40414 SO65 ItWatAll. 14.6

46 MAR141 26.0

41 111.1111 19343 MIlltUCS 15249 140M1S0N 264SO 1101411 45 251 MURRAY 14.0

52 POCOILtI 22553 PDXES 225S4 N3R64,424 10755 ClUSItO 5 72156 011tR 141 46.9

67 FINNINGIOR 111SI Ptt 16959 WSW/ 12660 KV S 316ft POPE 11.0

62 RAMSEY 3 431.563 KO Wit 5 564 14101.000 20.1

65 Rtleallt 22.1

E6 10Ct 39.9

67 140:11 11.1

68 ROStAU 112II ST LOW i 225 020 SO3t111 Ham fli12 Sett'? 15713 SUM 5 90.414 SIMI 27.4

76 STIYMS 11.0

14 SWIFI 141

11 TWO 72371 MATO 1.1

71 CIABASHA 16420 14401314 12 311 PIMA 153

12 114511Petal 3 66$83 11410184441 13684 ;FUJI 1011$ WPOIA 430IS Snit 311

1112011111111C 15 3

3.6 638 638 100 269 24 120 21 23 28 9

4.9 803 803 100 16.0 91 30 18 31 7

.8 1.0

2 5240

445240 100445 1CO

155115 1

121

93

1?

2035

2!SO

18

1

44.5 731 731 100 20.1 6 75 30 17 65 7

13 7e9 709 100 112 1 97 25 25 12 4.4 21 571 Sit 100 366 29 91 2S 33 40 3

4.1 969 969 100 25 2 24 109 11 40 12 1

8 5 878 878 100 21.1 11 81 25 27 60 5

2.5 506 506 100 30 / 21 100 23 26 40 4

4.1 485 485 100 Rd 99 2? 11 20 54.1 745 145 100 27.2 24 95 32 22 72 1

1.8 336 336 100 21.7 10 64 21 22 11 214.9 1.442 1.442 100 20.1 22 112 29 IS 49 61.9 1,678 1.618 I00 23.1 26 13 25 24 52 S

2.1 334 334 ICO 11.7 2 92 38 11 62 5.3 21 602 602 100 230 1 11 26 1$ 61 3

22 443 443 IX 165 98 24 21 +6 665 969 959 100 221 17 94 21 18 46 5

18 374 371 100 114 1 76 31 16 29 1

11.7 6,079 3,293 2,186 46 22.5 249 111 33 16 79 1

1.0 164 164 100 270 6 109 21 42 19 11

.2 16 732 132 100 112 1 108 22 29 26 3

19 187 787 103 153 19 25 19 29 5

11 1,123 1,123 100 190 5 JO 26 20 46 6

20 321 321 100 14.3 101 30 21 20 S

1.9 393 393 103 11.1 95 21 12 11 61.1 41.4 1140 49 5,091 99 215 43 90 33 15 61 1

4.8 692 692 100 24.5 25 142 H 21 29 126 352 352 100 25,4 13 101 2S 22 29 6

27 522 S22 100 16 3 93 25 16 32 4

125 2,601 2,801 100 244 12 110 23 31 43 65 3 641 641 100 22 3 13 91 29 16 29 S

20 384 384 100 11 9 3 90 29 19 23 1

25 521 521 100 24.1 9 91 30 24 33 3

31 441 919 100 11.4 92 20 33 52 612 249 249 100 720 3 90 21 32 II 921 441 441 100 215 20 92 26 24 31 1021 514 514 100 RI 122 25 28 11 4

2.6 401 401 100 23.1 9 105 33 11 11 4

129 MO 910 100 209 26 309 It 24 34 62.4 450 450 IC* 221 6 86 35 19 57 611 305 43 100 101 3 79 34 21 31 611 1.12S 1,125 103 294 32 91 36 1? IS 1S 1 970 970 100 17.1 111 26 24 57 4

27 603 603 100 249 10 80 26 21 11 4

DM log and oeda, Resaorsts for Family Malang Programs (a Designates location of One w

Programs

Hon Pmgrams w Resources within Conti)

Hara,Fadrol Nablus Is Meat Caro Hospitals Mad.so.

0E0 °the federal!Moms

NM(*gab.

P.P.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 21 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 31

A n

1

i

11

lVS

li

III

I

i i

i 1IIit

id

11

lilaII

1 1II11

1111illlb

1illIII

illi:11 i

141MIESOIA

14 61 14 61 2 447 LY ON 4218 68 13 49 3 569 14C1100 432 34 2 34 1 15 IWOXIM 143 21 3 21 1 103 14ARSliAll 45

1? 68 14 56 2 349 MAR1E1 46

11 1111 13 68 1 288 HEW 418 53 7 46 2 354 141at MS 41

1l 64 11 42 1 492 MORRISCO1 4932 71 11 40 1 586 MOM SO

4 29 4 29. 1 143 HURRAY SI

18 10 12 S3 1 167 711001111 S21? 16 6 21 2 9 '2 401 Kan S33 28 ; 3 2$ 1 9$ PC404W1 54

556 Xi 16 22 21 29 2 2,009 IMMO SS41 $7 22 41 2 4 2 156 OMR 1A1. 56

11 93 ? 59 1 261 P11911101011 SI/ 42 . 5 X 1 103 PK SO

10 7911 49

, 1 ?I' ? 11 21

S 3211463

MIMEPOU 40

6 S5 6 SS I 46 POPE 41

550 121 158 3? 31 7 9 1,315 1 Auto 62t X 2 X 1 11 RED UN 631 39 I )4 1 264 REMO) 64/ 31

26 6S1 31

. 1? 41 1

1

3 2184663

1101YLIt191 46

6 54 6 SI 1 184 ROCK 614 36 4 4S 3 IN 110/41 61

US 104 63 21 15 / 10 US 1 St 101115 4914 54 12 47 1 557 SC011 /04 76 4 26 MUM /1

5 12 5 32 , 2 164 519itt 7271 ii 311 X 5 1 4 t643 PONS11 61 13 41 1 471 STUlt 74

6 SS

$ 11S 444 57

1

2241212

VDUSsoft

75

11 IS 1 X 1 4 3 114 TOGO

3 42 I 42 1 U TRAVEItSt 7$

11 61 1 41 2 217 WASA5114 79

H 01 14 11 1 351 11AOEAA 106 It 4 26 1 211 a %MCA $1

11 21 16 14 S62 11ASHIMIOA 12S V 4 21 12 1/4 PAIONVOJI 133 31 3 X 1 372 WW1 14

It 61 X V 3 1 1 726 1111044 a16 41 13 31 2 423 MOO

11 12 11 50 3 IS4 11:1109 1101C 11

93

TabIt 1. Reed lot Sobildlred famlis anning Sinker. Currant Programs, Resources and Rotated indices for U.S., Each State and County, FY 1968 continued

PopotatSon and SelectedChoracter'slics (000s)

Estimated Featly Manning Nedsad Saki lents

Selected Kean and Demerapik ladicesInfant Marta,

1961.1965Est.FortRate

tin IllrthOrder's

% of !Mks10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 18

a

i 1

11

II

illIli

I

ii_

1I

+

-6 i

I

it'151..

2..i

g

1

ii11

IIrigi

lifiI:iii b

MISSISSIPPI

VCOLICIES 23366 6.2 29 475.1 135,922 13,303 122,619 SO 39.8 6261 100 31 25 113 9

1 ADAMS 31.8 1.6 2,030 238 1,792 8$ 34.6 88 113 40 19 293 11

2 ALCORN 21.9 .2 5.9 1,714 34 1,703 98 269 29 SS 37 16 92 1

3 AMITE 14.2 2.6 868 55 813 94 40.4 37 101 29 36 225 94 ATI ALA 213 4.4 1,435 130 1,305 91 421 51 90 26 26 126 85 13ENI ON 81 1.6 563 85 08 85 42.3 23 10$ 24 29 172 8

6 BOMAR 51,9 .3 11.0 3,811 486 3.385 81 486 279 136 24 38 351 II1 UMW 163 3.3 1,026 67 1,009 94 525 59 911 32 20 99 7B CARROLL 11.1 2.2 816 128 688 84 37.1 22 83 24 30 200 49 DOCTIASAW 11.6 3.5 1,053 133 930 81 32.1 31 99 28 21 133 6

10 CHOCIAW 82 1.6 561 58 503 90 269 8 91 34 15 113 10

11 C1A180161 10 2 2.0 805 221 584 13 49.8 39 82 24 40 212 912 CLARKE 184 .1 3.0 1,029 130 899 IT 389 31 102 34 19 163 1213 CLAY 119 .1 3.8 1,061 138 943 81 261 19 101 34 22 144 814 COAHOMA 461 .2 86 2,896 562 2,334 81 61.3 369 131 24 36 211 ISIS COMM 27.1 .1 53 1,796 424 1,372 16 368 62 911 29 21 22? I

16 COMMA 14.8 3.0 940 78 862 92 366 30 109 21 23 TO II11 DESOTO 31.3 63 2,029 129 1,9013 94 388 83 123 28 21 152 91$ MIST 592 .1 13.1 3,345 93 3,252 97 32.0 94 81 35 18 129 911 FRANKLIN 69 1.7 S21 62 465 8$ 43.0 23 82 29 32 306 11

23 CECOCE 121 2.1 664 78 616 96 24.9 II 10? 36 19 43 ?

21 ME II 1.11 615 615 100 29.9 11 94 31 19 IS? 1322 COEMAJM 20.4 .2 4.2 1,221 110 1.061 111 469 14 101 33 21 111 1123 HANCOCR 19.4 4.1 1,206 22 1,1$4 9$ 29.2 19 76 32 21 11 I24 liNTRISCW 1 1421 .1 27.1 5,991 194 5.613 91 24.9 133 111 SS I? /I 425 Hie 1 2120 .4 471 9,481 1.160 8.307 8$ 33.6 413 89 32 20 151 10

26 HOLMES 21.3 .3 53 2,005 237 1,766 SS 49 $ 114 10? 21 36 256 921 1041PHREYS 19.1 3 $ 1,482 203 1,219 86 51.6 115 179 21 37 359 14

2$ ISSACI(E/tA 3 0 .5 203 203 100 521 17 154 20 2$ 150 1029 !TANA ABA 11.1 31 1,085 13 1.072 99 25 0 1 10 29 II 3$ S30 1ACTS004 )11 164 2,825 306 2.511 19 231 99 10? 32 I? E4 1

31 OAR 16 2 3 2 1.021 105 116 90 31.1 39 89 24 29 126 1132 JEFFERSON 12.3 2.4 974 201 713 71 216 13 it 21 31 281 1

33 ATTERSCe OA 13 .7 29 975 40 535 96 40 3 31 93 33 33 213 II34 MS 51 3 12 6 2,801 356 2,451 I? 31.5 122 SO 34 1? 116 1033 /IWO 11 I 2 3 650 11 631 96 34 3 20 V 25 39 156 6

36 LA/ AYETTE 241 53 1.420 134 1,346 II 363 33 $0 42 14 III 431 LAMAR 156 3 2 831 28 $09 11 1 5 19 97 34 it 11 133 LAUDERDALE 5 lit .3 161 4,162 191 3.95$ 95 .4 9 111 12 34 I? 160 33 9 L A W N : W 8 99 I I 601 29 575 95 360 22 114 34 16 130 640 UM 186 .6 3 7 1,2E3 3$ 1,225 97 41 ? 42 60 37 2S 151 13

Ii lit 451 33 2,262 56 2206 98 31.1 101 101 36 20 124 142 1fT10111 501 .9 100 3,111 681 2.437 li 540 268 172 21 31 265 II43 tPCOLN 26 I 84 1.157 404 1 153 13 40 9 61 16 31 II 102 444 toots S31 .4 12 0 2945 273 2,672 11 34 5 119 II 33 it 10 II48 MADISON 33 3 i 6 2211 33$ 1,871 IS 451 01 12S 28 2$ iil It

46 MAMA 13 2 .3 4 6 1,326 120 1,206 91 216 21 12 36 13 153 13

96

Eth Ong ail Pent 41 Resavran fai hey Plana lag NOW la Dasignats Lotttioa of Ona or Min Moss sr Warm Aida Covey)Pwaioni PInsktiss Is PAH Cato liespitats Mat

kfs.0(0 Programs Otitt

Progra7skra1

maWith0914.

PI.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 29 29 30 ; 31 32 33 31 35 36 37 31

11

1

11 it

11

11

ii

i

Is

ii i

'Iii

il

ti

ii

Iti

It

11tj

11

1

ti

JI

i

11

11

11ti

li

Jlftil

II)

1 1 il/11111 1

illid i

1

1

1,443 62 667 29 89 4 10 25,153

52 118 15 40 4 11

19 68 9 12 1 4 1 3993 21 3 21

9 0 7 31

1 1

421 12

26 455

17 29 2 3 2 6159 5 1 43

1 2 1110

251

15 28 2

3 31 3 37

1 753

4 394

4 195 32 26

1

9 48 5 2627 5$ 10 21 3 613 43 12 44 1

47 41i 11 S 16

1 140

104 24 41 3 5 2 1,1665 56 4 45 1

7 SS 1 55 1 289

310123

35

259

ts 2 2312 59 1 /4 1 2168 41 ? 36 1 162

99 TO 30 21 9 6 1 1,736al 135 54 25 72 10 4 5,091

6 22 6 22 1 $4

6 30 6 30 1 62

$ 29 5 2144 10 19 26 3 4 1 LIU

50 S SO

41 24 1 8$ 37 4 29 I 159

42 n 20 M 3 $ S 1,7114 34 3

It TS 42 1 4 I 411

$ 32 5 3264 14 73 a i 8 4 1425

3 30 3 309 41 1 43

42 13 11 24 1 1 1,064

21 HI a t 4 1 492

1? 63 HI 37 t 1

31 50 1 11 1 $ 1 St11 33 11 33 1 242

14 60 1 34 1 4 1 259

2 1 37 5 1 2 79

MISSISSIPPI

COUNTIES

ADAMS 1

ALCORN 2AMITE

ATTMAfarm

34

DURAN 6CALHOUN 1

CARROLL $CHICKASAW 9CHOCTAW 10

CUJOCONE 11

CLARKE 12

CLAY 13

COAHOMA 14

COM 15

COYIKTON 16

OE SOTO 11

ICIRREST 10TIMM 11

GEORGE 20

MINE 21

111011AAHANCOCK 23

HARRISON 24

HMS

toms 26

HUMFMREYS 2?ISSAOLIENA 1$CROW 29JACKSON X

JASPER 31

VERSON 321711:11SON DA IIKIES 34MVO IS

LM PIM aWWI 31

LA IDETIMIE aLA IMO 39LEM 40

LEE 41

LILT1ONE QL INCOUI 43

a WNW 44111171:3011 IS

IWOC11 46

9i

Table I. Need lot SolesStficed Family Planning Services: Current Programs, Resourus and Related Indica lot U.S., Each State and County, FT 1968 continued

Pnoutation and Selected0lisrectutstics (000s)

Estimated Family Planing Needcad Unice Levels

Selected Health end Demers* IndicesIntent Iletterty

1961.1945Est.

Fu tItet1111ttlis

LW Ike&dorsi

2 3 4 S 6 1 8 I 10 11 12 13 14 15 ' 16 11 It

1i1

iili

1I11

hiii...Ili

il1

la 5

I3 II

illgcs

1

1z

Ig

ii11

ifif

gl

Lig

IliII

lbML.V.ASStPP1

41 MARSHALL 24.1 4.9 1,655 511 1,084 65 43.9 95 116 21 34 232 948 193M10E 355 .3 1.4 2,014 119 1,895 94 380 78 96 30 22 101 1

49 MONTGOMERY 14.9 3.1 1,044 119 925 89 41.5 38 13 32 21 150 11

50 NESHOBA 22.0 1.3 4.5 1,398 124 1,214 91 44.9 56 13 33 22 102 I151 NEW10N 20.2 .4 4.2 1,291 15 1,222 94 43.8 52 81 35 23 121 9

S2 NOME 11.5 3.5 1,230 13 1,151 94 45.9 64 110 31 34 245 953 ONTAKHA 29.0 5S 1,684 269 1,415 14 30.8 46 94 40 28 114 854 PANOLA 210 54 1,146 117 1,659 90 53.8 151 121 22 39 220 10

55 KARL RIVER 216 64 1,642 82 1,560 95 43.9 69 13 30 15 90 956 PERRY 92 1.9 614 6 606 99 352 17 93 42 15 136 9

Si PK 316 .2 66 1,157 121 1,730 33 39.8 85 91 31 21 175 858 PONTOTOC 11.? 34 1,163 36 1,121 17 213 11 96 36 24 96 11

59 MOMS 20.4 4.3 1,317 44 1,333 97 23.0 10 19 31 13 88 8C O W O M A N 21.0 3.4 1,424 14 1,350 95 52.4 118 141 2 1 37 231 1 1

61 IWtoti 1 316 7.9 1,129 100 1,729 95 361 72 91 32 11 113 9

62 SCOTT 225 .1 4.7 1,509 130 1,379 91 40.9 59 99 34 21 100 11

63 SHAKY 10 3 1.4 661 61 592 10 50.1 53 110 23 41 213 154 SIMPSON 20.2 40 1,216 58 1,151 15 3S6 41 X 21 20 139 66S SKIM 111 11 918 22 966 91 40.3 IS 12 31 21 90 1X STONE 7.1 1.6 463 193 213 61 30.0 10 26 32 24 71 S

67 SttflOwil 480 .S II 2951 320 2,636 19 414 215 12$ 19 38 212 12

68 TALLAHATCHIE 214 4.1 1,586 161 1,425 93 al 121 144 23 32 210 12

69 1A1t 198 19 1,339 164 1,115 88 311 55 106 11 32 293 10

70 'PPM 161 3.6 1.131 40 1,091 96 X? 21 71 34 21 2$ S

Ti itSHCOMNO0 151 3 2 1,023 10 1,013 99 21.8 13 71 10 1 40 S

72 TUNICA 18 2 .1 3 3 1,263 140 1,123 19 64.5 140 126 23 41 XA 913 MON 19 2 31 1,111 101 1,076 II 21 8 22 90 IS I? 18 674 WA11HALL ISO 32 I Ai t 110 902 19 419 31 16 30 24 114 10

75 wARREN 46 2 .3 91 2,962 44 2,111 99 43.5 140 110 34 24 I M 10

71 wASHNGICII 17.9 .4 I50 4,488 574 3,114 17 41.1 339 119 24 29 260 9

7/*IIEItEIt

163 33 984 14 170 99 Xi 0 63 102 31 21 156 II/1 114 22 744 144 100 II.? 14 16 36 23 115 10

?I KUM 111 22 XS IN 632 14 47.3 41 103 33 IS XI 110 MOM 110 .i 3.5 IA72 61 1,005 44 365 36 X 21 26 I SS S

II YMCSLANA 12.4 2.3 111 n 643 90 51.4 45 11 11 36 IX 10

12 YAZOO 331 .4 16 2,145 410 1,665 71 443 115 100 23 21 237 1

14%1.01114 COUNTO 4,563 12 181.4 137,197 19,388 111,509 06 24.1 3,111 82 34 16 90

211 4 1.036 1,036 100 309 24 19 IS 5 45 123

AIONWATOIXA

122 2 481

371411 HA371 2511.41 S

13 14

40

11

I13

4

S

ALUMLARRY

25I S

1t2948

722 IKO X

911

23624.1

15

11

NX

28

X11

96141

10

SS

6 DAMN 1 4 I 6 40I 404 I X 21 3 V if IS 2

1 WES 16 3 23 664 664 100 24 3 1 73 30 X 29 5

Ea Istlg sad Maeda! Samna 1w Family Planing Pogroms (a On lin

Ilaspltls

lctkMed.Sch.

al We et Mut

000 NomMoos w Warm within Covey)

14ASDepts.

P.P.

_flaa-Fetan1 Plyskbas 11 ?id Can Othr Wan!

Pninms

19 20 21 22 23 24 2S 26 27 21 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 36

II1

1.1

Iif

Iii

ig4

1ii i

IIli

flI I

II11

itiiii

1

iI/I

Iifiaii

11

IS

li

411i iill

I I111111.1

IlliZt

/I, I

a

I I

/19

10

5

$8

1014

4

12

2854

239)

2928341944

63

5 2010 28

345

4523

9

4 231 248 21

10 354 44

12 Y;

3

1

2

2

8

37

66 34 9.

11 54 44 1

38 $ 3821 54 S 13

9 40 403 21 3 21

11 SS 10 302 11 2 13

4 31 3 38

14 31 11 24

9 38 347 3$ 1 SS

36 6 361 S3 $ 33

4 22 1 1/5 26 4 21

555 13

111 11 2413

4 9M 61 11 14 5 6

31 114 31 3 2 /

4 34 1

7 31 I/4 32 4 17

11 30 1 It 1 3

3,183 $7 UN 24 771 4

1 12 S 2316 I 14

4 44 4 44Is 71 11 46$ 26 5 24

6 64 5 53

55 41

1

21

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2I

1

1

1

1

33

II

1

N

1

1

1

1

1

103603115

15 1

225409

486 e

72

31021,3

131

131

24114$

34)

6420163

1,407

$99

125391 a

190

11,160 II 2 114 II

1131

341

rs2

114IV

MISSISSIPPI

SMALL 47MONROE 47MONTGOMERY 11

14ESHOBA

. NEWTON SI50

1101(1JP3E1 52WNW 53PANOU 54PEARL MEI 5$PERRY 56

PK SiPONTOT 58PREMISS 59OUTMAN 60RAWIN 11

S0071 62SHAXEY 43WSW 64SIAN 15VOW 66

SINIONtli 11

1TATCHIE 68

TATE 6WPM 70TISHOMINGO 11

TUNICA 12

MOTTVIAID

73

IAll 74

M 73VIASWARHM41014 It

WAVE Htititso 21IIILIURSON 71WINSICM toimoeusi+.4 in

TAM V

1

34

PATON $SAM

Tibia I. Need for Subsklited Family Planning Services: Current Programs, Resources and Related Indices for U.S., Each Stale and County, FY 1968 continued

Population and SelectedCharacteristics (000s)

Estimated Family Planning Needand Service Levels

Selected Health and Demographic Indices

Infant Mentality19614965

FAFaitRate

Live BirthOrder as

%of Births

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

bi-

41015

EtIis= A

gA k x NE

i

; z 3

Illa 1t

11

23

II

t z

ig,

I S.... .

i-rGg1

el;

1

i bl

!

ia

tit

b5

tiis* '.'

gMISSOURI

8 BENTON 10.0 1,1 454 454 100 16.4 61 13 17 69 BOLLINGER 8.6 1.6 513 513 100 23.0 4 65 27 27 58 12

10 BOONE 69.1 163 2,492 534 1,958 79 23.6 41 71 40 8 58 7

It BUCHANAN 1 92.8 17.1 2335 150 2,185 94 24.1 65 93 31 15 65 8

12 BUTLER 35.5 7.2 2,073 2,073 100 29.8 38 67 40 20 120 8

13 CALDWELL 8.5 1.4 388 388 100 19.5 1 11 35 10 4

14 CALLAWAY 25.6 4.7 837 837 100 21.6 8 74 41 13 98 11

15 CAMDEN 103 1.9 528 528 100 16.2 60 31 10 17

16 CAPE GirtARDE 500 10.7 1,948 1,948 100 19.6 1 65 38 9 66 5

17 CARROLL 13.9 2.5 565 565 100 25.9 9 14 38 9 64 1

18 CARTER 5.2 1.1 369 369 100 11.0 75 38 30 50 5

19 CASS 3 40.6 86 1,432 1,432 100 26.2 27 81 40 12 34 5

20 CEDAR 8.9 1.5 419 419 100 26.8 7 74 27 13 54 921 CHARITON 11.1 1.9 489 489 100 19.2 1 70 22 25 77 6

22 CHRISTIAN 13.8 2.7 651 657 100 32.5 14 84 35 15 26 4

23 CLARK 8 0 1.4 320 320 100 11.8 107 24 28 21 1

24 CLAY 3 105.3 23.2 1,579 71 1,508 96 20.0 23 88 36 11 27 7

25 CLINTON 11.8 2.2 445 445 100 23.9 5 55 17 22 33 8

26 COLE 43.5 7.7 938 938 100 21.1 14 95 33 17 29 6

21 COOPER 14.7 2.4 427 427 100 26.4 12 90 33 22 93 3

28 CRAWFORD 14.9 2.8 675 675 100 28.1 13 87 33 16 17 8

29 DADE 7.2 1.2 364 364 100 12.7 64 49 11 81 3

30 DALLAS 9.8 1.8 547 143 404 74 19.4 1 60 36 23 57 8

31 DAYIESS 9.7 1.6 453 453 100 18.7 1 82 30 19 45 1

32 DE KALB 1.5 1.3 321 321 100 16.7 67 53 14 23 7

33 DENT 12.2 2.3 681 681 100 21.1 3 72 48 11 60 11

34 DOUGLAS 10.5 20 668 668 100 29.3 8 62 25 10 16 3

35 DUNKLIN 32.1 1.2 5.9 1345 45 1,700 91 26.8 35 93 36 14 94 836 FRANKLIN 3 50.9 9.6 1,407 1,407 100 18.9 6 113 30 19 22 1

37 GASCONADE 13.3 2.4 474 474 100 10,7 66 28 13 13 5

38 GENTRY 8.2 1.4 349 349 100 20.2 2 82 25 9 18 7

39 GREENE 1 140.1 30.0 4,962 210 4,692 95 22.4 59 76 38 12 54 7

40 GRUNDY 10.8 1.8 454 454 100 28.0 9 67 41 5 49 7

41 HARRISON 10.1 1.6 455 455 100 28.1 8 78 26 16 48 10

42 HENRY 19.0 3.3 145 145 100 26.6 14 18 33 15 70 7

43 HICKORY 4.3 .7 221 221 100 11.8 51 21 26 53 16

44 11011 6.2 1.0 236 236 100 25.1 4 73 35 5 345 HOWARD 10.8 2.0 452 452 100 28.3 10 71 37 16 211 846 HOWELL 22.6 4.4 1,213 1,213 100 26.3 17 70 32 22 51 847 IRON 85 1.7 438 438 100 35.7 14 84 37 13 42 10

48 JACKSON 3 641.8 1251 14,506 4,280 10,226 70 25.5 558 98 35 16 124 949 JASPER 5 81.2 15.8 3,017 65 3,012 98 23.7 44 82 38 10 48 650 JEFFERSON 3 85.4 180 1,941 110 1,831 94 17.5 98 30 17 31 5

51 JOHNSON 34.5 7.4 1,479 1,419 100 383 54 49 44 8 28 5

52 11410X 6.5 1.1 290 290 100 13.2 64 38 14 81 3

53 LACLEDE 18.6 3.5 919 919 100 280 18 14 29 13 23 6

100

Existing and Potential Resources for Family Planning Programs ( Designates location of One or More Programs or Resources

Other FederalPrograms

within County)

HealthDepts.

P.P.Non-Federal Physicians In Patient Care Hospitals Med.Sch.

0E0 Programs

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

0A0

a0 §-AN

lb-.

t-PA

Ik.

LI:

11

'''aSi

itifVsSV

1111

IA:SS

ti

1

11itAi

1

1eaviAN

iiset1..Ai

1114

Vfij

S41

e ga

i IS1g1AstRA

SgliStl

'81.. gi,/

fik...s1

..g

SI )3

z:3

MISSOURI

2 20 2 20 BENTON 8BOLLINGER 9

111 161 14 20 7 10 2 1,892 1 BOONE 1089 96 23 25 5 5 2 5,090 BUCHANAN 11

34 96 11 48 2 6 BUTLER 12

4 47 47 CALDWELL 1319 74 8 31 1 165 CALLAWAY 14

7 65 6 56 CAMDEN 1553 106 19 38 4 8 1 1,154 CAPE GIRARDE 16

6 43 6 43 1 128 CARROLL 17

CARTER 186 15 4 10 1 265 CASS 192 22 2 22 1 156 CEDAR

2 18 2 18 CHARITON 211 7 1 7 CHRISTIAN

CLARK 2345 43 24 23 2 2 3 1,518 CLAY 24

7 59 6 51 CLINTON 2536 83 11 25 2 5 2 917 COLE 26

9 61 4 27 1 164 COOPER 27

3 20 2 13 CRAWFORD 283 42 3 42 DADE 29

DALLAS 303 31 3 31 DAYIESS 31

DE KALB 32

2 16 2 16 DENT 332 19 2 19 DOUGLAS 34

17 53 14 44 1 531 DUNKLIN 35

22 43 17 33 2. 1,156 FRANKLIN 362 15 2 15 GASCONADE 31

4 49 4 49 GENTRY 38

181 129 23 16 14 10 2 3,056 GREENE 395 46 5 46 1 151 GRUMY 404 40 . 4 40 1 89 HARRISON 417 37 6 31 HUEY 42

HICKORY 432 32 1 16 HOLT 44

6 56 5 46 1 9 1 116 HOWARD 4511 49 10 44 1 4 2 453 30WEL1 465 59 4 47 1 12 1 146 IRON 47

831 129 143 22 68 11 10 12,325 4 JACKSON 4863 18 20 25 4 5 3 1,295 JASPER 4923 27 11 13 1 1 1 540 JEFFERSON 50

15 43 10 29 1 296 JOFASON 51

2 31 2 31 KNOX 52

11 59 5 27 1 289 LACLEDE 53

101

Table 1. Hied for Subsidized Family Planning Service': Current Programs, Resources and Related Indicts for U.S., Each State and County, FY 19611 continued

Population and SelectedCharacteristics OEN

&Bottled family Planning Heedand Servlo Leval'

Seeded Health and Demographic Indica,Want Modality

1961.1965Eat.FartRata

Live BirthOrder u

% of Births

1 7 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 n 12 13 14 15 16 17 Id

1iS=

c§

i 3g i

Ix :-.

8

ti;0- x1

1

HI-,z, Ei3 E z1 l'a23t2

i7.4 .

4 gt gaw

I.

nlg

31

0 +t C5

ig S

I..s!

11no15,-..

g;

,,-,

1

i--iI.

4is3

t!

1

Igi-..

g

li2sii§-;

gg

1/

e0!

ifsMISSOURI

54 LAFAYETTE 26.9 5.0 918 918 100 15.3 74 32 14 64 5

55 LAWRENCE 25.3 4.7 1,084 1,084 100 21.7 8 76 33 11 6 6

56 LEWIS 10.9 2.0 403 403 100 26.2 8 84 32 22 12 5

57 LINCOLN 17.4 3.2 623 623 100 18.0 104 34 22 48 7

58 LINN 16.8 2.9 686 686 100 18.7 1 61 34 13 42 7

59 LIVINGSTON 16.8 3.3 793 793 100 20.5 4 66 31 15 36 11

60 MCDONALD 11.3 2.0 587 587 100 24.5 7 71 23 15 14 10

61 MACON 16.9 3.0 730 730 100 19.8 2 63 41 10 74 4

62 MADISON 9.2 1.8 434 434 100 36.2 14 57 35 24 78 10

63 MARIES 6.3 1.1 296 296 100 19.0 1 82 33 29 4

64 MARION 26.5 4.1 802 1302 100 25.7 23 86 36 14 80 9

65 MERCER 5.5 .9 249 249 100 23.8 2 52 21 21 125 8

66 MILLER 14.7 2.7 637 637 100 22.8 7 :.: 37 12 42 5

67 MISSISSIPPI 18.5 1.2 3.6 1,034 1,034 100 51.6 86 106 31 26 228 7

68 MON1TEAU 10.5 1.8 440 440 100 26.8 8 74 32 15 74 3

69 MONROE 10.4 1.7 408 408 100 20.3 2 92 33 19 76 5

10 MONTGOMERY 10.8 1.8 411 411 100 20.7 3 91 32 22 25 4

11 MORGAN 9.8 1.7 443 443 100 15.5 73 34 21 16 6

72 NEW MADRID 26.8 2.4 4.9 1,619 1,619 100 48.5 106 100 33 29 183 9

73 NEWTON 5 33.6 69 1,391' 1,398 100 19.8 5 71 35 9 40 9

74 HODAWAY 22.8 4.4 1,018 1,018 100 14.7 78 29 19 47 6

75 OREGON 9.5 1.8 567 567 100 26.2 6 59 23 15 2

76 OSAGE - . 10.7 1.9 358 358 100 20.7 3 96 22 32 22 3

77 OZARK , 6.0 1.1 353 353 100 22.7 2 70 27 24 27 8

78

...

PEMISCOT 32.2 1.9 5.9 1,874 :.: 1,786 95 51.4 154 103 27 32 201 9

19 PERRY 15.3 2.8 622 622 100 20.4 4 97 34 20 36 9

80 PETTIS 32.5 58 1,106 1,106 100 34.1 54 86 36 15 83 5

81 PHELPS, 26.8 4.9 982 982 100 24.2 17 84 41 10 49 5

82 PIKE 17.6 3.3 694 694 100 25.8 13 93 31 18 46 10

83 PLATTE 27.7 5.8 614 45 569 93 17.7 74 33 12 32 3

84 POLK 14.5 27 782 782 100 25.1 6 51 37 18 9

85 PtILASK1 55.4 12 , 1,573 1,573 100 54.4 85 41 27 19 48 9

86 PUTNAM 6.7 1.2 355 355 100 20.9 2 50 34 14 34 3

87 RAO - . 7.3 1.2 245 245 100 15.5 87 36 15 38 4

88 RANDOLPH 21.4 3.1 813 813 100 20.0 4 80 38 18 34 8

89 RAY 16.2 2.9 526 526 100 18.4 1 73 27 12 47 7

90 REYNOLDS 5.6 11 304 304 100 28.6 4 70 38 21 51 8

91.

RIMY 9.9 1.8 630 630 100 25.9 6 60 32 30 107 9

92 ST CHARLES. 3 75.0 16.6 1,382 1,382 100 19.7 17 104 29 15 25 6

93 ST MIR 10 1.3 413 413 100 16.2 75 37 16 20 10

94 ST FRANCOIS , 380 7.3 1,366 1,366 100 21.0 10 74 36 13 31 8

55 ST LOUIS 3 1,5417 304.5 32,412 13,557 18,855 58 24.6 1,112 94 33 17 121 9

96 STE GE/IVEY 11.7 2.2 325 325 WO 253 10 91 26 29 20 6

97 SALINE 26.0 4.9 951 957 100 188 2 65 37 13 63 9

98 SCHUYLER 5.1 .9 271 277 100 15.9 72 28 13 3

99 SCOTLAND 5.8 1.0 248 248 100 13.1 88 25 20 68 7

102

Existing and Potential Rooms for Falai Planning Programs I. Designates location

Med.Sch,

of One or More

0E0 Programs

Programs ur Rssources within County)

NonFederal Physicians in Patient Care Hospitals Other FederalPrograms

HealthDepts.

P.P.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

11tg

1.Sg

1Mg

I

*t..Mg

4"

A"l

jrcciM

-az"LI

1gCMfvAl

.,.

0V8A9

1 1

12PVA'SI

°

Ii;ftSA

c

08

VISi

it.g.gfAl

.gt

2=.

IA1At AtfSi]

.11

le=tA'fRA:SXIS:1!

031

A

1iI=

MISSOURI

14 52 13 48 266 LAFAYETTE 54

12 47 6 24 205 LAWRENCE 55

LEWIS 56

5 29 4 23 LINCOLN 57

9 54 7 42 122 LINN 58

6 36 5 30 345 LIVINGSTON 59

3 27 2 18 MCDONALD 60

3 18 2 12 163 MACON 61

4 44 4 44 552 MADISON 62MAR IES 63

21 79 7 26 2 8 665 MARION 64

MERCER 65

2 14 2 14 MILLER 667 38 5 21 M !MSS' PPI 67

5 48 5 48 MOM TEAU 68

2 19 2 19 MONROE 69

4 37 4 37 MONTGOMERY 70

4 41 4 41 MORG AN 71

7 26 6 22 1 4 HEW MADRID 72

11 33 10 30 NEWTON 73

6 26 6 26 1 302 NODAWAY 74

2 21 2 21 OREGON 75OSAGE 76

OZARK 77

12 37 11 34 1 299 PEMISCOT 78

5 33 4 26 1 447 PERRY 79

24 74 14 43 2 6 1 618 PETTIS rio

11 41 8 30 1 590 PHELPS 81

7 40 6 34 PIKE 82

5 18 4 14 F :ATTE 83

6 41 6 41 1 39 POLK

4 7 2 4 PULASKI 85

PUTNAM 86RAILS 87

11 51 4 19 1 5 RANDOLPH 88

5 31 4 25 1 194 RAY 89REYNOLDS 90

1 10 I 10 RIPLEY 91

39 52 8 11 8 11 1 1,412 ST CHARLES 92

5 62 3 37 1 17 ST CUUR 93

23 60 13 34 1 3 1 124 ST FRANCOIS 94

1,888 122 327 21 151 10 18 28307 5 ST LOUIS 95

3 26 3 26 STE GENEYIEY 96

22 85 17 65 2 279 SALINE 97

SCHUYLER 98

SCOTLAND 99

103

Table 1. Need for Subsidized Family Planning Services: Current Programs, Resources and Related Indices for U.S., Each Stet. and County, FY 1968 continued

PopulutIon and SelectedtharocWrIstics (0001)

Estimated Family Planning Usedand Service Levels

Selected Health and Demographic IndicesInfant Mortality

1941.1965FAFert.Rate

Live MirthOrder as

% el Blithe

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

1

8 la

IIil1.21

.4

1

11 gt

y.A1S =ri

Ei 1.

i21&3 1I g

.il115

I.4.1 2Ed A

I.ER

ikler:g;

I

§ak

I

Ii1

g

1#11

§

gg

NI

S t

MISSOURI

100 SCOTT 34.4 .1 6.9 1,417 1,471 100 282 41 87 30 22 103 10

101 SHANNON 7.8 1.5 474 474 100 15.6 16 36 19 52 9

102 SHELBY 87 1.4 334 334 100 17,2 99 31 16 57 7

103 STODDARD 26.8 .4 5.2 1,381 1,381 100 31.2 37 61 35 23 148 6

104 STONE 9,2 1.8 477 417 100 27.3 7 64 23 19 5

105 SULLIVAN 85 1.4 390 393 100 33.7 8 71 47 10 82

106 TANEY 10.1 1.9 538 538 100 14.1 71 36 18 75 4

107 TEXAS 17.0 3.1 833 833 100 24.6 11 76 31 14 25 17

108 VERNON 207 3.1 892 892 100 23.0 7 48 30 18 45 7

109 WARREN 9.8 1.8 326 326 100 15.0 72 34 27 31 8

110 WASHINGTON 14.6 2.9 737 30 707 96 31.2 21 110 34 22 70 6

111 WAYNE 9.6 1.8 587 587 100 32.0 11 78 21 20 14 9

112 WEBSTER 157 2.9 856 856 100 22.1 5 75 31 17 37 8113 WORTH 3.6 .6 170 170 100 33.8 4 69 36 14 91

114 WRIGHT 13.6 2.5 715 715 100 20.0 3 71 31 22 34 6

MONTANA

56 COUNTIES 701.5 3.6 20.7 133.2 15,831 1,209 14,622 92 255 618 95 32 17 8

1 BEAVERHEAD 7.8 1.4 183 183 100 22.7 4 98 24 19 6

2 BIG HORN 11.6 .4 3.5 2.3 389 102 287 74 35.5 30 95 34 17 6

3 BLAINE 7.6 1.8 1.3 213 126 87 41 23.2 6 119 30 31 8

4 BROADWATER 2.4 .4 72 72 100 14.5 93 32 16 11

5 CARBON 7.7 1.4 220 220 100 15.4 63 30 18 9

6 CARTER ' 2.2 .4 58 58 100 30.4 3 78 13 7 1

7 CASCADE 1 ., 80.6 15.3 1,435 1,435 100 24.0 69 108 35 13 1

13 CHOUTEAU 68 .1 1.2 107 107 100 23.3 4 85 28 329 CUSTER 12.6 2.2 285 285 100 23.6 8 91 26 18 6

10 DANIELS = 3.3 .1 .6 92 92 100 26.5 3 64 26 16 5

'..1.

11 DAWSON 11.2 2.0 215 215 100 21.9 6 107 29 20 812 DEER LODGE 16.2 2.8 265 265 100 20.7 4 97 19 22 10

13 FALLON 4.4 .8 114 114 100 24.1 3 89 31 19 8°,....- 14 FERGUS r. 13.4 2.3 301 301 100 20.6 5 83 27 20 8

15 FLATHEAD 37.5 .1 7.3 875 875 100 26.6 31 86 32 16 8.....,

:-;

,..,, 16 GALLATIN , 287 6.0 737 137 100 23.6 17 79 40 11 8

1:.: 17 GARFlaD 4 1.8 .3 17 17 100 20.6 1 90 53

18 GLACIER 12.3 .5 4.9 22 377 175 202 54 41.8 45 128 28 27 6;;;.. 19 GOLDEN VALLE 1.3 .2 40 40 100 45.5 2 53 33 33 17

20 GRANITE -4 2.9 .5 56 56 100 40.7 6 105 50 19 4

21 HILL 16.1 .4 1.2 29 247 6 241 98 25.5 17 105 32 20 12

22 JEFFERSON SO 1.1 150 150 100 16.2 63 34 17 2023 JUDITH BASIN 3.3 .6 64 64 100 24.6 2 76 35 22 4

,-z 24 14.2 .5 1.7 25 439 439 100 33.9 23 93 36 25 5

x:25 LEWIS AND CI. 325. 35 522 522 100 282 37 99 33 14 9

:-"..,1126 LIBERTY F 2.3 .4 34 34 100 19.0 87 35 29.;.,, 27 LINCOLN 14.3 27 293 293 100 25.0 12 109 26 10 8

28 MCCONE 3.0 .5 94 94 100 11 18 25 20 15

29 MADISON 56 1.0 167 161 100 23.4 2 65 27 21 '6

104

Existiq and Potential Resources for Panty Planning

In Patient Can

Programs ( Designs es Location of One or More Programs or Roso4rces within County)

Nonrederal Pilysicians Hospitals Med.Sch,

0E0 Programs Other FederalPrograms

HealthDepts.

P.P.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 31 34 35 36 37

MM

c

iOR

8g

O

.._ g

a

:

1

1-

e...v 3

kli11

'Ec

eAs

ge!

£CiAegi

Si

Za1

11toIS(.§

14itL'isisDEVA*SY,.

ii1

6Il0tf,Si'

6.oz.COVT.SZ

a

1=Si

IA

:3.8j80 1"EC*,Sil

fi

illCt -tt:tSArillSt1

CI

DOR

th

1;a

1zI..3

MISSOURI

22 64 10 29 SCOTT 100

SHANNON 101

2 23 2 23 SHELBY 102

5 19 4 15 STODDARD 103

6 65 5 54 STONE 104

1 12 1 12 SULLIVAN 10510 99 8 79 1 160 TANEY 1063 18 3 18 TEXAS 101

14 68 4 19 1 5 1 153 VERNON 108

3 31 3 31 WARREN 109

4 27 4 27 1 246 WASHINGTON 110

1 10 1 10 WAVE 111

2 13 2 13 WEBSTER 112

1 28 1 28 WORTH 113

3 22 3 22 EIGHT 114

MONTANA639 91 252 36 35 5 51 10,829 3 18 2 2 2 56 COUNTIES

5 64 5 64 BEAVERHEAD 1

3 26 3 26 2 230 1 BIG HORN 22 26 2 26 1 64 1 BLAINE 32 82 2 82 BROADWATER 4

4 52 3 39 1 55 CARBON 5

1 45 1 45 1 10 CARTER 690 112 19 24 8 10 2 1,327 ChiCADE 7

3 44 2 30 1 33 CHOUTEAU 817 135 2 16 2 16 1 279 CUSTER 9

2 60 2 60 1 37 DANIELS 10

5 44 3 27 1 206 DAWSON 11

11 68 4 25 1 150 DEER LODGE 12

3 69 3 69 1 69 FALLON 13

11 82 10 75 1 214 FERGUS 14

38 101 26 69 2 5 2 628 FLATHEAD 15

40 139 20 70 1 3 1 459 GALLATIN 16

1 54 1 54 1 21 GARFIELD 17

6 49 6 49 2 274 1 GLACIER 11

GOLDEN VALLE 19

1 34 1 34 1 16 GRANITE 20

14 87 5 31 2 440 HILL 21

2 40 2 40 JEFFERSON 22

10 71 10 71 2 187JUDITH

LAKE

BASIN

24

23

43 132 13 40 2 6 2 703 LEWIS AND CI. 25

1 44 1 44 1 45 LIBERTY 267 49 6 42 1 239 LINCOLN 271 34 1 34 MCCONE 284 H 3 53 MADISON 29

105

Table I. Nood lor 5oDsIdliorl family 'finning Stokes: Current Programs, Resources and Relator! Indices for U.S., Each State and County, FT 1968 continued

Population and SelectedCharectaristics (000s)

Estimated Family Planning Needand Buda Levels

Saluted Health and Demographic IndicesInfant Mortality

1961.1965EstPert.Rata

Live BirthOrder as

% of Births

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 18

iII

ifS1 I g

.

1

11IE.]

i 1 ;.1.o

.E!

h15 r.or"'

i ii!

IF

1IV16

MONTANA

30 MEAGHER 2.4 .4 47 47 100 22.9 2 110 18 27 531 MINERAL 3.4 .6 52 52 100 19.3 1 99 22 13 1632 MISSOULA 54.3 .5 11.4 1,270 800 470 37 20.3 14 91 38 10 933 MUSSELSHELL 3.7 .6 95 95 100 25.1 3 91 36 25 14

34 PARK 11.9 2.2 259 259 100 26.7 10 75 47 2 6

35 PETROLEUM .8 .1 13 13 100 13.2 67 20 20 4036 PHILLIPS 5.5 .3 .9 142 142 100 17.8 136 45 23 537 PONDERA 7.2 .6 1,3 154 154 100 38.5 16 91 29 21 238 POWDER RIVER 2.4 .4 60 60 100 8.1 56 17 8

39 POWELL .. 7.4 1.3 137 137 100 30.1 9 107 25 13

40 PRAIRIE , 2.1 .4 58 58 100 15.5 63 33 17

41 RAVALLI .,.... . 14.1 2.7 562 562 100 33.1 16 64 33 13 642 RICHLAND .. 10.6 2.0 312 312 100 18.6 I 82 31 13 443 ROOSEVELT 12.1 .4 2.9 2.3 390 390 100 42.1 39 111 28 24 1044 ROSEBUD ' .y 6.3 .4 1.4 1.2 203 203 100 41.7 18 126 27 20 7

45 SANDERS 6.8 .5 .5 1.2 139 139 100 12.6 96 29 9 2

46 SHERIDAN '',.'. -. 6.1 1.1 158 158 100 17.5 84 35 13 . 11

47 SILVER BOW 46.3 8.3 1,133 1,133 100 28.5 54 115 28 21 12

48 STILLWATER 4.8 .8 99 99 100 1.4.7 6 76 28 16: , 349 SWEET CRASS , 3.0 .5 76 . 76 100 2:..4 1 75 26 16 -. 5

50 TETON , . 6.3 1.1 144 144 100 21 1 3 83 24 28 951 TOOLE 6.8 1.3 90 90 100 28.5 8 76 27 21 : 1052 TREASURE 1.2 .2 33 33 100 14.1 139 14 43 7

53 VALLEY 22.2 .4 .6 4.2 503 503 100 26.5 28 117 33 20 11

54 WHEATUVil ". ., .

2.8..5 63 63 100 280 2 101 16 16 , . 4

55 WILBAUX. ,...

1.7 .3 72 72 100 21.7 1 75 17 33 -. . 856 YELLOWSTONE 1 8119 .4 16.7 1,446 1,446 100 23.0 46 85 34 14 . 9

NEBRASKA

1. 93 COUNTIES 1,439.2 .8 3.4 265.9 37,292 1,813 35,479 95 22.1 740 96 32 16 7

1 ADAMS ,.:-..1./..,, 30.1 5.7 753 '. 753 100 26.4 23 82 38 6 10

2 ANTELOPE ,a, ,, 8.7 1.4 322 ., 322 100 18.1 109 30 29 . '. 83 ARTHUR .7 .1 17 17 100 39.5 2 130 25 13

4 BANNER ; .,. 1, . 1.0 .2 28 28 100 36.6 2 51 20 20 205 ELAINE ii: .9 .1 30 - 30 100 11.1 69 20 20 !-.,,

... .:1.,..t ,..6 BOONE - 11 ) 8.2 1.3 293 293 100 15.9 121 22 25 67 BOX BUTTE . y'r 10.4 .1 1.9 236 236 100 34.8 19 91 28 21 48

9 BROWN , .." 1.0 208 208 100 12.7 81 20 16 2

10 BUFFALO ,;1,:,'!- 29.4 5.7 1,024 1,024 100 19.4 4 83 41 12 8

11 BURT 2., ) 9.0 .1 1.5 232 . 292 100 15.9 71 19 15 212 BUTLER 9 ,:' N! i . 8.3 . 1.4 323 .. 323 100 21.4 3 111 32 31 413 CASS 17.2 3.0 479 479 100 24.5 14 111 38 11 7

14 CEDAR .; ,..4 , 'ti ; 12.7 2.1 459 .'. 459 100 23.6 9 103 18 38 7

IS CHASE 0., :.,-)-,) 4.6 .9 160 160 100 15.2 84 31 14 s' 6

16 CHERRY f ,.... .,,,: 7.5 2 12 179 179 100 195 2 97 38 9 t. 9

106

Existing and Potential Resources for Family Planning Programs ( Designs is Location of One or More Programs or Resources within County)

NonFederal Physicians in Patient Oars Hospitals Med.Sch.

0E0 Programs Other FederalPrograms

HealthDepts.

P.P.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

1 a §.

g

ji152..ets.

b 0I

g

1

r14.

D/-0Si

IIa

1131tsSN

1x g

II14.0

g

!IItSz

IStSsi

11e.

118t3Si

i01gE1j8VASi]

° Iist.rixWOt ,ttRtSlIge!

11fai

A

As

;MONTANA

1 41 1 41 MEAGHER 30

I 30 I 30 MINERAL 31

90 166 16 29 8 15 2 1027 MISSOULA 32

2 54 2 54 1 32 MUSSELSHELL 33

7 59 6 50 1 167 PARK 34

PETROLEUM 35

2 37 2 37 I 53 PHILLIPS 36

3 42 2 28 1 145 PONDERA 31

POWDER RIVER 38

6 81 4 54 1 102 POWELL 39

1 49 1 49 1 10 PRAIRIE 40

6 42 4 28 1 162 RAVALLI 41

6 57 4 38 1 9 1 216 RICHLAND 42

5 41 4 33 2 108 ROOSEVELT 43

2 32 2 32 ROSEBUD 44

5 74 4 59 1 10 SANDERS 45

2 33 2 33 1 85 SHERIDAN 46

42 91 11 24 3 6 2 1,082 SILVER BOW 47

3 63 3 63 STILLWATER 48

2 68 2 68 1 35 SWEET GRASS 49

2 32 1 16 1 52 TETON 50

3 44 3 44 TOOLE 51

TREASURE 52

6 21 5 n 1 189 VALLEY 53

2 72 2 72 1 33 WHEATLAN) 54

wiLBAUX 55

113 140 14 17 8 10 2 1,527 YELLOWSTONE 56

NEBRASKA

1,269 88 566 39 63 4 92 22,532 2 I 35 1 1 2 2 93 COUNTIES

46 153 12 40 1 3 1 592 ADAMS 1

4 46 3 34 1 84 ANTELOPE 2

ARTHUR 3

BANNER 4BLAINE 5

3 36 3 36 I 102 BOONE 6

11 105 9 86 I 196 BOX BUTTE 7

1 38 BOYD 8

3 58 2 38 BROWN 9

30 102 12 41 I 488 BUFFALO 10

6 67 6 67 1 51 BURT 11

4 45 4 45 1 89 SUTLER 12

6 35 5 29 CASS 13

5 39 5 39 CEDAR 14

2 44 2 44 1 48 CHASE 15,

3 40 2 27 1 104 CHERRY 16

107

Table 1. Need for Subsidized Family Planning Services: Current Programs, Resources and Related Indices for U.S., Each State end County, FY 1968 continued

Population and SelectedCharacteristics (000s3

Estimated Family Planning Heedand Service levels

Selected Health and Demographic IndicesInfant Mortality

1961.1965Est.reit.Rats

the BirthOrder asolBIrthr

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

,54,

15 16 17 19

11

I..1

gS1

A

ji Zz 3

2

c

'l_.R

IIgoi 0- z

.1Ig3

illrig8 2.t.1 iia31.i..

11-...i8t i23

2g.1

3 lk1 ta z

R

0.2 -9

-.1gDI

15 r...dz15

a

ilLi.

i

1 v!gg

ti-ml

le115

NEBRASKA

17 CHEYENNE 12.8 .1 2.3 231 231 100 25.0 10 81 28 18 9

18 CLAY 8.5 1.4 238 288 100 20.6 2 91 32 20 11

19 COLFAX 9.6 1.6 356 356 100 180 88 19 20 3

20 CUMING 13.1 2.3 453 453 100 18.0 101 18 32 3

21 CUSTER 15.4 2.7 552 552 100 20.7 4 83 31 13 6

22 DAKOTA 1 12.0 .3 2.2 249 249 100 20.7 5 108 32 15 10

23 DAMS 9.6 .3 1.8 306 306 100 13 1 88 35 7 7

24 DAWSON 20.2 3.1 603 603 100 21.1 7 89 34 9 6

25 DEUEL 2.7 .4 56 56 100 14.9 81 33 11 6

26 DIXON 8.2 1.4 308 308 100 17.0 92 23 31 6

27 DODGE 34.0 6.4 831 831 100 22.0 15 89 30 16 5

28 DOUGLAS 2 372.6 71.7 6,583 1,472 5,111 78 23.3 266 111 33 16 8

29 DUNDY 3.1 .5 110 110 100 14.4 68 56 6 22

30 F ILLMORE 9.0 1.6 322 322 100 27.5 1 95 28 14 I

31 FRANKLIN 4.8 .8 179 179 100 27.3 3 61 28 28 12

32 FRONTIER 3.9 .6 133 133 100 17,1 89 39 7

33 FURKAS 7.0 1.2 249 249 100 24.8 4 70 24 10 5

34 GAGE 25.7 4.7 858 858 100 21.7 8 79 40 11 4

35 GARDEN 3.0 .5 80 80 100 10.9 59 40 13 20

36 GARFIELD 2.5 .4 98 98 100 14.3 61 23 23 8

37 GOSPER 1.8 .3 51 51 100 24.1 1 47 14

38 GRANT .9 .1 20 20 100 7.4 98 14 14

39 GREELEY 4.2 .7 190 190 100 33.2 7 108 8 43 5

40 HALL 38.1 7.2 992 992 100 20.2 10 107 32 14 6

41 HAMILTON 8.1 1.6 232 232 100 13.8 79 22 6 8

42 HARLAN 4.9 .8 153 153 100 20.3 1 13 23 13 10

43 HAYES 2.0 .4 65 65 100 25.6 1 43 13 2544 HITCHCOCK 3.8 .7 114 114 100 21.5 1 17 20 2045 HOLT 13.3 2.3 535 535 100 22.7 7 104 18 28 3

46 HOOKER 1.0 .2 26 26 100 45.5 2 53 40

47 HOWARD 6.7 1.1 269 269 100 12.7 126 21 29 7

48 JEFFERSON 10.4 1.8 351 351 100 34.4 14 60 36 19 9

49 JOHNSON 6.1 1.0 260 260 100 31.7 7 91 29 17

50 KEARNEY 85 1.1 180 180 100 1E17 65 32 11

51 KEITH 83 1.5 189 189 100 19.2 1 111 38 13 6

52 KEYA PAHA 1.4 .2 61 61 100 20.8 100 50 17

53 KIMBALL . 5.7 .9 63 63 100 21.7 4 123 31 1 9

54 KNOX 13.9 .3 2.5 548 548 100 21.2 4 81 24 30 6

55 LANCASTER 1 153.2 28.9 2,952 300 2,652 93 21.6 76 95 39 10 6

56 LINCOLN 28.4 .2 5.4 102 702 100 19.9 6 91 30 17 7

57 LOGAN 1.0 .2 35 35 103 40.8 2 11

58 LOW .8 .1 33 33 100 58 25 25

59 MCPHERSON .6 .1 17 17 100 31.3 1 61 67 3360 MADISON 27,0 4.9 778 178 100 21.7 10 93 35 15 8

61 MERRICK & 7 1.6 305 305 100 21.2 8 95 25 24 9

62 MORRILL 5.7 .1 1.0 154 154 100 26.7 6 78 29 8 3

108

Existing and Potential Resources for Family Planning

Care

Programs ( Designates

Hospitals

location

Med.Sch.

of One or More

0E0 Programs

Progmms or Resources within County)

NonFederal Physicians in Patient Other FederalPrograms

HealthDepts.

P.P.

19 I 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

2.B1

il

I

'

:g 1lige:aSt

1

1

MB

1

11A§IF;Ag

tg:itIS

1

e

eas

EEz C.

s'e

Zs'a

lgex

89

file e474tsdl

ij

Ai' IettSg

P*getvSll

k

13N.. . . .ts.

O.

All

P180 Alfi]

: Aiodg 7. ie IEt41A'gc&A

ti;Er.= f sto 'e

2g

3v,A

1gzs

...,

NEBRASKA

7 55 7 55 1 196 CHEYENNE 11

3 35 2 23 CLAY 18

4 42 4 42 1 121 COLFAX 19

10 76 7 53 1 254 C,UING 20

6 39 6 39 2 164 CUSMTER 21

3 25 3 25 DAKOTA 22

5 52 3 31 2 159 DAWES 23

12 13 64 3 312 DAWSON 24

2 75 1 38 DEUEL 25

4 49 4 49 1 70 DIXON 26

25 74 15 44 1 3 1 575 DODGE 21

501 134 126 34 40 11 8 8,351 1 DOUGLAS 28

2 64 1 32 1 19 DUKIY 29

4 44 33 1 109 FILLMORE 30

2 42 I 21 1 21 FRANKLIN 31

1 26 1 26 FRONTIER 32

6 86 5 72 1 60 FURNAS 33

22 86 11 43 1 4 2 335 GAGE 34

3 101 3 101 1 38 GARDEN 35

2 79 2 79 1 62 GARFIELD 36

GOSPER 37GRANT 38

2 47 I 24 1 39 GREELEY 39

31 81 16 42 2 5 2 913 HALL 40

7 80 6 69 1 96 HAMILTON 41

3 61 3 61 1 HARLAN 42

HAYES 43

2 52 2 52 1 39 HITCHCOCK 44

5 38 5 38 2 223 HOLT 45

1 101 1 101 HOOKER 46

5 74 4 59 HOWARD 47

7 67 6 58 1 57 JEFFERSON 48

2 33 2 33 1 JOHNSON 49

4 62 3 46 1 KEARNEY 50

7 84 4 48 1 173 KEITH 51

KEYA PAHA 52

3 53 2 35 1 101 KIMBALL 53

8 58 8 58 1 91 KNOX 54

181 118 34 22 13 8 4 2,934 LANCASTER 55

25 88 13 46 2 7 3 519 LINCOLN 56

LOGAN 57

LOUP 58MCPHERSON 59

28 104 16 59 3 638 MADISON 60

2 n 2 23 1 116 MERRICK 61

3 52 2 35 MORRILL 62

109

Table 1. Need for Subsidized Family Planning Services: Current Programs, Res3urces and Related Indices for U.S., Each State end County, FY 1968 continued

Population and SelectedCharacteristics (000$)

Estimated Family Planning Needand Smite Levels

Selected Health and Demographic Indices

Infant Mortality1961.1965

EstfortRats

Live BirthOrder as

% of Births

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

it1=

1a g* ei:

...

nii;.., E11

Is r_11..r.s ig Br`v Igx.,..

111A:a_ gt Bxx

1

.11A8 X

Ig

,,,

°,1;,1

1 6 i

..

.6 isr-

a

,

1

1

g

/3111I

.1;

aX

bi-.

11eitigai 15

NEBRASKA

63 NANCE 5.6 .9 208 208 100 24.7 4 69 19 19

64 NEMAHA 8.3 1.5 348 348 100 13.6 74 38 9 13

65 NLICKOLLS 8.4 1.5 283 283 100 25.5 5 68 24 8 866 OTOE 16.1 2.9 511 511 100 21.3 5 83 31 18 5

67 PAWNEE 4.8 .8 215 215 100 20.5 1 61 17 30 9

68 PERKINS 3.6 .6 81 81 100 13.2 90 20 40 3

69 PHELPS 9.4 1.7 214 274 100 11.3 71 34 13 570 PIERCE 8.4 1.4 342 342 100 18.7 1 81 24 29 371 PLATTE 23.9 4.3 581 581 100 11.8 108 27 23 372 POLK 7.2 1.2 226 226 100 19.4 1 93 31 5 15

73 RED WILLOW 12.4 2.3 273 273 100 20.9 5 91 28 14 474 RICHARDSON 13.8 2.4 508 508 100 14.4 12 25 13 1

75 ROCK 2.2 .4 70 70 100 31.5 3 71 23 876 SALINE 13.9 2.4 487 487 100 23.0 5 72 42 12 10

71 SARPY 2 52.9 11.5 884 4 880 100 ?1.8 25 106 24 17 7

78 SAUNDERS 11.0 2.9 570 570 100 21.0 5 86 26 20 879 SCOTTS BLUFF 34.4 .3 6.7 830 830 100 31.8 56 92 30 16 11

80 SEWARD 12.6 2.4 522 522 100 15.7 76 31 12 381 SHERIDAN 7.7 .5 1.4 204 204 100 30.2 10 87 27 25 282 SHERMAN 4.7 .7 138 1:.: 100 14.8 108 24 29 2

83 SIOUX 2.3 .4 67 67 100 25.3 1 69 33 7 2084 STANTON 5.0 .8 1% 196 100 13.5 100 39 12 7

85 THAYER 8.6 1.5 370 310 100 12.3 64 29 8 6

86 THOMAS .9 .2 27 31 30.0 1 87 14 43 29

87 THURSTON 7.3 1.1 1.3 263 263 100 32.4 14 141 27 36 5

88 VALLEY 5.9 1.0 237 237 100 21.8 2 80 25 23 389 WASHINGTON 12.1 2.3 361 361 100 19.0 1 74 31 24 590 WAYNE 10.0 2.0 367 367 100 25.6 7 68 39 16

91 WEBSTER 5.8 1.0 225 225 100 13.4 11 28 28 14

92 WHEELER 1.2 .2 44 44 100 8.2 92 33 11 11

93 YORK 13.0 2.3 409 409 100 23.9 7 83 33 18 5

NEVADA

17 COUNTIES 430.7 6.1 90.7 7,731 2,411 5,314 69 28.4 488 100 34 13 75 10

1 CHURCHILL '.8 .4 1.8 214 214 100 33.6 17 118 37 9 10 82 CLARK . 1 233.7 .4 51.3 4,228 1,334 2,894 68 286 275 100 31 14 84 10

3 DOUGLAS 5.2 .2 1.1 95 95 100 26.5 4 81 47 7 22 94 ELKO 14.1 1.2 7 5 256 61 189 74 25.0 10 127 31 16 93 95 ESMERALDA

t

.5 .1 , 14 14 100 212 14 14 143 14

6 EUREKA .9 .2 42 42 100 19.2 39 33

7 HUMBOLDT 8.9 .4 1.4 115 115 100 30.5 10 35 11 68 14

8 LANDER .' 2.3 .1 .4 65 65 100 14.3

11411

55 65 6

9 LINCOLN 2.5 .1 .5 100 100 100 29.4 2 I11 19 15 31 410 LYON 7.7 .4 1.5 167 167 100 38.1 17 102 35 14 13 6

11 MINERAL 6.7 .5 1.3 155 81 74 48 24.2 4 122 44 10 122 11

12 NYE 4.5 .3 .8 78 78 100 22.5 2 82 42 13 65 13

110

Existing and Potential Resources for Family Planning Programs (a Designates Location of One or More Programs or Resources within

Other FederalPrograms

County)

HealthOWL

P.P.NonFederal Physicians in Patient Cue Hospitals Metkh.

0E0 Programs

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

11Ei

i

iRil

1

ljSi

li

SASA

11,.-s

Al

. hvgg

ElIS

A1

r

11pAlinta

11i]

i

glis

lEr9014.

se!

1

110vtIt

i

14.goi3sa

il2

11'tv .0sl

111tem

18'06 Ji10sll

: 1

PliSiijv .-i AAL"shst4

IIDo

mava-

fSV"

i

1§.a:3

NEBRASKA

3 54 3 54 NANCE 635 60 5 60 1 57 NEMAHA 643

11

36

68

2

9

24

551

2

82313

NUCKOLLS

OTOE

6566

3 62 3 62 1 66 PAWNEE 67

2

10

56

107

2

5

56

53 11

1 43 PERKINS

PHELPS

8869

6 71 6 71 1 52 PIERCE 7013 54 6 25 1 4 2 418 PLATTE 71

3 41 3 41 1 63 POLK 72

10 81 6 48 1 221 RED WILLOW 7311 19 10 72 1 141 RICHARDSON 743 135 3 135 1 43 ROCK 757 50 6 43 1 97 SALINE 765 9 4 8 SARPY 77

6 35 6 35 SAUNDERS 7840 116 23 67 1 3 2 656 SCOTTS BLUFF 79

7 55 7 55 1 185 SEWARD 808 103 7 90 2 121 SHERIDAN 81

1 58 SHERMAN 82

SIOUX 831 , 20 1 20 STANTON 845 58 _ 5 58 1 66 THAYER 85

THOMAS 362 28 2 28 2 201 1 THURSTON 87

4 68 4 68 1 78 VALLEY a7 58 7 58 1 201 WASHINGTON 894 40 4 40 1 141 WAYNE 905 81 5 87 1 96 WEBSTER 91

WHEELER 92

11 85 , 9 69 2 175 YORK 93

NEVADA431 100 131 30 34 8 14 5,787 2 17 1 2 17 COUNTIES

5 51 5 51 1 219 CHURCHILL 1

196 84 64 27 17 7 3 2,213 CLARK 23 58 ' 2 38 DOUGLAS 3

10 71 6 43 2 288 1 ELKO 4ESMERALDA 5

1 112 EUREKA 63 44 3 44 HUMBOLDT

UNDER 81 40 1 40 LINCOLN 94 52 4 52 1 90 LYON 10

4 60 3 45 2 231 MINERAL II3 66 3 66 NYE 12

111

Ta 1. Kead kw Subsidized Family hannlag Services: Carrest Programs, Resources and Related Indkes for U.S., Each Stall and County, Flt 196$ continued

Population sad SelectedCliarectsrlsUcs (000s)

estimated Family Planing Keseland Sec*. Limb

Se head Hui* sad

Est.fed.Rots

Demegraphk

Urt BirthOrder as

% ei Births

IsdicesWalt liertaty

1%1.1165

2 S 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

1

11

I 1

iili

liill

1

l/H

1.1.

.F. §

11;

1

Ig

iiig

ifli*4v -al

iiiI 1

115

leib

PUMA

13 ORMSBY

14 PERSHIO3

15 S1OREY

16 WASHOE 1

11 %In PIE

1041141P9A1110 MOTES

1 BEINIAP2 Gigll3 CHESIIRE

4 COOS

S CLI/1011

6 Ht1S130ROUGH 61 1410114101I ROM/CHANI STRAFIONI

10 SUILIVNI

NEW JERSEY

21 COUNT1ES

1 AIL1/111C 1

2 BERM 33 WIMPY! 34 WW1 35 CM MAT

6 ammo 1? 3

111.VISTER 31024011 2

10 PINTEIDOH

11 _mil12 1100thtl 511 mono 514 MOM 311 OM VI

16 PASSATC 3I T SPID4 1

II SCIOSE1It SI e$131 320 WM 3

21 MCI 2

19

150 .5 3.8 328 328 100 30.5 13 69 36 8 53 821 .2 .4 33 33 100 29.2 4 126 32 14 II

.7 .1 33 33 100 125.0 3 98 33 11107.1 1.3 21.8 1,655 935 720 44 27.2 110 91 38 11 11 11

54 .1 1.t 153 153 100 317 17 81 26 13 13 9

67F3 1321 13,862 110 13,752 99 226 329 95 32 14

31.3 60 570 570 100 24.2 20 92 35 17 /11.3 3.2 505 505 100 219 9 86 33 18 441.6 9.5 924 924 100 223 21 91 35 10 $358 69 665 665 100 21.1 13 77 27 19 950.4 9.3 1,185 77 UM 94 20.9 15 91 39 9 1

2011 41.4 3,986 3,986 100 20.8 66 91 31 16 7

74.7 14.5 1,502 1,502 100 21.1 23 90 32 14 91159 223 2,450 33 2,417 99 25.3 94 106 X 14 1

64.9 132 1,315 1,355 100 216 S5 19 X 15 1

213 5.6 720 120 100 223 13 99 34 11 i

5199.2 1,4010 114,936 11,125 97,811 15 216 3,01 IX 32 13 12 I181.8 34.9 5,860 5,160 100 27.5 153 IA 33 11 154 91165 117.3 8,273 1.515 6,758 V 119 I) 14 34 10 22 $291.2 568 4,551 162 4,3% 96 21.2 IN V 29 15 33 I441.1 13.2 1,361 2,009 5,359 73 21.6 111 11 30 IS 61 1

563 11 1,861 1,861 100 225 22 SI 34 14 15 1

124.1 261 3,621 150 3,411 96 30.1 166 16 33 16 91 9In / 1951 11.410 6,171 11,532 63 301 1,261 II 34 14 151 11

15,5 313 1,011 3,011 100 20.1 41 11 29 16 466116 1117 11,081 1.105 1,382 IS 23.1 311 94 35 14 ?I 10

1LS 1,074 1,074 100 224 26 IS 35 10 56 1

3014 61.5 5164 1,549 5415 10 24.1 1% 84 36 13 121 $Sin 1122 6,543 201 6,342 17 202 122 81 X 14 33 1

111.4 111 1.156 371 8,271 % 221 1/2 V 30 IS 61 98411 14.3 3,137 436 3,301 $1 200 67 V 30 11 22159 5 324 4,792 tS 4,707 9e tit 10 11 21 IS X I

451 0 912 5171 1,111 1,051 16 24.1 304 91 32 12 7$ 1121 1289 1,213 100 34.5 110 86 31 10 94 12

i 86 0 312 2,244 100 2,144 96 20 6 41 80 31 11 2661 $ 146 1,100 11 1,319 99 24.2 40 1S 30 15 N 1

5451 IN 1 5250 VI 5,422 V in NO n n 11 S3 /

11.4 141 1,554 1,654 100 218 26 $4 30 13 SS 1

1,0023 NJ 65 2 191.6 31,323 1,142 26911 8S 213 1,588 113 31 21

286$ 31 511 5591 1,926 4,673 71 24.6 256 101 35 15 II26 S 11 11 100 41 11 31 11 11

Existiag sad Potential Resources 1w Family Planning Progress ( Designates Lcatio of One or Mere

Precasts

Prevents w Resources within County)

Nerieral Pliysiciaas is Patient Gm Hospitals MetSch.

0E0 Other FederalProgram s

HealthDees.

P.P.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

pi1

i4igA

I.,=1iit.git 1

1

2$§gA

S1.11

,fvi 1 I

I21

il1-1111

1

c

,ifg

ifES.1

fb111li

a I1 A/11111iiltiti

IIA t.

s

1

1I

122

1816

1513

16964

1

2

283

729 108 264

44 140 1123 133 1342 IS 14

33 92 n112 222 21

206 99 6791 111 2694 61 4349 75 2023 96 14

1,601 110 2,154

210 115 611,015 III 235

182 63 62434 91 130

53 14 31

101 V 44

1,41 152 NI10 SI 45

06 101 20956 II 21

456 152 91

405 71 111SS 112 121

319 111 V140 1$ 51

SI/ ITS 14141 65 1214 ID 44

SO 73 25993 122 IR

52 13 21

4473

2632

39

5475216454

32153731

41

31

V2121

2956

3641213441

3023n2433

33IS243632

A

NEVADA

2

14

1

12 26632

13 2 2,21511 1 173

ORMSBY

PERSHING

OREY

W

STXASO

WHITE PINE

13

14

151617

1CWIWAPSI0R38 6 29 11,989 1 10 I 2 1 10 COLIWIES

2 6 I 553 &MAP 1

1 6 2 293 CARROT,. 24 1 I 691 CHESHIRE 3

3 570 COOS 43 6 5 1,112 GRA/TOM

12 6 7 4,284 HILISEIOR01.01 66 1 3 1/20 MERRIMACK

1 6 3 1,470 ROCK1100A1

3 5 2 1,242 STRVFORO

2 414 Stil1Y1/1 10

NEW /MY600 1 71 101,108 26 2 21 6 6 1 1 4 $ 21 COMM

10 5 3 2,830 1 Al1MTIC I

12 $ 5 1,203 3 a BERM 211 6 2 1,121 1 BIOKO 344 11 4 1,141 I um 43 5 2 664 CAPE MAT 5

1 1 3 2,435 2 CUIMIIIMO 6107 11 IS 11,4/5 S a taX 7

I S 1 1,011 GI.OUIttMt I11 6 S 3,901 Hiegm S

2 3 1 151 a HUMIDOR 10

XI 13 4 1,413 1 inept 1)44 1 4 7,641 2 a a IOUS 12

ts 1 3 SAO 2 a MON61:4101 13

35 II 6 6,526 1 MORRIS 14

19 It 3 t931 1 OCEM IS

44 I. 6 1,714 2 s PASSAIC II1 3 1 561 a SALEM 11

11 S 1 1,681 I SOMERSET II3 4 3 112 1 kW II

52 10 5 11,221 2 s MN 20

4 6 1 1170 II I WW1 21

11I

Table 1. Need for Subsidized rem tsnnieg Services: Curtest Prog amm, Releurces and Related Indices for U.S., Each State aid County, FT 19611 continued

Peptides end SelectedClisrectutstics (0030

Estimated Fitly limbs Hodbed Service Web

Selected Health sed Deaevaplak Indices

Went Modality1961.1165

EstFeetRes

Um WithOrder asel Mks

10 1l 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Is II

1

ilhiA..2

IIIilil 1.1

aZI1.

- & I

iIi

II11

;1

IfLI11

NEW MEXICO

3 CHAVES 52.7 91 1,285 301 984 )7 219 71 131 31 15 10

4 MUM 12.1 21 425 425 103 31.8 22 120 26 29 19

S CUM 355 66 1,019 50 J69 35 23.6 31 123 31 1? 9

6 DE BAU 2.6 .4 109 109 100 41.7 1 89 25 15

7 DONA AM 74.4 14.2 2193 314 1,873 86 21.9 40 114 34 20 9

$ HOY 491 97 1,136 116 1,020 90 291 73 91 30 22 10

9 GRAM 20.0 4.1 692 692 100 28.3 25 103 39 17 10

10 GUADALUPE 118 2.0 1.1 294 291 100 419 25 124 I? 33 9

11 HAUG 1.6 .3 59 59 100 61.9 9 111 14 36 7

12 HIDALGO S3 1.0 165 165 100 229 4 113 23 33 5

13 1f.A 50.0 10.2 111 177 100 29.5 70 95 32 12 12

14 111C0111 10 1.4 284 244 100 441 22 94 28 13 II15 LOS ALUMS 116 3.0 46 46 100 218 16 82 25 12 9

16 URA 12.0 2.4 46S 465 1% 41.2 40 121 23 32 10

11 Watt( 41.8 251 9.9 2,122 527 1,595 /5 40.9 179 135 27 30 10

1 MOM 51 10 1.0 396 3% 100 361 15 93 9 4? 18

13 000 365 1.4 1.1 888 37 851 96 27.1 49 124 30 IS 10

20 COAT 12.6 23 441 37 404 92 343 32 94 33 19 4

21 630 AMU 27.0 4.2 26 53 1,640 112 1,521 9 3 366 1 2 136 29 24 1 1

22 RO3SEVEl1 19.3 4.I 6 9 5 30 6 6 5 96 210 18 6 1 42 18 I I

SAM:OV AL 167 67 14 1,316 29 1,28? 98 3S 2 39 134 27 33 10

2234 SA7411411 445 11 167 18 1,233 321 912 74 31_2 104 149 24 29 10

25

2 6

SAN

S ANTA FE

IAIGUEI 21150.4

100.9

4.2

9.?

1,369

1,853

788

224

581

1,629

42

88

44.1216

91

40

111

121

3221

22

24

14

11

2? SIDRA 7.5 12 361 361 1CO 20.1 2 92 21 It 11

21 SOOCNIO 11.1 .1 21 571 571 100 541 50 126 30 35 10

29 TAOS III 14 11 4.0 1.681 121 1,560 13 34.4 40 103 27 2? II30 MAKE 11 1.3 302 7 295 98 40.1 H 12 25 16 10

/1014 64 14 119 3 116 90 33 2 10 111 26 19 11

32 VP/0014 363 SS 11 1,04 1.034 HO 353 99 113 24 24 10

NEW TO111

62 CCUMES 11,9610 OM 351,361 99.228 252,136 12 24.0 11,690 V 34 13

1 P114/4Y 2 2866 561 3,841 1,321 4,521 11 24.1 112 SS 34 16 1

2 AllEGMff . 419 93 1,315 1,345 100 121 It 12 29 19 1

3 BACON 4 1,543.4 314.3 36,441 19,112 17,329 41 212 1,211 94 35 11 11

4 BROW I NI 0 44 3 3,134 633 0931 12 212 02 91 IS 13 1

S CATIPAILIGNS 132 114 1,133 1.133 100 21.9 35 91 32 IS S

4 CAYUGA S 751 14 5 1.654 21 1,635 99 213 2? 96 31 11 If/ 014111411044 S 141 5 21 5 3 110 3.110 100 240 140 11 32 13 I$ 001UNG S MS 215 2.246 165 2.041 93 212 41 81 32 11 9

1 Ot/441100 414 91 1,165 1.165 100 111 I 13 21 14 10

10 CIMICII 74 4 141 1149 1,841 100 124 52 114 29 20 1

11 4:00.44114A 516 103 1,154 1,154 100 249 14 7S 33 15 6

12 CCELA1) 455 14 3 1100 1,100 100 221 22 74 35 14 9

11 OEIARARE 461 11 1.281 1.219 100 217 44 15 29 11 1

14 471110(511 S 214.1 416 3,00 671 3.133 13 221 a 114 A 12 8

114

Ex Istkg aid Meet Sal Resources ler Prey Ptase leg Negras, ( Desigaites tcat s Orn or More Pregmes r lemma yid& twisty)

Mea-Federl RhysIdies I. Palled Care liespRes MetSch.

KO Mynas Other WendPre174 4

Meal*DIPts.

P1.

H 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 21 2$ 24 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

it

iIl 11 I-

iIII '1

I

i1

I

11818

Ii

IIii

ii

ilz11

II!

I iillit

IIii!41'

1

I

1I!

NEW MEXICO

$68

212

32

686659114S

155

121

15

41

14

1

1

/6

31 62 11 2217 SS 10 M

2 31 1 19

24 58 11 364 MI 3 38

204

14?

331

47

3314 29 9 19

2 35 1 IS15 41 / 194 32 , 4 32

11 41 6 22

3 16 2 10

26 54 11 23

19 t2 I It68 135 9 11

9 120 5 61

4 II 4 366 12 ' 5 X

' I IS I IS2 3? 2 1/

16 21 I 22

11.411 154 1,611 37

11

27

1,719 111 111 41

296 134 S? 26II I? 32 11

72 116 11 2s121 $1 S6 13

144 113 2$ 17

M 11 1611 M 11 11

40 71 14 21

11 11 12 24

15 16 $S

314 146 /3

3 6 2 6792 331

1 3 1 593

4 1 1 1,091

2 4 3 9651 4801 108

1 V

4 121

I 232 15 1 212

2 4 5 1,406 3

2 5 2 484 I1 200

1 4 2 4101 210

2 4 2 1.241 1

2 9 1 231

5 10 2 MI II 53

1 2411 152 1

1 /2

3CHAVES

COL FAX 4CURRY 5DE BACA

CO

aNA AM 7

ECOY 1GRAKT 1GUANSUPE 10

HARDING IIHIDALGO 12

LEA 1

LINCOLN 14

3

LOS MAIDS bLUNA ISMCKINLEY I1

MORA ISOTERO ItQUAY 20WI MINA 21

ROOSEVELT 22

SANDOVAL 23

NM 24

SSMIAN NIGUEL ISSAMMIE 26SIERRA 21

SCCON10 2$1 AOS M1011O CE 30%MICR 31

VA C% 32

1,886 10 711 2/5,031 45 1 48 11

3o it4"96 6 7 16,512 i$3 11 4 4.5145 1 3 LIM

7 9 2 1.471S VI/

LIN2 4

11

2MS

1 1,101

4 1 ?IS1 1 1,101

1 $N 11 4

MIT YORK71 62 MURES

AtiAlffWOWMOWNOOKcAnutfrom

34

S

YUGA

0CA44171AUOUA /6

MUM ICHUM)CUM 10

1

COOSA 1 1

001111/00 12

taA11M/ 13

IVICHEIS 14

116

Table 1. Reed lei Subsidized Family Nubia' Semites: Cuneut Programs, Resources and Related Indkes for U.S.. Each State and County, FY 196$ continued

Popitstioa sod SelectedCharectertstics (0001)

Estiotted Family Plana lag Noiand Service Levels

Selected Health and Demographic bodices

Want Meth 641991.1365

Est.Fort.Reis

the liftOrder as

el Sinks

1 2 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1$

111 1 1

,,..

iii11

II

I.

1

3

I.2§

iigc;

IiI

filltiit

li

iv

i!NEW YORK

15 ERIE 3 1,0842 2118 20,194 4,016 16,178 63 22.8 551 93 31 15 916 EMU 34.9 61 1,012 1,012 100 169 95 30 19 617 FIWR IN 460 18 1,426 1,426 100 21.4 50 93 26 28 9IS FULTON 51.1 10.6 1,201 1,201 100 25.9 38 88 26 20 819 GOLSEE . 59.1 123 1,108 1,108 100 20.4 id 95 32 14 9

20 GREENE 31 5 8.3 865 XS 100 20.1 7 81 3.3 16 1

21 FULTON t .9 131 131 100 22.6 2 11 19 14 822 HERKIMER 67.1 161 1,331 E4 1,273 95 241 56 86 21 19 $23 JEFFERSON S 89.8 11.4 2,138 46 2,092 98 222 45 97 32 19 6

24 KINGS 4 2)020 541.4 63,913 21,956 42,011 66 244 3,016 27 35 12 11

25 LEWIS 24.9 4.1 615 615 100 22.0 12 101 23 27 1

26 LIVINGSTON 2 50.5 10.9 1,173 1,173 100 25.2 37 $4 35 15 927 MADISON 2 51.6 11.3 1,246 1,246 100 214 37 103 29 I/ I

MONICE 2 655 .6 133.0 10,195 3,097 7,088 70 210 214 95 35 13 82289 MONTGOMERY 51 i 11.1 1,211 1,281 100 21$ 19 74 29 17 1

30 NASSAU 4 1,4121 314.2 12,601 2413 9,988 19 197 218 63 .'.8 !4 131 Pell Ytet . 4 1,540.5 935.2 49,183 29762 19421 39 312 2,950 64 3 9 12

32 MAGARA 3 215 3 468 3,413 1,154 2,339 61 21.5 169 90 29 16 833 ONEO)A 1 MO 45511 5,111 78 5,109 91 24.6 201 11; 29 11 934 0101)AGA 2 451.1 94.1 1,615 2,167 9448 12 21.3 1/4 94 30 11 8

35 ONTARIO 766 140 1,414 1,414 100 20.7 22 81 32 15 836 ORANGE 5 2045 40.4 4,497 341 4,156 92 24.1 129 91 30 14 331 MENG 2 37./ 1.6 115 85 730 93 249 34 93 26 23 9

18 0511tC0 2 96.4 20.4 2.365 2.365 10) 219 64 95 2S 11 9

31 OISECO 55 5 121 1,744 1,144 10) 20.4 12 64 34 15 9

40 PUTNAM 44.4 1.3 NI NI 100 22.5 11 86 33 IS 1

41 CMOS 4 1.9612 4023 25,224 4865 18,159 13 200 313 84 11 1 9IIENSMAE11 2 1524 305 3,239 3,239 100 21.6 56 19 28 16 1

41 100000 4 7220 517 4,110 331 3132 91 21.3 11 X 32 12 1

44 103001411 194/ 415 2,435 2,135 100 201 49 12 24 15 1

45 11.17, 1111 23.2 2,918 13 2,115 100 246 14 * 30 22 846 SAAATOCA k 2 143 211 2,504 2504 100 224 46 91 A 14 141 SCIO(CIADI 2 161.7 31.1 3,313 30S 3,006 91 114 23 82 33 13 7

41 OMAN 214 4.7 711 711 100 221 10 11 37 20 9S OINUJI 14 / 3.3 345 345 100 27.2 15 15 33 16 6

SEXCA 318 65 588 so 100 212 I1 81 32 1S 11

51 Ilt1.111 1019 246 4242 2,242 100 244 94 92 31 11 1SI StittUt 4 160 1 201 16,157 991 14159 94 206 265 89 25 16 1

Si SWI Alt % 17 1,324 1.324 100 31.5 60 15 34 IS I54 MCA 44 2 1 2 1 1 9 911 101 121 100 24 16 1

SS 101111/411 741 113 1,472 26 1,446 91 17.0 19 43 1 1

5611

L13711UNA

134.3 21.1III

114S1.535 1

3.1451,527

103

19It 514.3

1634

It95

2931

16

II61

51 1k ASHOG%01 KS 10.7 1,317 UV 100 21.1 21 % 27 24 ISi PAT* 2 Pt 2 143 1,591 1,591 100 211 AS 13 V II 11

PASO 4 4711 111.9 2(191 1 1 5 4 1,111 611 a 1 NO TS 33 11

11

WWII ad Pokiest Resources lr Family Pinola& Programs Co

Hospitals

Des 1pates ntie° el One w

Programs

Mors Programs if Resources witide Canty}

Neo-Federal Physicians la Pitiful Care Med.Sch.

0E0 Other FederalMynas

HealthDepts.

.P.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

IIti

IRtA0sg

II§

lgsl

I

Ig

hgA

AklIs

v

i

NIril

lk11

qilst

Iilissv

IIat,II

ih.0

6

i11

itsl

1183

st

11a

fa

11sl

351z'0FA]lesi]

Irillin1amylsihtl

Iir. I

A

1Ia

1,369 126 288

33 94 22

48 104 11

49 91 24

49 82 20

23 69 13 4

3 64

31 56 29

89 99 213,340 124 1,038

10 40 942 83 2344 71 16

885 135 153

48 13 24

2.270 161 4827,201 467 963

186 ?I 0305 109 81585 128 133

88 115 24

231 115 $019 % 958 60 31

VI 1% 13

49 110 14

2.S32 121 113136 11 41111 106 41341 115 49

13 V 1954 53 19

229 142 , 54

10 15 14

1 411 1

31 12 14

1.015 113 16741 93 23

11 31 12

96 129 71

111 10 53

13 10 25

34 12 19

KI 61 11

1,70 20 131

NEW YORK

26 103 9 10 16,309 4 s ER( 15

63 4 444 ESSEX 16

39 2 4 3 823 FRANKLIN 11

44 5 9 I 138 f ULTON 18

33 4 / 2 1,3% GENESEE II

42 1 3 1 421 GREENE 20

64 HAMILTON 21

43 3 1,054 HERKIMER 22

31 10 11 4 1,952 JEFFERSON 23

38 262 10 22 41,166 13 Oa a KINGS 24

36 1 269 LEWIS 75

46 1 361 LIVINGSTON 26

21 3 5 2 9% MADISON 11

23 17 12 7 loss 4 a MOMIX 2141 2 3 2 991 MONTGOMERY 29

34 166 12 1 12,104 4 NASSAU 33

63 434 28 21 41,930 19 sea NEW TM 31

2? 14 6 S 1963 NIAGARA 32

29 11 6 4 4)41 a 0tE00A 33

29 58 13 S t 1 1 1 1 a a a OVIDAGA 34

w31 5 1 3 1,613 ONTARIO 35

39 17 It 1 3,353 1 ORANGE 36

24 1 3 2 601 MEANS 37

32 4 4 2 1,449 OSWEGO 38

23 4 1 2 168 OTSEGO 39

32 4 9 2 736 PUTNAM 40

40 119 1 9 9 11,553 6 I a QUEENS 41

31 1 3 2.644 /IMAM 42

15 24 1 4 4,1% 1 11101100 43

25 11 9 2 3151 ROMAN) 44

34 3 3 S 1,465 1 ST. UNRENCE 45

21 3 3 2 109 SARATOGA 46

13 21 13 2 1,961 SCHENECTADY 47

60 1 341 SCIOLMI NI42 1 125 SCHUYLER 49

41 1 3 2 330 SENECA SO

39 4 4 3 1,583 STEUBE/I SI

21 11 1 10 11,4111 5111OUI 52

45 I 2 2 499 StillYAN 53

77 1 2 1 362 MCA 54

37 1 11 1 1,304 a 1C0ILIN5 SS

% 9 ? 2 1% ULSTER Si41 1 12 1 1,163 NARIIM Si35 3 6 2 251 1KSIINGTON 5$

0 3 4 2 121 WAY NE 54

1$ 111 1) 14 11,621 1 NESTCHESTER SO

11

Table 1. Need fw Sebsidbed Fan Flonnias Undue: Conant ma, Resources and Related Indices for U.S., Each Stall and Count FY Ile continued

Popetatloo sod SelectedCiaractertabcs (000s)

Estimated ramify Pinatas Needmkt Service Leith

Selected Health and Demographic lodlcasIOW Medal

1961.1965Est.Fed.Rate

Live Birth&dotes, of Bias

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 21 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 11

1I

1

1

iiIIii

isa

i.1.1

IIi

4 2k,..4

g;

1

4 I1

I

11

liii

4al

liiiait

b

HEY/YORK

61 MONK 31.6 7.0 771 771 103 225 11 89 29 18 5

62 YATES 195 40 564 564 100 21.4 7 73 12 23 9

NORTH CAROU

100 COMITIES 4,973.5 11 3.6 1,0714 231,102 29,424 201678 81 30.6 6,823 86 37 13 117 9

1 AlAIIAME S 91.0 20.6 2660 191 2,469 93 214 54 86 36 9 93 82 ANX,1240ER 17.8 4.1 845 82 763 93 24.2 10 87 33 10 39 6

3 AllECHOXY 82 1.1 462 14 448 97 26.2 6 70 36 10 33 II4 ANSON :4.4 10 1,493 149 1,344 90 39.7 5; 91 33 26 217 8

S ASIC 214 4.3 1.323 48 1,275 96 211 15 42 38 16 63 1

6 AWN 119 2.9 919 6 913 99 231 1 II 35 6 17 10

1 BEAUFORT 362 .1 1.3 2,356 223 2,113 91 34.6 62 91 38 IS 149 10

1 WTI 24.4 SD 1,618 139 1,479 91 316 47 11 29 30 169 11

9 100131 265 2 14 1,657 53 1,604 91 364 56 SS 32 16 157 10

10 BRUMICK 1 209 .1 1.3 1,214 16? 1,107 81 313 42 99 34 I? 197 12

11 BUKOME 1 144.4 .2 30.9 1799 664 1135 49 280 138 80 39 9 94 10

12 BUNT 614 14.1 2,144 86 2,658 9? 219 21 71 39 9 68 $13 CABARSUS 5 /I? 151 2,414 152 2,262 94 213 19 82 39 10 104 914 CALINAL11 51.2 131 2,514 45 2,529 91 30.5 Id 96 36 12 61 11

15 CAM 14 1.0 287 21 260 91 322 1 V 34 16 159 14

IS GAM 363 1.0 1,614 313 1,211 77 301 11 71 36 12 117 611 Caeca 196 4 2 1,119 121 991 19 414' 50 70 36 20 128 14

IS CATADIA % 5 20.0 2.963 I SI 2,812 95 29.5 102 $4 41 12 16 9It CHATHAM 279 SI 1,213 49 1,244 % 301 34 /3 33 13 139 12

20 DOOKtt 162 .1 33 1,151 71 1,072 93 It/ 21 76 41 13 II 11

21 CHOW 116 .1 24 699 131 560 10 47.3 31 74 43 10 184 1

22 MAY 12 10 171 21 350 93 111 70 21 6 3

23 C1EALAN) 619 .2 150 3,101 154 2W 95 17.9 71 9? 31 12 123 II24 0:4.11a8 195 .1 10 6 3,091 237 2154 92 4.11 113 19 34 17 111 125 M A I M 613 126 3,009 446 2, 5 8 3 $ S 20 6 116 I% 339 16 44 10

26 ElieflikM) 1 1941 .1 400 1,201 1,160 7,547 87 223 242 106 31 12 1I 9

27 C* CHICK 7.1 1.4 320 % 2$1 19 51.1 20 92 II 15 145 IIn DARE 61 1.3 439 11 421 97 212 3 92 34 15 13 15

29 Men 14.3 21.6 3.454 3,454 100 27.1 19 12 34 12 13 10

11 DAVI li/ 19 611 676 103 24 5 N 71 IS 6 n 6

31 O(JR% 311 .1 1.1 2,503 540 193 71 13 1 56 11 33 20 145 II32

tatIMOUE1 123 6 .1 242 4.02 1,311 3,517 12 289 119 73 39 12 123 II

33 5 114 110 3024 606 2411 10 425 164 96 34 23 111 1

34 FORSTM 2 2114 2 47.4 6,512 1,131 4,974 26 284 233 71 V 11 121 9

31 118310.11 211 17 1,614 123 1,561 93 413 70 16 41 73 136 10

36 4A31 41 1 1371 297 SI% 423 4,972 92 219 149 100 36 11 71 1

37 SAM 44 1.9 610 IN 451 14 33 3 I4 74 32 12 11$ 14

31 OtAKAM 1.0 .2 .3 15 467 461 150 241 4 11 40 11 29 911 4101111111 361 11 2,06) 71 1,990 91 II? 0 72 29 25 121 12

40 CREW 16 1 34 IA 195 175 II 41.4 45 IS 30 19 I% 1

0A101% 2 2713 2 61.7 1,312 624 7.688 92 291 341 13 36 II 109 1

Editisi sod Palatial Remus Fw Falai Plawdog Promos ( Desivatn lotitin of Ow w Uwe Provins w it14f44$ within County)

1Na-roden1 Pipiciaas is Mut Cue hospitals Mod.Sch.

040 Programs Other hen,Programs

Holdopts.

P.P.

19 20 21 72 23 24 25 26 27 2$ 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 3.11

Il

1&

II

1

11

11

rif Is

ii 1

Pi,iiii

11

11

1of

it

illgi

ii

ti

iliit

tlz

ii

iiisii

11111/1

II]

I/lilt!hilt!!

11,II 3

NEVI YORK

2618

69 15

92 13

4061

2 5 1

1

613238

WY OMINS

YATES

61

6 2

3,725 15 1,213 24 294 6 105 12,978 6 3 80 8 4 3 1 93

NORD( CAROL1

ICO COUNTIES

11

467

7

921

187

184

CO

61

3S

1

221

13

12

9

81

S4

21

40

NI32

401

1525966

23510

TO

2

)322

271

82 29N 2

73 4

29 534 5

70 575 131 7

30 513 5

121 3691 2284 16

61 11

19 1

61 10

S 3

84 3343 656 6

6t 4I t 1

11 2542 14

63 14

36 11

343

29 242 11311 4

II 11210 70124 20III 46X II

51 34

11 243

11 131

12 2

III 41

31

11

49

20

2S

3922

29

19

24

25

36

22

33

19

2S

S

31

22

31

34

11

36

ft22

643

29

11

22

26

16

31

22

II

25

71

43

3112

11

9

3

IS362

6

1

1

61

4

9

2

17

620

i

32

10 21

1

1

1

21 1

1

1

1

10 2

5 1

1 I3 I

1 I

6 2

1 I

3 3

2 1

6 1

S 2

2 2

1

1

14 I11 3

10 3

1

4 2

17 4

1,613154286220304

303561262336132

2,832992

1,594958

584

280

244

1,795565123

2,316

1,117

262

1991,0941,3054,411

221

2,121

5,171

1

I

1

.

a

a

4

a

a

a

a

e

4

a

a

a

a

e

4

a

a

e

s

a

a

a

AUMANCEALEXANDER

MUCHA*ANSON

ASHE

AWRYBEAUFORT

BEATE

KAMBRUNSWICK

BUN:CASEBURKE

CABARRUS

C+10,1711 4

CAMDEN

CARTERET

CASWIIICATAHIACHATHAM

CHUOIE

CHOWMCUTCIE tIlii0COUMUSCRAVEN

CUISEPINGCURRITIER

DMDAVIDSON

DAYS

MINFORHAAT

EDGE0011BETOPS T11

FILY1014

CASTOR

CATES

GRAMMGRAIWILIEORM

(AVOW

I234

S

61

$9

10

II12

13

14

IS

16

I 7

ISII

20

21

22

232425

2627212933

31

3233343S

X37

X)I10

41

11!

Tobin 1. Reed let Se Wilted Maly laenieg Simko: Cruet Programs, Resources led Related Indku for U.S., Each State and Ciente, FT 1361 continued

Pepelstien and SelectedClearectacistice (OM)

'Isthnattd Family Planning Noda id Service Levels

Selected Heel% and DesograpkkWe MakOrders

. of 'kW

IndicesInfant NecteSty

1161.1965Est.FlitWs

10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 II

111

irs1

i

1

lia!1

. I1

Iin zl 1

I

1.igi;

! Ig

Ii1i

Ifli0sl

I,i1

11lb

NORTH CAROL!

42 HALIFAX 14.9 .1 127 3,595 484 3,111 Si 39.9 160 96 35 23 239 1043 1W2t11 493 10.6 2,861 234 2,627 92 33.1 88 85 35 19 161 11

44 HAYWOOD 42.4 .3 9.3 1,693 28 1,665 98 21.2 14 84 38 5 48 1045 HEMXILSOR 41.2 .3 81 1,845 1,645 100 252 28 19 34 10 43 946 KRIM 23.6 4.9 1,437 131 1,306 91 35.7 49 64 32 27 226 10

41 Kg 11.8 3.8 1,062 96 966 91 462 53 91 38 14 271 13

41 HYDE 55 .1 1.0 312 31 335 90 465 15 51 29 3 294 12

49 IREDEll 10.4 154 2)37 113 2,624 96 303 93 83 36 11 128 950 JACKSON 19.2 1.5 1.5 4.3 1,235 4 1,231 100 20.6 5 41 40 12 75 451 131141014 60.9 .1 13.2 4,019 212 3,807 95 31.0 114 11 31 13 129 12

52 4HES 10.2 2.1 633 245 388 61 41.8 31 84 30 28 149 10

53 LEE 294 63 1,295 252 1.043 81 31.9 48 94 39 8 131 8Si IENOIR 51.4 12.9 3,382 359 3,023 89 30.9 23 U 31 1$ 151 I55 11400U4 312 69 1.412 51 1,314 93 34.0 48 83 38 12 13 956 MCDOWELL 30.0 61 1,544 32 1,512 98 269 26 81 38 9 33 2

57 I M C O R 14.5 3.0 9 2 3 5 918 99 267 I I 71 46 II 51 10

58 MADISON 17.0 .1 1.1 1,164 84 1,080 93 24.8 10 69 46 8 55 10

59 MARIN 256 51 1,646 286 1,364 13 34.9 51 94 26 24 264 10

60 HEMMEN 1 321.5 13.3 10,956 8.,551 2,300 21 30.2 426 $4 37 9 131 961 1810(11 110 2.8 801 14 711 91 241 10 80 32 12 53 8

62 witrooktri 20.0 4.2 1,091 16$ 923 85 34.2 33 12 43 18 145 11

63 MOORE 392 81 1,151 131 MS 13 37.5 86 19 33 16 126 964 RASH 5 619 131 3,500 528 2.972 85 35 1 120 11 35 20 196 1

66 70111,MONER 4 74.5 .1 141 1,82-i 263 3,564 93 271 7$ 11 38 11 149 10

66 NORTHAMPTON 249 3 4.8 1,544 243 1,29? 84 44.3 80 Si 32 21 237 I2

U ceacm MI 3t/ 4,204 115 4.029 96 212 168 121 42 11 48 168 CRAM 1 521 11.9 2.208 I% 1.713 11 252 38 76 41 II 16 969 PAMLICO 9.1 11 545 13 472 81 411 22 65 40 3 IV 1020 PASOIPIMM 271 11 1,531 121 1.404 92 321 44 79 40 17 23 1

11 NM 17.3 .1 15 1,122 76 1,04 13 31.9 39 90 26 16 214 11

12 MOMS 86 1.6 515 99 436 SI 219 5 13 29 35 162 1

73 PERSON 282 .1 60 1,411 311 1,129 11 362 5/ 11 36 19 IN 11

74 PM 759 11.4 5084 381 4,703 13 *9 141 76 31 11 181 10

15 PCUt 11.6 23 580 WO 100 23.1 $ IS 43 10 193 176 IWC01211 2 *I 151 2,531 2,531 I% 220 21 83 41 I 63 1

12 12001070 39 6 64 LOSS 21 2.121 99 31.0 V 18 SI 11 147 172 ROOM 117 .2 115 5741 116 5331 93 40 2 272 101 It 23 173 10

11 20041011421 n I .1 149 2L.3 730 2.123 91 730 39 11 34 14 103 1023 10114/1 S 19 2 111 3.144 272 2,174 91 215 21 13 39 10 13 1

II *MOM 479 .3 14 2 1,365 156 2,209 93 *6 58 12 10 12 109 11

12 SAMSON SO I .3 NS ON 80 3190 91 353 $6 71 31 21 121 $13 SCOYLMO 261 18 1,691 256 1.442 15 114 41 101 31 14 222 10

14 S t N l Y 116 9$ IA S 2 1,04 97 26 5 15 71 13 9 % 11

25 SOB 217 51 1,117 3 1194 100 211 12 SS 39 12 36 186 SIM 521 II 6 2,455 207 2,141 12 *6 68 $7 31 9 41 5

17 SRAM 11 11 Li 11 582 582 100 711 IS 112 31 11 155 12

120

EdsHag tad Nelda! Reseseces kr Falsify Piarinhig Programs ( Designates tombs. el Oaa a( hive Protranis w Researces within Cneity)

Ron -rodera lipids's is Meat Care Hospitals MaSch.

0E0 Programs Other FederalProvo in s

HealthDepb.

PA

11 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 23 21 30 31 32 33 34 35 34 31

I r1k

g 11

IIIiik11

.!AlAl

ilg

11

i1

ii:tit

III1

6ig11 11

i1 61eisi' 1

1/1

a1 1

ii

al]

1 Ii

I/ -

11

I15

A

1IA

NORTH CAROL!

24 19

21 1331 13

40 9?14 59

10 561 13

54 11

14 /332 53

2 2024 1240 10

14 4511 37

12 13$ 47

9 35313 116

8 62

8 404 1 105

1 11

92 121

10 40

23 23

15 112

1 11

25 X5 21

2 2 3

11 3162 1211 15531 44

20 51

Si 5$41 57

62 026 54

20 011 5124 SS

S 21

SI St

3 X

16 2616 3222 5219 46

II 34

4 23

1 It23 33

1 361$ X

2 2011 3111 19

7 2210 33

6 41

$ 4?7 27

51 16

6 46

7 351 3 336 1

IS 2010 40

12 12IS 28

9 324 23

1 1 1

6 21

21 215 43

II 26

13 3311 2023 32t3 2614 21

14 21I MI

13 X4 11

21 61

3 X

1

1

3

1

3

35

31

2

12

1

2

3

5

3

1

9242

21

2

22

7

10

5

10

9

12

5

16

1

4

11

1

4

3It

3

4

4

1

2

4

1

1

1

31

31

1

1

2

2

1

31

1

2

1

1

1

1

I

I1

1

1

21

1

1

1

1

2

2

694320120161

509

1,66623193

NO1,124

165

121

1,04261

PO866

6201,051

113

304

01104 1

226

5441,1N2

1,5491,067

$941,131

64515

1,12/

210

1

1 a

a

a

a

aa

Ia

a

a

a

IIa

II

a

I

aa

aa

aa

a

a

a

a

aas

a

s

ss

a

a

a

aae

a

aaa

aa

a

a.a

HALIFAX

HAMMHAMM()HEMMENHEM ORD

HOKE

HYDE

MENU.JACKSON

JOHNSTON

JONES

LEE

LENOIR

1141X4/4

MCDONWEll

MACON

MADGON

MARINME CHLDIDERO

MITCHELL

MONTGOMERY

MOM

PENWI

114/13**NORTHAMPTON

ORIONORANGE

PAMLICO

/MUMMAF0W

PDOUNW6PERSON

PMKUWIXOM

/KIWIROBESON

ROCKINOMM

fellAll111114X010

SAMPSON

SCORAPOSTK YSIMSWV

SLIM

4243444546

41434950SI

5253545556

5?St51061

6263U066

I/18IX1071

121374

1516

11

ASO

11

1213641506

11

1!I

Talk I. Need for SatukRzed holly Plasolog Sync's: Curtest Programs, Resources and Related Indices for U.S., Each Mete and County, FT 1968 continued

Population sod SelectedChewier Mks MOO

Estimated Family Nosing Needsad Service levels

Selected Health sod Dersograpkic toffeesInfest Mortality

1961.1965IAred.Rate

Live MAROrder ss

of Birth

10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

11A

1

li

I 1

IIli

i V

.1II

11

1

11 a

521i

Is P.

cs.

83

g

1

ig

fiI/1ligl

1/I11h

NORTH CAROM

88 TRAI4SYIVAMA 19.2 .2 4.2 930 54 876 94 23.5 11 83 32 9 74 9

89 TYPSELI 4.0 .1 279 199 80 29 41.5 11 60 55 182 14

90 11100,4 1 418 10.6 2,188 148 2,040 93 31.0 105 96 32 11 92 10

91 VANCE 34.2 7.2 1,924 179 1,745 91 318 57 93 33 19 159 10

92 WAKE 1 201.6 .2 462 8,101 425 7,682 95 21.3 195 11 39 11 109 9

93 WARREN 17.5 14 1,132 291 835 74 388 12 87 31 26 151 14

94 WASHINGTON 14.1 .1 28 714 118 5% 83 41.6 38 105 31 19 218 7

95 WATAUGA 20.6 51 1,565 57 1,508 96 20.1 S 59 35 13 1 10

% WAYNE 89.5 .1 118 5,133 912 4,321 83 27.4 106 V 36 13 124 997 WILKES 50.9 11.2 3,060 62 2,998 98 2S9 55 79 31 14 60 9

98 WILSON 605 .1 13.3 3,546 68 3,478 i t 352 1 1 / 88 35 20 188 1

99 'MAIN 2 24.1 .1 52 1,060 17 1,043 98 27.3 22 78 39 9 34 8100 YANCEY 14.6 3.3 1,019 52 967 95 119 I 66 38 10 28 9

NORTH DAAOTA

53 COWES 6430 112 1205 17.589 314 11,275 98 23.0 409 101 32 20 48

1 ADAMS 3.9 .1 109 109 103 114 110 31 21 SI S2 BARKS 165 3.0 431 431 100 14.2 SO 32 I/ 11 14

3 MN 15 1.3 1.4 302 302 100 33.6 17 106 22 35 205 64 BIU.8IGS 1.5 .3 66 66 100 31.3 2 69 22 22 111 33S DOttltAJJ 9.1 1.1 223 223 100 24.3 6 92 34 23 13 10

i Bel 4W4 4.1 .1 86 86 100 21.9 2 120 26 21 47 51 BUM 5 3 .9 179 119 ICO 3: 3 8 86 41 IS 11 11

1 BIREIGH 361 1.6 801 801 100 198 9 101 34 12 42 69 CASS 1 682 13.4 1,186 140 1,016 8$ 21.9 31 04 39 13 33 1

10 CAVkIR 16 1.4 241 249 100 171 109 23 23 65 1

11 MCAT 1.2 1.2 244 244 100 4 5 2 93 29 25 36 912 DIVIDE 4.1 .1 141 141 100 24.5 3 98 21 21 26 S

13 0Ifl 54 .4 .1 208 208 100 20.7 2 121 16 31 54 414 EDDY 41 .8 151 151 100 Ill 108 28 21 70

SIs DOXIG 7.3 13 219 279 100 111 1 107 22 44 ZS

16 FOS1E11 51 1.0 151 159 100 201 2 102 31 30 31 9I/ DUO MIL tS .4 $1 a 14:0 165 11 20 tS IS11 OM) F01013 S 61.1 14.0 1.241 1,248 100 21.1 32 104 39 It 49 111 OW Si .1 191 197 100 246 4 V 16 37 3a MOS 4.3 .1 110 110 100 14 S 11 32 II 10

21 HETTaGER 5 5 10 150 150 100 11.9 143 26 32 4

22 KIDDER 5.1 1A 231 239 ICO 331 7 97 28 21 64 4

23 LA 103.11 1.5 13 258 258 103 131 $7 11 31 17 I24 lOGAN 43 .1 216 216 103 124 11 9 41 6

a 101E/fri 141 1.7 336 336 100 23 3 6 % 21 40 24 4

2$ MC111091ti mo vet

6 2

so .4

1 1

10a/138

73081!

100

100

24 I30 2

4

96$19

11

a1211 93

5

221 19XEMI It! .5 ./ 24 414 474 103 a 3 I / 15 54 24 99 S

to HERM 66 .1 12 237 .331 101 113 2 15 33 13 II 430 10t1411 20.4 31 660 660 100 215 31 125 26 23 31 6

Enstiag and Medial Resources kr Family Pleardag Prevails ( Designates Locates or One or More Programs Of

NO-ride l Physktaas h Mint Can Hospitals Med. 0E0 ProgramsSch.

II 57

I 2521 43

3

2118 1038

1

5 29

5 36

S312 59

58

11 33

10 994 17

5 34

510 n

$2 52

49

3 35

5 52

2 49

2 31/901011

1

IS/3 35

5 613 61

3 IS3 41

2 352 $2

SS 123 59

1 69

36

1 203 40

2 451 20

3 442

635

1 54

$ 29

Resourcts with % Coady)

32

Other FederalPrograms

33

Meethept

P.P.PDept:.

34 35 3b 37

Jill 21g2stIstl

1 37

1 2514 29

7

22043 1

4

4 223829

211 23

$ 16

12 4 231

S 34

$2 52

493 3S

2 21

2 492 31$ 22

12 II3 35

4 S5

1 61

2 43/ 41

2 $213 5 22

3 *2 341 20

3 40

2 4$1 1.

1 It

42

5 19

2 11

6 21

1 336

3 6 1 1,021

1 3 1 513

19 9 3 3,630 I

204 32 29 5 50 9,779 2 1 1 I

NORTH CAROM

NORTH DAKOTA

I 53 COUN11ES

TRANSYIA AMA

TYRRELL

WONYAWWAKE

WARREN

WASHINGTON

1 45 WATAUGA

4 4 1 1,058 WAYNE

2 4 1 714 a YAMS

5 8 1 989 WtSON

1 I% YAD1UN

1 123 YANCEY

1 I I / AbAMS

1 236 BARNES

Et/13014

BUNGS1 106 00111160

1 64 WWIAANBURRE

7 19 2 1,212 $1.1411G14

1 12 3 1,652 . CASS

1 13 C.A1ALIER

t 1SS DICEY1 13 NYC(

DUN1 64 MOTI $7 DIACIIS

1 11 /OSTER

OOLOOTY/111

S 1 3 1,175 CfcM. MAKS1 $4 CIRMT

1 IS EifeOCS

TIETT/IGlitMOM111 MOUE

10GARMUM

2 KIS MCINTOSH

4/ WWI1 1

1

2 132 MEAN1 V "mut1 114 MORTON

1

8

8$899091

92

9394

959697

98

10000

1

2345

6/1I

10

II12

13

14

15

It17

11

13

20

21

222324

25

3411

2$n*

1113

Table 1. Need for Subsidized Family Planning Services: Current Programs, Resources and Related Indices for U.S., Each Stele and County, FT 196$ continued

Population and SelectedCharacteristics (000s)

Estimated Family Planning Needand Service Levels

Selected Health end Demographic Indicesinfant Mortality

1961.1965at

Fut.Li t ii

14

Live BirthOrder as

le of Births

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

ij13 15 16 17 18

1i...3

fS1A

v

x ...

, iLi .g1 3

11,a.21

x

VSillA...sia

lidaz 31...- s3

1alh

R

i..,,:,;1 I

I.E!

h15::fii iz

1iI.

....

ig11

§1F-4a g

Id`..-

Niliis

NORTH DAKOTA

31 MOUNTRAIL 8.9 .7 1.6 318 318 100 28.3 10 100 33 18 85 1032 NELSON 7.8 1.3 224 224 100 23.7 4 87 38 16 52 1233 OLIVER 2.1 .3 106 106 100 20.8 1 121 10 29 1034 PEMBINA 12.1 2.2 360 360 100 25.3 9 75 33 17 49 535 PIERCE 7.1 1.3 216 216 100 15.3 113 34 23 28 4

36 RAMSEY 12.1 .2 2.0 258 258 100 15.2 123 28 28 72 837 RANSON 7.8 1.3 218 278 100 19.4 1 18 2! 13 38 838 RENVILLE 4.4 .8 126 126 100 26.3 4 97 23 21 26 13

39 RICHLAND 17.7 .3 3.0 588 588 100 11.6 94 33 23 14 640 RC'IETTE 12.9 5.1 2.4 573 130 443 77 29.6 24 139 19 33 164 7

41 SARGENT 6.5 1.1 235 235 100 30.1 8 36 37 22 19 742 SHERIDAN 3.4 .6 181 181 100 31.1 5 89 19 19 443 SIOUX 4.0 .5 2.0 .7 206 44 162 79 51.9 23 179 11 41 212 644 SLOPE 1.4 .2 29 29 100 8.5 173 38 38 645 STARK 29.2 3.9 611 611 100 26.3 23 120 28 22 34 II

46 STEELE 4.4 .7 104 104 100 23.7 2 76 50 11 3647 STUTSIAAN 24.5 4.5 667 667 100 23.4 14 85 33 19 67 848 TOWNER 4.9 .9 113 113 100 25.5 4 78 26 32 29 949 TRAILL 10.5 1.9 267 267 100 18.0 65 31 23 32 550 WALSH 20.0 3.7 546 546 100 23.4 n 80 23 26 40 7

51 WARD 60.9 12.4 1,352 1,352 100 23.6 50 117 37 13 41 652 WELLS 8.5 1.5 300 300 100 17.7 89 31 16 15 453 WILLIAMS , 19.2 3.4 406 406 100 23.6 14 98 32 21 30 8

OHIO

83 COUNTIES 10,364.3 2,102.6 216,679 37,517 179,102 83 22.7 5,265 90 33 15 74 8

1 ADAMS 20.7 4.0 1,99) 1,093 100 24.2 13 79 32 21 89 62 ALLEN 1 111.9 22.2 2,531 Z 530 100 27.4 115 96 30 18 84 7

3 ASHLAND 39.3 7.8 160 760 100 21.4 14 91 35 12 76 7

4 ASH', ABULA 5 94.7 18.5 2016 2,016 100 24.0 59 92 29 17 49 85 ATHENS 57.8 13.0 2,748 2,748 100 23.8 71 57 39 14 51 9

6 AVGLAIZE 36.6 7.0 775 775 100 25.6 31 99 29 20 35 47 BELMONT 1 82.8 15.9 2 525 90 2435 96 22.3 33 80 33 13 39 7

8 BROWN 24.5 4.6 927 927 100 25.4 20 64 28 23 41 39 BUTLER 1 209.4 45.3 4,064 406 3,658 90 22.2 97 87 34 15 64 8

10 CARROLL 21.6 4.4 585 585 100 26.7 18 88 32 17 51 5

11 CHAMPAIGN 31.6 6.4 864 864 100 21.4 11 82 33 11 16 11

12 CLARK , I 149.4 31.4 3,374 602 2772 82 23.5 82 90 37 11 80 7

13 CLERMONT 3 90.2 19.2 1,710 172 1,538 90 21.0 31 87 30 21 51 914 CLINTON 31.2 6.1 981 20 961 98 20.0 8 95 34 13 58 915 COLUMBIANA . 106.6 21.2, 2,543 2,543 100 21.3 37 86 33 14 40 7

16 COSHOCTON 34.6 7.1 999 999 100 17.2 84 33 10 41 617 CRAWFORD 52.0 10.7 1,084 1,084 100 25.6 42 92 33 12 33 7

18 111AHOGA 3 1,732.1 343.6 29,564 12191 17,373 59 24.7 1,187 91 34 14 94 919 DARY.2 501 10.3 1,383 1,383 100 19.8 10 87 30 11 36 620 DfilAfs,CE 33.9 6.7 682 682 100 26.1 31 112 35 18 27 , 7

124

Existing and Potential Resources for Family Planning Programs

25

(Hospitals

26

Designa so Location of One or

Programs

30

More

31

Programs or Resources within County)NonFederal

19 20

Physidana

21

In Patient

22

Can

23 24 27

Med.Sch.

28

0E0

29

Other

32

FederalPrograms

33 34

HealthCopts.

35

P.P.

36 37 38

I

111

g

..., 0i

Iir1

11

'14

S'71

2:.

1E

li

S.1

1

11

SI

ij

=

t]

S1

fit

1VJi

1

1

11Si

a.2..IASi]

=Si

...1AtVl:"ASIgl

g 3.N

..1

4 451 13

5 41

6 85

12 995 642 45

13 738 62

1 15

16 79

2 4528 1142 417 67

10 50

53 875 59

15 r 78

9,829 . 95

11 53126 23 110

6657 ' 6036 62

14 3861 7414 51

187 894 19

16 51

111 1420 ; 2220 6464 60

3 34 1 11 1

1 13

5 41 26 85 1

7 58 1

4 51 1

8 45 1 6 1

7 54 2

1 15

1

7 35

1 236 24 2 8 1

1 29 1

7 67 1

10 50 3

13 21 3 5 34 47 1

11 51 1 5 2

3,212 31 683 7 154

10 48 1

47 42 319 48 231 33 320 35 3

13 3635 42 2 2 310 41 2 8 1

66 32 ' 17 8 34 19

13 41 1

41 27 8 5 2: 16 18'' 13 42 2 6 ' 1

43 40 3 3 3

74

201

198

35558

55269

121

46374

132

305

1,170

128. 384

164,302

3483,452

. 701

1,459

3,635

1,066492

3,135

393

' 2, S3 S

895. 1,911

' 17 ':, 49 ' 14 40 1 ' ' : 58137 " 11 ''.. 24 46 1 2 3 964

2,344 135 *-: 466 27 ' 199 11 19 25,06922 43 17 34 n 1 73623 68 9 27 2 6 2 797

NORTH DAKOTA

MOUNTRAIL

NELSON

("LIVER

PEMRINAPIERCE

31

3233

35

RAMSEY 36RANSOM 31RENVILIE 38

RICHLAND 391 ROLETTE 40

SARGENT = 41SHERIDAN 42

1 SIOUX 43SLOPE 44STARK 45

STEELE 46STUTSFIWI 41TOWNER 48TRAILL A9

WALSH 50

WARD 51WELLS 52WILLIAMS 53

OHIO24 3 86 10 2 7 2 2 16 15 88 COUNTIES

ADAMS 'I 1

ALLEN 2AS} LAM 3ASHTABtILA 4ATHENS 5

AVGLAIZE 6BELMONT 1BROWN 8

a a BUTLER 9CARROLL /0'CHAMPAIGN 11CLARK 12

CLERMONT1

13CLINTOE 14

COLUMBIANA , 15

CC91OCTON 16CRAWFORD 17

7 CUYAHOGA 18DARKE 19DEFIANCE 20

125

TAW 1. Reed for Subsidized Emirs Planning Services: Current Programs, Resources and Rs lited Indices for 112., Each Stfe and Coon ', FY 1968 continued

Population and SelectedCharacteristic (000s)

Estimated Family Planningand Service

9

NeedLevels

10 11

Selected Health and Demegrsplik indicesInfant

1961.1965

12

Motility

13

EstVert.Rite

14

liveOrdertat15

MIAas

Births

16 17 181 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

=

fhsae

....

g

id-=

Iii88.`z

.z.illX;:u.

hilX;

ilLZz

.1

I

si

Vt..1.-5'

4

g

Iz

11

14$$11ii1

livgt

ki^ififleI2 is

OHIO

21 DELAWARE 2 38.9 8.6 916 916 100 21.4 13 67 37 10 34 822 ERIE . 5 75.7 15.2 1,335 1,335 100 26.1 66 90 31 11 71 923 FAIRFIELD 69.1 13.8 1,597 1,597 100 18.6 6 83 34 13 46 424 FAYETIE 25.2 5.0 830 830 100 18.5 2 19 33 11 74 425 FRANKLIN 2 7789 163.8 16,366 8,141 8225 50 21.4 311 93 37 12 101 8

26 (UUON 30.3 5 9 639 639 100 14.5 101 29 18 17 1

27 G ALLIA 25.4 5.2 1,031 1,031 100 30.7 29 68 39 11 103 928 GEALIG A 3 581 12.4 893 893 100 24.1 36 90 29 21 29 6

29 GREF.NE 2 112.6 25.9 2,167 51 2,11b 98 20.7 30 16 36 12 48 7

30 GUERNSEY 37.4 6.7 1,16i 1,161 100 163 2 83 33 14 68 9

31 HAMILTON 913.7 180.0 19,289 5,928 13, 361 69 21.2 345 97 32 17 113 932 HANCOCK 61.9 12.6 1,352 1,352 100 20.0 13 85 35 13 37 733 HARDIN 28.6 5.5 901 931 100 23.9 18 94 38 10 39 734 HARRISON 16.6 3.2 524 524 100 185 1 89 35 14 42 335 HENRY 25.8 4.8 534 534 100 15.7 92 29 14 27 6

36 HIGHLAND 32.1 6.3 1,362 1,362 100 24.0 18 90 38 16 35 637 HOCKING , 22.3 4.6 814 814 100 19.3 3 83 32 17 83 538 dOLMES ,,, 22.2 4.2 758 158 100 188 3 135 21 27 10 639 HURON 50.5 10.0 1,049 1,049 100 23.9 33 98 29 17 37 6

'40 JACKSON 28.2 5.6 1,128 1,128 100 20.8 8 73 27 17 34 . 5

41 JEFFERSON I 98.9 19.9 2,285 2,285 100 25.2 69 79 31 14 62 942 KNOX 40.9 8.0 944 944 1'0 25.3 28 82 34 13 34 1

43 LAKE 3 179.0 38.8 2,038 2,038 IGO 21.4 67 93 27 15 34 644 LAWRENCE 1 56.6 11.9 1,995 85 1,910 96 326 92 92 30 19 69 845 LICKING 5 1035 21.5 2,221 230 1,991 90 21.0 33 84 32 16 59 8

46 LOGAN 33.8 6.6 917 917 100 21.8 14 90 33 16 57 647 LORAIN 1 242.2 50.0 4,215 , 4,215 100 229 136 102 29 18 45 848 LUCAS 2 474.5 92.2 9,344 3,426 5,018 63 229 248 95 33 17 86 849 MADISON , 27.6 5.2 637 537 100 221 13 91 32 15 42 1

50 MAHONING 2 298.3 59.4 5,247 1,431 .4,416 16 22.7 133 80 33 14 79 8

51 MARION 63.3 12.4 1,283 1,283 100 24.7 46 91 33 13 46 552 MEDINA 0 : . 3 72.9 15.1 1,206 1,206 100 21.5 28 81 30 18 45 653 WIGS -,, ; , 21.4 4.2 1040 1,040 10L 21.4 7 67 27 20 5754 MERCER '.- 33.5 6.1 746 746 100 23.8 24 114 27 23 17 , -, 7

55 MIAMI 2 814 17.0 1,703 1,703 103 24.4 51 90 33 13 38 8

56 MONROE 16.8 3.3 703 703 100 16.0 98 28 16 38 85/ MONTGOMERY 2 576.4 121.4 18888 1,918 8,970 81 23.8 367 94 37 13 92 858 MORGAN . : 1 13.8 2.7 512 55 457 89 15.9 15 24 18 78 ; 859 MORROW 21.1 4.4 508 508 100 26.2 17 15 35 16 49 560 MUSKINGUM 5 80,7 16.2 . 2,158 2,158 100 20.6 24 94 36 15 94 , , 8

, I61 MULE 10.4 1.9 405 405 100 23.2 5 83 24 20 25 4

62 OTTAWA L' 34.3 6.7 597 597 100 19.3 5 94 30 15 3.: 563 PAULD1NL 18.9 3.8 475 475 100 24.4 13 100 33 14 21 664 PERRY 28.4 84 914 914 100 19.7 5 97 311 22 13 , 565 PICKAWAY . . 2 39.0 8.6 1,261 72 1,189 94 221 17 80 36 10 41 :

66 PIKE 18.9 3.9 871 33 838 96 29.1 23 92 34 18 56

126

Er Isti5g and Po WWI Humus for Roily Planning Programs C. DnIgnstss

Hospitals

Location

MaScll.

of One or hlorrsrams

0E0 Programs

or Remoras within

Other MoralPrograms

County)

Heat*%ph.

P.P.Hon. Federal Musicians Is Patient Can

29 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2i 30 n 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

IIi

i

iRA ig _

pp

mg 11 ..,, ii ii

!

ii

1

il

1

611

11

iii

iii

iii

1 i

11114

li

1

1S

12

23

644714

890

15

362859

22

. 1,1804624)1

. 13

187 ,

10

35,14

6434

1152058

18

113607

13

341

635210

17

60

4581

= , 41

51 70

4

; 20

822

10

59 14 36 1 3 1 45485 25 33 4 5 2 1,03868 25 36 3 4 1 ' 1,1555 11 44 -

115 228 29 60 8 5 14,317

50 , 14 46 1 441142 , 6 24 r 3 12 1 89048 9 ", 2 3 1 41052 23 20 4 4 1 97959 12 32 1 3 1 590

129 314 34 . ' 84 9 6 18,37174 11 21 2 I 3 1 = 1,10484 i 15 52 : 44666 kL 9 54

50, A 12 47 1 257

56 16 50 2 37731 ,,, 6 27 1 18845 ? 10 45 ' ' 1 ' 53169 1 29 51 ; 3 1,02850 '1I 39 1 4 1 215

65 :0 30 , 5 5 2 , 1,57783 .; 18 44 1 2 1 64164 39 22 11 6 1 2,23635 10 18 2 4 1 52356,t

28 21 5 5 1 1,463

53 , 13 38 t 1 44071 68

.

28 i i2 5 4 3,857128. 196 41 44 9 8 c 10,11147 i 9 33 ., 1 4 1 355

114 19 26 1, 22 ' 1 2,086

100 16 25 ,- 6 9 1 , , 1,19111 29 40 4 5 3 s 1,1724751

: 715

33 .,15 E

1

3

, ' - 107.: 693

74 33 41 ,y 3 4 3 : 1,475

24 3 18

101 201 35 , 33 6 4 10,62129 c 4 2133 6 2S I 24287. 22 27 4 5 2 1 2,262

39 3 2958 44 1

37 6 32"iri

18928 , 6 21 r.

56 I4 36 4?.5

53 6 32 125

,

1

OHIO

DELAWARE 21

ERIE 22FAIRFIELD 23FAYETTE 24FRANKLIN 25

FULTON c 26GAII.IA 27GEAUGA 28GREENE 29

GUERNSEY 30

HAMILTON 31HANCOCK '° 32HARDIN 33HARRISON ° 34HENRY 'Y 35

HIGHLAND '') 36HOCKING 37HOLMES 38HURON 39JACKSON 40

JEFFERSON 1! 41

KNOX 42LAKE 43LAWRENCE 44LICKING 45

LOGAN ,(1(. 46LORAIN " 47

49

MARION

mEDirti51

52MEIGS

C MERCER ; '53

54MIAMI ' 55

MONROE 56MONTGOMERY 51MORGAN , r 58MORROW 59MUSKINGUM 60

NOBLE ; 61

OTTAWA :C.".1 62PAULDING ').. 63PERRY - 64P1CKAWAY , 65

PIKE *ht 66

127

Table 1. Heed for Subsidized Family Manning Services: Current Programs, Resources and Related Indices for U.S., Tech State and County, FY 1968 continued

Population and SeededCluirecteristica (CM)

Estimated family ?leaningand Service

9

ReedLevels

N 11

Saluted Health sad Demegreptic IndicesInfant

1961.1965

12

Modality

13

Est.red,Rats

I4

g

LiveOrder

15

Ig

Birthas

16

I

1M

17

igiiiIF

1at

18

ti

mifew'

ItI

7

1i1

ii

1,

i.a

if131.6

1

-ti41Z3

II11

1

1gil.

d I

.9 §

11VIA

g;

, 6768697071

72

7374

75c 76

, 71

7879

. 80, 81

8283848586

8788

.

1

2

. 3

4

5

t 6J./89

10

11

12

1314

15

I617

181920

1

OHIO

PORTAGE 2 110.6 24.8 2,053 191 1,862 91 23.9 66 81 32PREBLE 2 34.4 7.1 84 848 100 20.1 8 89 29PUTNAM 1 31.2 5.7 790 790 100 23.1 22 129 24RICHLAND , 1 127.8 26.2 2233 1,011 1,222 55 19.2 18 91 32ROSS . 63.1 12.2 1)99 1,799 100 21.2 22 100 34

SAICUSXY 58.0 11.3 1,118 41 , 1,077 96 211 23 104 31

SCIOTO 5 83.1 169 3,155 23 3,132 99 23.2 45 82 33SENECA 59.4 11.6 1,185 1,185 100 23.8 40 97 31SHELBY 363 7.1 7 786 1® 19.8 8 109 29STARK . ;.-.. 1 355.6 72.0 6,683 141 6,536 98 23.9 214 88 34

SUMMIT , 2 540.0 107.9 8,894 1,067 7,827 88 22.4 ' 255 90 36TRUMBULL 2 223.6 460 3854 200 3,654 95 20.9 69 88 34TUSCARAWAS 78.1 15.4 1,841 1,841 100 26.5 66 87 35UNION ' , ,' 23.1 4.7 646 646 100 17.6 78 38YAN WERT . 1 29.4 5.7 . 686 686 100 23.2 15 77 34

VINTON 9.8 1.9 412 . 472 100 223 4 104 34WARREN 80.6 18.1 1,621 1,621 100 20.6 24 85 33WASHINGTON 56.2 11.6 1,870 46 1,824 98 24.4 36 84 35WAYNE 83.0 17.3 1,819 . 1,819 100 19.2. 12 89 32WILLIAMS 31.3 5.9 ' 674 674 100 26.1 28 106 33

WOOD 2 79.3 11.3 1,553 .,553 100 18.9 , 9 73 35WYANDOT i 21.7 4.3 534 534 100 24.1 14 99 26

OKLAHOMA

17 COUNTIES r 2,4765 7.0 65.2 496.2 91,952 10,323 81,629 89 23.6 1,436 B3 38

A.DAIR .. , 14.8 .2 3.1 29 1,097 40 1,057 96 32.2 23 94 32ALFALFA '''c 88 I.5 254 254 100 19.1 1 48 42ATOKA I. ' 10.4 .5 20 659 168 491 75 28.6 9 66 28BEAVER ' 6.8 1.3 ' 184 184 100 33.2 8 52 40BECKHAM 163 .3 28 608 608 100 25.6 13 93 46

BLAINE ' 12: .2 1.0 22 501 501 100 28.9 12 76 32BRYAN ',. ; 25.2 .6 4.9 1,506 147 1,359 90 27.6 20 69 50CADDO 30.2 .2 11 5.6 1,403 68 1,335 95 261 25 84 35CANADIAN !!.. 2 30.3 .7 5.1 ' 926 926 100 24.8 18 80 35CARTER r ,,-1.".14 37.8 .8 7.2 1,585 231 1,354 85 23.5 20 70 38

CHEROKEE 226 .1 3.2 4.9 1,551 494 1,057 68 21.6 8 61 36CHOCTAW '. 163 .8 3.0 ' 1,100 250 850 77 31.8 19 72 31CIMARRON 4.4 .9 103 103 100 14.2 55 38CLEVELAh0 , 2 72.6 .5 11.1 2,635 61 2,574 98 16.5 75 39COAL ',', ' .4; 5.9 .3 1.1 349 36 313 :I') 26.3 3 72 28

COMANCHE 1 105.2 .2 25 119 3,269 309 2,960 91 21.8 58 108 42COTTON 7 Re .2 .4 1.2 306 48 258 84 185 69 48CRAIG ,.*A' 15.3 .6 2.1 601 41 Fe 93 229 6 66 39CREEK 1 43.2 L.2 8.8 1,879 55 1,824 97 23.3 20 80 39CUSTER 221 .2 .8 4.3 730 42 688 94 28.9 26 82 46

DELAWARE k, 16.5 21 3.2 ' 1,050 1,050 100 25.4 9 70 32

12 50 712 32 930 14 713 71 913 81 B

19 52 7 i20 81 321 23 7

22 31 611 60 a

13 85 ' 815 53 814 52 7

12 48 815 46 6

20 50 ' 8 ,

16 32 613 41 9 '

16 35 611 6 5

16 41 : 622 38 3

12

20 ° 43

159 3.

1'

6

12

2210 ' 613 6

13 '''y. 617 . " 10h8 ' 17

5 ' 823

13 28

12 '.

11

9

18

10

1.1.7

10

Existing and Potential Resources for Family Planing Programs ( Des! notos Location of One or More Programs or Resources within Coon

Ron - Federal Phys Idyls in Patient Caro Hospitals Med.Sch.

0E0 Programs Other FederalPrograms

HealthDepts.

P.P.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

'?

&8h

li-13.

itg

et

IIcitD.

q.g:t_Si

Iil.tgSV

1

I]...lz.Si!

211

ttS1

I1

..t1Si

11mI,.ivS1

IliRzaiji1Si]

8I ir

lc2P4z.t.g

SgSS14

41rjiet ..

V

I..lo

M

1.;n

OHIO

55 50 23 21 4 4 1 1,274 1 PORTAGE 67

108 23

32 10 3202PREBLE

PUTNAM

a69

114 89 35 21 10 8 2 2,274 RICHLAND 7039 62 18 29 3 5 1 1,351 ROSS 71

35 60 20 34 1 2 1 695 SANOUSKY 7211 85 35 42 2 2 2 1,632 1 0 SCIOTO 7350 84 25 42 5 8 2

I1,159 SECA 74

23 63 c 15 41 684 SHENELBY 75330 93 68 19 33 9 4 6,450 1 STARK 76

535 99 144 27 45 8 4 5,255 2 SUMMIT 77136 61 52 23 . 12 5 1 2,059 1 TRUMBULL 7850 64 25 32 2 3 2 1,389 TUSCARAWAS 7918 18 12 52 I 329 UNION 80

k 19 65 13 44 1 370 VA/1 WERT 81

1 10 1 10 VINTON 8219 24 17 21 WARREN 8332 57 . 15 21 1 2 WASHINGTON 8467 81 29 35 3 4 2 1,062 WAYNE 8519 61 14 45 = 2 541 WILLIAMS 86

43 54 33 42 1 1 1 767 WOOD 710 46 8 37 1 244 WYANDOT 88

,OKLAHOMA

2,008 81 117 31 120 5 97 31,158 10 1 60 19 1 3 42 2 77 COUNT!ES

4 27 3 20 1 143 ADAIR 1

.: 2 23 2 23 1 n ALFALFA 22 19 2 19 1 99 ATOKA 3

''' 4 59 3 44 1 110 BEAVER 416 98 14 86 2 131 BECKHAM 5

9 74 '', 8 66 2 154 a BLAINE 6

11

`.. 11

4436

'`. 810

3233 1 103

BRYAN

CADDO

1

818 53 14 46 1 3 CANADIAN 9

" 33 37 12 32 2 5 1 381 CARTER 10

5 2 2 5 22 ' 2 467 2 CHEROKEE 11

5 31 5 31 ' 1 244 CHOCTAW 122 45 2 45 1 59 CIMARRON 13

67 92 31 43 4 1 954 CLEVELAND 142 34 ' .2 34 1 ,, 59 COAL 15

49 47 17 16 4 4 2 987 1 COMNiCHE 16

COTTON 1724 157 10 65 1 156 CRAI G 1

14 32 14 32 3 548 CREEK 1921 95 15 68 4 115 1 CUSTER 20

5 30 5 30 t 2 91 DELAWARE 21

129

Taiga 1. Read for Subsidized Family Planning Services: Current Programs, Resources and Related Indium for U.S., FAA State and County, FY 1968 continued

Poulttion and SONIACha netuiatich (000$)

Estimated Family Planning Madand Service Levels

Sa Itch(' KW% and

EstFrt.Rats

Demographic

Live BirthOA* as

% of Births

IndicesInfant Modality

1961.1965

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

1 1

iA

is

II

Rg.1.

11a 4

g

IR I

i1

Iii11

ToI

I lie11

OKLAHOMA

22 DEWEY 6.3 .2 .3 L1 231 231 100 17.1 59 30 15 623 ELLIS 5.8 1.1 152 192 100 16.9 51 33 19 15

24 GARFIELD 55.0 .2 10.8 1,626 47 1,579 97 18.5 4 86 33 9 925 GARVIN 27.5 .3 5.5 1,102 30 1,012 91 20.9 7 57 34 13 3

26 GRADY 29.5 .2 53 1,222 81 1,14 93 23.9 16 68 38 15 5

27 GRANT 7.6 1.3 213 213 100 1.7 45 31 14 3

28 GREER 8.9 .4 .1 1.4 333 245 88 26 42.4 17 59 38 8 10

29 HARMON . 5.4 .9 .9 190 245 37.1 12 112 29 19 6

30 HARPER 5.1 .9 124 124 100 26.5 4 45 19 5 14

31 HASKELL 9.7 .3 1.9 644 81 563 81 36.3 15 64 38 20 10

32 HUGHES 14.8 1.4 2.7 836 58 778 93 19.6 2 73 35 18 7

33 JACKSON 28.6 1.4 .1 4.7 953 245 708 14 21.0 16 137 36 16 634 JEFFERSON 7.5 1.3 343 343 100 30.7 7 67 32 16 7

35 JOHNSTON 9.1 .6 1.6 559 15 544 97 25.1 5 72 41 15 7

36 KAY 48.5 1.6 9.4 1,291 86 1,205 93 24.1 28 77 37 13 9

37 KINGFISHER 13.7 .2 .2 2.6 444 24 420 95 26.6 11 74 35 11 838 KIOWA 14.2 .6 .7 2.4 553 553 100 21.6 5 80 34 22 639 LATIMER . 8.6 .7 1.7 521 249 272 52 26.4 6 63 25 17

40 LE FLORE 1 32.2 .9 6.2 1,997 414 1,583 79 24.1 18 68 36 19 841 LINCOLN 20.1 .2 3.8 905 93 812 SO 21.7 6 73 39 10 3

42 LOGAN 17.5 3.3 751 89 662 88 25.8 13 64 39 14 5

43 LOVE 6.5 .1 1.2 339 339 100 15.0 73 29 22 18

44 MCCLAIN 12.9 .1 2.5 572 572 100 18.9 1 70 38 10 9

45 MCCURTAIN 29.1 2.0 5.6 1,912 1,912 100 29.2 31 106 31 20 546 MCINTOSH 12.8 1.3 2.5 864 864 100 19.8 2 60 25 20 7

47 MAJOR 7.9 1.4 286 286 100 21.9 2 64 46 4 448 MARSHALL r 7.5 .3 1.4 368 40 328 89 19.7 I 55 36 23 13

49 MAYES , , 22.8 1.7 4.7 1,155 1,155 100 21.0 6 64 38 11 7

50 MURRAY 11.5 .3 2.2 595 82 513 86 26.6 7 65 41 12 851 MUSKOGEE 1 62.1 1.9 12.2 2,866 364 2,502 87 23.9 35 80 33 18 10

52 NOBLE t , ., 9.9 .4 1.8 338 338 100 15.2 57 49 14

53 NOWATA . 9.4 .2 1.7 319 319 100 20.4 2 75 34 14 554 OKFUSKEE ft , . 114 1.1 2.2 724 58 666 92 27.1 10 66 31 24 7

.55 OKLAHOMA 2 483.6 5.3 101.5 12,947 1,114 11,233 87 24.9 395 89 37 11 856 010141GEE 36.5 1.6 6.9 1,645 407 1,238 75 36.5 61 89 40 17 11

57 OSAGE . ,1 1 29.7 1.7 5.8 940 87 853 91 22.6 11 62 38 13 9

58 OTTAWA . 30.2 1.2 6.3 1,411 218 1,193 85 14.7 65 40 10 359 PAWNEE 11.2 .6 2.1 . 474 492 33.2 13 62 28 19 2

60 PAYEE . 44.7 .3 9.4 1,823 233 1,590 81 20.2 11 72 48 8 9

61 PITTSBURG 3.9 1.1 7.5 2,117 Z117 100 21.7 / 74 34 11 9

62 PONTOTOC 25.9 1.0 4.9 1,106 118 988 89 25.2 13 75 42 10 9

63 POTTAWATOMIE :420 1.7 8.5 1,803 125 1,678 93 27.9 37 66 37 11 664 PUSHMATAHA , 10.2 .6 1.8 657 657 100 316 1 I 84 32 22 665 ROGER MILLS -, 5.2 .2 .3 .9 231 231 100 21.4 2 72 39 18 366 ROGERS 24.6 .8 5.1 1,103 415 688 62 223 8 68 3 9 5

67 SEMINOLE .26.4 2.3 4.9 1,238 1,238 100 24.1 16 81 37 18 8

130

Dist Mg and Potential Resources for Fondly Mirlog Programs go Ossignaiss

Nieto Is

Loudon

MetSch.

of Ono or Mon

0E0 Pilgrims

Programs or Rosounss "Ma

Othor FederalPrograms

County)

MoabDepts.

P.P.flonFodtro

119-20

Pink Ian Is htlai1 Con

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 18

1

i

1

it ot

OFI

If

1.tC

.EAR

1

4g

irI01.1

ISi

11a11

la.

Si!

gi11

ISi

1

it

IfSR

II

Is

liAl

liIll

1416sil

1 I

ijilifI .bilz-silstl

11

Ia

i

i

=OKLAHOMA

1

7

551222

27442

11

1652

45

581

1310

121

575

2458

', 67

425

64220

i

1012

63524

31

282

, 1

6

10

161201004475

2678747921

7456

' 6622

.. 93

365612

4050

691539

. 2439

. 25542269

108--,

4021

4233355

,,,'

34405478

, , 60

120. 67

2019

, 24

38

',

,

;

,

,

;

.:

1

2179

11

1

5342

812

51

29

561

, 9, 9

8, 1

56

, 5

2; 4

46

21

, 4z 2

5144

12

' 995

17

9

910

21

5

(I

16

3431

37

33

13

565579

21

54426611

60

3G

4212

2845

4615

39

2139

255418

R34

4021

423033

30304538

23

35242019

20

34

I

,

.

..-.,

;

.

4

1

1

1

3

521

1

41

31

7

3

2

6

5

11

3

3

93

12

2

1

2

1

1

1

21

1

2

2

22

1

1

1

1

1

I

I

1

1

1

81

3

1

32

2

1

1

1

2

2

.

'

14..

c

51

962

237

676886

100

321

97643

233

186468

164

214

6165

1482?

1,171

101

5178

8,902320

137365186691652

522261118

511

288

1

I

1

1

1

1

a

a

'

a

,

,

DEWEY

ELLIS

GARFIELD

GARVIN

GRADY

GRANT

GREER

HARMON

HARPER

HA.SKELL

HUGHES

JACKSON

JEFFERSON

JOHNSTON

KAY

KINGFISHER

KIOWA :

LATIMER

LE FLORE

LINCOLN ,' ,

LOGAN ',, ,LOVE

MCCLAIN

MCCURTAIN

MCINTOSH -.

hAJOR , 'MARSHALL ,

MAYES

MURRAY ) .MUSKOGEE ,

i

NOBLE A

NOWATA A

OKLAHOMA -

OKMULGEE ', .

OSAGE '. ++

OTTAWA

PAWNEE

PAYNE r

PITTSBURG i

PONTOTOC '''r

POTTAWATOMIE

PITSHMATAHA

ROGER MILLS

ROGERS .'{e,

SEMITIC('

22

23242526

27

28293031

3233343536

3138394041

4243444546

47a495051

5253

5455

56

5758596061

6263646566

67

131

Table 1. Nod for Subsidized Family Planning Senior. Current Programs, Resources and Related Indices for U.S., Each State and County, FY 1968 continued

Population end SelectedCharactaristici (000s)

Estimated Family Planning Heedand Service Levels

Selected Health and Demographic

LW Blr-TrsOrdain

of Births

IndicesInfant Mortality

19614965EstFortRata

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

N

11=

t8i kg_e. .E.

.

1....

I,..=Is.....g

1 rill..4-.ER,21 I .t.ligmWor.

1 L'tim3

IU

#4'3 I

It=11t 2egCI. v S g;41-

1

&L.

I1'S

.

IIii§

-4,4at

11li16

b

OKLAHOMA

68 SEOUOYAH 1 21,5 .1 1.2 4.4 1.419 138 1,291 90 19.6 11. 95 27 19 11

69 STEPHENS 37.0 .2 7.7 1,258 21 1,237 98 21.3 11 61 43 8 7

10 TEXAS 14.8 2.9 348 348 100 22.1 7 82 43 11 9

71 TILLMAN 14.4 .9 .1 2.5 626 626 100 23.3 8 89 33 27 1272 TULSA 1 3682 .7 4.8 79.1 9,915 1,747 8168 82 23.4 204 84 38 9 9

73 WAGONER 16.9 .3 3.3 854 62 792 93 15.1 76 33 14 S

74 WASHINGTON 41.9 .6 8.6 860 860 100 21.0 12 72 38 9 5

75 WASHITA 19.2 .3 .1 3.6 617 617 100 21.0 7 83 39 13 5

) 76 WOODS 13.4 2.7 463 10 453 98 16.6 62 52 8 677 WOODWARD 157 2.9 423 423 100 22.2 6 80 41 9 7

OREGON

36 COUNTIES 1,972.8 .8 2.8 397.6 42,919 3,121 39,798 93 22.0 730 81 36 12 66 6

1 BAKER 16.0 2.9 352 352 100 22.9 7 99 25 15 14 62 BENTON 49.1 11.4 1,178 1,118 100 183 2 61 45 7 44 7

3 CLACIWAAS 2 1461 31.1 3,104 200 2.964 94 17.7 72 33 12 49 64 CLATSOP 25.4 4.4 590 145 445 75 21.3 7 86 41 10 42 5

5 COLUMBIA 26.4 5.3 676 676 100 19,4 3 76 30 14 25 4

6 COOS 54.1 10.5 1,022 1,022 100 25.2 43 95 31 14 62 7

7 CROOK 10.1 2.0 202 202 100 185 I 74 41 5 53 7

8 CURRY 12.9 2.3 205 205 100 26.9 14 96 29 18 18 11

9 DESCHUTES 27.6 5.5 E12 612 100 30.9 30 77 41 13 66 610 DOUGLAS 726 14.8 1,516 100 1,416 93 19.2 10 :: 31 14 4i 7

11 GILLIAM 2.6 .5 39 39 100 13.7 95 23 5 45 9

12 GRANT 7.3 1.3 130 130 100 22.9 4 83 16 9 4

13 HARNEY 7.6 .2 1.5 166 166 100 31.9 11 85 26 14 31 5

14 HOOD RIVER 14.4 2.9 297 297 100 187 I 61 31 17 23 3

15 JACKSON 91.3 19.0 2,385 2,385 100 19.0 9 75 37 12 35 6

16 JEFFERSON 91 .3 1.2 1.8 162 162 100 36.0 21 125 19 30 78 11

17 JOSEPHINE 37.0 7.4 1,076 1,076 100 18.6 2 74 29 16 43 618 KLAMATH 49.6 9.5 856 856 100 26.1 43 87 36 13 39 819 LAKE 6.3 1.1 95 95 100 14.6 13 26 19 23 7

20 LANE 1 200.7 43.3 4,129 4,129 100 20.6 53 86 36 11 58 7

21 LINCOLN 25.5 4.7 738 738 100 24.6 14 81 33 14 79 6

72 LINN 65.6 13.2 1,467 1,467 100 24.5 42 84 34 11 41 623 1.ALHEUR 24.2 .1 4.6 691 691 100 32.2 34 89 28 19 34 7

24 MARION 1 141.7 28.8 3,593 3,593 100 21.4 42 78 34 14 62 525 MORROW 4.3 .c, 69 69 100 23.6 2 68 22 15

26 MULTNOMAH 2 534.9 103.2 10,839 2,323 8,516 79 22.7 242 85 40 10 110 7

27 POLK I 30.9 6.5 837 120 717 86 22.8 12 75 36 13 71 3

28 SHERMAN 2.8 .5 36 36 100 17.1 78 24 24

29 TILLAMOOK 17.7 3.3 385 385 100 26.2 14 78 32 10 69 4

30 UMATILLA 44.8 .3 1.0 8.7 904 82 822 91 21.8 16 80 34 12 60 5

31 UNION 19.0 3.8 487 487 100 26.6 13 74 34 12 57 9

32 WALLOWA al 1.2 150 150 100 20.1 1 86 47 6 38 6

33 WASCO 22.0 .3 .5 4.3 414 414 100 285 20 81 34 13 70 12

34 WASHINGTON 2 1261 27.0 2,316 100 2,216 96 186 8 78 36 10 49 5

132

Existing and Potential Resources for Family Planning Programs ( Dasignatss location

Had.Sch.

0 :ma or Mae Programs or Rescue's within County)

37A.m.

38

Hoarodors1 Physicians Is Patient Caro Hospitals 0E0 Programs Other FederalPrograms

HealthCopts.

P.P.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 3 34 35 a36

N.--

11...,

t

II

I: Ii

a§

:0 g:

et

VI

II1.&.At1,!

1

1gsli

p

1

IfVSa

111.11It:n 1

s

IV3si

i.

cgv'si

A 11.elipIVZgil

1 I11/11

V441S111

04.&til

II

A

iA

OKLAHOMA

131

14

463

16

14

43SEQUOTAX

STEMS6169

6 40 6 40 TEXAS 707 49 5 35 1 102 TILLMAN 71

405 110 75 20 33 9 5 5,888 TULSA .. 72

3 18 3 18 WAGONER 1343 103 9 21 5 2 650 WASHINGTON 746 31 6 31 I 56 WASHITA 738 0 6 4 2 194 WOODS 74

18 1615 10 654 2 276 WOODWARD 71

OREGON

2149 109 668 34 135 7 56 29,212 1 1 21 1 2 36 COUNTIES

11 69 9 56 I 199 BAKER 1

59 120 17 35 3 6 1 836 13ENTON 287 60 40 27 7 5 1 642 CLACIWAAS 321

98334

10

63923

2

1

391

231CLATSCP

COLUMBIA4

5

46 85 20 37 3 3 840 COOS7 69 6 59 1 193 CROOK 7

338

23138

316

2358

1

2

106

583

CURRY

DESCHUTES

19

42 58 19 26 3 4 3 1,027 DOOMS 10

1

4

3855

1

3 41

381 93

GIAMGRAXLM

112

1

6 79 6 79 1 133 HARNEY 138 55 7 49 1 190 /1000 RIVER 14

98 107 24 26 6 7 2 1,264 JACKSON 15

3 33 2 22 1 11 JEFFERSON 1628 16 12 32 2 5 1 495 JOSEPHINE 11

47 95 20 40 3 6 1 816 KLAMATH

5 80 4 64205 102 61 30 14 1 4 3,530 LANE

20 78 14 55 1 4 2 281 LINC01 N 21

3618

in5574

126

2812

50

434935

1

1

10

247

224

959564

2,382

I10111EURUNN

MAFIION

22

2324

3 69 2 46 1 47 MORROW 2$

976 182 172 32 75 14 8 11,241 MULTTIC4W1

7 23 7 23 POLK i ' 21SHERMAN 21

11 62 8 45 2 228 TIU.AMOOK

36 80 13 29 1 2 3 642 LIMATELA

17 90 8 42 2 338 LIMON 314 60 4 60 1 , ( 77 WAU.OPIA 11

19 86 11 50 1 5 1 325 33

72 57 ' 36 29 2 2 1 589 WASHINGTON 34

Lbla 1. Need for Svdskfizad Faulty Plann1ng Sank's: CIIMIki Programs, Reseerces and kelated Indkas for U.S., Each State ani County, FY 1969 continued

Panct SesargsSilutnd(000e)

Estimated Family Manning Needand Sento Levels

Sancta Health and

Est.FARats

Deseepphiclh. SINOriw as

16 el Res

Indicesinlaid Mortality

19441965

I 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 to 11 IS

_,

li11

1

ii

1 le

4..b

illI

i.

J

1

d I

.1B

tt,,,..a;

gI

B

zI

1

i11

1 1

pglvag

ti

NI

lile1

b

OREGON ,

35 MEIER 1.8 .3 24 24 100 27.5 2 116 35 12

36 Y/441011. 38.8 1.8 1,177 51 1,126 96 20.3 7 64 39 14

PENNSYLVAhlA

67 COUNTIES 11,600.8 2,315 5 263,625 32,011 231,614 88 23.5 6,422 85 33 15

1 ADAMS ' '. 1 54.0 10.9 1,308 1,308 103 21.5 22 95 30 19

2 ALLEGHENY 3 1,600.6 3150 31,461 6,349 25,118 80 235 864 82 32 14

3 ARMSTRONG 's T1.0 155 2,331 2,33I 100 21.6 27 76 33 17

4 BEAVER 3 202.5 40.8 3,536 3,536 100 19.5 34 84 32 13

S BEDFORD 44.2 9.0 1,581 1,581 100 20.9 14 90 30 14

6 BUYS 1 288.5 57.3 5,211 135 5,142 97 22.2 111 79 35 1?

7 BUNT ' 1 131.4 27.2 4,061 116 3,951 97 22.9 67 80 28 17

8 BRADFORD 55.8 10.8 1,461 50 1,411 97 22.0 21 103 26 16

9 MS : 3 355.0 14.7 4,379 425 3,954 90 201 85 91 28 1610 HU KIR

, ..,119.2 24.2 2,499 2,499 100 11.2 91 32 13

11 CAMBRIA 1 191.6 311 6,511 6,511 100 24.5 118 71 29 1912 CAMERON 6.7 1.3 108 108 100 318 12 95 30 23

13 CARBON 51.0 9.9 1,530 1,530 100 22.2 II 71 35 1314 WORE 930 21.2 2,114 2,634 100 19.0 10 18 36 11

IS CHESTER 2515 518 4,081 157 3,924 96 212 129 15 31 13

16 CLARION 39.6 12 1,194 1,194 100 114 2 V 32 15

I? Cluctto A 763 ISO 2,731 2,731 100 lid. 16 95 27 17

18 MINTON 310 7.8 919 919 100 22.7 11 11 29 16

19 cams% ti %.1,0 11.6 1,603 1,603 10C 261 39 10 33 12

20 CRANCOD 113 161 2,031 2,031 100 21.5 21 94 36 12

21 Dimon 1 139.3 293 2,360 2;360 100 11E 11 13 34 10

22 DAUFHIN i. 1 2251 44.8 4,713 1,460 3,323 69 235 125 19 36 12

23 DELAWARE 3 584.4 1168 1,326 315 7,011 96 222 252 86 31 16

24 ELK -.:1, 37.9 7.2 911 608 100 251 34 109 28 2025 ERIE .. 3 254.8 50.2 5469 143 5324 97 252 201 98 33 16

26 FAYETTE 1616 321 1,238 120 1,118 91 264 121 10 31 2021 FOREST 41 .9 145 145 100 US 4 85 31 11

21 110/1411 960 206 2,622 2,622 100 11.1 15 33 14

29 FULTON 11.0 t3 4 6 2 4 6 2 1 0 1 190 I 1 2 4 0 1 I

30 GliftW 392 1.1 1,444 1,444 100 213 11 70 34 20

31 111111030011 390 1.3 1,50 1,561 100 21S 22 19 35 II32 MARA )1;:s t.. 74.5 154 2,561 2,561 190 202 17 76 32 IS11 I11V90/1 416 14 1,405 1,405 107 Xi 13 14 M 1531 AIKATA , , 116 14 610 610 100 116 96 21 11

IS 940IAVIII/844 I 2253 44.1 4,949 220 4,111 tl 254 143 71 11 15

36 MAW I 2414 591 5,236 S30 4,706 90 20.2 72 10 34 14

37 tAIWOCE 1 5 109.5 222 2,369 LA 100 21.4 35 n Si 14

31 1111NION 5 118 11$ 1473 103 100 21.4 12 88 36 12

It IMAM 2 MOO 46 4142 225 017 Mr 10 10 3/ t43 1UXNE . , 1 341.6 661 11.090 1,362 10,728 II 222 135 13 34 14

41 LUPIN) 5 1114 220 7,129 tS 2,664 II 211 62 il 36 14

114

36 6

72 8

48 663 934 651 634 1

62 649 641 627 1

31 8

50 833 1

33 9

33 666 1

50 1

56 T

50 5

41 6

45 6

54 1

151 9

54 8

33 6

66 9

15 1

SI 106 5

46 1

69 1

14 1

31 S

38 561 524 1

52 6

36 6V 1

S2 631 1

92 I

MAIN sod Potential Resources for Falsify Planning Programs (I Dos !sagas Loatfoa of On or Mors Programs or Resources within WHO)

Woominl Physkisss In Mot Cars Mathes Mod. 0E0 Programs Other ratan( }bah P.P.Sch. Programs Dots.

30 31 32

11

33

ih

35

23 59 17 44 1 3

12,244 1% 4,018 35 813 8 199 1716/9 46 2 58 6 2 6 2 1 14

301,888

56118

20481

37

301 2 1 853

158 10 23 21,131 5

38 49 25 32 1 731

145 7 2 61 30 1 3 3 2,50421 47 13 29 1 2 I 443

312 108 136 41 11 6 3 3,843 2

132 96 52 38 12 9 3 2,633 1

15231

13465

16106

2930

4 1 2 92814 4 4 4,007

67 56 27 23 3 3 I 1,660

1692

8830

61

2

3230

10 S S 1126

39 l6 23 45 4 $ 2 60360

2296590

278S

2934

4 4 2 1,148

18 1 6 3,294 4

9 23 7 18

40 52 17 22 1 1 3 1,105

24 63 14 31 2 567

45 80 23 41 3 S 2 1,043

S9 74 24 31 2 3 3 1,395

125 90 56 40 8 6 3 2,427

297 132 81 36 20 9 2 3,645 `,

634 108 190 32 57 10 S 102 2

2s 66 11 29 2 617

219 16 $1 32 12 S 4 4,544 1

95 59 47 29 4 2 3 2,242 1

2 43 2 4314 11 34 35 S S 2 1,881

3 21 3 21 1 96424 11 1 23 3 $ 1 40$

23 Si 10 26 2 5 1 664

40 M 21 21 1 I 1 140

29 4? 19 44 2 688

6 )6 5 30t26 ICO NA 4$ IS 1 1 1524

260 NI 140 48 14

$4 On

1

II

74 68 29 26 1 6 3 1,182

80 ES 40 43 4 4 1 EIS?211 115 107 45 18 2 2 3,824 I314 12 141 43 14 4 $ 4,161

107 !I 36 32 $ 1 4 2,249 1

37 33

OREGON

MEIER 35VAMHILI. 36

FiltiSYLVANIA67 COUNTIES

ADAMS IALLEGHENY 2ARMSTRONG 3

BEAVER 4

BEDFORD 5

Buss 6

BLAIRBRANORDBUCKS 9EOM 10

CAMBRIA IICARBON 12

CARBON 13

CENTRE

ROBA IS

CLAMntth I?

16

cumiNINO IICOLUMBIA IICRAIWORD 20

CACEPLAND 21wpm 22

DELAWARE 23

ELK 24tRg 25

FAYETTE 24

FOREST 2?

FRANKLIN 21FUTON 21CRUM xHUNNIGOON . 11

INDUNA 12mums 33

uotAAJNIATwAitin 434

UMW 36lANNUICE 37

LEBANON NIMOH SS

WSW 4ITONING 41

I VI

Yob,' I. Rod for Subsidized Foully Planning Services: Current Programs, RI-sources and Related Indices for U.?.., Each Slats and County, FY 19611 continued

houlatIon and SelectedCharacteristics (000s)

Est lineal Family Planning Needaid Sotto Idols

.

Selected Health and

at.Fe&

Emma:10kUse I MbOrder as

ei Faiths

logosinfant Mortality

1161.1969

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16

I,ii

ii

11 I

lei

III I

I

I 1.

Id 2

Ig

liv r..1

fa'

a

1 ig

Ii11

iftt*Iifg 1

IIPis

61 ib

PEMMINANIA

42 MCKEAN : '' 'r, 43 MERCER .`. , 5

44 1111114

45 MOtftCC46 MONTGOMERY 3

47 MONTOUR '"48 10111AMPTON 249 NORTEAJIMERL4

50 PERRY ,' -- 1 151 PHILADELPHIA 3

$2 PIKE . ,,

53 POTTER,64 $1111111011. 4

$5 SNYDER ''.- t,.56 SOMERSET ., , I

57 51JWYM4 I, -,58 C E / 4 / 4 ! I l t 1

S9

60 WON61 YEN

62 VIARADI ..II WASITMOTON 364 WOE ,,-65 VIS1610111,110 366 WY011163 t':,'

YORK :. -

MOM ISLAND5 CO13MES

2I 814

KENT

111.

/7

3 11110101a 'PRO OE

RAS1111111011 '

513 10.2 1,235 1,235 100 253 40 89 101261 25.2 2509 103 2,409 96 21.0 38 81 31

44.? 9.1 1,214 1,214 100 252 34 91 32418 89 1,221 153 1,074 88 21.6 15 74 34

5816 121.6 6,560 484 6,076 93 152 71 74 31

123 3.4 ,- 420 10 ,, 350 83 20.2 4 16 302013 41.5 4,128 215 3,913 95 20.5 48 71 35101.0 191 3,593 49 3,534 99 23.0 47 80 34

217 54 800 800 100 17.0 89 362,0424 3968 49,469 17,51 31,956 65 30.7 2,763 94 33

10.0 1.8 216 276 100 21.5 3 92 44162 31 417 471 100 21.0 5 101 28

1622 30.8 5,644 5,644 100 22.2 9 76 34252 64 934 934 100 226 12 73 38161 153 1081 13 2,998 97 212 37 15 33

S.6 11 153 153 100 21.2 2 97 23327 62 894 894 100 21.0 11 86 3331.3 7.4 986 986 100 212 34 93 3027.6 63 841 847 100 262 IS 70 32611 121 1,40 1,600 100 119 1 75 35

49.0 9.5 941 941 100 255 34 84 381124 42.7 5,620 5620 100 223 KS 15 3321; 50 774 114 100 14.3 88 21

35t$ 712 1333 10 8,323 100 189 36 81 3217.9 3.5 609 609 100 24.2 10 63 21

2W 50.9 4,894 1,640 1,234 66 20.6 69 $9 34

897.8 1711 21,045 4,257 16,718 83 219 SO 94 32

42.3 6 98$ 80$ 103 11.3 71 31

131.4 217.4 2495 2,495 100 11.2 42 SS 29121 14 2 2,646 48 2,598 98 221 61 it? 34

54S 101/ 13,471 4,1 % 8372 10 393 92 1372 9 1,621 103 1,511 94 Ml 49 101 It

21 33 7

13 59 813 21 6I? 63 1

13 41 6

19 31 11

11 58 813 46 7

10 19 7

16 149 12

11 24 12

22 32 1015 41 1

12 31 616 55 6

21 61? 41 511 40 5

7 81 613 44 7

10 38 913 60 1

20 23 814 33 7

I? 7

13 76

14 45 8

13 26 10

11322131

1IS

563 24 $

u usctnartictu, 25851 24

; 1,

NOMEAtel '- ''''-.1 I $0

223

3 NAM 00 1114 HMO . 30(5$

bAketm 0) _, It6.. ,k

6 WOO. " ! 123

'4 11 Ira V "44 .1

.:.: 15011

il J 1ggAIM11.2

261.1 23

131

Oalltr,,,T

984 133,112 21,310 Mtn 14 31.9 1,021 90 35 I/ 143

4.1 1,173 112 1,061 90 312 44 11 31 20 156 15115 3,418 76 1,422 91 NI 19 18 36 14 122.3 117 160 611 Pt 313 26 116 40 11 311

711 4,561 333 4135 93 261 93 29 15 11 43 1014 IV? 170 SO2 11 31.4 24 t00 26 30 185 1

I? 191 12 114 92 142 M 82 34 It 143 6IS 2,459 41 1331 CI 525 131 59 39 21 239 5

117 1141 231 /902 32 WI 93 39 11 129 621 754 113 VI 16 47.7 43 * 21 31 223 11

565 13,414 2,390 11114 29 211 344 196 35 16 162 11

ridding and Potential Resources lot Family Planning Prevents to

Hospitals

Designates

27

Location

Med.Sch.

23

of

030

29

One sr

Programs

30

Mora Programs or Resources within County)

37

Mon.iederal Physicians in Patiert Care

31

Other

32

Federalharems

33 34

HearthDepts.

35

P.P.

3619 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

1 1 iIS

1

NI

11111

/I si

tI11

sv

11IIlsl

8

1

11Isl

I

es

1

1111si

,111 i

ill 11141 454-

si) stIst4

itI1

32 60 16 30 2 4 754

103 82 29 13 11 9 3 2,053

35 78 15 34 1 2 1 934

48 109 11 Si 4 9 1 678 1

1,004 171 270 46 63 11 1 10,316 3

86 498 6 35 6 35 1 468 1

229 110 80 38 16 8 2 2,899 '1CO 59 39 39 4 4 2 1,128 1

11 41 8 30 1 4

3,073 150 681 34 261 13 26 32,411 1S

7 /0 5 50

8 49 5 31 1 158

142 PS 1$ $2 6 4 5 2,503

15 51 10 34 a

39 SI 25 33 2 3 3 1,100 1.

2 36 1 11 1 11

16 49 11 34 1 3 1 156

19 51 13 3$ 2 723

20 72 12 43 1 884 a

46 73 22 35 2 3 2 1,011

48 91 18 37 3 6 1 700

160 75 75 35 II 4 4 2,151

/2 77 14 49 1 24246 68 1011 30 13 4 5 4,809 1

12 67 10 S6 1 140

212 84 $5 38 12 S 2 3,151 1 a a

UMW 42MEWER 43

14110110141FRIM

44

45VIONTWARY 46

MONTOUR 4/NORTHAMPTON 48NIA MASERU 49PERRY 50

PRIADEISHIA 51

PIKE S2

POTTER .53SCHUYLKILL 54SNYDER 55SOMERSET 56

SULLIVAN 5?58SUSOLIEHAMIA

1 lOGA 59WON 60VENABG0 61

WARREN VWAYNEASHING TON 03W

110111C01971/ 65WYOMING 66

OK 61

1,063 111 268 30

26 62 11

95 72 32 2264

61 4114 145 184 3322

57 it 22 30

54 7,179

MCC ISM4 1 1 3 5 COUPES

a

6 5 1 1,6164 5 1 606

SIS

4,411 1

3 4 2 1,01111

BRISTOL 1

KENT 2

/MORT 3

PROVTOIXE 4

WASHINGTON S

1,7011 66 714 21 121 6 56 34,934 3 1 46 1 1 2

SOUTH CARCU

4$ 46 COUNTIES

6 21 5 22 1 266 a

38 4$ 17 21 4 5 1 1$ a

3 27 3 21 I 141 a

83 79 32 II 1 6 a

1 2 72 HI 10 1 6 1 205

10 56 II 56

11 3$ 13 17 1 3$2

7 14 7 14 1 244

4 36 36 *

113 /4 41

4

16 11 7 5 1,006 1 a a a

ABBEVILLE 1

ABU 2a ALAtLTAALE Is aRSON 4

OMEGA 5

Warn 6BEAUFCEIT 1

I BAM W 1a CLHOUN /

°MUM li

132

Table 1. Reed fee Subsidbod Family Menlo Unites: Carrot Programs,

Proprieties and Se lectadCharactertsft (000s)

Resourcas end Related Indicts for U.S., Each

Esthiatad Firmly Planning 160.1und Santa !amts

Stat. and Coo , FT Ha continued

Selected HesILI and anon Idc indice'm'"c

intapt1461.1665

Modality

13

EstFart.ita....1.41

14

DeeOrderof Illat_...........

15

DIMas

16 17 161 2 4 7 10 II 12

ii 11 Iijl

li

I

I

li

aS4s1 i

.

/I/

*

/ 1

1i1111i

ifi

li2

Isii

SOUTH CAROM

11 CHEROKEE t4i 38,5 8.612 CHESTER .'= . 31.4 6.4

13 CHESTERFIELD 13.1 6814 CLARENDON - . )18 4515 COMM 2.A.' 293 17

13 DARLINOTON ,' 56.4 12.611 DILLON ,-,' - "-: - 33.9 7.1

18 DORCHESTER 30.1 6719 EDGEF1ELD 3'.. 155 1220 FAIRFIELD 1-" = 21.0 4.1

21 110101 - 912 Zvi22 G6MM% 356 1.623 CfLEEINILIE ''' 1 2194 41.524 O4E/16Mf00D 51.0 11.425 HAMM V?: 11.1 3.A

26 HMV L '4" r, 117 16.1

2? JASPER '' : 11.? 2.5

28 IDSHAW .4'' 34.6 7.4

29 LANCASTER et! 433 9730 LAURENS it;, 52.3 11.3

31 LEE 4 ' '.- t 20.6 4.1

32 LD/CTON 't 1 720 16233 =PM `.- TO 1.434 MARION '.-; .4' 31.2 16SS ILARLIKO* -; NI 12

X fettOrf 4', ' 30.0 1031 COME 41.1 IllX 11.9 ISS

$1.4 10940 11/04010 '" 1 234.4 411

41 SALUDA 159 1442 StARTANIURD 5 1/2_0 31343 INTER 11644 VIDA 6345 14111146111.1% 38.5 7.1

46 TONI . 194

SOJTIII/AROTA67 CORM Pit 20 NI I2t6 *

2,023 39 3,934 981,454 333 1,121 17

1,934 1,016 858 442,203 350 1,853 841,872 286 1,586 0

3,215 1,069 2,146 612,133 500 1,630 17

1,916 138 1,718 93979 243 736 15

1,279 34 1,245 9?

5,241 362 4,879 932,164 135 2,029 948,593 954 7,619 832,547 135 2,412 95LIN 44 1,122 %

4,210 522 3,688 X.866 11S 691 801,8e0 232 1,62$ 8810 545 1,281 702,35$ 187 2368 92

1,409 434 975 69un 49? 2,625 64612 138 414 ii

2,104 413 -1,631 ?I1 SI9 733 . LIN 62

1,558 133 1,425 II1,981 21 1,90 X4,651 833 MN 821,913 113 1,810 94

11,111 3,099 1077 72

906 211 635 10

1,11114 976 901 ft4,091 265 3632 9i1,315 1,315 IDS2,70 XS 2,340 V

MN 511 3211 06

21154 XI !LA 9e1 , 48 .9 2S2

. i . , 21.18

. 661I OUST! 12

3.3 .1 .6 IN

91 .1 1.66

, 413196 1 6N

, ,

, 319 ES t XI6,6 .1 1.2 . IV

4 MattORE MI lc-- .11

i b6 ,%t,

ISO

242 100650 100128 NA433 NO681 IN

NI 11012:2 100

24.2 26 88 33 13 118 831.6 51 105 32 18 159 14

391 89 £16 36 11 154 15

39.8 71 91 26 29 225 7

39.6 73 94 32 a 146 9

38.9 135 N 34 21 155 9ssA 155 99 25 25 214 10

25.1 23 99 33 17 9341U 43 d8 24 25 150 7

31.8 36 IN 22 26 170 6

40.4 22? X 33 11 133 10

32.9 65 94 * 21 206 1.1

216 270 12 36 12 120 921.4 50 82 35 11 126 I2319 35 109 43 14 165 10

365 112 95 36 16 140 1311 24 90 34 22 241 13

357 65 92 39 16 162 8*.5 55 23 34 14 113 11

212 25 11 34 11 96 I 10

4i1 83 SI 31 29 253 ' 1253 56 V 41 II 105 I6E7 50 V 38 30 15 1 10

44.2 88 84 34 24 201 11

61.2 I% 1 IS 29 21 242 14

205 $ 82 31 16 231 13

241 11 X 41 11 61 10

40.1 194 12 Si 21 17$ 1I208 Ii 13 39 10 81 8305 294 79 37 IS 1* 10

40.1 34 0 15 23 141 10

269 I% 82 42 10 126

213 13 116 12 20 121 2

332 52 11$ 31 16 IN 1XS N 102 30 X 201 9

253 is as n

24.2 532 102 30 21 ; 66

11.? 31 14 37 21 321.2 I 26 26 18 11 3293 .1 IX I? 31 14 ?

KIS 83 30 16 15 1

17.1 10 43 I 24 4

22.I 17 V Si II X 61L4 3 104 N 20 61 .

rdstlag and Palatial Rowans for Family Planing Programs (. Dsigaatas Wolin al One or Mon Programs w Resaarcos 'Ws

Other harePrograms

Canty)

HealthOnts.

Kr.Na-rdora Physician la Moat Care Hosplats MatSch.

0E0 Programs

19 20 21 22 23 24 2S 26 27 2$ 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

liII

1

ilti

1

-Ii11

I i

it i

i111 ti

illiII

11

11

I1/li

ii11

It

i11

11

[11

I'

II11

RR

III111

ill

1 Iilfilf

!III!'

11

1

A

I

a=SOUTH CAROLI

14

10

14

13

221211

1

7811

230SI

9

464

2211

21

5192

23S

1126SI20

217

31423$1012

SO

471

II23

12

ss3

3236

42

8 21

96 1

15 2 36

1 3

1 3

806555336

23 16 11946

3935

11 39

13 2310 30

2 4ry

418

4!3301

37 9 30 10352 7 4$ 1 633 $ 24 303

84 32 34 6 6 1.293SI 12 34 1 3 $66

105 19 36 18 8 4,730 1

100 15 29 6 12 1,22249

$3 7 41 2 12 5

62 19 26 3 4 55934 4 34CI39

1 1 3213 30

1 3 52271:8

* 4

40 11 32 321

24 4 19 88 I

26 1 S 21 1 1

23 2 2374 12 31 2 6 401SO 1 XI 539

GO 12 40 24313 20 471 22 31 4 6 159 a

15 29 I 2 84113922 66 21 20 1 4,120 I

19 3 1113 43 IS 13 2, $34

41 11 1 S 1 1,04032 9 219 Kt31 10 26 170

59 72 26 4 $ 1,94

XI 241 IS 11 / 52 11004 1 1 !I

IS 9 42 2 I 424

62 2 62 11 5133 3 31 1 In11 6 31 1 216

91 1 21 1 3 1 746

44 3 46 1 143

CHE ROKE E

CHE STER

1

1112

CHESTERT IELD 13CLARENDON 14

COLLETON 15

DARLINGTON 1 6

DILLON 17

DORCHESTER 18EIGE11110 19FAIR/ GO 20

ORGETOWNGEORGETOWN

2122

GREENVILLE 23GREENWOOD 24HAW? ION 25

WARY 26SAVER 27KERSHAW 28LANCASTER 29lAURENS 30

LEE 31

LEXPIG ION 32MCCORMICK 3334ARI00 34IAMILBORO 35

WWBERRY 36WOKE 3 7

ORANI BURG 33MANS 39RICHLAKI 10

SALUDA 41

SPA/TAW/RC 42StliTilk 43WON 44WILLIASISILMG 4TOM 46

SCUM MIAI/ COUNTIES

AURORA IEMILE 71044E11 3VA 143111136 4encores s

WNW IORU.E 1

WA. 1. Nod for Subsidized Family Planning Services: Current Programs, Resources and Related Indicts for U.S., Each Slate and County, FY 1144 continued

Populating and SelectedCa aractsrldiss (000s)

......-..Estimated Family Planning !hod

and Unice Lanni:Selected &Otis and

Est. Idad.Rate

Oasevat4lc Indictslive IA 1Orley as

% et Births

Infant liersalny1961.1965

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

iiI

11

1

II

iili11

IIII

toIII&--.2

Iliiilil

I

111 II.d1

1AM !

h

A

1

I1 z

IIliII

4R11

a

ejib

SOUTH DAKOT A

8 BUFFALO 2.1 .8 .4 103 103 100 45.7 12 175 26 23 226 39 BUTTE 81 1.5 165 165 100 110 99 2a 18 11 : 1

10 OkAPBELL 3.3 .6 108 108 100 323 5 98 38 24 s 3

0 MAKES MIX 12.0 1.6 2.2 570 27 543 95 294 17 110 26 30 14 612 CUM 64 1.1 291 291 100 362 10 97 20 15 73 i 2

13 CLAY 121 2.5 455 455 100 20.0 3 84 38 13 : 39 4

14 CO0I1IGT0t1 19.2 .1 3.5 551 551 100 195 4 89 27 17 51 8IS CORSON 60 .1 2.0 1.1 287 287 100 34.3 15 130 14 11 171 716 CUSTER 43 .1 .8 122 122 100 362 8 86 30 15 61

11 DAVISON 17.4 3.3 514 514 100 21.9 8 93 33 15 46 3

18 DAY 99 .3 1.7 402 402 100 23.9 6 78 20 30 45 ' 619 DUEL 64 11 270 270 100 264 5 76 32 IS 24 220 DEWEY 12 2.2 .9 209 14 195 93 17.4 120 9 43 75 2

21 DOUGLAS 5.1 .9 249 249 100 20.9 2 17 24 12 .. 49 522 EDICAOS 62 1.1 240 240 100 21.3 2 103 21 38 36 5

23 FALL RIVER 86 .6 1.4 183 183 100 291 10 98 39 17 43 ' 424 I AMR 1.1 .1 165 16S 100 47.0 14 110 13 45 S

2$ GRANT 85 1.4 313 313 100 211 3 111 31 22 39 1

26 GRIMM' T.3 .3 .3 11 287 287 100 182 103 34 20 31 221 HAAKON 3.1 .8 79 ?I 103 266 3 112 21 31 , 34 3

28 Wall 5.8 1.0 263 263 100 152 17 19 21 1

29 HAM 61 1.0 229 229 100 165 108 20 22 16

.00 11N4SIA t 6 .8 242 242 100 14.6 98 2) 29

31 'WIN40 2.0 .3 45 45 100 161 115 29 29 59

32 RIMS 11.9 .6 22 164 IN 100 28.7 11 112 37 18 63 , 9

33 *ITC ONSON 11.0 1.9 526 526 100 It? 1 86 26 23 12 234 111.DE 28 .5 114 114 100 164 112 30 22 37 '; 4

3S 1110301 21 .2 .4 SS 55 100 NI 4 114 23 21 136 : 536 KRAULD 3.7 .6 186 186 100 111 Si 32 32II t31ES 23 .1 .4 62 82 100 121 11 19 13

31 KINGSBURY 7.1 1.3 251 25; 103 14.2 V 23 11 33 431 LW II 3 24 145 345 100 25.3 9 87 13 11 34 11

40 UVICCE 176 13 382 NO 100 rst 16 93 22 20 13 r.-,.. ?

41 LIPCCtIl 12_4 tt 913 S03 ICA 133 14

3r 3

42 1116411 41 .5 .7 123 123 100 XI S 21 IS29 26 59 i ; 6

43 1KCOCA 71 1.3 328 228 KO 17.1 104 17 21 14 '-, 961 110109:01 41 1.1 214 214 KO 24.5 3 13 23 26 343 14419t411 48 .1 1.1 149 I* 100 *3 t 14 21 21 21 646 WA 248 .1 4.0 591 521 100 It6 11 * /I 19 14 ., 147 111111111 21 .3 .9 .5 138 In ito sts 11 142 12 41 1St ... 6

48 11101 5 2 .1 261 NI KO 216 2 80 14 22 21 ,. I41 * M O M I 92S 17.9 1,923 1,123 K O 146 2 1 1 0 313 1 3 1 1 1 : 1

SO 110002 16 1.6 346 346 KO 171 12 31 It 31 , 6SI K11IMNGT011 3 544 2? 91 434 44 112 998 245 11 151 36 14 13 11

52 PET 145 4.1 .1 120 120 100 lit 1 93 It 11 11

13 t011111 50 .1 151 151 100 11.? III IS * 5

140

Existing and Potential Resources for Family Planning

Cars

Programs (o Designates

Hospitals

LocsUon

Mot1,Sch.

W One or More

CEO Programs

Programs

Other

or Resources within Counts)

keelthDepts.

P.P.Nonrodera

19 20Mph:ions In Patient federal

Programs

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

II Ii

1

ilv

1

i

.

ft0.8

A 1

iiCikjj

ti11111S 2

IIS

II1.

A

tiQ

1

IS

1

1111S 1

11

ts

Si

111

tiiilS )

1 I

I PilSii!SI

11

fSk

I1

11:.

AIN DAKOTA

BUFFALO 85 61 5 61 1 165 BUTTE 91 31 1 3 1 CAP P8El l 103 25 3 25 3 217 1 CHARLES MIX 111 16 1 16 CLARK 12

7 58 7 58 1 180 CUY 1323 120 10 52 1 5 2 446 COOING TON 14

1 11 1 17 1 50 CORSON IS2 46 1 23 1 15 CUSTER 16

21 121 9 52 1 6 2 S33 DAVISON 11

4 4i 3 33 DAY 181 16 1 16 1 31 DEMI. 191 19 1 19 1 103 1 DEWY 201 19 I 19 1 78 OCAIGUS 212 32 I 16 1 7? DAM 22

6 0749 6 /0 1 140 FALL RIVER 232 2 49 FAULK 245 11 5 59 1 129 GRANT 254 55 4 SS 2 159 41 GREGORY 261 33 1 33 1 33 IMAM 21

2 35 2 35 HAMLIN rs4 66 3 49 1 96 HAND 29

RANSOM 30HARDING 31

14 111 10 84 1 315 HUGHES 32

8 73 8 13 2 2'S HANNON 33Ira 34

3 143 3 143 JACRSON 351 2? 1 2/ IRAULD 361 44 JOG 31

4 SI 4 SI 2 101 s PUNCSOURY 387 62 6 SI 1 113 UJ1 39

12 68 11 (4 3 318 1 LAWRENCE 40S 40 4 32 . IMOLA 412 10 1 48 MON 42

1 13 1 II It:COOK 411 1? I 1? 1 58 MCPHERSON 444 12 4 62 NONNI 45% 11 1 20 ME& 46

Kilt tit 4?

1 II 1 19 a MO 46Ill 123 A X 6 2 1.933 MINIENANA 13

2 73 1 12 1 60 a MOODY X65 1I! IS 21 4 1 2 904 I e PENNINGTON SI

2 42 2 42 1 47 MAINS 52

2 40 1 20 1 13 P011111 S3

141

Tobio 1. Plood for Sobs Mod ras..4111:$1soalo

Pppledee=moots/Woo

Unto: *met Prowl....,blooms sod IMMO was IN u.s, um rate am wow) ISolocto4 lioaltk

I JINNI

so4FAIAMoto

WIII.V.V

OwoogropkieUmOrkf

% of ph*

NASS

logosIMMO

lotissted Frrol Ploulas Nodma Larks

sod loloctsd(0004 ii:oot

10$1.1015Morttlffy

...1 3 4 5 5 7 $ I 10 11 12 13 14 IS II 17 1$

i1

11

1 I

1

1 II

ii

II ,

NI

Iliil11

Ii11

IIG. 1

.1

IL

1 Iri

1I

iii1

I

I

11111

iliii

SOUTH DAKOTA

54 ROSF.RTS

55 SANIORN56 SHANNON

57 SPIN(58 UMW

113 1.6 2.3 598 45 553 92 211 16 111 33 23 156 1

4.2 .7 152 152 100 119 73 16 52 88.0 .3 5.6 1.5 433 158 325 6? Si.7 62 22? 19 39 240 4

10.3 1.8 410 410 103 111 1 95 24 15 4? 1

21 .1 .4 24 24 100 29.5 6 101 22 26 130 4

59 SULLY 25 .4 15 75 103 31.4 7 102 18 32 4560 TOM 12 .3 11 LO 313 96 217 69 61.8 40 219 V 31 VI 861 TRIPP 11 .3 .6 1.6 268 268 103 19.3 2 105 34 18 84 862 TIJRNIR 10.4 11 456 456 100 115 2 68 27 27 563 11401 100 1.8 124 324 103 V.0 9 97 30 26 23 5

64 ViklIVC1r111 12 .2 1.5 226 226 100 21.6 4 98 23 33 110 565 WAS/WAUGH 1.0 .3 .4 .2 25 25 103 395 3 232 11 50 22266 YANKTON 113 14 666 666 100 21.0 6 100 39 19 98 7

6? 21E8gt1 22 1.1 .4 65 6$ 103 23.2 2 161 23 50 103

TVWSSEE95 COUNTIES 3145.6 1.1 8217 126,064 12,187 173,884 93 214 4,212 83 36 14 112 9

1 AMMON 1 El.? 11.7 2,126 28? 2,039 81 t.1.5 36 14 36 12 53 82 BEDFORD 25.0 .1 St 1,145 1,145 10 26.9 21 /9 31 13 58 $3 BENTON 11.9 2.4 652 652 100 195 t 88 32 12 48 7

4 1141DSOE 7.8 1.5 579 579 1CO 31.5 11 la 31 1? 47 3S 810041 1 60.3 115 2,562 2,562 100 2/.6 57 77 38 11 38 7

6 WADLEY 412 104 2,247 2.247 11:0 31.7 61 92 36 9 46 6' WM1 21.6 .1 10 1,991 1,996 100 V.? 61 83 36 11 65 3'8 UNION It? 1.8 499 499 100 244 5 82 42 11 68 31 CARRM 234 SI 1,509 1,509 100 27.3 11 7? 33 16 153 $

to CARIT1 S 421 88 1199 1,999 100 24.3 25 70 36 13 52 $

11 DOWN 1017 4_2 510 19 491 96 201 3 76 33 10 12 11

12 Dank 103 2.2 687 EV 103 296 11 71 21 20 75 613 MACK 187 3.8 1,339 1,319 100 311 28 la 3? 15 35 7

14 CUT 7.2 IA 512 172 100 17.9 1 66 40 17 3$ 1IS 0XXE 211 56 1,767 1,767 30 313 51 12 40 12 100 8

16 COM 32_1 .1 2.1 1532 1,502 103 211 3? 71 33 1 21 I11 CIOCIIITI 114 30 903 903 100 Hi IS $8 31 17 16? 10

18 0.818111M1) 20.6 4.2 1)85 1,385 140 31.1 31 N 36 15 11 I)II DAY106011 2 4316 114 11,3311 5,227 11,111 51 251 415 $2 II It 106 110 OECA11111 12 1.1 61? 127 105 249 5 12 31 13 13 1

21 (U&.$ 111 tt 11? 112 NO 215 13 113 33 1Z 22 2

22 MCP 21.1 44 1,111 1,114 100 Xi' 24 It 31 IS 51 S23 0112 3t9 12 1,42 1,742 KO 215 11 20 37 15 100 It24 !AMIE 24.2 4.4 1137 1,637 100 44 2 22 113 24 3. 282 33

15 19111419 111 30 1,132 1,032 100 29.4 11 65 40 It 62 1

16 11WIALIN VI 16 1,336 ST 12/1 16 306 IS 12 31 11 n sv t a i s c h x i 1 101 2,172 2171 10) 31 1 62 $1 36 11 151 171 WS 211 4.4 00 1,247 140 NA 11 79 )11 IS II 4

?I 41011111 119 11 IN NG 110242 12 90 31 14 30 1

II O A K a l II .1 2.7 7 1 2,7/6 140 31 1 57 19 31 9 67 12

1St

falitiag eel Potudol Remus for ha 111 Pim To Norms MOM14eopltals

legatee

Mot34

of OH et

OCO Patilms

Mon is er Resources eldolo Coo

Iloo-Foderol Ilmleless le Meal Core Othor Fedors1ProV491 4

11010* P.P.

16 20 11 22 23 24 25 29 27 2$ 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 31 37

11 ii 1

i

1

Ii

ifii IIiiiii

IIIii

iiit

1

i 6.

ii

11il11

illiii111

I iillitlit;I

illi

SOUTH DAKOTA

451

6

29

33

81

464810

13

159

4

5

35I

4

9

33

48

354810

49

41

1

1

1

1

1

3 16 1

IS?

332106

169

52

111

550

1

I

1

ROBERTS 54SANBORN ssSIWEION 56SP1NK 5/STA/LEY 58

SUM 59TOD° ecTRWP 61

TURNER 62UNION 63

WALISCITH 64WASHABAUGH 65YANCTC4I 66MAIN 61

3,196 13 993 26 221 6 11 59,484 10 2 16 I I 3 2 71 1

TENICSSU95 COUPES

50IS4P

Si

29

. 11

37

14

33S31

1 1

514

SI83

6122464

11

2111i

22

81

03)1

10t6

4440352113

NIriIi4221

S 2

, 3268

12$II

SSSS73

IS21

41564514

CS

18132

11

10

136

11

1

352/

1251

11

3

S

1

1164

1

LI92

14

295211

2623

22A352426

92921

321

1732/11

16

13

II32422521

24444114

II

3 S 1

1

S $ 1

3 1 1

1

1

1 2 1

1

1 3 1

1 14 1

41 11 81

1 3 1

1

221

1 2 2

131450

1,038

1,114131101

614

2/4

351

3411,57S

It

591

165

/SSS43NS

641

I

a

e

1111111a

a

a

a

a

mossON13EDFORD 21

BENTON 3&DSO(BLOM

45

/*AMY 1WWII 1

GAO $CARROLL 9CARTER 10

CHEATH/411 11

MI"ItCU/MI13

CUT 54

CO M 15

COM I6CROCKETT 11

CUINKIIIMO 18DAVIDSON IIMARA IC

DE KAI. 21

DI19O11 aOYER 23FAYME 24WORM 25

FRANKLIN 26ORSON 21WS 28DWI= 29MOE 30

141

TIM. 1. Nal for Soto Mud nuolfy Koala

?Wel.'ClorieUrlstiel

Woo: Cureool ProelLOttoorces sad Solatsd Indkis for U.S., Each State Ind Go , FY

Glottal HubINSsadEiLraftIsto

ostfnuod

Doi_mital:16411cos

Onloin% of IAMMI5'

and Solodol(0000

Estimetsd holly Miming MNaid Sonko Grob dud Mortalfte

1641.1941

2 3 4 I 7 0 10 H 12 13 14 16 17 1$

II 1 I

i1

1 1

lilII

11

I.

a21

1.

li i

IAI

IIIs.

I

I2

I li1 ::

01

iii

g ilitt 0

TENNESSEE

31 GR111111 11.1 23 tAl 52 789 94 265 11 98 42 16 03 632 WAREN 381 39 12/6 1,816 100 351 66 84 40 8 34 833 hilillION 1 245.8 52.6 9.320 200 9,620 98 29.0 282 85 37 11 123 934 HANCA.N1 73 1.6 617 611 100 42.2 16 80 45 22 108 835 HA00E13.14 24.2 4.5 1,552 1,552 100 31.1 34 103 23 27 194 9

36 HARDIN 19.2 4.1 1,159 1359 100 35.8 31 70 34 16 158 10

31 HAWKINS 31.9 68 1,812 1,812 100 21.7 12 62 40 13 46 6

38 11.411,1000 22.0 4.0 1,340 1,340 100 55.1 110 106 21 32 217 $39 HENDERSON 171 3.6 1,123 1,123 100 282 11 80 40 a 63 640 HMV 228 4.4 1,160 1,103 100 21.4 1 68 35 11 83 10

41 MCKIM 11.9 2.4 669 669 100 23.8 1 15 34 12 V 842 1031161011 53 1.0 323 323 100 10.2 91 45 26 85 443 11M1111EYS 11.3 22 549 549 100 181 1 $4 33 21 54 544 AMON - 66 11 619 6 613 99 24.2 S 89 28 23 120 7

45 1E1FERS014 263 6.2 1,452 1,452 100 29.4 27 15 39 I 13 9

46 1014149014 11.3 25 869 869 100 377 19 66 38 11 62 541 117401 1 271.0 .2 59.0 10,955 1,930 9,455 86 711 139 T6 39 12 85 848 DA 14 1.1 621 621 103 565 47 111 V II 167 17

49 LALIXRDPIE 21.9 4.0 1,390 1,390 100 *4 61 100 33 24 190 13

SO LASENtt 29r 61 1,535 1,535 100 24 4 23 95 34 15 21 5

SI (EMS 65 1.3 385 MS 100 11.9 3 89 34 3 1) 11

52 LINCOLN 261 54 1,383 1,383 100 3I.6 36 19 38 13 33 953 (011)014 218 5.1 1.064 1,06$ 103 286 26 14 Z9 12 Se 554 14C8114 35.6 1.1 1,923 1,923 I* 252 28 87 3) 11 42 1

SS MCMJNY 11.0 4.0 1,331 1,307 100 21.1 5 82 40 12 85 1

56 MACON 129 26 881 881 100 211 6 69 45 7 22 257 14045011 63.4 .1 121 3,13) 3,137 100 32.4 91 12 33 20 171 $S8 144/NON 21.3 43 1,246 1,246 100 26 1 18 90 31 12 W 8SI MOM 112 31 885 885 100 25 7 13 14 40 10 17 803 UM 44.8 83 2,021 100 1,927 95 24.3 30 32 35 11 94 12

41 HMS S I 1.1 358 358 ICI at 4 64 36 22 22 162 MONA 24.2 53 1,518 1,518 103 27.9 25 * 33 19 54 5$3 lb:women 60.9 12.3 2511 2,591 100 31.9 112 ?I IS IS 114 10

64 MOON 34 .4 141 141 100 *2 3 6? 20 IS6S 1430/1 14.2 28 1412 1,012 100 212 IS 16 10 14 41 S

114 0E0014 RA 54 1,462 1,462 100 253 1S 23 37 11 47 1

6/ OKAPI 117 3.6 1,253 1,253 103 X 5 71 70 37 II 44 668 KM II 1.0 350 350 103 41.2 9 61 31 t 11 36 1 I 1t 1 1 1 1 4.4 .1 X 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 318 9 5 8 2 6 11 37 I I70 POLK 12.6 27 641' 641 100 321 19 12 31 1 20 1

11 NINA 14.4 .1 7.6 2.223 2,223 100 210 25 74 36 9 25 1

72 IRA III 3.6 1,098 1,098 KO 256 14 115 34 10 58 813 0001 NI 81 1,114 1,729 10 211 46 19 37 11 $1 II14 1120101 *5 61 1,511 1,313 10 31.1 39 63 36 14 91 11

1S 18/1)1Pi01ti 615 13$ 2,771 290 2,524 91 215 41 98 36 11 41 f

16 SC011 161 15 U61 1,361 103 148 * 13 34 24 IS 1

144

Ei 1311os and Mental Resources for Foley Manning Programs ( Dsnotos Locst lon of Ono or WO( I Proiroros If Rooms ',this Coset4

Iferdret Itielthes Is ?stool Core Hospitals MetSolo.

0E0 Programs Odor Nero!Pavans

HokeDe*.

Pi.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 23 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

ii1

Il 1 1

1

i.

x

VSfti

j

if

ill

li

1

II

j 1ij

"Of

ti ca

11

111

ii

fil

II]

1 1ilj

'if

ilii

;,"

1

A

II

ROM

I 9 1 918 17 24 2 5 I

300 122 50 20 24 10 2

1 13 1 13

20 83 9 37 1 4

11 3436

11

634 1

36 7 32 1

7 40 5 2$ 1 6 I17 74 7 31 1

2 I / i I2 I T 2 3/83

11

35

33

2/SS

1 9

12 46 10 31 1 4 1

4 3S 4 SS

348 12$ * 12 21 $ 43 32 2 21

9 41 9 41 1

13 44 1 1 3 1 2

1

3 4658

210

31

38 1

$ 34 29 1 4 1

20 56 14 19 1 3 1

5 26 4 21 1

4 31 23

65 102 131 1 / 6 9 1

42 $ 311

1 1 60 / 38

31 69 14 31 2 4 1

1 19

14 54 9 3/ 239 6S 12 20 5 1 1

1 1 )12 14 2 14

22 13 10 11 131

441 )1 1

I 13 1 23* 1 41 1

1` 13 31 2 1

6 11 $ 36

11 43 II 31 2

14 44 11 36 1

NI 63 5 1 4 6 2

6 31 S 31 1

4,717804

1

238650

155

263

299

83

336

5,268 1

166

539

46)231

162196

1,365

130

375415

GRUPLY 31

HAMM 32WILT 33

e IIMICOCKON

34

HA MAN 15

RDIN sHA

aHausHATIVC00 31'MASON 11WRY 40

e

N1CKMAN

HO

441

USTON

43WilPHREYSJACKSON aJEFFIPSON 43

/WEAN 4KNOX 41lAll 41LAUDENON1 49LA KIRK( 50

LEW IS

UNCC4A uLOUDON 53

SIMI 54

MOWRY SS

MACON

MADISON 0I MARION

WIRSMIwurr N

moot

momrocuuty

MAW 61

312 OWN 1620 C1111111:11

110111MON

PCILK

NOM /1MA nlow nocsurns /11

MIMI. 18

14!

TON 1. Head for Subsidized Family Planning Sery lc's: Currant Programs, Resources and Related indices for U.S., Each State and County, FY 1968 continued

Population and SelectedCharacteristics (000s)

Estimated family Kenning Needsad Service Levels

Selected Health and Demographic indices

Infant Mortality1961-1965

Est.Fart.Rate

Live BirthOrder as

% of Births

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

1

1pz

S

A ?I 11

li

il11ii i

Isill-.5EIlx.

11

iilagoli

1jIII=i

1

134d1 i

I

11g;

g

§ct

ig

I11ggg

fiii,F1

6111ivIf

b

TENNESSEE

77 SEQUATCHIC 6.3 14 373 373 100 24.9 5 79 35 15 145 n78 SEVIER 27.4 6.1 1,678 1,678 100 22.1 11 71 41 14 23 5

79 SHELBY 2 696.0 .6 148.6 29,273 4,389 24,884 85 29.2 918 92 35 17 222 12

80 SMITH 13.0 25 140 80 660 89 36.4 23 73 43 12 65 10

81 STEWART 7.7 1.5 491 491 100 25.8 5 73 40 13 36 5

82 SULLIVAN 5 127.3 .2 29.8 5,034 5,034 100 21.6 46 18 40 8 34 7

83 SUMNFR 2 47.0 9.9 2,283 2,283 100 24.4 29 87 34 10 65 7

84 TIPTON 30.8 6.2 1,760 1,160 100 42.9 95 105 30 21 156 9

85 TROOSOALE 5.0 .9 276 276 100 19.1 1 63 30 23 33 7

86 UNI COI 15.1 3.3 134 734 100 24.7 10 70 33 17 87 10

87 UNION 9.3 2.0 612 612 100 35.6 14 92 38 19 32 10

88 VAN WREN 3.6 .8 278 278 100 23.0 2 56 50 5 9

89 WARREN 25.5 5.4 1,504 1,504 100 23.9 16 91 37 12 61 6

90 WASHINGTON 5 70.3 .2 15.2 3,126 13 3,113 100 23.4 39 78 40 13 64 7

91 WAYNE 11.9 2.5 798 798 100 27,7 12 85 27 16 19 11

92 WEAKLEY 26.1 5.3 1,497 1,497 100 19.5 3 67 40 12 89 10

93 WHITE 16.4 3.4 1,091 1,091 100 40.7 37 81 41 14 43 F..

94 WILLIAMSON 29.6 6.4 1,376 1,376 100 27.5 27 73 35 12 43 995 WILSON 2 33.2 69 1,583 1,583 100 30.2 38 95 37 13 58 9

TEXAS

254 COUNTiES 10,746.6 143.5 2,211.0 399,G78 44,758 355,120 89 27.0 10,849 94 33 18 78 9

1 ANDERSON 29.6 5.5 1,361 1,361 100 28.1 27 74 34 18 116 42 ANDREWS 12.1 2.6 203 203 100 36.4 24 19 38 12 23 12

3 ANGELINA 46.3 10.1 2,246 2,246 100 24.2 29 96 34 14 13 94 ARANSAS 7.9 1.6 356 356 100 260 8 83 29 24 76 12

5 ARCHER 1 62 1.2 151 151 100 16.2 71 17 24 7

6 ARMSTRONG 2.0 .3 43 43 100 29.9 2 53 67 11 111 11

7 ATASCOSA 20.4 .6 4.2 1,118 1,116 100 30.3 27 92 28 27 16 5

8 AUSTIN 14 3 2.5 702 702 100 22.7 5 68 27 22 151 10

9 BAILEY 103 21 348 348 100 42.5 31 90 27 23 11 9

10 BANDERA 4.4 .8 219 219 100 26.3 2 44 22 28 6

11 BASTROP 16.6 2.9 878 878 100 36.8 29 84 27 28 106 812 BAYLOR 59 1.1 231 231 100 30.0 7 63 35 18 29 18

13 BEE 24.6 .3 4.7 1,114 330 784 70 30.9 42 117 26 20 22 5

14 BELL 5 119.6 .5 22.9 4,602 438 4,164 90 25.8 133 105 39 13 59 11

15 BEXAR 2 797.1 15.0 163.5 32,430 4,349 28,081 87 25.8 770 101 31 21 84 8

16 BLANCO 3.7 .6 140 140 100 29.6 4 73 26 17 43 17

17 BORDEN 1,3 .3 42 42 100 12.8 21 67 67

18 BOSQUE 11.5 1.9 515 515 100 23.2 3 63 35 10 50 12

19 BOWIE 1 65.8 .5 13.0 2,983 348 2,635 88 21.1 21 83 35 11 100 9

20 BRAZORIA 3 94.0 .1 20.0 2,690 2,690 100 19.5 15 87 32 15 42 7

21 BRAZOS 51.0 .3 9.4 2,166 2,166 100 32.2 84 116 42 14 86 7

22 BREWSTER 1.2 1.5 334 334 100 30.3 11 112 33 24 36 11

23 BRISCOE 3.1 .7 140 140 100 37.6 8 84 23 2024 BROOKS 87 .8 1.7 484 220 264 55 22.0 5 118 27 27 57 6

25 BROWN 26.7 4.9 1,247 1,247 100 23.1 12 75 40 11 66 9

146

Existing and Potential Resources for Family Planning Programs C' Dishiness location of Ono or More rograms or Resources within County)

Hearth P.P.Programs CMOs.

Non-Federal Physicians In Patient Cue Hospitals Med. 0E0 Programs Other Moralkh.

25 26

I

27

W

28 35 36 37 38

TENNESSEE

1 16 1 16 SEDUATCHIC 77

9 33 9 33 1 203 SEVIER 78

792 114 152 22 61 10 4 14217 3 SHELBY 79

7 54 6 46 SMITH 804 52 4 52 STEWART 81

132 104 28 22 10 1 3,515 1 SULLIVAN 8221 45 14 30 2 485 SUMNER 83

8 26 7 20 3 1 138 TIPTON 84

2 40 2 4 TROUSDALE 855 33 5 33 I 192 UNICOI 86

1 11 1 11 UNION 87

1 28 1 28 VAN BUREN 889 35 6 24 WARREN 89

79 112 15 21 4 6 1 1,324 1 WASHINGTON 903 25 2 17 1 60 WAYNE 91

11 41 9 34 1 112 WEAKLEY 92

9 55 7 43 1 281 WHITE 93

11 37 9 30 1 371 WILLIAMSON 94

14 42 1 21 1 3 WILSON 95

TEXAS

9,347 81 3,203 30 ; 650 6 242 140,851 15 3 92 22 21 13 254 COUNTIES

17 57 12 41 1 al ANDERSON 1

6 50 4 33 ' 1 198 ANDREWS

35 73 15 31 4 8 2 1,113 ANGELINA 3

4 51 3 38 ARANSAS 4

1 16 1 13 ARCHER- 5

ARMSTRONG 6

6 29 : 5 25 ' 1 214 ATASCOSA 7

8 56 4 28 1 7 1 11 AUSTIN 8

4 39 , 4 39 BAILEY 9

1 23 1 23 BANDERA 10

9 54 9 54 1 86 BASTROP 11

4 67 4 61 65 BAYLOR 12

10 41 10 41 1 450 BEE 13

126 105 21 18 5 4 2 963 1 BELL 14

735 92 213 21 53 7 5 11,603 2 BEXAR 15

1 27 1 27 BUM 16

BORDEN 17

6 52 5 44 1 132 BOSOUE 18

62 94 18 27 4 6 I 1,203 BOWIE 19

55 59 32 34 1 1 2 907 MON 20

36 71 15 29 3 6 1 754 BRAZOS 21

7 97 4 55 1 235 BREWSTER 22

BRISCOE 23

4 46 , 4 46 1 301 BROOKS 24

17 64 9 34 2 384 BROWN 25

147

Table 1. Need for Subsidized Family Planning Services: Current Programs, Resources and Related Indices for U.S., Each State and County, FY 1968 continued

Population and SelectedCharacteristics (000s)

Estimated Family Planning Needand Service Levels

Selected Health and

Est.Fart.Rate

Demographic

Live BIMOrder as

% of Births

IndicesInfant Mortality

1961.1965

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

A

I:33:3

1 $Ik

4. iii

..-.4.

.1.

gg

ItIli:t.s 2a 2 .t

ggzu.

19i3 5'elx

;I.t.

_0

-Elszz

.

1

Is§,,,mg.15:1

g:;

g

1

§

gb3

g

II;4g

leiaggligg

liI:

1r

S

TEXAS

26 BURLESON 10.3 .1 1.8 555 555 100 20.6 3 76 30 28 211 7

27 BURNET 10.4 1.9 408 408 100 29.3 9 70 27 15 45 928 CALDWELL 17.5 .6 3.3 940 940 100 43,0 42 100 25 27 61 1029 CA1HOUN 19.3 2.4 4.1 638 638 100 19.1 3 115 28 11 43 930 CALLAHAN 9.8 1.8 403 403 100 20.9 2 45 45 8 75

31 CAMERON 1 151.5 15.0 29.5 8,772 514 8,198 93 33.1 365 145 24 34 41 7

32 CAMP 7.9 1.5 417 417 100 34.2 13 79 24 22 153 7

33 CARSON 7.5 1.7 1.5 182 182 100 22.1 4 72 42 6 38 934 CASS 24.1 4.6 1,249 1,249 100 25.4 16 71 33 17 97 835 CAS fRO 12.3 2.7 468 468 100 3&1 30 103 23 26 7 10

36 CHAMBERS 11.9 2.6 436 299 137 31 25.8 8 69 26 14 132 1531 CHEROKEE. 44.4 6.3 1,::: 34 1,854 38 25.1 19 71 32 18 85 838 CHILDRESS 1.2 1.2 263 263 100 30.3 9 103 35 14 92 939 CLAY &O 1.4 250 250 100 13.6 51 30 5 54 1640 COCHRAN 7.4 1.4 190 190 100 40.4 23 112 22 26 6

41 COKE 3.0 .5 89 89 100 21.4 1 17 15 15 542 COLEMAN 11.6 .1 2.0 510 510 100 16.7 61 42 15 17 1243 COLLIN 3 52.9 10.2 2,091 2,091 100 22.1 21 102 35 15 44 944 COLLINGSWORT 5.8 1.0 206 206 100 36.8 10 76 22 28 28 645 COLORADO 18.7 3.5 828 828 100 37.1 31 83 31 23 110 11

46 COMAL 22.5 .1 4.6 731 731 100 27.3 21 85 35 21 36 641 COMANCHE 13.1 1.0 2.3 655 655 100 387 18 44 29 16 248 CONCHO 3.7 .6 140 140 100 223 1 66 38 14 1949 COOKE 22.4 4.5 794 794 100 27.3 19 71 30 21 70 11

50 CORIELL 31.7 5.1 1,192 1,192 100 18.4 2 82 36 13 29 11

51 COTTLE 4.2 .1 .8 41 201 100 59.0 11 81 34 31 63 1352 CRANE 4.0 .8 48 48 100 26.2 4 93 42 8 56 1753 CROCKETT 4.1 .8 111 111 100 10.3 100 29 21 26 13

54 CROSBY 11.4 1.0 2.1 412 412 100 33.7 27 119 26 30 64 655 CILBERSON 3.5 .1 121 121 100 35.8 10 133 21 28 43 11

56 DALLAM 6.5 .3 1.2 210 210 100 35.4 11 93 39 16 53 1657 DALLAS 3 1,163.3 254.8 30,285 3,500 26,785 24.9 890 93 36 12 112 1058 DAWSON 19.5 .2 3.6 559 559 100 33.5 46 101 26 27 31 859 DEAF SMITH 20.9 .3 4.5 751 751 100 45.4 70 114 30 26 27 860 DELTA 6.9 1.2 410 410 100 33.1 6 54 52 24 182 3

61 OFNfON ' 3 67.6 17.5 2,989 2,989 100 19.4 8 55 42 9 84 7

62 OE WITT 21.0 .2 3.7 1,131 1,131 100 35.4 33 74 25 25 87 863 DICKENS 4.6 1.0 .8 188 188 100 483 15 92 44 17 28 C

64 DIMMIT 10.7 1.5 2.2 812 812 100 47.3 40 115 23 26 79 665 DONLEY 4.1 .7 158 158 100 12.6 65 32 9 45 5

66 DUVAL 13.2 .5 2.5 772 772 100 28.6 18 113 26 28 48 867 EASTLAND 18.4 3.1 805 805 100 24.5 9 66 46 7 58 11

68 ECTOR 1 93.5 20.3 2,102 2,102 100 20.6 30 92 36 11 65 969 EDWARDS 2..9 .6 111 111 100 49.3 9 82 22 30 1770 ELLIS 3 45.1 85 1,902 1,902 100 30.4 55 92 31 22 115 7

71 EL PASO 1 347.3 .9 71.2 11,479 4,198 7,281 63 23.7 331 137 31 22 73 $

148

Existing and Potential Resources for Family Planning Programs ( Designates Location of One or More Programs or Resources within County)

NonFederal Physicians in Patient Can Hospitals Med. CEO Programs Other Federal Health P.P.Sch. Programs Depts.

TEXAS

3 29 3 29 BURLESON 267 67 6 58 BURNET 277 40 5 29 2 275 CALDWELL 287 36 7 36 1 408 CALHOUN 293 31 3 31 CALLAHAN 30

106 70 34 22 5 3 3 2,158 CAMERON 313 33 3 38 CAMP 32

CARSON 3314 58 10 42 1 77 CASS 346 49 6 49 1 217 CASTRO 35

4 34 3 25 1 97 CHAMBERS 3632 93 9 26 2 6 3 490 CHEROKEE 37

6 83 4 56 CHILDRESS 382 25 2 25 1 58 CLAY 39

1 71 COCHRAN 40

2 67 2 67 1 26 COM 4112 103 8 69 2 119 COLEMAN 4235 66 23 43 1 421 COLLIN 43

2 35 2 35 1 54 COLLINGSWORT 4411 59 8 43 3 312 COLORADO 45

13 58 11 49 1 272 COMAL 466 44 6 44 1 23 COMANCHE 41

1 7 CONCHO 4816 71 11 49 2 304 COOKE 496 19 6 19 1 170 CORYELL 50

2 48 2 48 1 69 COTRE 511 25 1 25 1 94 CRANE 522 49 2 49 1 64 =KM 535 44 3 26 1 103 CROSBY 541 28 1 28 CULBERSON 55

3 46 2 31 1 15 DALLAM 561,397 120 251 22 129 11 8 21,394 4 DALLAS 57

10 51 8 41 1 375 DAWSON 588 38 4 19 1 398 DEAF SMITH 593 44 2 29 1 15 DELTA 60

55 81 26 38 4 6 1 872 DEMON 6110 ; 48 8 38 3 213 DE WITT 62

' 1

422

37

1

422

37 1 163DICKENS

DI MIT 66342 49 ' 2 49 DONLEY 65

5 38 5 38 DUVAL bo13 71 13 71 1 103 EASTUND 6761 72 16 17 8 9 1 1,893 FCTOR 68

1 34 1 34 1 27 EDWARDS 6923 51 16 35 1 2 2 631 QLIS 70

278 80 65 19 23 7 3 3,374 1 Et PASO 71

149

Table 1. Nod for Subsidizad Family Planning Services: Current Programs, Resources and Rested Indices for U.S., Each State and County, FY 1968 continued

Population and NestedCharectaristics (0001)

Estimated Family Planning Mudand Service Levels

. Selected Health and Demograpt..4 Indicesinfant Mortality

19614965Est.Fait,Rats

Live BirthOrder as

56 of Births

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

it

8=

tegII

II, Ik

j Iiiii

iP_ 4

11liA

I

if........a...EZ

lifEt+.

Il_:;,.1

il2M

I

.

iall'i g

alA=1-istid 2

I..gg.

tica

15 I,gi;

1

1g.t

iN

i1M

55

11i.§

V "rmt

li-ep

it16

b

72 ERATH 18.2 3.2 834 834 100 22.2 5 56 48 4 22 12

73 FALLS 19.1 .3 3.3 1,097 1,097 100 33.5 24 77 28 28 181 11

74 FANNIN 21.4 3.5 1,009 1,009 100 23.6 9 76 33 12 106 11

75 FAYETTE 18.3 2.9 935 935 100 25.9 10 66 33 20 135 676 FISHER 8.0 1.5 303 303 100 39.1 11 74 19 31 37 6

77 FLOYD 14.5 .5 27 455 455 100 49.0 60 99 16 31 30 878 FOARD 2.6 .4 101 101 100 18.4 70 27 33 67 13

79 FORT BEND 3 484 .1 9.2 1,979 1,979 100 37.5 102 112 27 23 87 980 FRANKLIN 5.0 .8 235 235 100 9.4 57 29 13 83 17

81 FREESTONE 11.8 2.0 649 649 100 16.9 55 29 31 91 7

82 FRIO 12.2 .8 2.5 778 718 100 39.8 32 134 25 28 47 5

83 GAINES 13.5 2.7 326 326 100 43.8 43 103 25 26 21 ID84 GALVESTON 1 160.4 34,3 5,802 1,149 4,653 80 25.5 128 V 36 16 122 885 GARZA 6.0 1.1 146 146 100 35.0 14 87 32 16 40 6

86 GILLESPIE 11.6 2.1 465 465 100 23.4 4 74 27 19 38 10

87 GLASSCOCK 1.1 .2 15 15 100 28.3 1 62 3388 GOLIAD 5.2 .7 .9 267 267 100 37.7 10 69 38 19 31 689 GONZALES 18.7 1.3 3.5 1,048 1,048 100 46.0 48 86 29 24 111 11

91 GRAY 21.8 5.3 529 529 100 28.1 29 77 40 8 34 10

91 GRAYSON 1 17.9 14.9 3,005 136 2,869 95 24.1 47 86 38 11 61 8

92 GREGG 5 74.7 15.5 3, 178 3,178 100 22.5 33 85 33 14 91 8

93 GRIMES 12.0 .2 2.1 692 692 100 22.9 5 88 27 33 154 20

94 GUADALUPE 2 33.8 .3 7.0 1,630 1,630 100 29.5 38 78 36 19 51 9

95 HALE 44.3 .6 9.0 1,486 34 1,452 98 39.8 123 101 29 23 22 10

96 HALL 7.0 1.2 268 268 100 42.0 19 92 35 14 140 16

91 HAMILTON 8.2 1.3 400 400 100 18.9 62 41 10 10

98 HANSF ORD 7.0 1.5 131 137 100 28.1 8 85 27 13 31 9

99 HARDEMAN 7.8 1.4 323 323 100 44.3 21 82 26 17 103 5

100 HARDIN . 30.5 6.4 1,456 1,456 100 18.5 2 75 31 15 62 7

101 HARRIS 3 1,536.8 .6 341.1 45,014 13,180 31,234 69 25.2 1,221 92 34 15 96 10

102 HARRISON 41.8 8.4 2,279 9 2,210 100 26.4 33 72 25 22 118 1

103 HARTLEY 2.3 .5 31 31 100 19.8 114 37 15 74 11

104 HASKELL 10.4 .1 1.8 387 387 100 37.5 21 71 29 27 114 4

105 HAYS 26.5 .6 6.1 1,626 206 1,420 87 34.9 41 76 36 20 17 3

106 HEMPHILL 3.3 .6 79 79 100 14.6 107 36 15 61 12

107 HENDERSON 25.4 4.8 1,410 1,410 1e3 40.6 46 83 36 14 9) 10

108 HIDALGO 1 204.7 37.5 41.6 13,946 2,507 11,439 82 31.6 406 130 23 34 30 5

109 HILL 22.6 3.9 1,136 1,136 100 44.3 41 69 32 15 110 12

110 HOCKLEY 23.0 .3 4.4 683 683 100 37.0 61 101 24 26 49 8111 HOOD ' 5.3 .9 229 229 100 15.9 74 24 18

112 HOPKINS 20.0 3.6 952 952 100 25.3 11 81 40 13 63 9113 HOUSTON 18.5 .2 3.1 1,127 1,127 100 23.6 8 73 34 28 126 11

114 HOWARD 42.9 8.6 1,042 1,042 100 31.0 15 101 33 15 28 9

115 HUDSPETH 3.2 .1 .6 99 99 100 24.2 3 105 27 23 33 13

116 HUNT 44.8 8.8 2005 2,005 100 35.2 60 73 37 15 11 11

117 HUTCH ICON 27.9 5.3 389 389 100 22.2 14 72 44 8 42 8

150

Existing and Potential Resounos for Family Planning Programs (. Design is I.

NonFederal Plink tonsils Patient Caro Hosotta is Med.Sch.

0E0 Programs Other FederalPrograms

IkatthDa Pt%

.p.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 3' 35 3b 37

g

11

ig1

li112

2§

ogIt01jtiseela;3

11iiSz

b

I11isSV

I11tbs]

II1s

I1S

II_IS.

11si

111111illIAsll

111111i tisksillst1

TEXAS

12 66 6 3314 13 4 21 I 510 47 9 4215 82 13 71

5 62.562

116

113

4 28 4 281 38 , 1 13 1 18

20 41 17 35 1 2 2 6022 40 p 2 40 1 568 68 8 68 1 59

3 25 " 3 253 22 3 22 1 . 170

174 108 51 32 17 1't 3 3,100 2: 2 33 2 33

:' 10 86 6 52 1 9

' 2 39 2 393 16 3 16

22 79 16 58 1. 1 4 1 40369 , 89 18 23 6 8 3 1,103

86 115 47 63 3 4 3 1,282j 6 50 3 25 1 128

16 41 12 36 1 42833 IS 15 34 3 7 2 4744 51 3 43

. 66

6 ' 73 4 49 1 90. 2 29 2 29

4 51 3 38 2 1608 26 7 23 1 328

1,848 120 450 29 160 10 10 24,103 4

28 61 12 29 2 5 1 428

5 48 5 4814 53 13 49 1 4413 92 3 92

,

13 51 11 4396 47 43 21

20 88 15 669 39 8 35

1 19 1 19

9 45 6 30

10 54 5 27

37 86 8 19

25 56 9 20

15 54 10 36

1 2.35

4 2,130

3

1 . 265

3 7 2 336

3 1 1 480

1 362

1 5

ERATH 12

FALLS , 13

FANNIN 14

FAYETTE 15

FISHER 16

FLOYD 77

FOARO , 18

FORT BEND 79FRANKLIN 80FREESTONE 81

FRIO 82

GAINES ' 83GALVESTON 84GARZA , 85GILLESPIE 11 86

GLASSCOCK 81GOLIAD 88GONZALES L .; 89GRAY r 90GRAYSON 91

GREGG . 1,1 92GRIMES 93GUADALUPE A ; 94HALE 95Wil 96

HAMILTON I 97HANSF ORD 98HARDO4AN E 99HARDIN 100HARRIS ;T:.;r,fizi 101

HARRISON ;,'.5 102HARTLEY , 103HA.SKELL 104HAYS 105HEMPHILL 106

HENDERSON 107HIDALGO . ' 108HILL 109HOCKLEY 110HOOD + 111

P,OPKINS 112

HOUSTON 113HOWARD 114HUDSPETH 115

116

HUTMINSON 111

151

Table 1. Need for Subsidized Family Planning Services: Current Programs, Resources end Related Indices for U.S., Each State and County, FY 1968 continued

Population and SelectedCharacteristics (0001)

Estimated Family Planning Needand Service Levels

Selected Health end Demographic Indicesinfant Mortality

1961.1965EstFeet.Rate

Live BirthOrder as

% of Biotin

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

1§;3

51

Aa i Zs S

Bt..-

a

Ir1112..si

M tias.

1.11

.t.

23

B

tI1.1

X z

1

='1'

.....

a

dZ

kvl'IS

I

Ir.

;il

ge

g

giAlt....35liWO3 8.10,..r

g g

ki-N43IASi!e1

b

TEXAS

118 IRION 1.1 .2 32 32 100 10.0 71 50119 JACK 6.9 1,3 220 220 100 22.4 2 62 28 18 50 8120 JACKSON 13.4 2.6 510 510 100 25.8 11 83 26 27 91 5

121 JASPER 27.3 5.6 1566 1,566 100 28.8 27 86 28 26 78 9

122 JEFF DAVIS 1.6 .3 51 51 100 54.1 5 71 30 40

123 JEFFERSON 1 241.6 51.0 7,435 861 6,574 88 25.9 216 83 32 11 84 10

124 JIM NOGG 4.6 .1 .8 343 343 100 19.7 1 117 30 24 80125 JIM WELLS 357 1.1 7.2 1,829 1,829 100 22.6 22 101 32 23 22 6126 JOHNSON 2 39.8 1.8 1,275 1,275 100 22.6 16 71 34 9 26 8127 JONES 1 20.0 .2 3.8 719 719 100 39.0 39 68 28 15 47 12

128 KARNES 15.1 .6 2.9 812 812 100 27.1 16 96 34 28 12 6129 KAUFMAN 3 31.4 5.1 1,450 1,450 100 49.4 83 84 38 21 147 16

130 KENDALL 6.6 1.2 270 270 100 29.0 5 74 29 20 22 4

131 KENEOY .8 .1 49 49 100 44.6 3 147 50 20 20132 KENT 1.9 .4 65 65 100 29.9 2 39 29 29 29

133 KERR 20.4 3.5 67:1 673 100 26.0 12 71 32 18 49 8134 KIMBLE 4.7 .8 161 167 100 15.9 88 35 27 27 11

135 KING .6 .1 32 32 100 120 43 29136 KINNEY 2.5 .4 106 106 100 30.4 4 113 28 16 16137 KLEBERG 30.7 .9 5.9 1,354 1,354 100 28.6 47 127 39 16 35 7

138 KNOX 6.9 1.2 264 264 100 19.9 2 89 17 36 9139 LAMAR 36.5 .1 6.7 1,859 1,859 100 29.4 37 100 32 16 74 9140 LAMB 22.8 .2 4.3 795 795 100 47.4 94 112 24 25 58 12141 LAMPASAS 10.0 1.8 453 453 IOCI 29.7 11 66 31 21 82 2142 LA SALLE 5.5 2.4 1.0 387 387 100 41.0 16 112 24 43 11 5

143 LAVACA 19.6 3.3 996 996 100 30.5 19 75 24 21 47 6144 LEE 8.1 1.6 491 491 100 38 6 12 51 29 24 95 5

145 LEON 9.6 1.7 602 602 100 23 2 4 63 40 26 132 2

146 LIBERTY 3 31.6 6.3 1,655 1,655 100 261 29 84 29 22 105 11

147 LIMESTONE 22.2 4.6 1,455 1,455 100 42.4 29 45 28 24 219 10

148 LIPSCOMB 3.0 .5 59 59 100 12.0 86 29 10 5149 LIVE OAK 8.1 .9 1.6 391 391 100 31.6 10 70 30 23 35 11

150 LLANO 6.5 1.1 269 269 100 17.1 49 57 11 H151 LOVING .1 6 6 100152 MOCK 1 190.5 .6 41.1 5,205 1,224 3981 76 35.7 436 98 34 17 61 9

153 LYNN 9.5 .1 1.6 279 279 100 52.9 51 126 17 33 30 7

154 MCCULLOCH 9.8 1.7 432 432 100 25.4 6 84 36 28 27 8155 MCLENNAN 1 150.8 1.2 29.8 5,805 2,069 3,736 64 29.3 184 81 36 16 97 9156 MCMULLEN 11 .2 42 42 100 11.0 102 30 10 20157 MADISON 7.8 1.3 403 35 368 91 31.8 8 70 48 20 261 13

158 MARION 7,7 1.4 505 505 100 19.0 1 87 38 33 159 5

159 MARTIN 5.6 1.1 101 101 100 44.7 16 113 21 29 16 2160 MASON 4,1 .7 190 190 100 30.3 3 18 45 14 34 17

161 MATAGOROA 30.6 6.3 1,440 1,440 100 31.9 46 91 29 18 72 9162 MAVERICK 19.2 6.2 3.8 1,492 1,492 100 27.6 39 240 24 30 30 10

163 MEDINA 20.9 .8 4.2 981 981 100 31.7 29 90 28 26 32 3

152

Existing and Potential Resources for Family Planning Programs (. Designates Location of One or

Programs

More Programs or Resources within County)

NonFodera Physicians In Patient Cars Hospitals Med.Sch.

0E0 Other FederalPrograms

HealthDepts.

P.P.

19 2^ 21 22 23 24 25 26 21 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37....

18

g

IEel

1

i

II

32 g

e

I

rI,cme

tr:gf.

IA0v.gSi

.1ez1.

SV

Ilg1

02gpSI

a0x

0

SA

°06

SA

0.-111

liet.gs.ez

stiaIA.0 jS41

tEg0 2SI1

rifiz06gi

3:::4

S1

II

11

=TEXAS

IRION 1184 58 3 43 I 79 JACK 1197 52 6 45 1 181 JACKSON 120

14 51 12 44 JASPER 121

JEFF DAVIS 122

2592

105

44

75

2

30

4419 8 3 3,452 JEFFERSON

JI HGGM

123

1 2 4

16 45 11 31 1 3 JIM WELLS 12525 63 14 35 2 5 1 574 JOHNSON 12611 55 8 40 1 77 JONES 127

7 46 6 40 1 188 KARNES 12831 99 14 45 KAUFMAN ;19

5 76 4 61 KENDALL 130

KENEDY 1311 52 1 52 KENT 132

25 123 13 64 1 5 1 290 KERR 1334 115 4 85 KIMBLE 134

KING 135

KINNEY 13614 * 9 29 2 7 1 847 KLEBERG 131

1 14 1 14 1 105 KNOX 13832 88 13 36 2 5 3 718 LAMAR 13911 48 8 35 1 22 LAMB 1405 50 4 40 LAMPASAS 1412 36 2 36 LA SALLE 142

12 61 9 46 3 283 LAVACA 1431 H 1 11 LEE 1444 41 4 41 1 6 LEON 145

16 51 13 41 1 338 LIBERTY 14612 54 9 40 LIMESTONE 147

LIPSCOMB 1483 37 3 37 LIVE OAK 1494 62 4 62 1 35 LLANO 150

LOVING 151171 90 39 20 15 8 2 315 LUBBOCK 152

2 21 2 21 LYNN 1537 71 5 51 1 10 MCCULLOCH 154

128 85 31 21 10 7 1 2,113 MCLENtki 155MCMULLEN 156

4 52 4 52 1 112 MADISON 157

5 65 5 65 MARION 158MARTIN 159

2 48 2 48 1 56 MASON 16020 65 13 43 1 3 2 560 MATAGORDA 1616 31 5 26 1 336 MAVERICK 162

10 48 9 43 1 204 MEDINA , 163

153

Table 1. Need for Subsidized Family Planning Services: Current Programs, Resources and Related Indices for U.S., Each State and County, FY 1968 continued

Population end SelectedCha racterlaUce (000s)

Estimated Family Planning Needand Service Levels

Selected Health end Demographic Indices

Infant Mortality1961.1965

Est.PertRata

We BirthOdom

% of Births

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

11=

IA

Im3

ii

lii

il11

ii.1

1

-i.si8 Er111

F.ii3 I11

1X

.;-11

.1.

;

ils!

I.!

'11

ik 1

ii;

iiii:

ti--

mf1;

!gibTEXAS

164 MENARO 3.1 .2 .6 134 134 100 31.7 4 90 24 20 80 8165 MIDLAND 66.7 14.4 1,376 502 814 64 24.6 50 80 29 15 73 8166 MILAM 20.2 3.5 979 95 884 90 31,7 24 91 36 17 105 916/ MILLS 4.7 .8 202 202 100 45.5 6 58 48 9 4168 MITCHELL 10.8 1.9 367 367 100 50.4 44 96 28 29 65 13

169 MONTAGUE 15.1 2.6 639 639 100 22.6 6 67 37 3 22 6110 MONTGOMERY 3 33.3 6.9 1,805 1,805 100 25.6 18 83 33 14 51 12111 MOORE 14.4 3.2 206 206 100 22.9 7 81 36 9 23 15112 MORRIS 12.1 2.4 494 494 100 31.4 14 64 29 21 143 9113 MOTLEY 2.6 .4 95 95 100 37.7 6 92 16 16 105 11

174 NACOGDOCHES 33.2 6.8 1,983 1,983 100 30 5 34 72 41 14 138 10175 NAVARRO 34.2 6.3 1,703 103 1,600 94 30.3 33 71 35 19 175 7

176 NEWTON 10.9 2.1 144 744 100 30.9 13 92 29 25 82 10171 NOLAN 18.3 3.5 549 549 100 2E5 16 90 34 16 64 6178 NUECES 1 236.5 7.5 48.9 9,587 2,358 7,229 75 23.8 184 105 32 20 56 6

179 OCHILTREE 9.9 2.0 130 130 100 28.0 13 85 29 13 12 2180 OLDHAM 2.6 .4 61 61 100 27.6 2 103 41 9 91181 ORANGE 1 64.5 13.7 2,045 7 2,038 100 20.4 19 94 32 16 33 101Q2 PALO PINTO 24.5 4.7 1,064 1,064 100 21.0 8 106 47 6 28 12

183 MINA 17.4 3.4 895 895 100 32.2 16 47 32 14 86 7

184 PARKER 25.6 4.9 1,011 1,011 100 19.4 3 76 44 6 38 9185 PARMER 11.3 2.3 326 326 100 42.0 31 99 27 16 6186 PECOS 12.5 2.4 368 368 100 32.3 24 112 21 25 44 7187 POLK 14.3 2.7 908 908 100 33.4 20 84 30 22 132 8188 POTTER 1 121.3 23.7 2,778 2,178 100 25.2 106 94 36 13 58 8

189 PRESIDIO 5.6 1.1 251 251 100 17.7 123 27 24 45 4190 RAINS 3.6 .6 212 212 100 13.5 39 67 8 8191 RANDALL 1 51.9 13.2 919 919 100 15.9 54 38 9 25 8

192 REAGAN 3.1 .6 72 72 100 21.1 1 11e 29 18 15

193 REAL 1.9 .3 107 107 100 31,0 3 104 18 53

194 RED RIVER 16.5 3.0 974 974 100 35.3 22 68 30 25 79 5195 REEVES 16.8 3.1 552 552 100 38.5 53 132 27 29 82 7

1% REFUGIO 10.8 2.1 456 456 100 35.9 23 104 32 24 99 8197 ROBERTS .9 .2 28 28 100 10.4 160 38 23 385 23198 ROBERTSON 14.6 2.5 800 800 100 41,8 37 110 22 29 180 9

199 ROCKWALL 3 6.2 1.2 255 255 100 45.6 16 88 18 25 137 10200 RUNNELS 14.1 2.6 581 581 100 35.5 24 87 17 29 35 8201 RUSK - 35.4 6.5 1,589 1,589 100 27.8 27 70 30 17 114 13

202 SABINE 7.5 1.4 485 485 100 40.5 15 86 27 17 136 8203 SAN AUGUSTIN 7.5 1.4 493 493 100 34.4 13 111 25 29 105 5

204 SAN IACINTO 5.9 1.0 383 383 100 39.0 9 11 22 38 189 3205 SAN PATRICIO I 50.2 3.0 10.4 2,635 2,635 100 26.5 54 106 28 24 49 9206 SAtl SABA 6.9 1.1 298 298 100 38.9 10 80 27 23 91 9267 SCHLEICHER 2.9 .5 78 78 100 14.1 62 6 28 6208 SCURRY 17.5 .1 3.4 393 393 100 33.8 30 70 35 22 58 11

209 SHACKELFORD 3.1 .5 86 86 100 17.2 54 38 15 71 23

154

Existing and Potential Resources for Family Planning Programs ( Designates Location of One or More Programs or Resources within County)

Hon- Federal Physkians in Patient Can Hospitals Med.Sch,

0E0 Programs Otter FederalPrograms

HealthDepts.

P.P.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

g'1ig

1

't

1

iig

IIi'A

is-,MX

WSratIS

g1

JIf1!e-IS

11A]f"Si

i1113.zV ga

,it11AEf4-A.!

g

i11Aft,si

1it.

;a13Ai

il.

1!;iI-Al

ez'IIIllAtE..,Sil

X11111111A 1Nte14=sglItl

g 4'.

11

1

1g

;=TEXAS

2 64 2 64 1 47 MENARD 16459 88 16 24 4 6 1 872 MIDLAND 16510 50 8 40 2 149 MILAM 1662 43 1 21 MILLS 16/6 56 5 46 1 82 MITCHELL 168

7 46 7 445 1 88 MONTAGUE 16913 39 10 30 1 3 1 460 MONTGOMERY 1709 62 8 55 1 288 MOORE 1119 74 8 66 2 160 MORRIS 1722 71 2 11 MOTLEY 113

18 54 12 36 1 390 NACOGDOCHES 17429 85 14 41 2 6 1 374 NAVARRO 175

2 18 1 9 NEWTON 1168 44 7 38 1 272 NOLAN 177

263 111 75 32 17 7 2 3,678 NUECES 178

6 61 5 51 OCHILTREE 179OLDHAM 180

30 46 19 29 1 788 ORANGE 18114 57 6 24 1 4 1 300 PALO PINTO 182

7 40 3 17 1 6 1 167 PANOLA 183

11 43 10 39 1 370 PARKER 1844 35 4 35 1 133 PARMER 1857 56 5 40 2 16 2 277 PECOS 1865 35 4 28 2 107 POLK 187

132 109 34 28 6 5 1 1,023 POTTER 188

2 36 2 36 PRESIDIO 189RAINS 190

5 10 3 6 RANDALL 1912 64 2 64 REAGAN 192

REAL 193

6 36 6 36 FtED RIVER 1946 36 5 30 1 347 REEVES 1954 37 4 37 1 141 REFUGIO 1%

ROBERTS 1978 55 5 34 ROBERTSON 198

1 16 1 16 ROCKWALL . 1996 41 6 41 2 123 RUMELS 200

13 31 11 31 2 418 RUSK 2012 21 2 27 SABINE 2023 40 2 27 1 143 SAN AUGUSTIN 203

SAN JACINTO 20418 36 16 32 1 198 SAN PATRICIO 2053 43 3 43 1 15 SAN SABA U/51 35 1 35 SCHLEICHER 2078 46 7 40 1 198 SCURRY 208

2 65 2 65 1 17 SHACKaf ORD 209

155

Table 1. Need for Subsidized Fmk Planning Services: Current Programs, Resources and Related Indices for U.S., Each State and County, FY 1968 continued

Population and SelectedCharacteristics (000s)

Estimated Family Planning Needend Unfit. Levels

Selected Health end Demographic IndicesIntent Modality

1961.1965FA

Fert.Rata

Lies BirthOrder as

% of Births

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

10

1=

B

rt

lgli

S

c 1.213

III 1

7,.. .- 0..3 :Lbtitmili.

t"3 g't 6sx

1

1fllg

1; +

S

11slikg;

I

rz

I

2

4g13111....

gg

ti-11

41T;,,:,11b

TEXAS

210 SHELBY 213 3.9 1,241 1,241 100 323 26 86 32 23 79 11

211 SHERMAN 3.7 .8 88 88 100 39.7 6 70 34 7 3212 SMITH 1 54 3 19.6 3,992 129 3,863 97 29.2 105 85 34 14 108 10

213 SOMERVELL 27 .4 130 130 100 11.9 67 33 27 20

214 STARR 19.9 3.3 4.1 1,721 1,721 100 20.5 7 129 25 33 22 7

215 STEPHENS 8.2 1.4 255 255 100 27.4 6 71 33 18 39 6

216 STERLING 1,4 .3 46 46 100 38.5 2 81 42 25

217 STONEWALL 3.1 .6 103 103 100 20.8 1 73 29 10 10

218 SUTTON ; 4.0 .8 150 150 100 27.8 4 95 34 21 26 8

219 SWISHER 12.6 .1 2.4 355 355 100 36.2 31 103 24 19 8 4

220 TARRANT 2 598.5 .3 128.2 17,481 3,002 14,479 83 25.7 490 90 35 12 73 9

221 TAYLOR 1 103.4 .2 21.4 3,119 344 2,775 89 22.4 59 89 36 13 72 8

222 TERRELL 2.2 .4 78 78 100 30.2 3 82 25 13 13

223 TERRY 17.8 .2 3.5 507 507 100 54.6 94 112 27 27 55 8

224 THROCKMORION - 3.0 .5 90 90 100 14.0 44 9 18

225 TITUS 16.0 2.9 700 700 100 19.7 3 91 38 20 68 6226 TOM GREEN 1 73.9 .2 15.0 2,829 843 1,986 70 23.7 47 89 34 14 61 9227 TRAVIS 255.1 1.8 55.6 9,791 1,075 8,716 89 23.7 160 84 37 15 82 9228 TRINITY 7.7 1.4 466 466 100 35.7 10 66 40 9 178 2229 TYLER 12.2 2.4 776 776 100 30.1 13 88 31 17 97 6

230 UPSHUR 19.4 3.6 933 933 100 31.8 23 73 33 17 103 11

231 UPTON :--r '',5.7 1.1 122 122 100 30.5 8 83 34 6 4

Z's2 UVALDE 184 1.5 3.7 930 930 100 32.1 30 100 29 22 27 4

233 VAL VERDE 28.5 1.5 5.7 1,461 1,467 100 33.9 77 172 33 16 51 6

234 VAN ZAACT 20.2 3.6 951 951 100 18.9 1 60 40 ' 15 55 12

235 VICTORIA 53.3 .3 11.2 Z156 2,156 100 28.5 69 92 31 18 50 9

236 WALKER 27.1 5.7 1,902 1,932 100 20.3 4 52 43 12 126 9

237 WALKER 13.7 3.4 905 905 100 32.0 16 68 27 35 237 13

238 WARD 13.4 2.6 313 313 100 20.7 5 90 28 20 52 7

239 WASHINGTON 19.3 3.3 991 991 100 30.9 21 80 34 20 156 10

240 WEBB , I 75.9 7.5 15.4 5,691 5,691 100 23.7 78 171 26 30 33 7

241 WHARTON 38.2 3.0 7.5 1,801 1,801 100 26.1 34 99 36 21 94 6242 WHEELER 6.9 1.2 218 218 100 22.8 3 85 30 16 40 8

243 WICHITA = 1 126.8 24.5 3531 3,531 100 22.0 61 80 39 10 48 9

244 WILBARGER , 17.9 3.2 602 602 100 28.7 17 69 40 9 64 5

245 WILLACY ,' . 187 3.5 1,014 1,014 100 34.6 48 124 26 36 56 8246 WILLIAMSON 36.3 .8 6.8 1,783 1,783 100 31.8 46 81 28 22 76 5

247 WILSON :, 13.1 .6 2.5 680 680 100 23.6 8 92 32 19 52 6248 WINKLER 11.2 2.1 181 181 100 34.1 23 78 25 10 60 6249 18.5 3.5 695 695 100 17.8 69 33 12 16 5

250 WOOD 19.1 3.6 915 915 100 26.7 11 55 43 15 51 9251 YOAKUM 7.8 .9 1.5 126 126 100 35.0 17 100 28 17 38 13

252 YOUitiG ? 0 15.0 2.7 442 442 100 14.9 66 40 8 11 2

253 ZAPATA ,, - , 4.7 .6 .9 372 372 100 30.4 7 101 16 34 45 11

254 ZAVALA 13.6 57 2.6 1,051 1,051 100 48.4 61 140 30 29 43 6

156

Existing and Potential Resources for Family

Care

Planning Programs ( Designates

Hospitals

location

Med.Sch,

ol One or More

0E0 Programs

Programs or Resources within

Other FederalPrograms

County)

HealthDepts.

P.P.Konderal Physicians In Patient

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

ri-,

ilEg

3

aigEg

i21IISg

12a

01gSt

g

1

1.,

IlMI

g§

a.

0tgof

A',rg

IS.

S

P

rit Lc,,cgg-EP.21

,P°Ig0--

Sg

i256P4.OZ

Si

t11g,CsPgDS

S1

61.

61'R.p

CI

jA

s

gi.R4.

va

li

Pvitm......-&PS5v12-

sl

A

illP.8Bggv0,A

sill

.13

i iE.r.x41PylsImiVAsE&t,Asttt.skIls

'',§f

136-E

11

A

A

J

iTEXAS

7

2

118

2

3

61

2

4

574

105

7

1

10

79

332

4

4

3

3

10

13

7

51

13

7

612

35

36

6135

11

618

611

9

7

412

24

33

55

125

75

15

73

71

50

32

96

102

39

33

63

101

130

52

33

15

53

54

46

35

107

4851

45

62

4694

87

106

61

3250

46

9849

37

51

80

4230

5

272

3

6

1

2

4

195

32

7

1

814

79

4

4

2

29

11

7

22

9569

16

15

439

8

615

47

9

73

10

24

23

297515

73

71

50

32

33

31

39

33

5019

31

52

33

10

35

4939

35

41

33

364547

21

395831

45

3241

306249

37

3867

4230

7

459

4

20

2

4

1

3

5

8

1

7

8

9

58

7

8

7

4

13

6

7

1

2

1

1

1

1

5

1

1

1

1

2

3

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

31

3

1

I1

1

2

158

1,465

99

26

98196

9,195

1,429

37018

200

1,130

4,542

112

35319249110

420312158

218

2,002

821

31

1,484

262

205

236

192

257

1

SHELBY

SHERMAN

SMITH

SOMERVELL

STARR

STEPHEJYS

STERLING

STONEWALL

SUTTON

SWISHER

TARRANT

TAYLOR

TERRELL

TERRY

THROCKMORTON

TITUS

TOM GREEN

TRAVIS

TRINITY

TYLER

UPSHUR

(LIONUVALDE

VAL VERDE

VAN MOT

VICTORIA

WALKER

WALLER

WARD

WASHINGTON

WEBB

WHARTON

WHEELER

WICHITA

VIBARGER

lb/LUCYWILLIAMSON

WILSON

WNWWISE

WOOD

YOAKUM

YOUNG

ZAPATA

/AYALA

210211212213214

215216217218219

220221222223224

225226227228229

no231

232233234

235236237238

239

't41242243244

245246247248249

250251252

2S3254

157

Table 1. Need for Subsidized Family Planning Services: Current Programs, Resources and Related Indkes for U.S., Each Site and County, FT 1968 continued

Population and SelectedCharacterised (000s)

Estimated Family Planning Needand Unica Levels

_Selected Health and Demographic Indices

Infant Mortality1961.1445

EatFeetRate

live BirthOrder as

% el Births2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ' 13 14 15 16 17 18

IiiJi lir

IIIhii

1

Itv,

H

is.h 1

i.2§.

4;1

.4I

i g

iig

IIiili

ii-lifil

1UTAH

29 COUNTIES 1,007.2 2.3 5.8 205.9 19,874 493 19,381 98 19.5 271 110 33 17 21 7

1 'AMU 4.2 .8 82 82 00 35.7 7 95 16 21 32 BOX ELDER 281 5.5 338 338 00 20.2 10 101 28 21 14 /3 CACHE 41.8 86 1,132 1,132 00 12.1 103 43 15 7 54 CAR8ON 16.6 3.1 335 33! 00 26.9 16 82 39 13 40 65 DAGGETT .7 .1 3 3 00 20.3 184 43 29

6 DAVIS 2 86.4 189 1,103 1,103 00 16.0 1 1 1 25 19 17 1

1 DUCHESK 6.6 .5 .3 1.2 183 183 00 23.2 5 118 24 3- 1

8 EMERY - 61 1.2 231 231 00 14.9 89 28 19 49 GARFIELD 33 .6 101 101 00 23.8 2 91 40 17 33 1

10 G R A N D 6.6 1.2 106 106 0 0 282 1 1 116 28 18 28 4

11 IRON 11.5 2.4 263 263 203 218 7 108 38 16 31 212 1U18 4.3 .8 164 164 100 182 109 28 19 41 513 KALE 2.1 .3 42 42 100 37.1 7 160 " 28 40 1614 AWARD 68 .1 12 239 239 100 24.7 5 96 19 37 515 MORGAN 3.6 .1 42 42 100 23.4 2 92 18 21 6

16 MUTT 1.3 .2 39 39 100 294 2 109 54 3117 RICH 1.5 .3 49 49 100 281 2 118 20 21 57 1

18 SALT LAKE 2 4384 89.1 1,665 493 7,172 94 19.3 84 114 33 16 33 819 SAN RAN 7.1 1.2 3.8 .9 152 152 100 52.1 56 272 13 42 16 920 SANPER: 11.0 2.0 465 465 100 24.1 1 83 23 33 36 4

21 SEVER 91 1.9 290 290 100 26.4 7 84 30 23 25 422 SUMMIT 61 2.1 125 IS 100 219 4 86 24 14 20 823 TOCELE 21.2 .4 4.3 410 410 100 20.5 1 120 34 17 21 824 1111121 12.2 .5 1.2 2.3 265 265 100 21.3 17 112 19 21 38 1

25 UTAH 1 ;269 283 1313 3,313 100 11.3 105 38 18 12 7

26 WASATCY, 5.7 1.1 136 136 100 186 1 105 24 19 221 WA5HUGTCH 121 2.6 S36 S36 100 16 5 118 22 24 13 428 HAM 16 .3 61 67 100 13.3 80 8 23 i21 KKR 1 123.1 24.8 1,998 1,998 103 186 12 106 37 14 36 1

11/1910111

14 CCUITIES 411 2 80.0 10,914 9) 10,822 99 24.3 288 99 32 16

1 ADDISON 21.1 4.3 126 7* 100 19.1 3 91 29 II2 BERINGTON 21.1 5 5 54 654 103 24.0 1 8 99 2a 143 CAtEDONIA 21 S 4.0 6629 629 103 27.2 21 11 34 18 11

4 CHITTE/04X 5 851 11.1 2.012 11 1,175 95 21 7 38 199 ISS ESSEX 52 .9 109 109 100 155 99 44 9

6 MOWN 282 5 2 919 414 100 211 24 113 29 19 91 GRAM) ISLE 3 2 .6 124 124 100 41.1 121 39 31I LAMOSIE 12_1 24 426 416 100 21.3 11 9I ORANGE 17.1 3 2 538 538 100 18 2 1

33167 31 23

10 011026 It 3 3.5 611 611 100 211 21 III 28 19

11 01/11110 Li 1 9.7 1,411 1,417 100 310 67 32 n 14 912 1114,901101011 44 8 81 975 975 100 10 5 13 96 IS 1613 111111Hal 321 1.1 756 750 100 21.6 29 19 32 12 914 INCISOR 44.4 83 963 963 100 255 33 91 34 14 10

ISO

Editing and Potential Resources for family Planning Programs ( Destnatos location at One or Mora Programs or Resources within County)

Nonroderil Physicians in Patten! Can Hospitals tot 0E0 Programs Other FederalPrograms

HealthDepts.

P.P.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 27 23 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

I-ti 1

1

i11-fi:h li

ii

jiAllp.:of

,w

ii

411lbii!

il13Si

1qIs39

iii1,lz,SS.

ti

xq1Si

1It.1;Si

1113liSi

it.21.iiiifi321

Iilifilii =.1.b.stis0

ii1-A

1.993 99 287 28 91 9 28 20,473 3 I II 1 2

UTAH

29 COUNTIES

4 95 4 95 1 34 BEAVER

13 46 12 43 1 101 BOX EIDER 2

37 88 14 33 4 10 2 1,116 CACHE 311 66 5 30 1 6 2 225 CARBON 4

DAGGETT

39 45 23 27 3 3 1 735 DAYIS 63 45 2 30 1 212 DUCHESNE

2 33 2 33 EMERY 82

4 61

60

4

2

61

Ea3

I 156

GAN CDGRAND

910

8 69 6 $2 1 328 IRON

2 47 2 47 85 RIAB 1112

1 48 1 48 KANE 13

24 56 9

5

4

2 5

$6 9 2 94 SWARDMORGAN

14

IS

P1UTE 16

RICH

S132

5133

70

984

22

56

58 13 52

10,4

3777

5 2 SAL1 LAKE

SAN AJAN

18

19

6 M 5 45 1 118 SAM 20

6 62 6 62 1 17 SEAR 21

2 33 2 33 SUMMIT 22

9 42 1 33 1 5 1 274 TOIXIE 235 41 4 33 1 8 IANT 24

106 84 45 35 8 6 2 2,637 UTAH 25

3 52 2 35 WASATCH 261 $5 6 4? 1 248 WASHINGICII 27

WAYNE 28

130 106 25 20 15 12 2 3231 1 29

YERMON1

411 115 IS? 38 25 6 18 ?ASS 1 14 1 I 14 COUNTIES

14 66 10 47 1 239 ADDISON* 130 15 54 2 7 1 642 6014INGION 2

22 102 1 37 2 1 1 29 CALEDONIA 3

151

1

176

11

11

1

21

11

8 1 1 2271 I CHITTIMENESSEX S

23 81 1 32 2 1 2 578 fRANnel 6

I GRAM) ISLE 7

13 107 1 66 1 141 MOUE 8

17 103 10 Si 1 170 II ORANGE II I 57 4 21 1 5 1 480 ORLEANS 10

SI 101 II 19 3 6 1 750 RUTIJKI 11

52 116 20 45 2 4 3 *72 WASHINGTON 12

43 134 11 41 3 1 3 Sil 111101031 13

43 93 22 50 2 5 2 341 WINDSOR 14

159

Table 1. Reed for Subsidized ramify Planning Services: Current Programs, Resources and Related Indices for U.S., Each State and County, FY 1968 continuedPopulation andCharattertstks

Selected(000s)

Estimated Family Planning Heedend Sonia Levels

Selected Health and Demogrsphic Indicts`Infant Nodality

1961.1965Est.Fed.Rats

tire BirthOrden

% of Bias'1 2 3 4 5 C 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

iI=

tiA

II

Ii

III

11

illi I

1V

Illill

1ilii

Iil12

aS

1t

il i

Eg

Itg;

1

&

i g

iiNISI

II11

&

1/;

VIRGINIA

98 COUNTIES 4,464.9 946,2 150,527 6,648 143,879 96 282 4,641 90 38 14 105 9

1 ACCOMACK 30.3 56 1,760 1,760 100 41.1 11 92 30 20 319 122 ALEIMARIE 71.1 14.6 2.533 648 1,885 74 24.4 49 88 37 10 82 83 ALLEGIWEY 29.6 5.9 1,019 1,019 100 23.4 16 105 35 13 58 84 AMELIA 7.3 1.4 407 407 103 430 18 82 41 18 211 175 AMHERST 1 26.9 65 1,179 1,ul 100 348 37 59 31 18 117 12

6 APPOMATTOX 9.8 20 455 455 100 37.0 19 78 42 8 103 67 ARLINGTON 3 2861 59.3 3,365 3,365 100 222 154 102 47 1 72 88 AUGUSTA 83.5 17.7 2,;43 2,563 190 23.0 40 78 35 10 75 79 BATH 52 1.0 248 248 100 10.3 93 33 18 22 16

10 BEDFORD 33.2 ES 1,302 1,302 100 267 29 79 39 15 118 6

1! BUM 5.7 1.1 328 328 100 34.8 1 80 34 11 23 912 BOTETOURT 17.1 3.5 711 711 1E0 319 26 73 40 16 78 913 BRUNSWICK 167 15 1,030 1,030 103 296 20 83 29 24 212 914 BUCHANAN 35.1 7.3 2,225 2,285 100 41.8 119 103 28 21 61 815 BUCKINGHAM 11.2 2.1 103 703 100 33.0 20 116 32 25 183 9

16 CAMPBELL I 94.5 20.4 2,960 2,960 103 289 109 80 31 11 96 1011 CAROLS( 138 2.8 606 6E6 100 217 17 123 37 19 160 1018 CARROLL 281 60 1,502 1,502 100 23.7 14 74 40 9 41 819 CIWIES CITY SI 11 280 280 100 34.2 23 213 35 11 143 1220 CHARLOTTE 13.4 21 701 701 103 319 14 46 30 30 180 10

21 NESTE:MO 2 1161 281 2,033 2,033 100 21.8 40 n 39 10 48 922 CLARKE It 1 1.6 353 353 100 XI 14 77 38 $ 127 1123 CRAIG 11 .6 141 147 100 41.7 7 62 22 II 1124 CIIPEFIR 168 3.3 152 152 100 21.3 6 9) 28 14 109 925 CI]I48ERIAN3 61 1.3 444 444 100 301 $ 84 30 22 261 17

26 DICHRGCM 161 14 1,072 1,072 103 31.2 25 79 38 22 S3 527 01111VIODIE 5 64.2 12.1 2,611 2,611 100 361 138 105 33 18 218 1321 ESSEX 7.4 1.6 374 374 100 356 13 19 30 30 111 429 FAIRFAX 3 435 5 93.6 3,951 1951 100 220 154 13 32 14 31 730 E WOOER HI 59 1,162 1,162 100 269 2$ ICO 31 IT 115 10

31 11011 102 2.0 499 499 103 204 2 72 21 IS 42 132 flUVA744A 83 1.6 411 411 100 251 6 99 28 IS 241 633 MAKIN 21.2 56 1,220 1220 100 32.3 43 18 34 11 64 934 moo 43 8 4.5 1.615 1,67$ 100 21.? I? 16 35 II n sIS COLES 17.6 1.9 735 735 100 211 7 19 36 10 $5 I30 GLOUCESTER 131 2.5 631 ESI 103 XI 11 IS 30 IS 93 137 CODDIAND 106 t2 558 558 100 216 6 74 33 17 244 638 GRAYSON 176 3.7 971 978 100 351 26 26 43 11 /I II39 GREEK SI 1.0 287 261 ICO 212 6 100 31 13 113 1140 GREDISYRIL 162 3.5 963 963 HO 452 49 16 43 26 235 11

41 HALIFAX 318 II 2242 2,242 100 426 IN /I 30 26 122 1242 RANOVER 2 34.0 1.1 1,044 1,044 100 231 It 71 33 14 107 HI43 41.11C0 2 3594 KO 1267 1000 2.267 43 211 49 17 3$ 12 151 1144 KM 731 157 243 2,475 KO 31.1 106 113 31 13 18 145 11011/0 31 .1 III 191 100 136 39 45 18 91

46 kv.E. Of WO 182 31 825 825 100 361 39 13 30 29 725

160

Existing and Potential Resources for Family Planning

Cars

Programs ( °signets toadies of One or More Provos: or Resources within Cowl,)

Ron-Federal Physicians in Patient Masons Is Mtg.Sch.

KO Programs Other Fedora!Programs

HealthDepts.

P.P.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25

ALlysil

26

x

27

Jso ga

ii1-b

28 _..-

114Alvs1

29

1

11A

11il

30

Ier

11Ix.

31

ii

ill.1]ItAl

32

1;141136i

33

I

S1v

Sl

36

tWititi1mSI]

35

I0

1 Allk.SILO

36 '.'

II

rJ1

.

37

tg1

_A

38

1

;

g

iiitttRAiR

P ii

.--r

R

rn

1

11

1,... ..

jR

1"I3,828 86 1,214 21 276 6 66 60,348 4 2 43 2 2 I 47

VIRGINIA

98 COUNTIES

15 50 12 40 ACCOIACK I105 148 18 25 5 7 2 2,326 1 ALBEMARLE 23? 125 15 51 2 708 ALLEGI4ANY 32 27 2 27 AMELIA 4

11 41 4 15 1 4 AMHERST 5

3 31 3 31 APPOMATTOX 6396

8?138104

85 3032 38

335

12

6

22

4,9981,283

ARIIPOTO

AUGUSTA

N

6 115 6 115 BATH 916 48 9 2? 1 XI WORD 10

I 1? eure 116 35 5 29 BOTETOURT 124 24 4 24 WOO 139 26 7 20 BUCHANMI 143 2? 3 2? BUCKINSHAM 15

121 128 23 1 11 12 2 2,687 WANDA 164 29 4 .43 CAROM5 19 4 14 I 84 CAM4 /0 4 70 CRAWS CITY 191 7 1 CH7J1k011t 20

17 IS 10 9 CHESTERFIELD 216 74 5 62 CLARKS 221 12 1 32 CRAIG 23

13 78 7

422 2 12 1 305 OMER 24

1 IS 1 CUMBERIAND 25

5 30 4 24 OICIUNSON 2683 129 23 36 5 1 1,298 WACO( 21

4 54 3 40 1 126 ESSEX 21328 81 Si 14 38 9 1 3,945 I FAIRFAX 2921 73 11 45 1 495 RUM 30

2 20 2 20 /LOYD 313 36 3 36 FlUYA/INA 32

33 a 21 1 380 TRAMIIN12 151 7 16 1 16 1 1.389 MERU 349 51 6 34 1 301 GIIES 35

6 46 S 38 GLOUCESTER 352 19 2 11 COOMMO 37

20 114 13 74 1 6 GRAYSCM )81 20 1 20 GRIM 39

13 80 11 68 1 269 a GREEKSYLIE 40

31 7$ 13 33 3 I I /li a 1411iA1I 41N 6 II IWONER 42

604 16$ 12I 34 40 II 1 1 S75 a a IVIRICO 4347

1

6732

16 73321

4 6 1.105 HENRY

MOM 4445

4 22 4 22 ISLE OF 11(01 46

161

Table 1. Reed for Subsidized Family Pinning Sankey Current Programs, Resoorne and Related Indices Inc U.S., Each State and County, FT 1968 continued

Ppubbea and SelectedOM racterts0cs (000s)

Estimated Family Planning Reedand Service Lewis

Sainted Health end Demegropltic indicesInfant Mortal

1961.1965Est.

FartRat/

Live NMOrder as

% of Midis

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

1i1

m

1

11

11

il'11 1

Ili111

11

li

IV

il

eIS

III

_s§

iivy.g;

1

1gz

Ig

f1

I1

liiivIml

if1!16,

b

VIRGINIA

11 JAMES art C 24.1 5.1 1,031 I,054 103 40.1 33 80 31 16 202 1048 KING AND QUE 6.2 1.2 319 319 100 40.2 13 19 26 26 140 1019 KING GEORGE 7.9 1.5 236 236 103 25.3 1 86 32 26 182 650 KING MIMI 7.9 16 333 333 100 49.9 24 119 22 26 112 14

51 LANCASTER 9.0 1.7 443 443 ICO 32.6 13 85 21 29 241 14

32 LEE 23.5 4.8 1,746 1,746 100 30.8 21 60 43 20 56 953 LOUDOUN 3 34.0 1.4 1,314 1,314 100 24.0 20 V 31 14 105 1

54 LOUISA 14.2 21 738 138 100 36.8 21 89 31 21 220 1855 LUNFAURG If 5 2.5 676 676 100 29.2 14 73 26 25 87 1256 MADISON g 7 1.7 451 453 103 24.8 6 83 39 17 113 8

57 MATHEWS 71 1.3 359 359 105 23.6 3 56 30 16 108 $58 MECKLENBURG 31.3 6.4 1,712 1,772 103 38.4 69 86 31 20 170 1359 MIDDLESEX 6.1 1.3 393 393 103 430 16 64 26 10 95 560 MONTGOMERY 50.2 11.3 2,166 2,166 180 227 23 $1 42 8 61 7

61 NAPGEMOND 41.3 9.9 2,234 2,234 100 44.8 138 88 34 19 224 13

62 1(1.504 12.9 2.5 683 633 103 312 22 92 31 25 86 1063 NEW PUT 5.0 1.0 202 202 100 413 II 91 35 17 152 1364 MOM 2 4986 95 2 19,236 3,000 16,236 84 301 843 110 38 15 140 965 NORTNAPCON 166 3.0 971 971 100 49.4 61 99 31 18 363 $66 NORDIUMBERLA 9.5 11 463 463 100 421 19 V 21 32 233

67 NOTTOWAY 15.3 3.0 151 751 100 250 11 82 39 10 226 1068 ORANGE 13.9 2./ 592 592 100 14 0 13 29 20 120 1369 PAGE 164 14 153 753 100 27.3 15 80 3S 16 79 1

70 PATRICK 15.5 3.2 750 7E0 100 23 2 8 89 38 14 48 1011 PITISYLVANIA S 1311 23.1 4,534 4,534 100 37.4 224 80 34 15 129 9

12 POP1IATA14 7.0 1.2 260 260 100 24.1 4 202 32 14 102 113 MVO ETAYM 13.7 3.1 845 815 103 353 24 61 35 14 117 S

14 PRINCE GEORG S 41.8 9.4 1,221 1,221 100 23.7 33 117 35 14 15 315 PRINCESS MN 2 1363 324 1055 WS 200 23.1 89 11 32 13 64 176 PRICE MI 3 IS 5 19.3 2,410 2,410 100 23.9 67 122 30 13 31 1

77 TIM 281 63 1,324 1,324 100 26.4 23 63 31 / 53 1018 RAPPAN04001 1 5 1.1 315 325 100 Xi 9 85 32 23 106 919 R1D1MOND 66 1 3 295 29S 100 39.2 IS 10 29 t2 113 11

10 RGANC11 1 171.3 363 6,203 6,203 DV 21.3 141 15 39 $ 9S 911 1101:18110GE 31.0 62 1,119 1,139 100 223 I) 16 33 12 V I

92 ROCZI4GIUM 510 13.9 2,503 2,503 130 11.6 14 138 10 TS 6Li RUSSELL 24.8 51 1,383 1,383 100 21.1 24 12 37 14 10 6$4 SC4N1 24.4 SI 1.430 1,430 100 21.5 $ 29 35 II 15 1035 STIA1/00A11 231 4.8 VI 913 100 11.9 V 31 8 57 686 SMYTH 301 6.4 1,289 1,289 100 29.1 35 II 34 16 34 $

$1 SOUTRIM)101 21 1 14 1,458 1,158 100 365 IOS 19 33 34 264 1

$1 SPOISYLIANIA 302 1.4 1,162 1,162 100 262 26 14 32 II 106 6V STAPICAD 20 6 4.3 6S1 6.51 100 31.4 39 116 3$ 16 53 $V SIRRY 4 3 12 338 338 HO 451 11 11 26 21 260 1$91 WSW 123 25 144 HI 100 531 54 II/ X 2$ 236 I

92 TAZEM1L 422 II 2,301 2301 100 264 V 11 3$ 10 12 I

162

bloting and Potential Rucurces to Family Monist Programs Co Designates Location of One or More regrew or Resources within County)

Nom Moral Mullen In Mint Can lioultsts 91.4.Sch.

0E0 Programs Other friendProgram s

HubDepts.

P.P.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

I....

ii.

1r ot1-I

JiiAzII

11

11

III11

liif3112

ti

I11 1

1sviiiili

IIci

1;

41zi1

III

1 ilivi

= .11z,stIst:i

iir

.,..

.1 1i

VIRGINIA

33 133 13 53 2 8 1 404

13 1 13

ea 5 635 56 5 56

$ 34 6 2615

353 38 1 3 1 533

4 32

3 SS

6 6411 35 1 4023 45

18 36 4 8 1 126713 27 2 4 1 1,036

3 231 20

1 2 2 2 ' 33 7 5 7,135 25 30 1 6 1 3427 74

21

56235

4 323 35

7 9817 544 60

46 9134 72

3 23I 20

4 3 0 8616 96

1 74

$ 52 6 39

9 65 8 Si1 43 4 24 1 106

45 4 26 I 1%11 75 19 11 7 6 2 1,445

1 14 1 11

2312 &I 4 ti I 1 4/6

11 13 21 1 2 1 35861 93 29 21 $ 6 1 43134 40 19 11 4 5 1 610

19 66 1 2$ 1 3 1 2201 II 1 11

2 * 2NS 127 38 21 16 9 3 2,410

1$ 58 12 39 1 3 1 448

SS 13 22 37 3 1 1 12*1$ 14n 4 15

16 6$ 13 SS 1 207/I 91 16 12 2 463

24 II 13 48 2 1 1 27443 142 34 33 4 13 1 1,411

1 16 1 16

3 24 3 24

31 73 16 38 2 S

JAMES CITY G 47KING AND OM 48MC GEORGE 49KING WILLIAM 501ANCASTER 51

LEE 52LOUDOUN 53

UMW 54LUNE/SURG 55MADISON 56

MATHEWS SiMECKLENEURG 581110CtESC6 59IACINTGOMERY 60RANSOM 61

NELSON 62NEW KENT 63NORFOLK 64NORITOJAPION 61710R11UIABERIA 66

NOTTOWAY 67ORANGE 68PAGE 69PATRIM 70FITISYLVANIA 71

POWRAT AN 72PRINCE OMAR 73PRINCE GEORG 14

1P ReCISS ANN 1PRIME WILLI 75

PULASKI 77

OMAHA/KIM n130600 19

a ROANOKE 801100090GE 61

ROCKINNAM 12RUS411 13

II SC011 $4SHEOWCIOAll iSSMYTH 116

II

SOUTHAMPTON

$7I67

SPOTSYLVMIA

SIMFORD IIStIRRY *SUM 91

WM. $2

163

Tobin 1. Need for Subsidised Family Planning Services: Current Programs, Resources and Related Indices for U.S., Each Stale and County, FY 1968 continued

Population and SelectedCharactorittics (0003)

Estimated Family Planning Needand Service Levels

Selected Health end Istmographk IndicesInfant Mortality

1961.1965Est.Fed.Rats

Um BirthNoss

% nt firths10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18

11m

tSIA

1 ili

1"_

i 15 g

ilfri

II1

1

gi

4e1

4?as,1

ti-Ifoaf

St

VIRG MA

9934

WARREN 16.0

WASHINGTON 5 56.93.4

12.7504

2.849504 100

2,M9 100

23 925 .0

940

8875

34

38

7

ID

5159

91

95 WESTMOREUN) 11.6 2.2 619 619 100 43 6 31 99 26 22 265 10

96 WISE 44.1 9.2 2,215 2,215 100 30 63 85 31 23 51 897 WYTHE 22.2 4.8 1.229 1,229 100 189 2 79 34 10 52 7

98 WAX 1 216.2 60.0 7,820 7,820 100 27.1 322 91 36 12 104 10

WASHINGTON

39 COUNTIES 1040.4 .8 14.9 596.5 59,810 5,154 54,656 91 223 1,371 81 36 12 71 7

1 ADAMS 10.8 2.1 182 182 100 24.4 8 85 31 14 33 11

2 ASOTIN 12.1 2.4 341 341 100 154 81 30 11 48 63 BENTON S 614 121 895 895 100 190 8 &I 33 13 43 7

4 CHEM 40.7 1.8 195 795 100 24.4 24 15 32 14 b5 8S CtAllA51 31.1 1.1 59 113 133 100 23.0 16 82 33 111 53 5

6 CUM 2 1087 22.0 2,025 2,025 100 226 46 81 38 11 59 67 COLUMBIA 4.8 .9 106 106 300 260 3 11 32 9 118 38 COMITt 62.0 12.2 1,311 1,31's 100 20.3 16 94 36 10 49 1

9 COMAS 16.2 14 262 262 100 14.1 70 29 9 S9 610 FERRY 3.5 .2 .7 .6 71 71 100 41.9 10 98 33 23 100 20

11 11W44111 $ 24.8 50 489 489 100 2S 3 19 93 38 22 86 612 GAREIEID 30 .5 39 39 100 12.7 80 38 10 1013 OMNI 40 5 7.0 653 653 100 237 38 99 32 11 55 614 CRAYS HAWN 581 .8 11.0 1,239 1,239 100 258 43 92 38 13 11 1

15 IStAte 229 4.3 603 603 100 24.5 20 107 38 9 21 7

16 JEFFERSON 9.2 .3 I./ 130 230 103 Xi 18 89 30 14 14 911 KING 3 1,014.1 2026 15,365 3.991 11,368 74 20.8 297 88 39 10 87 /18 8JISAP S 90 S .1 169 IV/ 1,877 100 25.6 63 84 40 9 113 6II IIIIIIIIS 226 4.6 412 611 103 20.6 S 14 19 8 47 S20 ICLICIUTAT 111 .2 2.4 225 22$ 100 24.6 9 101 32 11 15 3

21 LEWIS 421 1.9 1,111 1,111 100 /50 27 19 37 10 W /22 LICCel 9.5 1.1 133 133 100 III 71 33 8 61 6

23 MASON 11E0 .4 33 373 373 100 22.3 1 65 36 13 46 924 CC MOGAN 24.6 .2 2.1 4.7 650 650 100 258 11 13 40 I/ gl 425 PACEIC 14.6 .1 26 423 03 100 219 5 13 40 10 31 1

26 PEW Okillt 1.5 .1 1.4 212 212 ICO 221 3 93 25 15 24 627 PEACE 1 351.8 691 4,414 104 7,705 12 221 13 33 36 13 63 1

21 53.11 IA 30 .5 11 97 100 93 IA 45 150 S29 SRAM 49.7 .6 12 1,030 1030 IN 22) 21 54 36 10 69 6X SIUIJIWIA Si 1.1 100 100 100 20 2 1 71 25 11 23

31 SNOHOMISH 3 2972 .1 42.4 4,311 126 4,245 11 216 78 X 31 14 57 632 SF'ORNE 1 263 2 933 5,4 i I 107 5,304 St 24.4 181 86 36 14 11 I33 STEYEt6 165 .2 .8 30 491 49d 103 219 17 MI 32 II 53 I I

34 DILIRSICII 60 .4 114 1,525 1.525 100 215 23 11 34 12 SS I35 WANIUM1.11 33 .6 13 33 AO 364 6 63 53 5 S3 5

36 WALLA WPM 426 81 811 $11 100 211 15 14 34 14 92 1

37 WHATCOM 5 75.2 13 150 1,112 1,172 100 208 18 65 34 II 41 1

164

Wads' sad Modal Rasmus for neatly riming Programs VA Witness

Hospitals

(tattoo

Med.Sch.

Al On or

0E0 Programs

Mao Programs or Resources within Wady)

Iloodera Pirsiclaista Pettiest Cars Olin FederalFromm

114.118

Wks.P.P.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 21 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 31

ia.1

v

3_-

1

A

5lz

il

1r

..11-4at

1

i11

16

lixr11.C,

SI

ti

1

11;2

Sit

1p.e,tiSi

a1

1 i

1

11m A

SI] SIB

asp

li

t...

t1.

A

1

IA

VIRGINIA

11 69 7 44 1 6 I 345 WARREN 9330 53 12 21 3 5 1 566 WASHING TON 94

7

4411

60

100

50

6

21

52

4836

1

1

2

5

2 623WESTMORELA70

WISE

MINE

95

97

198 72 59 21 22 8 4 4,100 TCRIC 98

MOVER3,482 115 1151 38 210 7 88 47,496 2 1 29 2 2 1 5 1 39 00131MS

5 46 2 18 1 28 ADAMS 1

7 55 5 39 1 8 1 299 PS0114 26 109 1$ 28 8 13 3 1,211 BENTCPI 364 157 19 47 5 12 3 753 ORAN 4

26 83 15 43 1 3 2 504 CIALUJI 5

92 85 32 29 1 i 1 1,252 CLARK 63 62 3 62 1 119 COLUMBIA

52 PA 19 31 3 5 2 1,20 C7111.11I 13 11 3 1 9 1 $ DOVIAS1 28 1 28 1 34 MAY 10

16 6$ 10 40 1 378 FRANKLIN 11

2 68 2 63 GARFIELD 12

25 62 18 44 I 2 4 623 111W41 13

34 SO 21 36 2 3 3 1,002 GRAYS HARBOR

8 35 II 35 ISOM 1145

7 76 4 44 1 109 IEFFSISON 16

1,612 154 402 40 96 9 11 11,426 2 KING 17

16 84 13 36 5 6 I 1,0% KITSAP It13 57 5 22 1 4 1 118 /31111AS 11

8 11 6 46 2 182 ICKITA 1 20

22 SI 16 42

1

2 2 6% LEWIS 2161

63

31

61

63

11

2

1

?II169

I INCOUIMASON

2223

10 81 11 11 3 404 OKA/IOW/I 24

? 48 5 34 2 115 PACIFIC 25

5346

6617

5

115

%',2 19 5

1

675

6126PE14) CIREILLE

PIERCE

2627

3 99 2 66 SAN 111411 1853

1

10/1?

31 62 3 836 5141011

SURMA 3tg0

181384

12

146

71

114

341

14

231

14

426273.879

SNOHD11191 31

HI 41 9 6i 1 722 STEMSSi 103 22 :4 6 1 1 831 INURSXIN

3 % 3 % SS

45 106 14 14 4 9 1 670 MA PIMA 36PI 13 21 37 4 5 2 1,448 WHATC011 37

146

Table 1. Read for Siasidind Faulty Planning Unica: Wrest Programs, Resources and Related Indices For U.S., Each Stat. and toasty, FT 196$ continued

rerflo:Soloctod(0301)

Estimabd Family Planning rloodand Unica Levels

Selected Ankh rid Damogrophk iodic*WM Mortal,

19411945Est 'FartRate

Lin BirthOrder asof Maki

10 11 12 13 14 15 14 17 18

1B

I 1I -,

la IsitIg

8

1

i1

ffif'41I

IL.lej

WASHINGT

38 WHITMAN 32.5 7.0 616 616 100 17.6 61 39 9 4 S39 YAYJMA S 149.3 .2 4.4 29.2 4,011 215 3,856 95 264 132 87 32 18 79 8

WEST YIRGINI

55 COUNTIES 1,8089 373.1 79,801 3,545 76256 96 259 1,460 81 34 17 86 8

1 BARBOUR 110 3.1 934 934 100 386 31 73 37 14 80 72 BERKELEY 383 7.2 1,134 1,134 103 22.1 15 93 33 19 96 1

3 BOCK 26.4 16 1,542 1,542 103 22.7 12 15 31 14 62 114 BRAXTON 114 3.1 941 941 100 289 11 70 24 25 102 95 BROOKE I 281 60 586 516 100 181 1 76 29 IS 66 4

6 CA13111 , 1 1088 225 3,883 693 3193 82 24.1 74 82 36 11 87 81 CALISOLIN 80 1.5 462 462 100 271 8 $1 29 29 65 88 CLAY 11.4 21 798 798 100 316 17 13 29 34 102 39 4000RIDOE 6.8 1.3 370 310 100 224 2 55 28 28 111 6

10 FAYHTE 562 11.5 3,253 3253 100 266 46 12 24 24 159 9

11 GAMER 85 11 544 544 100 23.9 S 66 27 24 68 1012 CUNT 85 1.7 582 582 100 19.5 2 103 30 16 34 813 GRIDEIRIER 34.9 1.1 1,133 69 1,164 96 223 IS 76 31 20 89 1114 HAAPSIORt 12.6 28 1$4 714 100 3?.4 11 15 31 20 Se 915 HANCOOK 1 39.6 82 516 576 100 93.0 50 10 31 14 42 8

16 KAM 93 1.9 531 537 100 24.4 6 85 26 20 86 617 KAMA 751 112 2,686 2,686 103 209 23 44 33 14 61 8II JACKSON 20.8 4.4 857 851 100 21.5 8 84 31 17 54 1

19 JEFIERSON 197 4.2 119 119 100 24.4 14 47 30 18 129 1

20 KARAM% 1 2398 50.5 1,883 1,516 6,361 81 221 124 7/ 36 13 94 9

21 LEWIS 151 3.6 911 111 103 217 19 86 26 27 St 622 LINCCO 188 4.1 I* 1,284 100 312 36 83 31 2$ 71 $23 (00111 533 I12 2,669 2669 100 HO 66 88 32 23 131 1024 =aft 51.1 H.7 3,521 3521 100 319 123 It 21 29 124 1225 MARION 612 13.9 2,423 136 2,287 94 21.9 22 10 38 I I 71 9

ti MAXIIIILl I 31.1 1.1 888 US 100 20.1 I IS 35 11 73 921 MASON 24.3 SO 969 66 931 93 20.4 1 H 21 12 46 I2$ 14IRCER , 641 13 $ 3,430 3130 104 24.1 42 15 39 16 97 921 WOOL 5 241 10 961 99 103 311 36 10 31 15 SI /30 31100 31.6 1.1 2,511 257I 100 362 12 94 2S 34 91 9

31 MONAGALLA 512 110 8613 MO 2,033 19 III 10 74 42 9 41 1

32 14COMOE 11_6 t3 642 31 165 95 21.7 1 74 2$ 11 70 1

33 MORON 114 I.? 436 436 100 124 3 96 21 18 Kt 111 N1CHOtAS 24i St 1,361 1.361 100 287 24 09 32 20 56 103S MO 1 614 126 1,886 59 1,821 97 ?V 49 14 40 14 161 9

36 PENUTON 1.5 1.5 444 444 200 181 67 40 10 200 1017 itEASANTS 1.3 1.5 294 294 104 241 5 7$ 44 18 18 11

33 tOC,4041AS 14 1.9 475 415 114 31.? II 86 31 17 123 639 191E31014 262 SI 1,314 1,380 100 Mt 30 12 32 17 81 1440 PPM 216 Si 1,431 32 199 11 21.6 21 71 30 It 44 9

41 RALEIGH 713 161 4,352 4,352 300 n I 29 70 35 19 129 10

166

Waling and hteolfl Resources for Family Pfau Ina Proviso (. Des Writes toutfon of Ono or More,Progrom or Resources within County)

KonFedera Ph Idols It Potful Cars Hospitals lied..Schiso0E0 Programs Other Federal

ProvHealthDub.

P.P.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 26 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 36

iIIii

1- 11 iel

I;iioi

sii,

1

il1=.13

11

i;sz

Iti

ils

11il

iks!

id

1

ital

I 1111.1111!

If 111 iiiiii11 im Ifi 1 kilps si ii sIlscA

jis

11

1

g=

WASHING TON

24 74 11 52 1 3 2

119 AO 43 29 8 5 4

1,405 18 506 28 66 4 46

12 13 3 20 1 7 1

31 86 14 39 I 3 I15 57 9 34 1

7 46 7

8 28 6 21

46

151 139 29 21 13 12 3

2 2S I 13 1

I 9 I 9

1 I S

2/ 48 15 27 1 2 1

3 36 2 24

1 U 6 11 1

26 15 7 20 1 31 :6 5 40 1

21 13 13 SI 1 3 1

3 32 3 32

SI 68 It 24 2 3 2

10 48 11 39 1

7 IS 6 30 1

261 109 85 IS 13 S 6

10 S O 3 1 5 I4 20 4 20

41 77 19 X 2 4 1

33 56 1 15 1 2

49 75 11 21 2 3 1

14 38 1 22 I10 41 3 12 I 4 I61 101 It 21 3 S 1

13 S3 1 37

21 72 9 24 1 3

60 101 16 7? 3 S 3

6 52 6 St6 11 4 41 1

9 36 7 21 1

1I3 115 21 33 9 14 2

3 40 1 40

4 13 4 SS

4 41 I 11 1

1 31 6 23 IS 21 5 20

12 115 IS 21 i 1 1

4272,218

2E781

190

247

272

2,664

66

230

246

126

419

1,211276364

4,463

215

342

1,054

381

231

377

1,309

za162

1,990

11

1 I 46 1 I 2 10 1

e

e a

a

I

YOOTHAN 38YAKIMA 39

KIST MINISS COUNTIES

BARI3OUR IBERKELEY 2EK1ONE 3BRAXTON 4

BROOKE S

CABEIL 4CALIKKE 7

COY 8DOOORIDGE 9FAYETTE 10

GUAR 11

GRANT 12GREENBRIER 13HAMPSHIRE 14

IWICOCK IS

HARDY 16HARRISON UJACKSON 18

Kuno 19

KNOW% 20

LEWIS 21

LINCOLN 22lOGAN 2310011411. 24

MARION 8MARSHMI 26MASON 21

MERCER tsMM. 29IMO . 30

140700414 31MONROE 32sow 33MOWS 34OHO 35

PENNI/DI 36MAROS 31

99 70CANY41 AS 3$262 PRESTON 39

PUTTOM 40

464 a a RALE 01 41

16?

Table 1. Need for Sobeldind Family Planning Service': C31,71111 begrime, Rt1041Ftti and Related Indices ter U.S., Fick Stets and County, Ft' 1966 continued

feoutatki and SelectedalarifivisScs (000s)

Estimated Ingle binning Needled Sella lords

Selected Health and busigrapige liefkostired Mortality

1961-1965EstFartRite

the BirthOrder es

% of Birth2 3 4 5 6 7 11 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 16

1

]

1

I

Ig ii ii

iiii11

g

I

_Hi

IIIIl

J

Iih ill

1;v P.

3

1

f-ct,i;s.P-

4

4i

Ig

i

1g

11

Alk4-at

it61h

WEST VIROtto

42 RAN3OLPH 26.9 5.3 3,329 1,329 100 30.3 35 82 38 16 92 843 RIICNiE 10.7 1.9 503 503 100 24.7 6 18 31 23 130 944 ROAM 16.2 3.2 854 854 100 381 21 TO 33 19 99 845 SUMMERS ISO 14 1,086 138 948 87 45.1 35 64 26 22 156 10

46 TAYLOR 14.0 27 754 154 100 326 13 15 32 18 49 5

11 TUCKER 7.5 1.4 428 428 100 193 1 94 38 15 30 648 TYLER 10.5 2.0 413 478 100 37.7 I/ 96 35 11 92 649 ulVIUR 183 3.8 1,029 1,029 100 27.6 18 84 36 17 63 A

5053 WEBSTERWEBSTER 12.6

1426

1,994

9181,994

918100

103

21.3336

3523

71

853327

2024

40110

912

52 WET2E1 188 3.5 743 143 100 20.1 5 109 36 15 57 6

53 MT 5 4.2 .3 199 199 100 21.2 1 94 46 3 81 S

54 W000 5 03.4 16.4 2,255 259 1,9% 89 25.8 ?I 95 35 12 49 7

55 W ANG 32.5 1.2 1,658 1,658 100 31.0 42 87 33 22 67 9

WISCONSIN

71 COUINtS 4,1620 4.4 7118 71,106 2,748 76,158 97 217 1,795 102 30 19 56 1

1 ADAMS 12 1.4 343 343 100 19.2 1 76 24 29 91 S

2 ARAN) 162 7 3.0 486 486 100 26.1 13 93 29 21 29 11

3 BARRON 13.: 69 1,028 1,028 100 211 14 83 32 19 32 1

1 BAYT (ID 12.3 .5 21 422 422 300 218 II 74 31 25 91 65 BROWN 1 131./ 259 2,010 2,010 100 21.5 66 131 2a 22 39 1

6 BUFF 040 13.8 24 443 443 100 21.9 6 89 21 25 SS 5

? MITT 89 .3 1.5 313 313 100 21.5 1 10 32 28 81 CAUMET S 24.1 4.4 444 444 100 17.3 137 24 30 20 1

9 CHIPPEWA 5 451 14 1,135 1,135 100 21.5 19 98 25 29 36 S

10 CLAM 36 53 1.1,62 1,062 100 21.0 10 94 25 33 40 S

II 00111AB1A 363 14 840 840 100 186 3 100 33 17 50 5

12 OLANIORD 163 3.0 51? 571 100 20.0 4 12 20 31 1

13 Ott 1 264.3 S51 4,382 185 4,191 96 159 63 96 35 11 58 g14 00008 64.8 11.1 1,2% 1,2% 100 21.7 26 95 30 19 34 6IS DOOR *4 3 6 690 550 100 25.4 14 61 29 16 54 3

16 DUOS 1 421 1.1 1,011 1,011 1G 210 22 86 32 23 51 111 Oaf NO SO 900 900 100 212 8 /1 30 20 40 6IS EAU WIRE S S1.1 112 1,349 1,141 100 114 10 12 35 IS 41 $19 ILONEICE 32 .6 95 95 100 30.5 4 92 19 22 37 4

20 TOM 66? LAC S 800 15.4 1,567 1,581 103 200 18 98 29 22 41 S

21 FOPEST 7.5 .3 13 158 251 100 29.1 9 % 23 23 63 S

22 GRANT 46S 87 1.525 1,525 100 221 27 100 27 26 25 1

23 ORM 25 2 4.5 561 561 100 24.1 17 92 32 n 48 6

21 dittli On 15 5 87 353 353 100 II? 1 % 27 I? 31 625 OM 113 33 607 607 100 114 4 101 23 32 45 4

26 !RCN 69 10 154 154 100 21.6 2 13 28 22 63 16

21 640304 14.8 2.6 513 571 100 19.1 2 11 2S 26 110 10

2$ JEFFERSON 551 103 1,139 1,139 100 221 26 96 33 14 48 8

29 1U1041 112 31 551 551 100 21.4 15 95 31 76 4? 530 KENDSKA I 1131 213 1,465 1,465 100 20.0 30 109 31 15 31 1

16$

Ea Istlag sad Peteatial Iteseuites ler holly Flaalla Programs ( Ootigates tocatloe et On Of

KO Palmas

MOO Programs or laseurces vilthla Cavity)

P.P.Neerrodaral Ploiclea h Patioat Cars liesaitals listSch.

Othee FederalPrograms

HealthDepts.

11 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2$ 21 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 38

11

iII

1

if

1

11

i11i ISil

,1

IIlk11

ili

si

1

il

it

11

11

it

1

il

li

1

i;

il

li

il

'1elkIlli

iii

6 1r

111111

illiti,

liEr

1 m

WEST Y1FIGMI

28 104 6 22 I 2 540 RAMXAPH 42V 5 ? RITCHIE 43

122 14 6 34? ROANE 447 47 5 33 SUMMERS 45

50 4 29 1 101 1 AY1OR 41

2 27 1 13

3 29 3 29 444?

10 55 $ 44 2 356 UPSTIUR 49S 13 5 13 WAYNE

3 24 2 16 1 121 WEBSTER 51

11 V./ 9 411 1 442 INET /El S2I 24 WIRT 53

69 16 21 26 4 5 2 2,206 NOD 5410 31 3 I WYOIMNG 55

WISCONSIN

3,466 53 1,5$ 33 231 6 146 11,761 4 2 49 2 11 CMINT1ES

2 24 2 24 I 19 ADAMS I14 16 10 62 I 6 2 356 MUM 2XI 60 I? 51 4 413 BARRON 3

I $ 1 $ 1 SS SAYFTilD 4.121 43 311 211 9 7 3 3,265 NM S

7 51 6 44 1 43 BUFF N.0 62 11 2 23 1 44 BURNETT 11 3? $ 33 1 405 CALUMET 1

24 33 19 42 3 141 01/411114 911 56 11 M 1 162 CLARA 14

2$ 11 24 61 1 3 2 626 01141414 11, 10 61 I 41 1 6 2 261 CRAWFORD 12

$466110

IS 32 21 10 5 SA? 1 ONIE 1110 21 44 2 US DODGE 14

12 31 11 34 1 22? DOOR 15

ts % 13 34 2 3 1 271 DOUGLAS 1612 46 ? 27 DUI 1110 121 14 3S 1 1 2 1,240 EAU MAME 11

1101100 11II MS 33 41 4 5 3 1,713 TOPID CV LAC 24

4 4 SS to TOREST 1129 6332 /4 St S TM ORM /241 142 1 24 I 11 1 650 OM 7313 14 14 64 1 110 MED OA 241 41 3 41 2 129 IOWA 2$

1 11 3 11 101 261 41 6 41 I 162 JACKSON 27

31 56 26 47 2 1,064 11/1119ON 211

$ 47 $ 41 I 1M 01-AU 21/0 I/ 24 71 S 4 t 1,321 1111091A 30

IWO

Table 1. Need for Subsidized Family Planning Services: Currant Programs, thiourea and Related Indices for U.S., Each State and County, FY 1968 continued

Population and SelectedCharacteristics (000s)

Estimated Family Planning Meadand Wee Levels

Selected Health and Donnographic Ind lasinfant Mortality

1961.1965Est

FartRata

LP, BirthOrefor u

% of Births

a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

1

a

ci

I

I

i iIli

tl11

14

1

i

iv r 1

ig ig

I.ER

li P.

4.-5'

g1

k X.

i1

gNg

ii-21

is/P4

111isIb

WISCONSIN

31 KEWAUNEE 19.4 3.6 480 480 100 11.1 102 24 25 32 4

32 LACROSSE 5 76.6 15.1 1,567 1,567 100 23.9 46 99 33 16 51 9

33 LAFAYETTE 18.1 3.2 509 509 100 13.4 98 17 25 58 834 LANGLADE 20.6 3.9 647 647 100 21.7 9 97 25 26 32 835 LINCOLN 23.6 4.3 587 587 100 29.3 29 104 29 20 22 6

36 MANITOWOC 5 78.6 14.4 1,124 1,124 100 17.6 109 27 25 32 5

37 MARATHON 5 92.1 17.6 1,917 1,917 100 21,0 32 92 29 22 31 6

38 MARINETTE 34.2 6.1 950 950 100 17.0 86 26 22 45 6

39 MARQUETTE 7.6 1.2 240 240 100 14.4 130 20 21 50 5

40 MILWAUKEE 3 1,038.5 196.4 14,031 2,530 11,501 82 22.9 608 108 34 15 98 9

41 MONROE 31.7 5.6 820 820 100 21.8 13 91 35 22 51 5

42 OCONTO 25.2 4.5 800 800 100 26.9 24 90 24 32 40 4

43 ONEIDA 22.3 .2 4.0 652 652 100 25.9 19 94 22 23 58 5

44 OUTAG AMIE 5 111.8 21.4 1,642 1,642 100 20.4 37 120 29 24 34 6

45 OZAUKEE 3 44.6 8.8 479 479 100 17.1 107 21 21 34 7

46 PEPIN 6.9 1.2 208 208 100 26.6 6 129 32 25 27 9

47 PIERCE 27.4 5.2 749 749 100 26.6 23 77 31 20 39 7

48 POLK 26.7 .2 4.8 825 825 100 31.7 34 89 33 19 52 6

49 PORTAGE 42.7 84 1,145 1,145 100 11.0 99 30 21 36 7

50 PRICE 13.6 2.3 445 445 100 22.1 6 97 22 18 18 6

51 RACINE 1 156.3 30.3 2,145 2,145 100 23.9 108 106 28 20 39 7

52 RICHLAND 182 3.4 649 649 100 20.0 4 93 28 25 38 3

53 ROCK 5 124.8 24.1 2,033 2,033 100 21.5 51 108 32 15 55 6

54 RUSK 13.4 2.3 435 435 100 21.0 5 79 23 39 43 4

55 ST CROIX t 31,3 5.5 753 753 100 22 0 15 105 29 21 34 6

56 SAUK 37.7 7.0 1,103 1,103 100 27.4 36 90 32 22 63 6

57 SAWYER 9.4 1.0 1.6 377 317 100 32.8 13 98 27 35 38 6

58 SHAWANO 35.1 .4 6.4 1,149 1,149 100 25.6 29 105 23 26 68 1

59 SHEBOYGAN 5 94.1 17.6 1,505 1,505 100 19.5 15 91 30 16 25 7

60 TAYLOR 17.5 3,1 664 664 100 16.8 2 93 22 35 21 8

61 TREMPEALEAU 23.2 4.1 711 717 100 22.1 10 94 23 20 58 5

62 VERNON 23.3 4.1 876 876 100 22.8 11 87 28 18 28 7

63 YILAS . ci. 8.7 .8 1.5 319 319 100 22.9 4 99 30 27 108 5

64 WALWORTH -, - 58.8 11.4 j,258 1,258 100 20.3 14 85 30 17 49 6

65 WASHBURN ; 10.0 .1 1.8 367 367 100 21.9 4 11 25 32 31 3

66 WASHINGTON 3 53.7 10.1 165 765 100 21.9 26 125 22 23 19 7

67 WAUKESHA 3 193.8 39.5 2,317 33 2,284 99 20.0 44 95 27 18 36 6

68 WAUPACA 381 67 1,038 1,038 100 20.3 8 86 30 20 59 6

69 WAUSHARA 13.8 2.4 495 495 100 30.7 16 31 21 48 8

70 WINNEBAGO 5 117.6 22.7 1,884 1, 100 189 14 97 31 16 3C 6

71 WOOD 62.6 .2 11.9 1,106 1,106 100 21.4 28 112 21 23 41 6

WYOMING

23 COUNTIES 319.3 .5 3.9 59.8 5,990 35 5,915 99 21.5 372 99 34 15 49 10

1 ALBANY 23.3 4.8 608 608 103 25.7 22 101 40 8 33 10

2 BIG HORN 10.8 1.9 251 251 100 28.2 12 105 41 20 50 9

170

Existing and Potential Resources be Family Planning Programs ( Designates Location of One or Moro Programs or Resources within County)

Non -Fodoral Physicians In Pat Jolt Cm Hospitals Med.Bch.

0E0 Prcgrams Other FederalPrograms

Health

IDepts.

P.P.

19 20 21L

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

1

It

1

Ig

II§

J1 gt. 45S

,E74

1! I

Jilt °'3PI!

1lgC1Sz

1

Ii11VXVV.

111iVgtsil

6

11]Clf,sl

11p00Vszi

e,

1"ZCo11si

..,,

te-E111VIfisg]

g Ic wwfriiiillta&1 Pisils:A

:81

CM0-:t.

11

I

1g

L' 3

WISCONSIN

10 51 10 51 2 263 KEWAUNEE 31107 140 17 22 10 13 4 2,013 LA CROSSE 32

4 22 3 17 1 110 LAFAYETTE 3313 63 11 53 1 410 UNLADE13 55 12 51 2 362 LINCOLN

62 79 22 28 4 5 3 1,314 MANITOWOC 3673 79 25 27 4 4 2 1,314 MARATHON 37

20 59 14 41 1 3 1 307 MARINETTE 383 39 3 39 MARQUETTE 39

1,229 118 271 26 98 9 16 19,483 3 MILWAUKEE 40

12 38 9 28 2 499 MONROE 41

1 0 8 32 2 335 OCONTO 4224 10408 9 40 I 4 2 491 ONEIDA 4394 84 38 34 6 5 2 1,670 OUTAGAMIE 44

25 56 16 36 1 523 WAUKEE 45

4 58 4 58 1 140 PEPIN 4614 51 11 40 2 174 PIERCE 47

22 82 17 64 4 504 POLK 4828 66 9 21 2 5 1 71T.F PORTAGE 49

7 51 6 44 1 200 PRICE 50

128 82 48 31 10 6 3 3,123 RACINE 51

11 60 9 49 1 343 RICHLAND 52108 87 36 29 9 7 3 2,583 ROCK 53

5 37 5 37 1 238 RUSK 54

18 57 13 41 2 290 ST CROIX 55

25 66 20 53 1 3 3 741 SAUK 565 53 4 43 1 78 SAWYER 51

18 50 13 36 1 3 2 485 SHAWANO 5867 71 26 28 4 4 3 1,688 SHEBOYGAN ' 595 . 29 4 23 1 276 TAYLOR 60:

12 52 10 43 2 155 TREMPEALEAU 61

11 41 7 30 2 473 VERNON 62

8 92 7 80 2 77 VILAS - 6338 65 30 51 1 597 WAL WORTH 64

6 60 6 60 2 172 WASHBURN a29 54 129 39 2 97 WASHINGTON 66-

163 84 4 25 11 6 3 2,477 WAUKESHA 67

20 53 18 47 5 743 WAUPACA 6810 73 9 65 2 188 WAUSHARA 69

120 102 34 29 9 8 2 2,075 WINNEBAGO 70

97 155 16 26 4 6 2 1,652 WOOD 71

WYOMING

283 89 141 46 10 3 24 4,695 8 1 23 COUNTIES

22 95 9 39 1 4 1 491 ALBANY 1

11 102 9 83 2 122 BIG HORN 2

171

Table 1. Need for Subsidized Family Planning Services: Current Programs, Resource' and Related Indices for U.S., Each State and County, FY He' continued

Population and SelectedCharacteristics (000s)

Estimatvi Family Planning Needand Semite Levels

Selected Health and Demographic IndictsInfant Mortality

1961.1965Est.Fart.Rate

Uve BirthOrder as

% of Births

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

IA

t.5

A

1

i

8

c 11

IIAl i

115oeglM c

8 Cr1stm3i,"

1-I...1 Ila§m3

8g3:i81h

ma

IF!24 2

I.R§

15 it.1

g;

gg

4,? N

1

"M

li1

V ''gl

lia".

11CI

1 Iis

WYOMING

CAMPBELL 7.6 1.5 98 98 100 45.6 24 114 26 19 59 12

CARBON 13.8 2.5 245 245 100 23.4 9 86 34 19 93 13

5 CONVERSE 6.0 1.1 125 125 100 36.3 12 101 21 7 13 4

6 CROOK 5.0 .9 135 135 100 15.3 112 23 17 4

7 TREMONT 26.9 .5 3.7 5.1 565 565 100 35.9 65 107 29 24 69 12

8 GOSHEN 11.3 2.1 315 315 100 26.5 10 87 34 11 54 11

9 HOT SPRINGS 5.1 .2 .9 119 119 100 38.6 11 78 35 14 81 14

10 JOHNSON 6.0 1.1 126 126 100 30.9 7 95 30 11 11

11 LARAMIE 59.5 11.0 793 35 158 96 27.4 78 113 35 14 58 10

12 LINCOLN 8.4 1.5 202. 202 100 23.1 6 118 31 15 1

13 NATRONA 46.0 9.0 701 107 100 26.1 45 87 39 11 41 914 NIOBRARA 3.5 .6 71 71 100 26.0 3 65 25 10 50 515 PARK 15.9 3.0 311 311 100 23.9 12 95 30 14 35 7

16 PLATTE 6.7 1.2 160 160 100 25.0 5 91 31 1 55 15

11 SHERIDAN 18.1 3.2 386 386 100 29.1 17 68 28 20 54 17

18 SUBLETTE 3.0 .5 50 50 100 19.9 1 139 32 15 619 SWEETWATER 17.5 3.3 288 288 100 23.4 11 96 34 14 70 13

20 TETON 3.8 .7 45 45 100 23.7 2 106 36 5 10

21 UINTA 6.8 1.2 110 110 100 27.1 7 102 43 16 48 11

22 WASHAKIE 7.8 1.4 151 151 100 24.6 7 107 28 17 39 13

23 WESTON 6.5 1.2 89 89 100 24.6 6 96 33 21 34 12

ALASKA

1 COUNTIES 264.8 48.8 47.4 5,013 2,292 2,721 54 34.2 611 138 30 21 71 8

ALASKA 264.8 48.8 47.4 5,013 2,292 2,721 54 34.2 611 138 30 21 71 8

HAWAII4 COUNTIES 726.7 150.0 13,493 1,041 12,452 92 21.2 298 100 33 14 82 9

1 HAWAII. 62.6 12 4 1,531 114 1,417 93 21.5 21 85 29 16 72 10

2 HONOLULU 2 54.9 123.0 10,228 927 9,301 91 21.1 245 103 34 13 83 93 KAUAI ' ' 28.6 5.3 643 643 100 18.1 1 97 22 19 78 64 MAUI 45.6 9.3 1,091 1,091 100 25.2 31 19 27 17 82 9

172

Existing and Potential Resources for Family Planning Programs ( Designates Location

Med.Sch.

of One or

0E0 Programs

More Programs or Resources within County)

NonFederal Physicians In Patient Care Hospitals Other FederalPrograms

HealthDepts.

P.P.

f19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

NnO

iNO0.g

i

'a

cl

1g'a

At

1

I

go

g.

.1.i§gg

:1

'2

Is :

a-

elIg1.-1.

s I

P

6Vf,

,1

116.aI'lig

s

ij

18

I°1

si

6i

I0sl

V.ZAIdsi

IIIESIlosfi

I"Ilog.5gIpif''l14111sgtin4

.11 f

a1

i

1

1

WYOMING

3 40 2 26 1 111 CAMPBELL 313 94 10 72 CARBON 43 50 3 50 1 62 CONVERSE 51 20 1 20 1 37 CROOK 6

16 59 14 52 2 466 FREMONT 7

9 80 7 62 1 161 GOSHEN 84 78 3 59 1 82 HOT SPRINGS 93 50 2 34 1 19 JOHNSON 10

65 109 19 32 2 3 2 859 LARAMIE 11

4 48 4 48 1 98 LINCOLN 12

59 128 16 35 5 11 1 827 NATRONA 13

1 29 1 29 1 32 NIOBRARA 14

16 101 12 76 2 304 PARK 15

3 45 3 45 1 68 PLATTE 16

17 94 6 33 1 6 1 259 SHERIDAN 17

2 66 2 66 SOBLETTE 1810 5/ 6 34 1 297 SWEETWATER 195 133 3 80 1 27 TETON 208 117 8 111 1 112 UINTA 21

5 64 4 51 1 154 WASHAKIE 22

3 46 3 46 1 8 WESTON 23

ALASKA

18 3,289 8 1 1 1 COUNTIES

18 3,289 8 ALASKA 1

HAWAII

825 114 215 30 64 9 18 11,353 2 4 1 2 2 4 COUNTIES

48 77 33 53 2 3 5 1,029 HAWAII

716 121 154 26 58 10 7 9,113 2 HONOLULU 223 80 11 38 2 494 KAUAI 338 83 11 31 4 9 4 717 MAUI 4

173

SECTION II. DETAILED TABLES

TABLE 2. 313 COUNTIES CONTAINING HALF OF U.S. UNMETNEED FOR SUBSIDIZED FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES: NEED,SERVICE LEVELS, EXISTING AND POTENTIAL RESOURCEriFOR PROGRAM EXPANSION, FY 1968

NOTES TO TABLE 2.All column headings appear as In Table 1 (see notes to Table 1)except the following:

Column 1Rank Number shows the ranking, from high to low, of each countyby number of medically indigent women not served (Column 4).

Column 8Number of Known Health Department Clinic Locations shows thenumber of locations at which health departmentr reported the op-eration of family planning clinics, In response to the CFPPD survey.

Column 10Number of Planned ParenthoodAffiliated Clinics shows the numberof locations at which Planned Parenthood Affiliates reported theoperation of family planning clinics, in response to the CFPPDsurvey.

Column 11Number of Other Agencies Reporting Services shows the numberof agencies other than health departments, hospitals or PannedParenthood Affiliates reporting the provision of family planningservices, in response to the CFPPD survey.

Column 12Hospitals Not Reporting Family Planning Services shows the numberof nonprofit, general care hospitals reporting births (as defined InColumn 25, Table 1), less the number of such hospitals reportingfamily planning services and enumerated in Column 9 (or Column27, Table 1).

Column 13Births in Column 12 Hospitals as % of Hospital Births shows theratio of births reported in the hospitals enumerated In column 12 asnot providing family planning services to all births reported by non-profit hospitals (Column 26, Table 1).

Column 14Counties without Health Department Family Planning Services:Bullet Identifies counties in which no family planning services werereported to be provided by health departments.

Column 17Counties with 0E0 or PHS Neighborhood Health Center: Bulletidentifies counties which have one or more comprehensive healthcenters funded either by CEO or PHS (see Columns 31 and 34,Table 1).

/ 7y 175

Table 2. 313 Counties Containing Half of U.S. Unmet Need for Subsidized Family Planning Services: Need, Service Levels, Existing and Potential Resources for Program(oilskin, FT 1968 (Ranked by Number of Medically Indigent Women Not Served; Designates Location of One or Mort Programs or Resources within County)

Estimated Family PlanningNeed and Service Levels

Existing and Potential Resources for Program Expansion

Existings andFamily Planning

Clinic Agenci Related Health and Organizational Resources

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 i3 14 15 16 17 18 19

1E

L.

aR

-i_).,z

2tg23

L= .1.

V.,PI,-...--

-18cti23

1hiliz.,s -$-fit>,tgi2;6.

1F,

'aad

.

1xV

z

vrgSEK1'e

EEz2C6

CiILEstx""Ei&

...E

IAc'rkgZ.1

gl=2

-'2

g4Ext.3l'i.-illo

....

,:,..

-c"Ng

o

ivF. 4.'-'-ti'I c

4'

SncccSki

g

ift

A41 Z'

'E

S?-'Sg

it

V-rs',4'I

&S-c''S!!

Kks

el0-el'5 tsiB-ill(§,:s

B ',''5 tSvc-S3

4 E'5 *

It'-S6

TOTAL 313 COUNTIES 2,207.8 80 587,743 2,885.4 456 344 421 13 1,219 54 131 280 15 37 45 82

1 LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 93.8 74 32,519 126.3 18 6 12 1 58 77 v o2 COOK ILLINOIS 44.2 54 38,311 82.5 18 9 12 55 65 a

3 KINGS NEW YORK 42.0 66 21,956 64.0 9 13 5 1 9 264 WAYNE MICHIGAN 383 65 20,704 59.4 8 12 7 23 505 PHILADELPHIA PENNSYLVANIA 32.0 65 11,513 49.5 15 6 1 11 26

6 HARRIS TEXAS 31.2 69 13,780 45.0 17 4 15 6 487 BEXAR TEXAS 28.1 8? 4,349 32.4 2 13 3 488 DADE FLORIDA 27.1 75 8,955 36.1 7 1 9 70 a

9 DALLAS TEXAS 26.8 88 3,500 30.3 1 4 5 4 1510 ALLEGHENY PENNSYLVANIA 25.1 80 6,349 31.5 5 19 18 59 a a

11 SHELBY TENNESSEE 24.9 85 4,389 29.3 2 3 1 1212 SAN DIEGO CALIFORNIA 23.6 92 1,962 25.6 7 1 14 94 a a

13 NEW YORK NEW YORK 19.4 39 29,162 49.2 12 19 5 2 814 ORANGE CALIFORNIA 19.4 88 2,697 22.1 2 8 10015 MARICOPA ARIZONA 19.3 82 4,355 23.7 17 5 2 10 30

16 ST LOUIS MISSOURI 18.9 58 13,557 32.4 3 5 3 13 7117 MIENS NEW YORK 18.4 73 6,865 25.2 6 5 1 3 5018 CUYAHOGA OHIO 17.4 59 12,191 29.6 3 7 15 1 12 3719 BRONX NEW YORK 17.3 48 19,112 36.4 3 6 2 1 3 a

20 MIDDLESEX MASSACHUSEIT 16.9 95 912 17.9 4 16 73

21 JEFFERSON ALABAMA 167 65 8982 25.7 4 1 2 7 64 a

22 ORLEANS LOUISIANA 16.2 61 10330 26.6 1 3 1 7 4123 NORFOLK VIRGINIA 16.2 84 3000 19.2 3 2 3 6024 ERIE NEW YORK 16.2 80 4,016 20.2 4 3 6 55 a

25 SAN BERNARDI CALIFORNIA 15.6 96 615 16.2 2 1 13 94

26 SUFFOLK NEW YORK 15.2 94 998 16.2 5 10 10027 HILLSBOROUGH FLORIDA 15.0 81 3,473 185 6 3 100

28 FULTON GEORGIA 14.6 59 10,069 24.7 1 2 6 5 4029 TARRANT TEXAS 14.5 83 3,002 17.5 1 1 4 4 7730 SANTA CLARA CALIFORNIA 14.4 92 1,205 15.6 5 2 1 9 79

31 BALTIMORE MARYLAND 14.1 44 17,914 32.0 14 7 3 9 4232 BROWARD FLORIDA 13.4 19 3,519 16.9 6 1 3 5533 HAMILTON OHIO 13.4 69 5,928 19.3 6 3 6 3 3534 PINELLAS FLORIDA 13.3 83 2,682 16.0 1 4 5635 JEFFERSON KENTUCKY 12.9 76 4,165 11.1 I 1 8 83

36 ALAMEDA CALIFORNIA 12.3 59 8,548 20.9 2 4 13 8437 RIVERSIDE CALIFORNIA 11.8 97 399 12.2 2 7 33

38 ESSEX NEW JERSEY 11.5 63 6,878 18.4 5 2 10 5039 MILWAUKEE WISCONSIN 11.5 82 2,530 14.0 3 6 13 7240 HIOALGO TOM 11.4 82 2,501 13.9 7 7 4 100

41 KING WASHINGTON 11.4 74 3,997 15.4 6 2 2 16 8642 OKLAHOMA OKLAHOMA 11.2 87 1,714 12.9 1 3 7 87 a43 DAVIDSON TENNESSEE 11.1 68 5,221 16.3 3 5 44 a

44 ESSEX MASSAMSETT 11.0 100 50 11.1 1 10 8345 OAKLAND MICHIGAN 11.0 97 363 11.3 1 2 3 70

176

Table 2. 313 Counties Containing Hall of U.S. Unmet Need for Subsidized Family Planning Services: Need, Service Levels, Existing and Potential Resources run ProgramExpansion, FY 196$ (Ranked by Number of Medically Indigent Women Not Served; Designates Location of One or More Programs or Resources within County) continued

Estimated Family PlanningNeed and Service Levels

Existing and Potential Resources for Program Wellston

Ex Is ing Family PlanningCI nIcs and Agencies

Related Health and Organizational Resources

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Ig.1a

.A

131

'7111viz

tvggra.....

1;:Itlsx

Ita";., .2

111.r.^.int.§m3a.....

jiN

.56als

1/ii-61

A'S."5a

I§gl$

la

g 6

IAcatpc=el

t2azisla13

ho1,4IttoffSh

IP49.S.A.0SA

211 ib,cil

N19haw

c§a

11:A5 tii41

1# Eas aIt..8

46 LUZERNE PENNSYLVANIA 10.7 89 1,362 12.1 1 8 100

47 WORCESTER MASSACHUSETT 10.6 98 168 10.8 2 11 72

48 CHARLESTON SOUTH C AROLI 10. 79 2,860 13.5 1 1 4 51

49 JACKSON MISSOURI 10.2 70 4,280 14.5 4 15 6 64

50 BRISTOL MASSACHUSET1 10.2 100 10.2 6 100

51 PULASKI ARKANSAS 10.1 90 1,076 11.2 3 I 4 64

52 SUFFOLK MASSACHUSETT 10.1 63 5818 159 7 21

53 DUVAL FLORIDA 10.0 60 6,634 163 9 1 3 27

54 NASSAU NEW YORK 10.0 79 2,613 12.6 4 4 3 33

55 CADDO LOUISIANA 9.9 98 226 10.2 1 1 3 36

5657

58

HAMILTON TENNE

MAR INDIANASSEE

KNOX

IO N

TENNESSEE

9.6

9.59.5

98

6986

200

4,3301,500

9.813.811.0

15

1

3

1

91

3

3

45

51

81

59 HUOSON NEW JERSEY 9.4 85 1,705 11.1 4 5 100

60 PROVIDENCE RHODE ISLAND 9.4 70 4,106 13.5 1 1 4 68

61 WESTMORELAND PENNSYLVANIA 9.3 100 10 9.3 1 4 78

62 HONOLULU HAWAII 9.3 91 977 10.2 3 2 5 38

63 FRESNO CALIFORNIA 9.2 83 1,852 11.0 5 1 6 68

64 MOBILE ALABAMA 9.1 71 3,793 12.9 5 1 4 63

65 PALM BEACH FLORIDA 9.1 81 2,081 11.2 1 6 100

66 MONTGOMERY OHIO 9.0 82 1,918 10.9 1 11 3 69

61 FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT 8.8 84 1,615 10.4 6 4 1 9

68 TRAVIS TEXAS 8.7 89 1,015 9.8 5 1 3 100

69 SACRAMENTO CALIFORNIA 8.7 91 850 9.5 1 1 5 87

70 MULTNOKWI OREGON 8.5 19 2,323 10.8 I 2 1 85

11 HINDS MISSISSIPPI 8.3 :... 1,180 9.5 1 3 57

72 MACOMB MICHIGAN . 8.3 99 58 8.4 1 1 100

73 MONMOUTH NEW JERSEY 8.3 96 378 8.7 1 2 1 37

74 FRANKLIN OHIO 8.2 50 8,141 16.4 2 9 3 60

75 CAMERON TEXAS 8.2 93 574 8.8 3 3 100

76 TULSA . OKLAHOMA 8.2 82 1,147 9.9 1 7 5 100

77 RIOHLANII SOUTH CAROL! 8.1 12 3,099 11.2 5 1 3 59

78 SUMMIT OHIO 1.8 1,067 8.9 2 2 2 45

79 YORK VIRGINIA 7.8 100 7.8 4 100

80 HARTFORD CONNECTICUT 7.8 78 2157 10.0 4 4 3 34

81 EAST BATON R LOUISIANA 7.7 79 2,075 9.8 1 1 56

82 PIERCE WASHINGTON 1.1 92 709 8.4 1 6 100

83 GUILFORD NORTH CAROL! 7.7 92 624 8.3 4 100

84 WAKE NORTH CAROL! 1.7 95 425 8.1 2 64

85 LAKE INDIANA 1.7 94 525 8.2 13 4 100

86 GREENVILLE SMITH CAROL! 7.6 89 954 8.6 1 1 4 32

87 RICHMOND GEORGIA 1.6 85 1,365 9.0 2 44

88 CUMBERLAND NORTH CAROL! 7.5 87 1,160 8.7 2 100

89 HAMPDEN MASSACHUSETT 7.5 99 100 7.6 4 24

90 JEfEKSON LOUISIANA 7.4 100 1.4 2 100

91 NEW HAVEN CONNECTICUT 7.4 72 2,859 10.3 7 66

92 ORANGE FLORIDA 7.3 72 2,908 10.2 4 5 100

93 EL PASO TEXAS 1.3 63 4,198 11.5 1 2 83

:

.

a

f

, ,

ej.1

*,177

Trigs 2. 313 Counties Containing Half of U.S. Unmet Need for Subsidized Family Planning Services: Need, Service levels, Existing and Potential Resources for ProgramExpansion, fy 1968 (Ranked by Number of MAlcally Indigent Women Not Served; Designates Location of One or More Programs or Resources within County) continued................w

Estimated Family PlanningNeed and Service Levels

Existing and Potential Resources for Program Expansion

Lois log Family PlanningCI arcs and Agencies Related Health nd Organizational Resources

_. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

1zA

iIlxA%2,zg

18mx

Pg=,.

14gs..-

1V.z.liz.]gvg

reLev1-s.si18z-lullmvc-

NIil

INa

'5.d.

la

mag-15

1

2

AEJflS.'S 1lin

1i55

%1

1zotvio 1

APR

la

g1e.c.g.s

zE.,2712,11xx

m

14um,,.:1

--.'p."41feoV

0L.vg

,2*si x1,;V121Age

gZ.8

VAz,N.av.15gcg

11,5-1.

ww0.=AsFR.0,,11ge!

fbfEic)wlnevs15ggs

111E

miL

11p8v

vi.1-Si

%It

ag

v138

94 NUECES TEXAS 7.2 75 2,358 9.6 4 2 10095 MUSCOGEE GEORGIA 7.2 82 1,547 8.8 2 10096 SALT LAKE UTAH 7.2 94 493 7.7 3 2 3 5297 KERN CALIFORNIA 7.2 86 1,199 8.4 4 1 4 7598 WESTCHESTER NEW YORK 7,1 68 3,354 10.5 1 2 14 12 88

99 HENEPIN MINNESOTA 7.1 54 6,007 13.1 6 2 1 13 90 a100 FAYETTE PENNSYLVANIA 7.1 98 120 7.2 1 2 45101 MONROE NEW YORK 7.1 10 3,097 10.2 4 7 3 41102 PASSAIC NEW JERSEY 7.1 86 1,118 8.2 1 2 2 4 68103 DELAWARE PENNSYLVANIA 7.0 96 315 7.3 2 3 50

104 CHATHAM GEORGIA 69 88 942 7.9 2 1 58105 CONTRA COSTA CALIFORNIA 69 82 1,528 8.5 6 8 100106 SPARTANBURG SOUTH CAROL! 69 88 976 7.9 1 2 100107 ST CUUR ILLINOIS 61 100 69 5 100108 POLK FLORIDA 69 73 2,570 05 9 1 6 78

109 VOLUSI A FLORIDA 69 93 500 7.4 3 3 100110 LACKAWANNA PENNSYLVANIA 6.8 97 220 7.0 1 7 100I11 SEDGWICK KANSAS 68 98 173 69 I 4 100112 BERGEN FEW JERSEY 68 82 1,515 8.3 4 3 6 2 30113 JEFFERSON TEXAS 6.6 88 861 7.4 5 3 100

114 CAMBRIA PENNSYLVANIA 6.6 100 66 5 100115 STARK OHIO 65 98 147 67 1 1 3 68116 SAN JOAOUIN CALIFORNIA 65 97 227 67 9 5 100117 PIMA ARIZONA 64 74 2,280 8.7 2 1 1 3 95 b

118 MADISON ALABAMA, 6.4 87 916 7.3 1 1 100

119 KANAWHA WEST VIRGIN! 6.4 81 1,516 7.9 6 100120 MIDOLESEX NEW JERSEY 63 97 201 6.5 2 2 49121 ROANOKE VIRG/NIA 6.2 100 6.2 3 100122 VENTURA CALIFORNIA 61 83 1,278 7.4 7 100 a123 MONTGOMERY PENNSYLVANIA 6.1 93 484 66 3 4 48

124 MONTGOMERY ALABAMA 6.0 18 1,686 7.7 1 4 100125 BI GEORGIA 6.0 91 611 6.6 1 a126 NORFOLK MASSACHUSETT 6.0 97 200 62 1 6 74 a127 LUCKS OHIO 5.9 63 3,426 9.3 2 4 .3 4 48128 TUSCALOOSA ALABAMA ' 5.9 93 433 63 1 100

129 ATLANTIC NEW JERSEY 5.9 100 5.9 1 2 70130 HARRISON MISSISSIPPI 5.8 97 194 6.0 1 100131 PRINCE GEORG MARYLAND 5,8 86 973 6.1 3 1 2 10132 WEBB TEXAS 5.7 100 5.7 1 100 a a133 SCHUYLKIU. PENNSYLVANIA 5.6 100 5.6 5 100

134 ESCAMBIA FLORIDA 5.6 80 1,425 7.1 2 100135 WASHINGTON PEANSYLVANIA 5.6 100 5.6 4 100 a a136 OUACHITA LOUISIANA 5.6 100 5.6 3 100137 TULARE CALIFORNIA 5.5 90 631 61 2 7 100138 ONONDAGA NEW YORK ' 5.4 72 2,167 7.6 1 4 4 78 a

139 BREVARD FLORIDA 5.4 85 957 64 4 100140 WON NEW JERSEY 5.4 87 828 63 2 2 3 50141 PLYMOUTH MASSACHUSETT 64 103 20 5.4 1 2 23

178

Table 2. 313 Counties Containing Half of U.S. Unmet Need for Subsidized Family Planning Services: Need, Service Levels, Existing and Potential Resources for ProgramExpansion, FY 1968 (Ranked by Number of Medically Indigent Women Not Served; Designates Location of One or More Programs or Resources within Count y) continued

EstimatedN

Fatuity Planningid and Service Levels

Dieting and Potential Resources for Program Expansion

Ex iCsitiialsraann:1111gPle naciliensingRelated Health and Organizational Resources

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ID 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

1a

fLS

-

I.42;1it

w

P

=

1-..s

I'V;Asii

tsbog I.11E1...si

3Vi s

,gl'gz5gl

ff°15

1

Is1]c LT:i41

IPg itig-

11

lg..sSA"5 go

li,IIcc N,Z'8fil44'n

.m

11;.".ii

xi:R..

1.t.Ili6"111q.sig

b2fla

g.4'gi1gss

la1 11

`gl`6'.g.p. g

5g1-='.AI

0kg'8 Xol:'511ttAEs

a epaItIIST.

i2g.51iSE

42 CAMDEN NEW JERSEY 5.4 73 2,009 7.4 1 2 3 7843 ROBESON NORTH CAROL! 5.3 93 416 5 7 I 10044 ERIE PENNSYLVANIA 5.3 97 145 55 1 1 3 6745 ST LAMM LOUISIANA 5.3 100 5.3 2 10046 SPOKANE WASHINGTON 53 98 107 54 4 100

47 KENT MICHIGAN 5.3 17 1,578 6.9 6 I 7 2 5648 STANISLAUS CALIFORNIA 5.3 95 300 5.6 1 6 8049 DE KALB GEORGIA 5.2 71 2,090 7.3 1 1 6 1 10050 BERKS PENNSYLVANIA 5.1 97 135 5.3 2 2 1 .33

51 BUNCOMBE NORTH CAROLI 5.1 89 664 5.8 1 1 53

52 DOUGLAS NEBRASKA 51 78 IA 72 66 3 1 6 7 8753 ONEIDA NEW YORK 51 98 78 5.2 1 4 10054 ST LOUIS MINNESOTA 5.1 99 49 5.1 1 9 10055 PRINCESS AIM VIRGINIA 5.1 IC* 5.1 1 10056 SULLIVAN TENNESSEE 50 100 5.0 2 1 1 62

57 FORSYTH NORTH CAROLI 5.0 76 1,538 65 1 2 5958 GASTON NORTH CAROL! 5.0 92 423 5.4 2 10059 RAPIDES LOUISIANA 5.0 76 1,606 66 1 3 10060 FLORENCE SOUTH CAROLI 4.9 93 362 5.2 7 2 100

61 PIKE KENTUCKY 4.8 98 106 :;.0 1 100

62 MONTEREY CALIFORNIA 4.8 100 23 4.8 5 10063 OCEAN NEW JERSEY 4.7 98 85 4.8 I 2 6064 LANCASTER PENNSYLVANIA 4.7 90 530 5.2 I 3 3 5765 PITT NORTH CAROL! 4.1 93 381 5.1 1 10066 GREENE MISSOURI 4.7 95 270 5.0 2 100

61 BERNALILLO NEW MEXICO 4.7 71 1,925 6.6 46 2 6 1 73

68 GALVESTON TEXAS 4.7 80 1,149 58 2 I 5069 CALCASIEU LOUISIANA 4.6 100 4.6 4 10070 VERNON LOUISIANA 4.6 100 4.671 MADISON ILLINOIS 4.6 100 4.6 5 100

72 CUMBERLAND MAINE 4.6 100 4.6 6 10073 GENESEE MICHIGAN 4.5 31 2,942 1.5 1 3 3 7574 PITTSYLVAMA VIRGINIA 4.5 100 4.5 2 10075 CALHOUN ALABAMA 4.5 100 21 4.6 2 10076 LAFAYETTE LOUISIANA 4.5 100 4.5 3 100

77 ALBANY FEW YORK 4.5 77 1,321 58 1 1 2 6618 COBB GEORGIA 4.5 91 154 4.7 1 10079 EL PASO COLORADO ' 4.4 90 491 4.9 1 I 3 10080 MAHONING OHIO 4.4 76 1,43i 5.8 2 1 10081 BURLINGTON . NEW JERSEY 4.4 96 162 4.6 1 1 26

82 RALEIGH WEST VIRGIN! 4.4 100 4.4 1 10083 JEFFERSON ARKANSAS 4.4 94 211 4.6 2 1 10084 WAYNE NORTH CAROLI 4.3 83 912 5.2 1 10085 SONOMA CALIFORNIA' 4.3 81 994 53 4 10086 SNOHOMISH WASHINGTON 4.2 97 126 4.4 1 4 100

87 ANDERSON SOUTH CAROU 4.2 93 333 4.6 1

88 VANDERPIJRGH INDIANA 4.2 81 624 4.8 1 3 10089 LORAIN OHIO - 4.2 100 4.2 4 100

a

II.

;

179

Table 2. 313 Counties Containing Half of U.S. Unmet Need for Subsidized Family Planning Services: Need, Service Levels, Existing and Potential Resources for ProgramExpansion, FY 1968 (Ranked by Number of Medically indigent Women Not Served; Designates Location of One or More Programs or Resources within County) continued..-i

7Estimated Family PlanningNeed and Service Levels

Existing and Potential Resources for Program Expansion

Dining Family PlanningClinics' and Agencies

Related Health and Organizational Resources

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 14 19

;a

t'S

.r.

a

-iV P4°st3...z5E,v gz

=3

v..*.igD.,.

11-3...

74P,t2

18 "zigEz.,... c "11

lEas-.--,t g-§Zu"2...-

..2

1

4il.,3

-.XE2

1 1 1

.T,"ETe, 4

ta.a.dg :1_, 'E

=4.°5

C2, gAEcx1,-, ,,,,,

.ES.ge.

x

toE1E

., a'''Wt 'E

2e--A.1Eiii

.4.4

,T, A--_.1.x

.5 EVI*tn6 m:

1

f g p..., L':2E

1 T, A.11 E 2'-6,7e

. F.8r,

Z. s

xI ....."PI

CEg Eo 6

1git .5.f a t°EI fo11 gl',tr-2 E8,2

E

W

1Pt.cE21-g8z8

PI14t,6'R S.

.0 a1-2.8 1

lf E'5 O.)2 rtotgt.c.3i3

190 ALLEN INDIANA 4,2 100 4.2 3 100

191 DANE WISCONSIN 4.2 96 185 4.4 4 90

192 BELL TEXAS 4.2 90 438 4.6 1 1 23

193 ORANGE NEW YORK 4.2 92 341 4.5 6 66194 TANG I PAHOA LOUISIANA 41 100 4.1 2 100

195 LANE OREGON 4.1 100 4.1 4 100196 LEHIGH PENNSYLVANIA 4.1 95 225 4.3 1 41

197 ETOWAH ALABAMA 4.1 99 60 4.2 2 100

198 FAYETTE KENTUCKY 4.1 13 1,519 5.6 1 3 73199 SAN MATEO CALIFORNIA 4.1 12 1,612 5.7 3 4 90

200 ONSLOW NORTH CAROLI 4.0 96 175 4.2 1 LOU

201 MISSISSIPPI ARKANSAS 4.0 :.: 569 4.6 2 2 100202 LAKE ILLINOIS 4.0 100 4.0 5 100203 HILLSBOROUGH NEW HAWSHIR 4.0 100 4.0 7 100204 LUBBOCK TEXAS 4.0 76 1,224 5.2 4 2 100

205 DOUGHERTY GEORGIA 4.0 98 68 4.0 1 100206 LAUDERDALE MISSISSIPPI 4.0 95 194 4.2 4 100

207 FAIRFAX VIRGINIA 4.0 100 4.0 1

208 BUCKS PENNSYLVANIA 4.0 90 425 4.4 1 4 100

209 GLAIR PENNSYLVANIA 4.0 97 116 4.1 1 2 39

210 CHESTER PENNSYLVANIA 3.9 96 151 4 1 4 4 2 44211 WASHINGTON MISSISSIPPI 3.9 87 574 4.5 3 100212 NORTHAMPTON PENNSYLVANIA 3.9 95 215 4,1 1 1 1 56213 SMITH TEXAS 3.9 97 129 4.0 1 2 100

214 YAKIMA WASHINGTON 19 95 215 4.1 1 4 100

215 INGRAM MICHIGAN 3.8 84 726 4.6 1 1 3 52

216 SUMTER rrri CAROL I 3.8 94 265 4.1 1 1 100

217 WINNEBAGO ILLINOIS 3.8 100 3.8 3 100

218 JOHNSTON NORTH CAROLI 3.8 95 212 4.0 1 100

219 ALACHUA FLORIDA 3.8 86 628 4.4 4 1 1 52

220 ORANGEBURG SOUTH CAROL! 3.8 82 853 4.7 3 1 100221 RICHMOND NEW YORK 3.8 91 358 4.1 2 2 50222 MCLENNAN TEXAS 3.7 U 2069 E 8 3 1 100

223 HORNY SOUTH CAROLI 3.7 88 522 4.2 3 2 100224 ELKHART INDIANA 3.7 100 3.7 2 100

225 SA/4 FRANCASC CALIFORNIA 3.7 29 9,118 12.8 6 2 6 48226 BUTLER OHIO 3.7 90 406 4.1 2 3 100

ni TRUMBULL OHIO 17 95 200 3.9 1

228 NEW LONDON CONNECTICUT 16 95 172 a8 1 1 1 37229 MERCER NEW JERSEY 3.6 7D / 549 5.2 1 1 4 3 83

230 WASHINGTON ARKANSAS 3.6 98 69 3.7 1 2 100

231 ST JOSEPH INDIANA 3.6 95 200 3.8 1 1 1 2 56232 LEON FLORIDA 3.6 89 453 4.1 2 100233 DU PAGE ILLINOIS 3.6 100 3.6 4 100

234 MARION OREGON 3.6 100 3.6 4 100

235 NEW HATIOVER NORTH CAROL' 3.6 93 263 3.8236 NORTHUMBERLA PENNSYLVANIA 3.5 99 49 3.6 1 1 63

237 BEAVER PENNSYLVANIA 3.5 100 3.5 3 100

LO

Table 2. 313 Counties Containing Hall of tl.S. Unmet Need for Subsidized Family Planning Services: Need, Service levels, Existing and Potential Resources for ProgramExpansion, FY 1968 (Rallied by Number of Medically Indigent Women Not Served; Designates location of One or More Programs or Resources within County) continued------",

Estimated Family PlanningNeed gni Service Levels

Existing and Potential Resources for Program Expansion

&Is ing Family PlanningClinics and Agencies

Related Health and Organizational Resources

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

:iiE

Y5 U

..,

A

u.z- ,3 i'li

R.75

0 `..:'Ir

L68

ti_I?..r..9. ."ii

rogig.s.1..... A- CiP. .A-1-7.,

III§

az..,gg

.-c,xIsz-

'8T., LiiCL...a.-57;Z.§t .e,r!t: .6:sag

11

'2

21. 0Y.SA"6 t0t E

-'e

s

.c

1Jce go

41vi.g

,14.:

1,f2

14Pa_;:..1,4.

i"qE "6lae1g

)"i--,

'8' 1.r..."

IV

KIELt.' VISgt

t.c0

-..R

#.,.1

P..'"t5LESS

8la1.1..r,fsX2427--t.

AY!

t54O'Sla0.fl11, .8''''.ctu,11S

2!fcXt.13 41'''.5.S1

7''82fili.4

ja

238 WICHITA TEXAS 3.5 100 3.5 3 100

239 MCDOWELL WEST VIRGINI 3.5 100 3.5240 DURHAM NORTH CAROL! 3.5 72 1,375 4.9 2 49241 WILL ILLINOIS 3.5 100 3.5 2 100

242 WILSON NORTH CAROL! 3.5 98 68 3.5 1 100

243 CUMBERLAND NEW JERSEY 3.5 96 150 3.6 2 1 18

244 TALLADEGA ALABAMA 3.5 96 163 3.6 2 100

245 PEORIA ILLINOIS 3.5 97 96 3.6 1 1 2 55246 DAVIDSON NORTH CAROL! 3.5 100 3.5 2 MO247 MERCER WEST VIRGIN! 3.4 100 3.4 1 100

248 AIKEN SOUTH CAROL' 3.4 98 16 3.5 1 1 100

249 BOLIVAR MISSISSIPPI 3.4 87 486 3.9 2 100250 ARLINGTON VIRGINIA 3.4 100 3.4 2 100

251 ST TAMMANY LOUISIANA 3.3 100 3.3 2 100252 DAUPHIN PENNSYLVANIA 3.3 69 1,460 4.8 1 4 1 41

253 UTAH UTAH 3.3 100 3.3 2 100

254 ANNE ARUNDEL MARYLAND 13 72 1,268 4.6 13 2 100

255 SANTA CRIJ2 CALIFORNIA 3.3 90 348 3.7 1 4 100

256 MORRIS NEW JERSEY 3.3 ..: 436 3.7 1 2 5 74

251 SAMPSON NORTH CAROLI 3.3 98 80 3.4 1 100

258 YORK SOUTH CAROLI 3.3 86 521 3.8 3 2 100259 BERRIEN MICHIGAN 3.3 100 3.3 4 100

260 SOLANO CALIFORNIA 3.3 89 387 3.6 1 3 94

261 FAYETTE WEST VIRGIN! 3.3 100 3.3 1 100

262 FORREST MISSISSIPPI 3.3 97 93 3.3 2 100

263 AROOSTOOK MAINE 3.2 100 3.2 6 100

264 CRITTENDEN ARKANSAS 3.2 99 26 3.3 2 1 100

265 RENSSELAER NEW YORK 3.2 100 3.2 3 100

266 YORK PENNSYLVANIA 3.2 66 1,660 4.9 1 6 I 26

261 DUTCHESS NEW YORK 3.2 83 670 3.9 1 1 3 3 47

268 CABELL WEST VIRGINI 3.2 82 693 3.9 1 3 100

269 GREGG TEXAS 3.2 100 3.2 3 100

270 SANGAMON ILLINOIS 3.2 100 3.2 2 100

271 CHAMPAIGN ILLINOIS 3.2 90 334 3.5 1 1 3 100

272 ULSTER PEW YORK 11 100 3.1 2 100

273 MADISON TENNESSEE 11 100 3.1 1 1 100

274 SCIOTO OHIO 31 99 23 3.2 1 1 1 43275 WASHINGTON TENNESSEE 3.1 100 13 3.1 1

276 JEFFERSON COLORADO 3.1 100 11 1 100

277 HALIFAX NORTH CAROLI 3.1 87 484 3.6 1 100

278 CHAUTAUQUA NEW YORK 3.1 100 3.1 5 100

279 SEBASTIAN ARKANSAS 3.1 96 115 3.2 1 2 100

280 MANATEE FLORIDA 3.1 91 304 3.4 1 100

281 TERREBONNE LOUISIANA 3.1 100 3.1 I 100282 MORGAN ALABAMA 3.1 88 434 3.5 I 100

283 VIGO INDIANA 11 98 48 3.1 I 2 100

284 MONTGOMERY IMMO 3.0 79 815 3.8 5 1 2 3 80

285 YORK MARE 3.0 100 3.0 3 100

181

Table 2. 313 Counties Containing Hail of U.S. Unmet Need for Subsidized Family Planning Services: Need, Service levels, Existing and Potential Resources for ProgramExpansion, FY 1968 (Ranked by Number of Medically Indigent Women Not Served; Designates location of One or More Programs or Resources within County) continued

Estimated Family PlanningNeed and Service Levels

Existing and Potential Resources for Program Expansion

Exis I ng Family. PlanningCI nits and Agencies Related Health and Organizational Resources

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

1§=

3CS

sa

_du-

8

tlf-v.4..g e

'il

R1 5.,I.IVig

Ili-xg=11

tv.Ill- =.bS.E":,..t,-itli

o 1I.]

1.

.s6gi"

Is"6

1

3Ii

0IIto211:

C.12

i'ts.gj-° pb°te2i

0.1tie. wIsT:milLIE44,II

Jo

at'lat13.13.c.,...';;eSu

oiillv....5tc se ee

w!.??..giii

1x'8

.14.elt?sS

'18

11.E0 VIs -E.5!a&,gpse!

Ebe§1IaismS.2

PvpiIA12111Si

12ISg,

286 LENOIR NORTH CAROL I 3.0 89 359 3.4 2 100287 GLOUCESTER NEW JERSEY 3.0 100 3.0 1 100

288 JASPER MISSOURI 3.0 98 65 3.1 1 3 100289 SCHENECTADY NEW YORK 3.0 91 305 3.3 1 2 100290 WILKES NORTH CAROL] 3.0 98 62 3.1 1 100

291 SOMERSET PENNSYLVANIA 3.0 97 83 3.1 1 2 79292 PENOBSCOT MAINE 3.0 94 195 3.2 1 1 3 53293 DENTON TEXAS 3.0 100 3.0 1 100294 HOUSTON ALABAMA 3.0 93 216 3.2 1 100295 NASH NORTH CAROU 3.0 85 528 3.5

296 MARION FLORIDA 3.0 85 504 3.5 2 1 100297 COMANCHE OKLAHOMA 3.0 91 309 3.3 1 1 76 3

298 CAMPBELL VIRGINIA 3.0 100 3.0 2 100299 CLEVELAND NORTH CAROL! 3.0 95 154 3.1 3 100300 WARREN MISSISSIPPI 2.9 99 44 3.0 3 100

301 KANE ILLINOIS 2.9 100 2.9 6 100302 ST. LAWRENCE NEW YORK 2.9 100 13 2.9 1 1 4 81

303 CLACKAMAS OREGON 2.9 94 200 3.1 1 1 100304 BERKELEY SOUTH CAROL! 2.9 92 239 3.1 3 1 100305 BROOME NEW YORK 2.9 82 633 3.5 3 4 100

306 FLOYD GEORGIA 2.9 98 60 3.0 1 100

307 CLARK NEVADA 2.9 68 1,334 4.2 3 100308 ROWAN NORTH CAROL! 2.9 91 272 3.1 1 100309 ST CLAIR MICHIGAN 2.9 100 6 2.9 1 3 100310 GIBSON TENNESSEE 2.9 100 2.9 3 2 100

311 KALAMAZOO MICHIGAN 2.9 87 443 3.3 1 1 2 2 44312 GRAYSON TEXAS 2.9 95 136 3.0 4 3 103313 CULLMAN ALABAMA , 2.9 93 214 3.1 1 100

182

SECTION II. DETAILED TABLES

TABLE 3. 516 COUNTIES CONTAINING HALF OF EACH STATE'SUNMET NEED FOR SUBSIDIZED FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES,BY 0E0 REGION AND STATE: NEED, SERVICE LEVELS, EXISTINGAND POTENTIAL FAMILY PLANNING RESOURCES FOR PROGRAMEXPANSION, FY 1968

NOTES TO TABLE 3.All column headings appear as in Table 1 or Table 2 (see notes toTable 1 and Table 2) except the following:

Column 2Major City Identifies largest city in the county.

/ 93/POts

Table 3. 516 Counties Containing Half of Each State's Unmet Need for Svbsidired Family Planning Services, by 0E0 Region mid Stale: Need, Service Levels, Existing andPotential Resources for Program Expansion, FT 1968 (Ranted In Each State by Number of Wedkally indigent Women Not Served; Designates Location of One or More Programs w Rind mos within County)

Estimated Family PlanningNeed and Service Levels

Fainting and Potential Resources for Program Evasion

Estimated Family PlanningMks and Agencies Related Health and Organizational Resources

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

li§1 A

lj7t...

§

ii

.1>

I$..1.

tolig

,t.agli

IPiIll241A.ill

1kl

ii15 -145

gl.

g

tIg

1_

!Ilidlig

xvt...,

VrIt11

.Ld.t

1Jw

il..e&4.blif.

x, ffa--,

if115

ST

EIt,

-111%E.,.

VIg bevilsii

8-II11.EilsS

ivif0or1111.

°'

SI

F6tfi2:°xI)I_si

4.

III;me

11li

a

Ee

1!itsi

1172 C0111111E1 4,513.4 11 173,111 93111.7 113 435 525 30 3,110 74 2,041 2011 170 41 10 115

ItEdION 1

COhtfCTIOUT8 COUNTIES TOTAL 319 83 6,403 40.8 12 10 20 43 8 1 2 1 1 43 COUNTIES HALF WET NEED 24.0 78 6,631 30.6 11 9 11 31 3 3 2 1 1 3

hURFIELD BRIDGEPORT 18 84 1,615 10.4 6 4 i 9HARTFORD HARTFORD 7.8 78 2,157 10.0 4 4 3 34MY HAVEN NEW HAVEN 7.4 72 2,859 10.3 1 1 1 66 e

MAME16 =VIES TOTAL 27.5 99 219 27.7 1 2 44 95 16 16 3 1 24 COUNTIES HALF 1/04E1 NEED 118 99 195 14.0 1 1 18 89 4 4 1 1

CUISERLAA0 POR TWO 4.6 100 4.6 6 100AROOSTOOK PRESQUE ISLE 3.2 100 3.2 6 100YORK NIKO 10 100 3.0 3 100PENOBSCOT BANGOR 10 94 195 3.2 I 1 3 53

WZACHUSETT14 COUNTIES TOTAL 819 92 1,318 912 19 67 63 14 14 1 1 54 COUPCIIS HALF MOAT NEED 48.8 98 1,113 49.9 7 43 19 4 4 3

MIDDLESEX WARM 16.9 95 912 17.9 4 16 13ESSEX LYNN 11.0 100 S0 11,1 1 10 13WORCESTER WORCESTER 10.6 98 168 108 2 11 12BRISTOL NEW BEDFORD 10.2 100 10.2 6 100

NEW /Ante10 COUNTIES TOTAL 138 49 110 13.9 2 I 29 100 8 10 1

1 COUNTIES HALF UNMET NEED 1.9 100 33 7.9 1 13 100 2 3 1

HI1SBOROUGH 111A11016111 40 100 40 1 100ROM: MI PORTSVOUTH 14 99 33 15 1 3 100MERRIMACK CONCORD 1.5 100 1.5 3 NO

SW JERSEY21 COUNTIES TOTAL 91.1 85 17,125 114.9 1 26 24 52 57 17 21 6 I 1 66 COUNTIES HALF USIET NEED 414 81 11,795 61.1 6 14 14 24 52 3 6 3 1 3

ESSEX NEWARK 11.5 II 6,878 184 S 2 10 50140011 JERSEY CITY 9.4 IS VS 111 4 5 100 6

110741011111 10113 MANCH $3 S 371 17 1 2 1 3/PASSAIC PATERSON 7.1 16 1,111 $2 I 2 2 4 18 a

KM tEAPIECX 88 V 1,515 43 4 3 6 2 301110011SEX 11111111116W 11 17 201 45 2 2 49

NEW YORK

42 CCIJKIS TOM MI 72 99.228 351.4 26 65 69 4 172 32 53 44 11 6 5 SI C O U N T I E S MI MET NEED128S 61 12,109

MINIMINIMMII.7111=211 2 24 48 25 2 31 32 2 6 6 4 5 3

NE1 YORK 41.4 116 21,156 6t1 1 11 S 1 9 24

1 IN

Estimated Family PlanningNeed and Service Levels

Existing and Potential Resources for Program Exparts loa

Estimated Family PlanningClinks sad Agencies

Related Heal* and Organizational Resources

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

iIS§1

g}

11

/I1111

a:

1.[1p,

is

E

/Aitil

vibir//Ijiti.3

i /11

vii1,IR

32

1

.1

I

I11

1I a

Iii13IliII

li.r/Isi.11

ir.:4Si.s,I:

L11

0 r1 i

i*

it0.;

II

d1

1idril2

11

Ed"§I

1isSi

ifs

1,liSi

t0.1.

SiIEW YORK

ftli YORK NEW YORK 194 39 29,162 492 12 19 5 2QUEENS NEW YORK 134 13 6865 252 6 5 1 3

BRONX NEW YORK 17.3 48 16112 364 3 6 2 1

ERIE BUFFALO 162 80 4,016 20.2 4 3 6SUFFOLK LINDENHURST 15.2 94 998 162 S 10

RHODE ISLAM5 COUNTIES TOTAL 168 80 4,157 21.0 I 3 8I COUNTIES HALF LOKI NEED 94 10 4,106 13.5 1 1 4

PROVIDENCE PROVENCE 94 10 4,106 115 I I 4

VERMCN1

14 COUNTIES TOTAL 10.8 99 97 10.9 I 18

S COUNTIES HALF UNAET NEED 62 98 91 63 1 9

CRITTENDEN BURLINGTON 2.0 9S 97 2.1 1 IRUTIMO RUTIAN3 .4 100 1.4 1

WASHINGTON MONTPELIER 1 0 100 1.0 3

WINDSOR SPPSOIELD 1.0 100 1.0 2

FIWIIIIN ST ALBANS .9 100 .9 2

KINN I

DELAWARE

3 COUNTIES TOTAL 61 63 4,053 10.8 8 2 5 4

1 COUNTIES KW UNMET NEED 4 5/ 3,568 14 2 1 2 2

NEW e/411E W1LIONGTON 2.8 46 3251 II I 1 1

DOVER 20 S6 317 23 2 1 1

DIST. OF COL

1 COUNTIES TOTAL 2.4 It 16333 201 11 S 6 41 COINT1ES HALF LNAET WO 2.4 I t 16333 201 11 5 6 4

WASHINGTON WAS/WM 2.4 It HI II S 6 4

KENTUCKY

120 COUNTIES TOTAL 130.4 92 11A13 141.8 1 6 3 16

23 COUNTIES HALE 1NAE1 FM 651 II 11,452 13 6 1 6 3 3?

NITERSON lOUISYILLE . 129 16 4,165 11.1 1 1 8PIKE P1101111 4.1 N 106 SO 1

twin LEXINGTON 41 13 1,513 5. 6 1 1 3NAVA HARLAN 28 V 410 33 I 1

11.0Y0 PRESTON SBURG 211 12 251 10 3 2 1

KENTON COYINGTON 28 100 2.1 2IELL MOUE !I 13 It/ 21 2 I 1

WW1 BOWLING 6REE14 26 IS 121 21 1

DAMN ONIATOORD 24 96 108 LS 3

HARDIN 13.12MIENTOWN 24 103 24 1

M O O C H R I O N O N D 2 2 9 S 130 24 i 3

LEVIER NIIITESSURG It 9! 46 22 1 INAM SCOOSEI 21 1/ 12 22 1

850

3

111

55100

62 5 4 1 1

68 1 1 1 1

68

100 14 14 1

100 S S 1

103103

100100100 a

30 I 3

19 I 2

9HO

20 I 1 1

20 1 I

20

31 44 97 1 3 $ 4

$9 3 19 2 4 3

83100

7110344

10060 a

100103

100100

too .NO a

147

Table 3. 516 Castles Containing Half 41 Each State's Unmet Need for Subsidized Family Planning Services, by 0E0 Region and State: Need, Service Levels, Existing andPotential Resources for Program Expansion. FT 1968 (Ranted in Each Stott by Number of Medically Indigent Women Not Served; Designates Location of One or None P-grams or Resources within County) continued

PlEstimated family ManningNeed and Service Levels

biding and Potential Resoortri for Program Espansloa

Estimated Family PlanningMks and Agencies Related Health and Organizational Resources

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

cocco

§ii- i.1pVi!

ii13;1.

is

1ll&SE

li

It,111keiSE:t.

HI

I

%I12Ig

i1is

12

3]ag

i`15

11A1 I

i1150'Stli

r .1

IXmgARm#fpJ

141.=Asfs..

S;

a!.-.'ill1g r2 Ms i

fg

0IstEsl

luE5,,toglj-

4:

s1

Edss1

sl

i*

%Ie

.;

sl

1

1p

s

flifTUCKY

CHRISTIAN WPM/4SO.1EPERRY , HAZARD

HOPKINS ILMHSCNYILLE

KNOX BARBOURVILLE

MCCRACKEN PADUCMCAIAPSELL NEWPORT

BOYD CATIETISSURGBARREN GLASGOW

LAUREL LONDON

CLAY MANCHESTER

2.1 100

2.0 81 479L 9 100 5

1.9 88 270

1.8 91 191

18 103

1.8 96 79

1.11.5

1

91

00155

15 92 141

MARYLAND

23 COUNTIES TOTAL mks a myh4 COUNTIES HALF 11411 NEED 252 56 20,910

BALTIMORE BALINCRE 14.1

PRINCE ORG HYATTSVILLE 58ANNE ARUICOL ANNAPOLIS 13IOITGOTERY BETHESDA . 3.0

NORTH CAROU

44 17,914

86 91372 1,268

79 815

100 COLINTLES TOTAL 201.7 Si 29,42424 Mtn HAL/ UNMET PIED 101.1 93 10,963

GUILFORD GREENSBORO 7.7 92 624

WAKE RALDCH 7.7 95 425ammo FAYETIFYIU1 7.5 81 1,160

ROBESON

LA ifS3 93 416

SHEY1U/ 19 GM

FCRSYTN WINSTON-SALEM 5.0 74 1,538GASTON GASTONIA 10 92 423

PITT ALE 87 93 381

NAM GOLDSBORO 4.3 U 912

01610W JACKSONALLE 80 96 115

ONION SAITHF1ELD 1$ 95 212

NEW ILANWElt 1VIUNIGTON 16 33 20OURNAM OUR1IJ4 15 72 1315MON WiSON 15 91 61

DAYIDSON ttIINGTEll 15 103SAMPSON MMTON 13 98 NIHALIFAX 101/AX 11 111 414

IDIOM KINSTON 19 19 StRUES SUMMON 14 91 42NASH MS/MU

10DACIA SHELBY 10 45SS

154

521

NORM IIANIVOLIS t9 U M(AIWA 0141MIE LS *2 237

MUSA lOttfl L4 S 151

PENFISYLVN4A

61 COMM 101PL 211 6 $1 )241114 CCUITIES 11141111110114/ 21,113

7iirrarma-ifutaiiik- 824 6S 11,511

3M

2.12.51.9

2.22.01.81.91.7

1.7

1.7

1

1

1

1

I21

1

1

I

103

50100100

HO

110003100

100

711 68 9 5 31 5741.2 35 9 5 16 47

32.0 14 7 3 9 4251 3 1 2 10

4.6 13 2 10018 5 1 2 3 80

231.1 6 3 99 86 7

1121 4 34 84 1

83 4 10081 1 2 6481 2 100

S? 1 100i t 1 S3

65 1 1 59i4 2 1005. 1 1 103

& 2

4.2I1

1

100304.0 1 ItO3.141 1 2 4I15 I HO15 2 KO14 1 100

16 I 10014 2 10011 I 100

1115

3 KO11 1 10311 I 10314 1 10)

2416 46 51 1 153 62 411427 21 21 1 61 53 14

415 IS 6 I 11 24

19 1 1 I I4 1 1 1 I

SO $ 418 2 3

a

51 2 2 614 1 2 2 1

1114

*888

R68

888r

li62f

t

CIP

14,0

1401

%14

0140

ad, f

a, f

".0

NW

r4.

..IA

01,

ar.

0.ra

888

8888

8 ss

0000

000

004O

s

Elm

o

1.0

MIT

T!"

1111

1111

1111

01gE

gN

NN

NN

NN

NN

f+t +

:Sr

e 1:

r 7-

1 ;;;

0

C888888888888888T

or.

rrnr

rrr

Pro

Pa P

o Y

.*a

A. V

.17.

7.4

- IA

GO

r; IA

Ima

rrr.

err

Pr

PrPr

fr.

4. .

0. 4

..

Wis

assa

ss s

asss

a0 N

Ta t

a l-m

r,fr

o

Nci

9 as

-D=

2

9.1

=S

=S

2=-ic

E: Z

10.1

7.1:

607:

"..W

15A

O t

At 0

0le

Ppe

e

Ete

geat

tegm

a

e m

aiSo

Pi 9

, 7. 7

. 7. S

O r

%)

.r U

I0

0E0

Reg

ion,

Sta

tean

d C

ount

y0.

Maj

or C

ity

Med

ical

ly In

dige

ntW

omen

Not

Ser

ved

(C00

s)

Per

cent

Uns

erve

d(C

ol. 3

Col

. 6)

01.

Med

ical

ly In

dige

ntW

omen

Ser

ved

Med

ical

ly In

dige

ntW

omen

in N

eed

ofF

amily

Pla

nnin

g (0

003)

Num

ber

of K

now

n H

ealth

Dep

t. C

linic

Loc

atio

ns.ta

N:;:

nlxa

r of

Hos

pita

lsC

PI

Num

ber

of P

lann

edP

aren

thoo

d-A

ffilia

ted

Clin

ics

Num

ber

of O

ther

Age

ncie

sR

epor

ting

Ser

vice

sO

Hos

pita

ls N

ot R

epor

ting

Fam

ily P

lann

ing

Ser

vice

s

eart

hs in

Col

. 11

Hos

pita

lsas

% o

f Hos

pita

l Birt

hs

Cou

ntie

s w

ithou

t Hea

lthD

epar

tmen

t Fam

ilyP

lann

ing

Ser

vice

s

Cou

ntie

s w

ithC

omm

unity

Act

ion

Age

ncy

Cou

ntie

s w

ith 0

E0-

Fun

ded

Fam

ily P

lann

ing

Pro

ject

Cou

ntie

s w

ith 0

E0

or P

HS

Nei

ghbo

rhoo

d H

ealth

Ctr

.

Cou

ntie

s w

ith M

ater

nity

and

Infa

nt C

are

Pro

ject

4111

.

Cou

ntie

s w

ithM

odel

City

Pro

gram

MO 3. 516 Coedits Containing Ralf of Each States Unmet Need foe Subsidized Family Planning Services, by 0E0 Region LA State: Need, SeMu Levels, Existing sadPotential Resources for Program bpassion, FY 1968 (Raaked in Each State by Number of Medically Indigent Mason Not Served; Designates location of Ooe or More fro-grants or Resources within County) continued

Estimated Family PlanningNeed and Storks levels

Existing and Potential Resources for Program (MMUS

Estimated family PlanningMks aad Agencies Related Health and Organizational Resources

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 11

It§1 1

at

11

jjli

enjg

1

ji111

-k.ihilarzg

I1Eg

11i1EE iLtd

11li

IEIAm

viiiPZii.,

2f±.71

/5igea

Iz.ill

i 1S i

F

Vi biiS

11

;IPliI-SS.

E6

5;IiIfi

1

Z.v

2i1/11-Si

1 kto

11

NOON IN

ALABAMA67 COUNTIES TOTAL 142114 COUNTIES HALF UNMET NEED 73.4

EFFERSON BIRIAIN32IAM 16.7MOBILE MOBILE 9.1MADISON HUNTSVILLE 6.4MONTGOMERY MONTGOMERY 6.0TUSCALOOSA TUSCALOOSA S9CALHOUN ANNISTON 4.5ETOWAH GADSIXN 4.1TALLADEGA TALLADEGA 35MORGAN DECATUR 11HOUSTON DOTHAN 30CULLMAN CULL/WI 2.9

LEE AUBURN 2.8MARSHALL ALBERTYILIt 2.8RUSSELL PHENIX CITY 27

FLORIDA

6/ COUNTIES TOTAL 100.3COUMIES HALF ow NEED 9S2

DADE MAN 27.1

HILSBOROUGH TAM 15.0BROWARD TT LAUCIENALI 13.4

PtillAS ST. PETERSBURG 113DIM lACK9GAYILLE IGOPALM BEACH WtAtil BEACH 9.1ORANGE ORM130 . 7.3

GEORGIA

158 COUNTIES TOTAL 171925 COUPES /VLF 11041 TEED 90.8

FUTON ATLANTA . 1(5RICHNION) AUGUSTA 7.6IIUSCOGIA ootumeus . 7.2CHATHAM SAYAM4A/I . 19OMB MACON 6.0DE VIALS ATLANTA itCOBB MARIETTA . 4.5DCUGHER11 MANY . 4.0TIOYD ROW 29HAIL GAINESVILI 2.4CUUME ATIOS 25CNINPIETI lANNEFICIVILII 2.4TROUP 14 ORME ItCUM BRUNSVOCI1 1 ILOCIMIS 11700914 2.1

IIMIWIE10 BALTON 2.1CAPPOLL CARROLOCN 200.411011 JOKSOCAO 1.3WALKEN U.141111E 11

90

81

8033,21017,933

175391.3

99

22

5

31

1

8531

88

13

44

9

5

3

2I

2

2

1

1

65 8,982 257 4 1 2 1 64

71 3,793 12.9 5 1 4 6387 916 1.3 1 1 10018 1,686 1.7 1 4 100 a

93 433 63 1 100100 21 4.6 2 100

99 D) 12 2 100

96 163 36 2 100

88 434 3.5 1 10093 216 32 1 10093 214 3.1 1 10$2 622 3.4 1 10391 273 30 3 100

96 120 28 1 100

79 48,716 229.0 84 1 99 80 38 2 1 1? 276 30,252 1255 39 4 33 73 7 1 1 4 2

7$ 8,955 311 7 1 9 1011 3,473 155 6 3 10079 3,519 169 6 1 3 5583 2,662 110 1 4 5660 6,634 157 9 1 3 2/11 2061 11.2 1 6 10012 2,906 10.2 4 5 103

88 2011 MI 2 1 It 91 12 1 193 2 1 2 5$3 19,014 IOU 2 7 12 32 65 U 1 1 2 4

591512

101061

1,3651.54?

24.?

90U

1 21

6 40

2

44

15$8811

71

942611

2090

1.9

6673 1

2

1

1 6 1001791

154

684.7

4.0 10000

II 10 II 103gl 47 26 10010 2/4 21 2 10031 70 35 2 )0011 221 34 2 )0091 65 21 1 10310 245 2.4 1 103tS 119 IA 100

100 1 31 I1 10017 68 1.9 a

IS 12 1.9

ait

a N

0 0

0 0

ra.

NW

Qy

astittststsscar.a

;a=

aEORMX3Iii cR

16.

400.

UI

4o0 ac

"OM§ WinsT ma I

eSg

tree

//ma,

OE

M

Rill

i111

1111

1111

raff

Ora

rara

5.04

00

macumvsymansmemttmtnmtes

EEIZMi5icEEMBIsmCilig

..-1%

)P0N

r.,N

NN

I.rP

,,N10

r.,"

en. r

m.

pyi

9140

88 88 8 8888888888844

0 O

D

nts sv

Ca,

lear 00

*Igass:4-1:2

v pe

400

0

888888

§0E

0 R

egio

n* S

tate

and

Cou

nty

Pm.

Mai

er C

ity

Med

ical

ly I

ndic

ant

Wom

en N

ot S

erve

d (0

00s)

Perc

ent U

nner

ved

(Col

. 3C

ol. 6

)

Med

ical

ly I

ndig

ent

Wom

en S

erve

d

Med

ical

ly I

ndig

ent

Wom

en in

Nee

d of

Fam

ily P

lann

ing

(000

s)O

f

Num

ber

of K

now

n H

ealth

Dep

t. C

linic

loca

tions

.4

Num

ber

of H

ospi

tals

Num

ber

of P

lann

edPa

rent

hood

Aff

iliat

edC

linic

s

Num

ber

of O

ther

Age

ncie

sR

epor

ting

Serv

ices

Hos

pita

ls N

ot R

epor

ting

Fam

ily P

lann

ing

Serv

ices

O

Bir

ths

in C

ol. 1

1 H

ospi

tals

% o

f H

ospi

tal B

irth

s

Cou

ntie

s w

ithou

t Hea

lthD

epar

tmen

t Fam

ilyPl

anni

ng S

ervi

ces

rr

Cou

ntie

s w

ithC

omm

unity

Act

ion

Age

ncy

Cou

ntie

s w

ith 0

E0-

Fund

tdFa

mily

Pla

nnin

g Pr

ojec

t

Cou

ntie

s w

ith 0

E0

or P

HS

Nei

ghbo

rhoo

d H

ealth

Ctr

.

Cou

ntie

s w

ith M

ater

nity

and

Infa

nt C

are

Proj

ect

Im 4.11 1

Cou

ntie

s w

ithM

odel

City

Pro

gram

on

'Fable 1 516 Counties Containing Half l LA Slate's Unmet Need for Subsidized Family Manning Services, by 0E0 Region and Stale: Need, Service Levels, Distils andPotential Resources for Provers Evasion, FY 1968 (Ranted in Each State by Number of Medically Indigent Women Not Served; Dagates Location of 001 or More Pro-grams or Resources within County) continued

Estimated Family PlanningNeed and Service Levels

Es sting and Potential Resources for Program Expansion

Estimated Family PlanningClinics and Agencies Related Health and Organizational Resources

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 IS 17 18

itcica

g i a

I

il1123

1

jg.....

k11a

i`S2ill2E31.-

E

151

liz 1

iiiKIS

1zla

10 z

aa

4xa: 3

132Isvr.c.1a

6h111Z".

S 2

6I

s5

v

itgor

si!

E g

Elo

2

si

Pv

ita.a

sagosi

ilIF

EE

TvsiTENNESSEE

MARTON CHATTANOOGA 96K/40X 1U4OXYLLE 9.5SULLIVAN Ewa ivMADISON JACKSC44 11WAN/IGEN JOHNSON CITY 3.1GIBSON TRENTON 29GREENE GREENEVILLE

MONIGCNERY CLARKSY1U1

2826

BLOM MAMIE 16RUTHERFORD NURFREESEICIRO 25WINER GALLATIN 23BRADLEY Cling° 22 100PUTKAM 2 2ANDERSON OAKRIDGE

COMMIE20

Komi re

9886

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

91

100

100

88

200

1,500

13

250

287

9811.0

5.03.1

31292.82.6262823/ 21223

21

31

1

1

1

1

2

1

I

2

1 453 81

1 621 100

2 100

2 100

I 100

I2

100

10100

1

2

100

1 1

1 10000

1114015102 COUNTIES TOTAL 151410 COUKIIES HAL/ 11.11 NEED 804

061

38,89238141

191.3

111118

18

10

10

IS14

II

201 086 73

101

960

91

1

I1 2

COOK CHICAGO 44.2ST CUM E. STLOUIS 69MADISON ALTON I MO 4.6WE WAUKEGAN 4.0WINNEBAGO ROCKFORD 38DU PAGE VI/CATON 16Val 1011E1 15PEORIA PEORIA 15SANGAMCII Sri/10E1D 12CAMAPANIN C1141,4414 3i2

54

100100

100

100

100

100

97100

90

36311

96

334

825694.64.0383635163215

18 9

1

12

1

1 1

55 655 100

S 100

S 103

3 MO4 100

2 100

2 SS

2 100

3 100

INNANA92 COUNTIES TOTAL 1016MOUNTIES KW UNKT IUD 51.1

6225 109586.1

18

HI44

2/21

93 1031 84

ItIt

54

11 I

14.41/071 FORKAPOLIS 95LAKE curt 1.1VMCIERStRCH EVANSVUE 4.2ALLEN FT WAY/E 42ELIDIART MART 3.7ST XISEPH SOUTH BEND

Y100 TUN HAUTE 13.1 6

MADISON AKERSON 16DELAWARE Mt 24MCC OlOOMINGION 12IlMICANCE LAFAYETTE 20WAYNE MOO 1

PORTE LA PORTE 1.1

CLARK JEIFERSCRYILLE 16GRANI MARION I

0$4

8110100

$S91

101211

101

0100

NO10

43))525624

20448I

220241

11

11882484.231183.3.1t611LS101.81.1

1

1.4.4

IS

1

1

1

3

1

913

I

1

2

1

3 SI4 103 103

3 1

2 10002 562 103 100

1 101 102 100

1 102 10II

1

1030

a

s

o

a

182

Table 3. 516 Counties Containing Hall of Each states Unmet Need for Subsidised family Planning Services, by 0E0 Region and State: Need, Serrke Levels, Existing andPotential Resources far Program Expansion. FY 1962 (Ranked in Each State by Number of Medically Indigent Women Not Served; Designates Location of One or More Pro-grams or Resources within County) continued

Estimated Family PtanningNeed sod Service Lents

Fisting and Potential Resources for Program Expansion

Estimated Family PlanningMks and *pocks Related Health and Organizational Resources

1 2 3 5 6 7 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Ita a§ i

.t.

.hi

IIIIilila;

l1.

le'.5

11.r.

itz x

w Iflii,L.- z a.t-.5 2

114'z x S

jgIINe ""v

1 :a

11;

Ali_0

i2

1jigD

1

lig2 13

leil11

ff2_

liteatic

fta

zi11,5

;szka1

IP-iljlig idipS i

i49g

59It'gitic§

izwig cl

2?721g

It3,..

E68151

2x71g

SI

4II111712

Si

rit2a

S*MICHIGAN

83 COUNTIES TOTAL 141.4 81 32,220 173.6 25 19 33 139 70 53 71 7 1 66 COUNTIES HAlf UFOAET NEED 71.6 13 25,311 980 IS 16 20 35 57 3 6 3 1 3

WAYNE DETROIT 381 65 20)04 59.4 8 12 1 23 50OMAN) ROYAL OAK 11.0 97 363 11.3 I 2 3 70WOMB WARREN 8.3 99 58 84 i 1 100KENT GRAND RAPIDS 53 77 1,578 69 6 1 7 2 56GENESEE FLINT 4.5 61 2,942 7.5 1 3 3 75INGRAM LANSING 3.8 84 726 4.6 I 1 3 52

MINNESOTA

87 COUNTIES TOTAL 70.5 C8 9,459 79.9 7 6 7 161 95 85 81 I 2 320 COUNTIES HALE UNMET NEED 35,8 79 9,384 45.2 7 5 7 66 94 18 17 I 2 3

littlEPIN MINNEAPOLIS 1.1 54 6007 111 6 2 1 13 90ST LOUIS DULUTH & 1 99 49 & I 1 1 9 100RAMSEY ST. PAUL 2.8 46 3,293 61 1 I 5 3 91STEARNS ST CLOUD 2.6 100 2.6 4 100OTTER TAIL FERGUS FALLS 1.7 100 1.7 2 100BIDE EARTH IWPATO 1.5 100 1.5 2 100COASTED

DAKOTA

ANIKA

ROCHESTER 1.4

HASTINGS 1.3NOLA 1.3

100

100100

1.4

1.31.3

232

100

100

100'MONA WV4OKA 1.1 100 1.1 I 100RICE FARIBAULT 1.1 100 1.1 2 100ITASCA GRAM RAPIDS 1.1 100 1.1 3 100CROW WING eurtRo to 100 lb 2 100&IMAM BESODI 1.0 97 3$ 1.0 1 I 110

WRIGHT RITMO 1.0 100 1.0 2 100MORR1SCN Int FALLS 1.0 100 10 1 100POLIL CROOKSTON 1.0 100 lb 3 100TODD WIG PRAM .9 100 .1 3 100BECKER DETROIT MS .1 100 .9 1 100WASHINGTON STILLWATER .9 100 .9 2 100

OHIO

88 COMO TOTAL 1111 la 31,517 2167 25 24 53 1 IX 61 12 86 10 4 2 1

13 COUPES NAY WW1 NEED 911 12 35,430 1255 13 22 52 1 41 52 1 13 3 3 2 6

CUYAHOGA COMM 17.4 St 12,191 21.6 3 1 IS 1 12 37HAMILTON CINCINNATI 114 69 5,421 113 6 3 6 3 3SMONTGOMERY DAYTON 10 82 1,113 10.1 1 11 3 61 a

FRAPKIN Minus 82 50 1,141 164 2 9 3 60 a

SUMMIT WON 1.8 88 1,061 89 1 2 2 45 a a

SIAM CANTON IS II 117 TO 1 1 3 61LUCAS TOLEDO St 6, 3,426 9.3 2 1 3 4 ISMAHAN YOUNGSTOWN 4.4 16 1,431 5.8 2 1 100LORAN ICON 4.2 100 t 2 4 1008UTIER HAMILTON 1 1 91 406 4.1 2 3 ItOTRIMULL YAWN 17 95 203 1 9 1

SCI010 PORMAO.MI 11 91 23 12 1 I 1 43CLAM SFISIGFIELO 21 112 602 14 1 I 2 100

193

TOW 3. 516 Counties Containing Hall of Each Stites (limit Need lot Subsidized Family Planning Services, by 0E0 Region and Stale: Need, Sark/ levels, Existing sadPotential Resources far Program Expansion, FT 1968 (Raided in Each Slate by Number of Medically Indigent Women Not Served; rks1211etes Location of One or More Pre -vin or Resources within County) continued

Estimated Family PlanningNeed and Service Wets

Existing and Potential Resources for Program 1.4441.0

and Organisational ResourcesEstimated Family Pinning

Chics and AgenciesWaled Health

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 11 15 16 17 IS

§i i

11

-i-2

il..

e.1-

li

1

za

it..

vaI

rseill.....

i

14

1;...5

1.is

1

15V

ii

iii

li41

ii

itIIill

1x

liII

i4illi

idNg

1

i?

z-ilk11

I;

ca

ig/1

WISCONSIN

11 COUNTIES

15 CD.INTIES

MINIM, EEDANE

WAUKESHA

RACINE

ROCK

BROWNMARATHON

WINBAGOOUT AGAMIE

FON) DU LAC

LACROSSE

GRANT

SHEBOYGAN

KENO9SA

DOCGE

11E001

WNW,15 COUNTIES

1/ COXES

PUUISK1

ITIVISON

WASHINGTON

MITE/OEMSEBASTWIFIILLIPSGARLANICRAIGNEM1

UWIRIMFAULKNER

lAtUERSt. FRANCAPO SETT

OJACHI1A

LOUISIANA

64 COUNTIES

TOTAL 764HALF UNMET MCI 316

MILWAUKEE 11.5MADISON 4.2WAUKESHA 23RACINE 2.1

JANESVILLE 2.0GREEN BAY 20WAUSAU 1.9

OSHKOSH 1.9

APIIETON 1.6FOND DU LAC 1.6LACROSSE 1.6LANCASTER 1.5

SHEBOYGAN 1.5KENDSNA 1.5JUNEAU 1.2

TPTA8 101.4

f UNAET NEED 51.9

LITTLE ROCK 10.1

FINE BLUFT 4.4EItYllerlit 4.0FAIITTEY1LIt 3.6WFT MMIMTH HS 12

2.1NOT SPRIGS 2.4

JOIMESSCRO

SEARCY

4

22.3

ELDORADO 228ENTCIMUI 22COKRAY 2.0TEXARKANA 1.1

TORREST COY .1

HARRISBURG .8CANT DIX 1.8

VIAL 1561

91 2,148 79.1 4 7 142 92 71 4993 2,748 41.3 4 7 54, 88 15 1

82 2530 14.0 3 6 13 7294 185 4.4 1 4 9099 33 23 1 3 100

103 2.1 3 100100 20 3 1 00

100 2.0 3 100100 1.9 2 100100 1.9 2 100100 1.6 2 100100 1.6 3 100100 1.6 4 100IC* 1.5 5 100100 1.5 3 100100 1.5 2 100100 1.3 2 100

9544

5,0923,511

106.5

55.4

90 1,016 11.294 271 4.688 569 4.6

69 199 26 3396 115 3 299 13

SS

1240S

19 2.6

9

96 IS 2.4164 2/

100 t298 44 2. 1

15 102 1.1

14 341 2.1

100 1.199 21 1.1

44 1

19 1

58 11 37 48 1 1

24 V 2 12 2 3 1

32

21

2

1

1

1

1

1

3

4 64

1 1002 100 I2 KO1 100

2 100

1 100

2 1CO

1 103

1 100

3 103

1 1031 100

1 103

1 100

91 14,771 IN 512 COUNTIES MI UNMET CO 1113 15 14137 921

ORLEANS NEW ORLEANS lit 61 10,330 26.6CADDO SHREVEPORT 11 91 226 10.2EAST BA TOR 0 DAMN ROUGE 11 11 2075 91IFFERSON COMA

G1.4 10) 7

1.41OUA TA MONE 5 6 100

$I UJIDITY °PROS 3 1 3 100 13ANUS NANO 11A II ?I kW 0

CAIca Mt MI (1 1.00 81

194

1

1 S

$

31

1

67 73

32 VSI 31

I34

1 17 e

3 id e I1 S6 5 I7 1C0

1 KO I1 1C0

1 I Wa

O

4 MO

MEstimated Family aimingNeed and Service Levels

Distill aad Pelletal Resources for Program &puska

Estimated family Mamas'CNaks and Ageodes

Related Health and Orgerdiational Resources

6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

1

It§1

li11;

itxt

1GIS

1

111

II.

11iIII11P

ffi.

Iii1611

I, e

0.1OC

ri if61

I:,az

i.4:Ili

A

illS g

11t

igSS

1gi'6.1'liit.Sj

Et151

111is3/

11isilixSi

tis.il31

LOUISIANA

VERNON ItESV1LIF. 4.6LAFAYETTE LAFAYETTE 4.5TANG IPA93A AMITE 4.1

ST TAM ANY COVINGTON 13

100

100100

100

4.64.54.133

3

2

2

100100100

NEW MOOCO

32 COUNTIES TOTAL 27.07 COUNTIES KAU MC ND 14.2

8581

4,9423,252

31.911.4

21 9 1

12 1 1

327

19

70

11

1

221

1

1

22

BERNA1110 ALBUClIEROUE 4.7

DOHA ANA LAS CRUCES 1.9

SANTA FL SANTE Ft 1.6

MCKINLEY GALLUP 1.6

TAOS TAOS 1.6

RIO ARRIBA TIERRA AMARILLA 1.5

SMOOVAL OVUM 1.3

71

168815

939393

1,925314224527

121

112

29

662.21.9

2.1

171.61.3

6 2 61

1 I1 3

2 1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

73

100

8326

100

70

OKLAHOMA

11 MIMES TOTAL 81.613 COUNTIES HALF UNMET FEED 41.1

8989

10,3235,216

920463

2 10 10

1 3 10

8721

9293

IS3

9012

19

41

1

33

MAMA ORA CITY 11.2

TULSA IIILSA 12DAME LAWTC14 30CLEVEIAM) NORMAN 2.6

musr,out MUSKOGtt 25PITTSBURG MEALLISIER 2.1

MCCUR1A14 IDABEL 1.9

CNIX SAVA 1.8

POTTAWATOIME SHAWNEE 11PAYNE STILLWATER 1.6

tE FIORE POMO 1.6

GARFELD DID 1.6

BRYAN DURANT 1.4

878291

9181

100

1009193$719

9190

1,114

1,741

30961

364

SS

12S

233

414.41147

12.99.9132.62.92.1

1.9

1.91.81.82.01.61.5

1 3I ?

1

1

1

1

I1

2

1

31

21

2

87

100

76KOICO

1

100)0100

100

100

Co)

100

TEXAS

254 COMM'S TOTAL 365.1

I/ COUNTIES HALF Val NEED 1 i1.61911

44)5841,213

3911I10

50 IS 6538 15 63

2 21,45

10

51233

19214

22

12

1

HARRIS HOUSTON 312SAN ANTONIO 281

CALLAS DALLAS 211MUM FT WORM 14.5

1104100 MC MIDI 11.4

TItAV1S AUSTIN 11CAMERON BROWNSVILLE ita PASO El PASO 1.3

UCH CORPUS CHRISTIE 1.2

OMR ElEAUWONI 61141B U N D O 3 /

V 6ALVISION 1.1GP1ESTCRBat Klett 41LOOM LOOM 41$11111 MR 19

69$7811312139

93CI1$

81103

10107611

13,1804,343150010022,907117S

S14

4,111

La161

1,143431

1,224129

41032430311.5

1191111

11.S

367.4315116524.0

11 4 15

2 13

1 4 5I 1 4

1 1

S 1

31 4

1

S

21 1

41

i

1

634

4433t2

31

1

1

22

4148IS11

100

1))10013

100

IOC

100

50H

HO100

a

a

a

a

a

e

193

i110511/11111114111"

ggpiste

.I10

1110

sol

o'N

Messssemssssmsmszmigs

Sta

sat

IA igE

-1%

1 9"

wo.

11=

1.m

ak

""

son

ma.

MM

.P.

3,V

g

sE

iiiiiiiiitiacuitzarl§Re me

me

ms

a. M

I

1 1

sEE

sEE

s

a.0.

lap

POPO

asas

sssEE

0000

a.rw

WR

Ovz

°E5i

g

2f32=E8715

pFpgPGs

P4=4521

NN

NN

Wt.

mss

smE

s

.AN

W

4.10

0.4

4

8888888

WW m

OD

Sei 4).

Est

N.0

WW

an v

ET J0

&M

OO

88

g0E

0 R

egio

n. S

tate

and

Cou

nty

,m

Maj

or C

ity

Met

rica

lly I

ndig

ent

Wom

en N

ot S

erve

d (0

00s)

Perc

ent O

n:se

rved

(Col

. 3C

ol. 6

)

Med

ical

ly I

ndig

ent

Wor

m,.

Serv

ed

Med

ical

ly I

ndig

ent

Wom

en in

Nee

d of

Fam

ily P

lann

ing

(000

s)

Num

ber

of K

now

n H

ealth

Dep

t. C

linic

Loc

atio

ns

Num

ber

of H

ospi

tals

Os

Num

ber

of P

lann

edPa

rent

hood

Aff

iliat

ed

Num

ber

of O

ther

Age

ncie

sR

epor

ting

Serv

ices

Hos

pita

ls N

ot R

epor

ting

Fam

ily P

lann

ing

Serv

ices

Bir

ths

in C

ol. 1

1 H

ospi

tals

ss %

of H

ospi

tal ?

inks

Cou

ntie

s w

ithou

t Hea

lthD

epar

tmen

t Fam

ilyPl

anni

ng S

ervi

ces

f a a 2C

ount

ies

with

Com

mun

ity A

ctio

n A

genc

y7"

Cou

ntie

s w

ith 0

E0F

unde

dFa

mily

Pla

nnin

g Pr

efec

t

Cou

ntie

s w

ith 0

E0

or P

HS

Nei

ghbo

rhoo

d H

ealth

Ctr

.

Cou

ntie

swith

ilate

rnity

and

Idio

t Car

e Pr

osie

st.4

1

Mod

el C

RY

Pro

gram

Zr"

I

Cou

ntie

s w

ith

Table L. 516 Counties Containing Half at Each Slate's Unmet Need for Subsidized Family Planning Service", by 0E0 Region and Stale; Need, Service Lolls, Existing andPotential Resources for Program Expansion, FT 1968 (Ranked in Each State by Number of Medicatly Indigent Woman Not Served; Designates location of One or More Pre-grams or Resources within County) continued

............-.....-m.,tidtidTirgilelivneilnsg

Existing and Potential Resources for Pro ram Exikhsion

Estimated Family PlanningClinks and CICII$ Related Health and Organizational Rssources

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

IIof

...

=

xi=.1.

3

1-",

11_v

iIII1... S. g

i llm

15

15

15 15

fa

1

/15

-11

I

11

.1.it t4g

11

,f..g

iala a

Ifil1 IS e

/tiqigsA

11aP.51

Itsl

t'llao 2

1.5

ttsi

liGSiviisi

§

li1;sa

TAMA TOLEDO .7MARION KNOXVILLE .7DELAWARE MANCHESTER .7LEE FORT MADISON .7WINNESHIEK DECORAH .7BOONE BOONS .7MAHASKA OSKALOOSA .7BUCHANAN INDEPENDENCE .7

100

100

10071

100

100100100

2 .7.7

.71.0.7.7.7.7

1

1

1

3

1

1

1

1

100100100100100100100

KANSAS

105 COUNTIES TOTAL 49.5 89 5,984 55.5 21 1 5 127 95 9615 COUNTIES HALF UNKT NEED 25.6 88 & 523 29.1 17 1 4 31 92 11

SEDGWICK WICHITA 62 98 173 6.9 1 4 100SHAWNEE TOPEKA 2.8 87 428 3.2 1 2 100JOHNSON OVERLAND PARK 2.0CRAWFORD GIRARD 1.5

94100

115 2.11.5

1 ' ;22

100100

RENO HUTG;INSON 1.4 100 1.4 2 100WYANDOTTE KANSAS CITY 1.4 34 2,729 4.1 14 1 3 4 66LEAVENWORTH LEAVENWORTH 1.3 100 1.3 2 100MONTGOMERY I NDEPENDETICE 1.2 94 78 1.3 I 3 100RILEY MANHATTAN 1.2 100 1.2 2 100LABETTE OSWEGO 1.2 100 1.2GEARY JUNCTION CITY 1.1 100 L 1 1 100 aLYON EMPORIA 1.1 100 1.1 2 100COWLEY WINFIELD 1.0 100 1.0 2 100CHEROKEE COLUMBUS .9 100 .9 2 100MIER EL DORADO " .8 100 .8 1 100

MISSOURI . -"-

114 COUNTIES TOTAL 11&5 86 19,388 137.9 8 10 22 78 81 10417 CIY..21TIES HALF UNMET KED 59.4 76 19,170 78.5 6 10 20 36 76 10

ST LOUIS ST I OUTS 184 58 13,557 32.4 3 5 3 13 71JACKSON iititSAS CITY 10.2 70 , 4,280 14.5 4 15 6 64GREVE SPRINGFIELD 4.7 95 270 &O 2 100JASPER - - - JOPLIN - - 3.0 98 65 3.1 1 3 100BLICHANAN SAINT JOSEPH 22 94 150 2.3 2 100BUTLER POPLAR BLUFF i.1 100 2.1BOONE COLUMBIA " 2.0 79 534 2.5 1 53CAPE GIRARDE JACKSON 1.9 100 1.9 1 100JEFFRSON HILT-930RO 1.8 94 t 110 1.9 1 100PEMISCOT CRUTHERSVH. 1.8 95

i88 1.9 1 1 100

DUNKLIN KENNETT 1.7 97 45 1.7 1 1 100NEW MADRID NEW MADRID 1.6 100 1.6PU1 ASKI WAY1f.SVILLE 16 100 1.6CLAY LIBERTY 1.5 96 71 1.6 2 3 100JOHNSON WARRENSBURG 1.5 100 1.5 1 100SCOTT BENTON 1.5 100 1.5CASS HARRISONVILLE 1.4 100 1.4 1 101

2610

, ,

, , .

., -

,; i

', i . .%:-+,11.

-. -, ....,1:-.

.- -', -1,''.;

- "''r

'-'114 ,

J1

4 1 i 217 5 3 1 1

-.` ,.

. `..! ,',

197

Table 3. 516 Counties Containing Half of Each States Unmet Ned for Subsidized Niftily Planning Service; by 0E0 Region and Stale: Need, Service Levels, Existing rndPotential Resources for Program Expansion, FY 1168 (Ranked In Each State by Number of laseitolly Indigent Women Not Served; Designates Location of Des or 8ore Pro-grams or Resources within County) con ttned......---

Estimated Family PlanningHeed and Strike Levels

-----ExIstinmd Potential Resources for Program Expansion

Est Weed Family ManningClinks and mils Related Hesith and Organizational Resources

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Ifcca

§7.

b4

)1

$

-t4..

15ssac

31.

1m.3_

11r

il"

....

1

ti!1 1.1.R./1

litmma

11

1Iv_

1;1.

g

1

i;

21

t

I

.00qim

II

210-itg

mA

if

S1.1.E25iggz14

iz.

1S i

/l

gtg'S

E

sA

tpcgl1101.b,0

fs°1ilg2ftsl

.

ivV"

3si

Ei14...

VuV M

siMONTANA

56 COUNTIES TOTAL 14.6 92 1,209 15.8 12 3 48 96 54 16 2 29 COUNTIES HALF UNMET NEED 7.1 91 800 8.5 12 15 100 8 6 1 2

YELLOWSTONE BILLINGS 1.4 100 1,4 2 100CASCADE GRF.AT FALLS 1.4 100 /.4 2 100SILVER BOW BUTTE 1.1 100 1.1 2 100FLATHEAD KALISPELL .9 103 .9 2 100GALLATIN BOZEMAN .7 100 .7 1 100RAVAILI HAMILTON .6 100 .6 1 109LEWIS AND Cl. HELENA .5 100 .5 2 100VALLEY GLASGOW .5 100 .5 1 100MISSOULA MISSOULA .5 37 800 1.3 12 2 100

NEBRASKA

93 COUNTIES TOTAL 35.5 95 1,813 37.3 4 2 1 90 95 91 35 1 116 COUNTIES HALF UNMET NEED 1/13 91 1,776 20.0 4 1 7 34 94 14 7 1 1

DOUGLAS OMAHA 5.1 78 1,412 66 3 1 6 7 87 aLANCASTER LINCOLN 2.7 90 300 3.0 1 4 100BUFFALO KEARNEY 1.0 100 1.0 1 100 aHALL GRAND ISLAND 1.0 100 1.0 2 100 eSARPY PAPILLION .9 100 4 .9 1

GAGE BEATRICE .9 100 .9 2 100DODGE FREMONT .8 100 .8 1 100SCOTTS BLUFF GERING .8 100 .8 2 100MADISON MADISON .8 100 .8 3 100ADAMS HASTINGS .8 100 .8 1 100LINCOLN NORTH PLATTE ,7 100 .1 3 100 aDAWSON LEXINGTON . .6 100 .6 3 100PLATTE COLUMBUS .6 100 .6 2 NASAUNDERS WAHOO .6 100 .6GLISTER BROKEN BOW .6 103 .6 2 100KNOX BLOOMFIELD .5 100 .5 1 100

NORTH DAKOTA

53 COUNTIES TOTAL 17.3 98 314 17.6 1 2 4 8 97 5 2 1 1 112 COUNTIES HALF UNMET NEED 8.9 97 270 9.1 1 1 21 97 11 1 1 1

WARD MINOT 1.4 100 1.4 3 100GRAND FORKS GRAND FORKS 1.2 100 1.7 3 100CASS FARGO 1.0 140 1.2 1 3 100OURLEIGH BISMARCK .8 100 .8 2 100STUTSM JAMESTOWN . .7 100 .7 1 100MORTON MAM)AN .7 100 .1 1 103STARK DICKINSON , .6 100 .6RICHLAND WAPPET ON .6 100 .6 1 NGWALSH GRAFTON .5 100 .5 3 100MCLEAN WASHBURN .5 100 .5 2 100ROLETTE ROLLA .4 71 130 .6 1 1 19 oBARNES VALLEY CITY .4 100 .4 1 IN

198

Table 3. 516 Counties Conte loins Hall of Each State's Unmet Need for Subsidized Family Planning Services, by 0E0 Region and Stale: Need, Semite Lewis, Existing andPotential Resource! for Program Expansion, FY 1966 (Reeked In Each Slate by Number of Medically Indigent Women Not Served; Designates Location of One or Mora Pro.gams or Resources within County) continued

AnaalorsemkEstimated Family PlanningNeed and Service Levels

Existiag and Potential Resort's for Program Expenalm

Esti.-zele1 family PlanningRelated Health and OrgenitiatIonal ResourcesClinics end Agencies

3 4 5 6

A

filjt

i;13

'I

HI

8 9 10 11 I 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

SOUTH DAKOTA

67 COUNTIES TOTAL 21.4 9816 COUNTIES HALF UNMET NEED 10.8 99

MINNEHAHA SIOUX FALLS 1.1 100BROWN ABERDEEN 1.0 100PENNINGTON RAPID CITY .8 95BROOKINGS BROOKINGS .7 100YANKTON YANKTON .7 100BEADLE HURON .7 100MEADE STURGIS .6 100ROBERTS SISSETON .6 92COD1NGTON WATERTOWN .6 100CHARLES MiX LAKUNDES .5 95HUTCHINSON OLIVET . .5 100DAVISON MITCHELL .5 100LINCOLN SANTON .5 100TURNER PARKER .5 100CLAY VERMILUON .5 100BON HOIAME (YNEAU. .4 100. iUTAH

29 COUNTIES TOTAL 19.4 982 COUNTIES HALF UNMET NEED 10.5 96

SALT LAKE SALT LAKE CITY 7.2 94UTAH PROVO 13 100

WYOMING

23 COUNTIES TOTAL 5.9 995 COUNTIES HALF NOB NEED 10 99

LARAMIE CHEYENNE .8 96NATRONA CASPER .7 100ALBANY . LARAMIE .6 100FREMONT LAMER R .6 100SHERIDAN - SHERIDAN .4 100

dESION VII

ARIZONA

14 COUNTIES TOTAL 39.9 832 COUNTIES HALF UNMET NEED 25.7 19

FIARICOPA PHOENIX 113 82PIMA TUCSON 6.4 74

CALIFORNIA

58 COUNTIES TOTAL 3011 804 COUNTIES HALF UNMET NEED 152.5 80

LOS ANGELES LOS ANGELES 93.8 74SAN DIEGO SAN DIEGO 23.6 92ORANGE SAWA ANA 19.-1 88SAN BEFNARDI SAtiBERt4AR 15.6 96

op

SS.

384 21.8 45 92 67 21116 10.9 3 19 98 IS 10

1.9 2 1001.0 1 100

44 .8 1 1 SOO

1 100.l 1 100.7 1 100.6

45 .6 1 1 49.6 2 100

27 .6 1 2 73.5 2 100.5 2 100.5.5 1 100.5 1 100.4 1 100

495 19.9 4 3 25 65 27 11493 11.0 3 2 5 62 1 2

493 7.7 3 2 3 523.3 2 100

35 6.0 27 2235 3.1 7 1 00 4

/5 .8 2 100.7 1 100.6 1 100.6 2 100A 1 1L0

8,287 48.2 22 IS 3 37 53 10 14 2 1

6,635 323 19 6 3 13 43 2 2

4,355 23.7 17 5 2 10 302280 8.7 2 1 1 3 95

75,361 378.5 80 27 22 5 275 82 16 39 10 6 3 7

37,793 190.3 29 8 12 1 93 82 4 2 1 1 2

3251 126.3 18 6 12 I 58 711,962 25.6 7 1 14 942,697 22.1 2 8 100

615 16.2 2 i 13 94

199

Table 3. 516 Counties Containing Half of Each State's Unmet Need lox Subsidised Family Planning Services, oy 0E0 Region and Stale: Need, Service Levels, Existing endPotential Resources for Program Expansion, FY 1968 (Ranked in Each Stale by Number of Medically Indigent Women Not Se,ved; Designates Location of One or More PIagrams or Resources within County) continued

Estimated Family Plann;ngNeed and Service Levels

Existing and Potential Resources for Program Expansion

Eitimatcd Family PlanningClinics and Agencies

Related Health and Organics Donal Resources

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

I/4

If§1

t,a

a

Rg

1

ii§Z3

I....h

vs23

e.. ratinvgi23u-

IIZ

"]Z

11gi

11.gha

g1.pa/r.rth

r.g

IA0/17agart:1,2

-13

asig31gGet

R

.,73li

m

IP1A1

:gs,.t.Eski

i1

lz13'4igsci

Ii1

.r11ito!t-tSI

Eti2A:

011civtSA

#IIe

1 341ixSi

y.

1av3Si

NEVADA

Al COUNTIES TOTAL 5.3 69 2,417 7.7 2 12 98 15 17 1

1 COUNTIES HALF UNMET NEED 2.9 68 1,334 4.2 3 100

CLARK LAS VEGAS 2.9 68 1,334 4.2 3 100 6

OREGON

36 COUNTIES TOTAL 39.8 93 3,121 42.9 8 1 3 65 94 28 21 1 1 1

5 COUNTIES HALF UNMET HEED 21.5 90 2,523 24.1 1 1 2 18 91 3 5 1 1 1

MULTNOMAH PORTLAND 8.5 79 2,323 10.8 1 2 7 85

LANE EUGENE 4.1 100 4.1 4 100

MARION SALEM 16 100 3.6 4 100

CLACIAMAS OREGON CITY 2.9 94 200 3.1 1 1 100

JACKSON MEDEORD 2.4 100 2.4 2 100

WASHINGTON

39 COUNTIES TOTAL 54.7 91 5,154 59.8 9 2 2 86 95 34 29 2 1 2

4 COUNTIES HALF UNMET NEED 28.6 85 4,939 33.6 8 2 2 30 9? 4 1 1 2

KING SEATTLE 11.4 74 3,997 15.4 6 2 2 16 86PIERCE TACOMA 7.7 92 709 8.4 1 6 1CSPOKANE SPOKANE 5.3 98 107 5.4 4 100

SNOHOMISH EVERETT 4.2 97 126 4.4 1 4 100

ALASKA

1 COUNTIES

1 COUNTIES

TOTAL 2.7

HALF UWE( NEED 2.754

54

2,2922,292

5.05.0

6

810

10

6666

1

1

ALASKA ANChORAGE 2.7 54 2,207 8 10 66

HAWAII4 COUNTIES TOTAL 12 5 92 1041 13.5 4 2 16 50 2 4 2 1

1 COUNTIES HALF TIMET NEED E.3 91 927 10.2 3 2 5 38 1 1 1

HONOLULU HONOLULU 9.3 91 927 10.2 3 2 5 38

SECTION II. DETAILED TABLES. .

TABLE 4. UNMET NEED FOR SUBSIDIZED FAMILY PLANNINGSERVICES IN 984 COUNTIES WITH MORE THAN 30 PERCENTFARM POPULATION, BY 0E0 REGION AND STATE, FY 1968

NOTES TO TABLE 4. T

All column headings appear as In prior tables except the following:

Columns 3, 5, 7;

More than 30 Percent Farm Population: Cotintles with more than 30percent farm population were selected on the basis of rural-Wmresidence of each county In 1960 as shown In County and City DataBook 1962.

ti

ft

r

t I

p n.

A 0 //zoy203

Tobin 4: Unmet Need for Subsidized Family Planning Services In 984 Counties with More than 30 Percent Farm Po lotion by 0E0 Re ton and Stain FY 1(a Designates

_No Counties in State with Mors than 30% Farm Population.)

Counties Population (0001)Unmet Nod

(000's)

Counties with More Than 30 Percent Farm Population

Existing and Potential Resources for Prcgraiu Inpandon

PopulationExisting ram Ilg Planning

Clinksend Agencies Related Health and Organization! Resources

2 3 4 6 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

1A

1

iiiiA

/

ifli

I

II1.5.11

II1113

IA

/Ili.1gl

1

illi

'E'E

I._al

ik

S

1

I

1tON

11

sA

Dfi@I

11

ai

IIJI

i3ival

3I11

36

11.gi is

si.

1

Issi

U.S. Total 3,072 984 195,599.2 12418.7 4,593.6 571.0 80 11 4 3 665 99A 738 583 14 2 6 1 464 423 97

REGION 1 Total 150 1 36,111.4 3.2 538.7 .1 1 1 1

Conn. 8 2,878.2 33.9 IIIII a a a all 11111 a 11111Me. 16 977.6 27.5 a aMass. 14 5,403.0 85.9 IIII 111111111111

10 676.3 13.8 lumina a am aN.J. 21 6,899.2 97.8 a IlN.Y. 62 17,968.0 252.1 aamam aa

5 897.8 it 16.8 a all Isaa assVt. 14 1 411.2 3.2 10.8 .1 1 1 1

REGION Il Total 467 133 30,958.8 2,123.7 841.6 116 3 2 1 50 100.0 51 98 4 2 51 64 18

Del. 3 513.0 6.8 l 111D.C. 1 805.6 2.4 aeux an rNN1(r. 120120 70 3,181.1 829.2 130.4 44.4 1 25 100.0 29 55 1 30 37 3

23 3,610.9 48.5 1111111111111H.C. 100 36 4,973.5 958.3 201.7 53.1 1 21 100.0 1 30 3 2 7 16 13

Pa. 67 11,600.8 231.6 sma ilVa. 98 22 4,464.9 295.3 143.9 16.4 3 100.0 17 9 10 10 2W.Va. 55 5 1,808.9 41.0 76.3 2.4 1 1 100.0 4 4 4 1

REGION III Total 515 169 22,641.2 3,217.3 910.6 183.3 68 1 2 94 99.7 17 119 6 2 3 1 41 90 38

Ala. 67 19 3,510.9 447.5 142.1 24.5 13100.0 8 1 13 6

Fla, 67 3 5,893.4 22.6 180.3 11 3 1 3 2 1

Ga. 158 39 4,445.4 427.9 179.9 24.5 10 100.0 2 33 20 18 1

Miss. 82 46 2,336.6 929.3 122.6 54.8 1 1 28 98.8 2 20 3 1 4 34 8

S.C. 46 12 2,589.3 483.8 111.8 24.0 26 1 13100.0 12 3 3 9Tenn. 95 50 3,865.6 906.3 173.9 54.5 39 30100.0 13 45 1 15 21 14

REGION IV Total 523 144 42,308.3 2,611.5 729.3 82.6 179 100.0 144 121 1 27 87 30

III. 102 22 10,785.9 298.3 158.4 9.9 12100.0 22 II 10 10 2Ind. 92 19 4,951.3 303.9 103.6 8.6 11100.0 19 11 3 15 1

Mich. 83 5 8,467.6 133.5 141.4 4.0 6 100.0 5 5 1 1 3Minn. 87 59 3,572.3 1,004.2 70.5 33.2 90 100.0 59 58 10 40 9Ohio 88 8 10,364.3 189.3 179.1 5.8 8100.0 8 8 1 5 3Wis. 71 31 4,167.0 682.3 76.4 21.0 52100.0 31 28 3 16 12

l

204

Tibia 4: Unmet Nod for Subsidized Family Planning Senrices In 984 Counties with Mom than 30 Percent Farm Population by 010 Region and State, FY IN&Doi nolo No Counties In State with More than Farm Population.) continued

Counties Po:dation (000's) Un(11100Orsr

Camila with Mors Thin 30 Percent Farm Population

Existing and Mantis! Worm for Program Expansion

PopulationEvinnamdrizag Rotated Health and Organizations, Worm

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 18 19 20 21 22

A

1

1i

1iol

jiiall a1K,,,

i4 A

I11ifI IgeEA

i.

IHliEASag

El1 ,

0"6II

A

i1

1 .1

16iiiI]

Ii]..Alzee

IIlifr11

III]iii

airis

It.

iIg1

I"11IR

11

11iz.si

1

1lifs!

0's11IIsi

1 11sa

m

11§LI

"liIsi

1

Is

REGION V Total 502 109 19,797.7 1,125.2 721.2 54.9 7 59 i00.0 99 41 1 63 41 5

Ark. /I, 25 1,955.6 408.9 101.4 23.9 6 11 100.0 19 17 1 8 13 4La. M 7 3,616.7 112.4 156.1 7.1 2 100.0 7 3 1 5 1

N.M. 32 1 1,002.3 1.6 27.0 .1 1 1

Okla. 77 18 2,476.5 157.0 81.6 5.9 18 100.0 14 9 14 4Tex. 254 58 10,746.6 445.3 355.1 17.9 1 28100.0 58 12 39 19

REGION VI Total 746 422 17,041.3 3,775.4 394.3 131.6 3 10 4 277 96.7 420 200 3 277 139

Coto. 63 13 1,955.4 53.5 32.3 1.5 1 7 100.0 13 1 13Idaho 44 22 697.3 183.0 15.8 4.5 15100.0 22 5 16 5 1

Iowa 99 72 2,760.2 1,128.6 64.2 35.2 1 1 2 61 100.0 71 72 2 12 58 2Ku. 105 51 2,275.3 372.0 49.5 11.8 44 100.0 51 8 40 11

Mo. 114 64 4,563.5 727.8 118.5 33.8 2 1 16 100.0 63 64 1 33 28 3Mont. 56 25 701.5 127.8 14.6 3.4 2 16 82.6 25 6 22 3Neb. 93 71 1,439.2 468.4 35.5 16.3 1 51 98.2 71 25 58 13

N.D. 53 44 643.0 313.5 17.3 10.2 2 32 89.2 44 36 8

S.D. 67 52 679.2 352.4 21.4 13.7 4 28 85.5 52 18 41 11

Utah 29 2 1,007.2 10.2 19.4 .2 1100.0 2 2Wyo. 23 6 319.3 41.2 5.9 .9 6 100.0 6 1 4 2

REGION VII Total 169 6 26,640.5 59.3 451.9 1.5 6 100.0 6 3 4 2

Aril 14 1,602.8 39.9 milm ENCalif. 58 18,802.2 303.1 ill riNev. 17 430.7 5.3 IIIII11 Ill 111311 allOre. 36 2 1,972.8 27,0 39.8 .7 2100.0 2 1 1 1

Wash. 39 4 3,040.4 32.3 54.7 .8 4100.0 4 2 3 1

Alaska 1 264.8 I 2.7 a eHawaii 4 726.7 1 12.5 a U

, i , ,' 1 ..: , 1

t 7.1"i i 7 le ' '. f .. i!' ' '

1% r

t r!

7 .

:.rt

ir

,r c,

e tc4.

te

f 3

e; a it.

It

t

0/N

tF

e

t .'. .1 i

.et t (.,,, ,..1

i!f, e

E 71 C ! dt. t.':. - a tt (- .; f,.-

.

EIS, .

Nil e t t.;' t. 1

.s T.1 F. ..;,... . 1., 4

1:. ec 21 ?...

t 5i a 8 et e,. 4

A IA '?:,64;', c r IS al

.-,... ....,

"i.,.1 ) r it 8f,I.C. a i Ea i't

U IL 81 t.; et . .:,,,,, . V. -:

* II.,k7

Li

e : i ut-t t e h SI

SECTION II. DETAILED TABLES ,TABLE 5. 438 COUNTIES WITH NO IDENTIFIABLE FAMILYPLANNING PROGRAMS: POTENTIAL HEALTH ANDORGANIZATIONAL RESOURCES FOR PROGRAM DEVELOPMENTAND RELATED INDICES, FY 1968 (Ranked LI Family PlanningNeed: Selected Counties Have Family Planning Need of 1,000or More Women)

NOTES TO TABLE 5.MI column headings appear as In prior tables except the following:

Column 5Counties. with Assigned Health Officer: Bullet Identifies counties inwhich there are local areas which state health officers co9eider asorganized to provide' -public health iervico; local unite without theservices of an administrative head or health officer have not been,included (Directory of Local Health Units 1966, U.S. Public HealthService, Department of Health, Education and Welfare).

A

!!

,

k4,

, 4!11;

to;

p.

.; St

r f

Dy207

Table S. 438 Counties with No Identifiable Family Manning Programs: Potanlial Health and Organirational Resources for Program Development rut Related Indices, Ft 1%8(Rented by Family planning Need; Selected Counties Have family Planning Need of 1,000 or More Women; Dasiviette Location of One or Mors Megrims or Resource; with-

in County)NonProfit Centro'

Can HospitalsGeneral

Practitioner;Obstetriclen.

nocologIsts

4 5 6 7 B 9 10 il 12 13

Vs-ill.t.seii'aA

I0bN s

Aa

1I8I It 4'

S-1 z

i..1

kia F, .

IXIa- g

1

v"

TOTAL 438 COUNTIES 1'10.5 371 752 453,149 310 1,120 32 1,329 5

1 BRISTOL MASSACHUSETT 10.2 6 7,285 116 28 27 6 21.3

2 JEFFERSON LOUISIANA 1.4 2 1,568 42 15 25 9 22.2

3 ST CLAIR ILLINOIS 6.9 5 5,497 68 15 15 6 27.8

4 CAMBRIA PENNSYLVANIA 6.6 5 3,126 61 32 10 5 24.5

5 ATLANTIC NEW JERSEY 5.9 3 2,830 68 31 10 5 27.5

6 WEBB TEXAS 5.1 1 2,002 16 21 3 4 23.7

7 SORTYLKILL PENNSYLVANIA 5.6 5 2,503 85 5? 6 4 22.2

8 WASHINGTON PENNSYLVANIA 5.6 4 2,957 75 35 8 4 22.3

9 OUACHITA LOUISIANA 5.6 3 4,167 28 25 11 10 26.1

10 ST LANDRY LOUISIANA 5.3 2 827 25 0 6 7 37.9

11 CALCASIEU LOUISIANA 4.6 4 3,045 36 27 12 9 27.6

12 VERNON LOUISIANA 4.6 6 10 32.8

13 MADISON ILLINOIS 4.6 5 3,583 71 29 16 7 23.1

14 CUMBERUN MAINE. 4.6 6 3,291 68 35 18 9 24.5

15 LAFAYETTE LOUISIANA 4.5 3 5,023 3] 30 7 7 30.8

16 RALEIGH WEST VIRGIN' 4.4 1 464 15 21 6 8 22.1

17 LORAIN OHIO 4.2 4 3,857 68 28 12 22.9

18 ALLEN INDIANA 4.2 3 /688 102 3i: 12 gr 22.2

19 TANGIPAHOA LOUISIANA 4.1 2 P1 18 27 4 6 355

20 LANE OREGON 4.1 4 3,530 61 30 14 7 20.6

21 LAKE ILLINOIS 4.0 5 4,976 4 80 23 18 5 2L3

22 HIU.S8OROUGH NEW HAMPSHIR 4.0 1 4,284 67 32 12 6 20.8

23 WINNEBAGO ILLINOIS 3.8 3 4,876 62 27 17 7 23.0

24 ELKHART INDIANA 3.7 2 2,724 45 37 5 4 21..9

25 DU PAGE ILLINOIS 3.6 4 5,784 128 32 30 7 17.9

26 MARION OREGON 3.6 4 2,382 50 35 10 7 21.4

21 BEAVER PENNSYLVANIA 3.5 3 2,504 61 30 7 3 19.5

28 WICHITA TEXAS 3.5 3 1,484 39 31 8 6 22.0

29 MCDOWELL WEST VIRGIN! 3.5 9 15 1 2 359

30 WILL ILLINOIS 3.5 2 3,940 58 26 13 6 24.7

31 DAVIDSON NORTH CAROL! 15 2 1,187 18 19 2 2 27.8

32 MERCER WEST VIRGINI 3.4 1 377 18 28 3 5 24.7

33 ARLINGTON VIRGINIA 3.4 2 4,998 85 30 33 12 22.2

34 ST TAMMANY LOUISIANA 3.3 2 725 15 26 4 7 29.7

35 UTAH UTAH 33 2 Z637 45 35 8 6 17.3

36 BERRIEN MICHIGAN 3.3 4 2,770 41 25 7 4 24.5

31 FAYETTE WEST VIRGIN! 3.3 1 230 15 27 1 2 26.6

38 AROOSTOOK MAINE 3.2 6 1,421 27 28 3 3 26.2

39 RENSSEUER NEW YORK 3.2 3 2,644 48 31 9 6 21.6

40 GREGG TEXAS 3.2 3 1,282 47 63 3 4 22.5

41 SANGAMON ILLINOIS 3.2 2 3,146 36 23 18 11 22.8

42 ULSTER NEW YORK 3.1 2 796 53 39 9 7 24.5

43 JEFFERSON . COLORADO 3.1 1 1,522 53 27 11 6 192

44 CHAUTAUQUA NEW YORK 3.1 5 2,707 50 33 7 5 24.0

45 TERREBONNE LOUISIANA 3.1 1 1,633 18 25 5 7 31.5

Table 5. 438 Ceaaties Idth No Identifiable Family MIMI Programs: Potential Health end Orginiatioaol Resources for Program Development and Related Indices, FY 1968(Ranked by Family Planning Need; Selected Courtin Hans Fealty ?tanning Mud rd 1,000 or Moo Women; o Designate' locator of One or Lore Programs on tosorarces with-in County) continued

Nen.Prolit GeneralCaro Hospitals

GeneralPractitioners

10

Obethisien.6 ex412....gists

11 12 134 3 6 7 8 8

VI

;1!Is

iii

Ili11 1

Iq81 1.

i1§20

j1

1g

g

I1

I4641484950

51525354

. 55

5657

51' 59

60

. 6162636465

t 6667,68

' 6970

.= 717273'7475

Bpi

7671187980

81

82834'

8$

8$87$61390

91

9293

YORK MAINE 3.0 3 1,009 34 . 32 2 . , 2 2k3GLOUCESTER NEW JERSEY 3.0 1 1,087 45 29 8 1 .''' 5 20.7DENTON ' TEXAS 3.0 1 872 26 38 4 6 19.4X ANE ILLINOIS ' 2.9 6 6,233 80 33 18 r' , 7 24.9AVOYEU ES LOUISIANA 2.8 16 39 '' , 35.7

ACADIA LOUISIANA 2.8 2 586 17 , 33 4 , 8 29.9KENTON 1 KENTUCKY : 28 2 2,850 38 31 6 a.' 5 23 ,5POTTER i TEXAS - : 28 1 1,023 34 28 e. ' = '! 5 252ST MARY i, LOUISIANA 2.3 , 2 1,143 18 30 3 t', 5 30.5ATHENS OHIO 2.7 3 3,635 20 a. 35 23.8

CLEAREIB.0 " PENNSYLVANIA 2.1 3 1,105 17 22 1 .. 1 19.8LAFOURCA LOUISIANA 2.7 i 1,483 19 29 5 .,-, 8 23.2BRAZORIA TEXAS 2.7 2 907 32 34 1 14, 1 19.5HAPRISON 1 WEST VIRGIN' 2.7 .. 2 1,217 18 24 2 1, 3 20.9BOSSIER '. LOUISIANA 2.7 1 430 8 a, 13 2 .iL i 3 31.2

1LOGAN WEST VIRGIN 2.7 1 342 19 `..- 36 2 -1 ' 4 290ROCKLAND NEW YORK 2.6 2 2,756 49 25 18 ': 9 20.7SAN PATRICK/ TEXAS 2.6 1 198 16 'c 32 '4' ; ' r 26.5

, ". CENTRE PENNSYLVANIA 2.6 2 1,944 27 29 4 t 4 , 19.0-. NATC48TCCHES LOIKSIAVA 2.6 a 1 274 10 .',' 27 Li.1.."1' 1 413.4

.., FRANKLIN :' PENNSYLVANIA 2.6 2 1,887 34 5 5 1 17.7", , M A D I S O N 4. . INDIANA '-' 2.6 3 2 ,...502 51 38 , 4 3 26.3

STEARNS P MINNESOTA 2.6 4 2,603 34 '' "1,1 38 5 6 24.4,',' MWIGO ' NEST VIRGIN 2.6 9 ', "a 24 1 '..:':-, 3 : 36.2'''' ROCK ISLAND ILLINOIS ,:!, 2.6 4 i 3 3,462 48 '''l 12 :11 7 26.6

OHIO l- " 2.5NORTH CAROLI 2.5

I 3 1,911;..,

43 4018 l' 26

3:';'''', 34 ' Ili

1 il,.. 1 ., 20.2POINSYLVANIA 2.6 1 940 21 ,t-.) 28

OHIO . ,,' 2.5 4 0,-, 4 27.4L 3 3452 ' 47 - 42NEW YORK 2.5 2 809 29 28 3 : 3 22.4

, 1113IAKA

7 COLUMBWIA

RANDOLPH

' AUDISARATOGA

ROCIUtIGHAM VIRGINIA ?.5 1 1,280 : - 22 ire 37 3 ',I 5 17.6... BUTLER PENNSYLVANIA 2.5 1 1.660 '',.., 27 , 23. ' 3 4:.1 3 17.2

KENT ...- ' I , RHODE ISLAND 2.5 i' 1 1,676 32 .. 24 6 ',1,.. 5 212ALMON e ILLINOIS `' 25 ,-, 2 2,600 28 .:% 23 8 '.1., 6 24.5IBERIA I LOUISIANA L 2.4 1 13 ' 25 ','' 43 i 3 ;,: 5 31.1

HARDIN KENTUCKY I 2.4 1 852 2.' 14 '1,' 18 , ;: Pr o% 26.2JACKSON ' a' OREGON rP' 2.4 .; 2 1,264 24 : 26 6 "L'';', 1 . 190LAWRENCE PENISYLVANIA 2.4 .1 3 1,882 29 VL 26 7 :, . 6 21.4

8 OSWEGO 1 . NEW YORK 2.4 , 2 1,449 31 . i 32 4 111.1/ 4 23.9, CUMBUIAND PENNSYLVANIA 2.4 : 3 2,427 56 '$, 40 : 1.',r 6 186

ARMSTRONG , PENNSYLVANIA 2.3 1 731 2.1 '1 32 J ';',2"; ' ''t' 21.6KENNEBEC '' , IANNE S.s.. 23 4 1,861 28 L'I.,: 31 5 2 6 . 24.0TAZEV11. , VOGINIA ,,' 2.3 , 16' 38 2 ligi. 5 26.4SCI311 . ! IOWA 1 2.3 2 2,323 33 24 1 , 5 23.4EPPERSON OHIO 4 2.3 2 1,,577 30 33 5 i', 5 252

VERMILION ILLINOIS l,i'. 23 3 1,824 38 -' 5 'Li 5 ' 28.4ANGO-R4A TEXAS '' 2.2 2 1,113 ', i 15 ='' % 31 4 i.,'t 8 24.2STEUBEN : NEW YORK 22 1 3 1369 40 :a 1 39 4 -4, 4 264

209

.II

iur101

I

4.4

00400.7

04*44:Ww

0404444

10911ndisci 000'001imagn

40

AC

IUM

N

ID

14

uogilndod 000.001A

mW

U

04440440 040-:007400Ig!4Z

g

4440 0440

0440.4.444444.44.40

w40..47.40

.44114040gggigA

4404004

N40

404144040 40 N

NA

4404

W 204 wO0 NN Nw

MNONM

Ittgtstg

040440404444040

40404

.-.0. W.

OOP W 40 W

4111

4=4

mm=g1

==== ====v :41:1=M X=M82

====.1 2t==221

000.400404

OD

40

nst=nst rattleem- gsgsmvm 0.2=== AM*SCU ====4" 'ftt=14r. tt===22 =1"." 401 *4"=

I.

WA

S

AptunN

avio agsx

Pea Psv fain seaunoo

1

0000241W1dA

1W3j

04040404014444440404c.4 ...

ppmquom

m44A

^4441c4104(44440444IN

04(414404Nc41441^10J441

WM

AO

11

C.4

44440 445N

ww

4.4

00 .....

00

4o

00

00

naE1R afp-IN Min smug MO 1104 slitma2 S

Nw

OloW

N 44w

404044 0804044+

014* 4411 44 w

441 Nw

4MNN 04 44 w4N w 44 W

4040 w

44

e'd

ail

Ali hid

hill !gill/lig !Nil Al

hia 1/§

04044144240............... 0.0.0.0.0.

44J0:44144104440444444104

0404444.:

iglii mil lug 11111

!du

wm XVIMS S8SS2 38808 Scb"^ .....

'cratim zSE= 215EseS *ME En

O

Table S. 43$ Counties .1t No Identifiable Fondly Planning Programs: Potential Ilszttli end Organizational Resoonts,for haven Develooment end Related !mikes, FY 1968(Ranked by Family Planehig Mood; Selected Comfts Haw family Pinning Mood of 1,000 at More Promo; Designates lacaVan .1 0.. at Mots Minims or RennesIn County) continued

Ifon.Profit GeneralCars Hospi tals

WendPractitleeen

ObstetriclCreme loglets

1 2 3 4 6 1 3 9 10 11 12 13

1_

.. 111 J I 1

142 MOREHOUSE

143 CAPE MAY

144 WAR145 CLINTON

146 1USCARAWAS

147 SHASTA

149 CA11,131149 CAT1ARAUGU1$

150 1011YELLS

151 WAYNE

152 CANYON

153 MONTGOMERY

154 WHARTON

135 R O S S

156 POIRET .,'

157 WILLIAMSON

151 ItAiltAKEE159 MECXENDURO

163 IMATCCII161 UMW

III LA MR163 1.11

164 °taco165 POTTAWATIANI

166 UYIGSTOR

161 STARR

161 BARREN

IN kVAPO OTTER TAIL

1)1 1111/01

112 VMS113 UBERTY ,114 C4BUOIE ':

1/$ CUTAUAIE171 CUPLIPLUFE

111 IA VILE tPi WA

It ta" *I"181 tAII14111

39$. CCU.NBIAill VERV110 %194 romp11

WAIT( PRUSK

181 WEI OU 013111 SUMin Paws 1

LOU!S1ANA

PEW ERStY111Swince(OHIO

CAUFORN1A

KENTUCKY

KW WANTEXAS

OHIO

IOWTEXAS .

TEXAS

O H I O

ARKANSAS

TEXAS

WHOMVIRGINIA

WASHINGTON

MICtIGAN ,

INDIANA 'YIRONAPEW YORK

RNA ,'

1.01ISMA

TEXAS

3171110:111

CHOMIKSOTAPENISIVINIA

MST MGMTEXAS '-'

10WA

WISCONSIN

MIAS .. ,

MIMS .0CHO '..;Minkel 'MANE ASKUM 1.

11,14511YARA0944311YNIAcoo **W W* 'TM ', T

WISCONSIN

toga_ vatILDIUS II

1.91.91.91.81.8

LI1.81.81.81.8

1.81.81.81 I1.8

1.81.81.81.81.8

1.?1.?I./1./I.?

I.?I.?LiLi1./

1.71.1

LiL$1.6

LI1.91.61.61.6

1.6161.61616

16It3.5

a 1

2322

31

3

2

21

31

1

I1

24

2

221

1,0 3

21

1

2&

1

4a

2

I6 t. 1

,

7it t 2

S 31

5 2

338664118

1,1171,389

1,1161,8861326

1,062

1,04349I821

1,351

LPN402

LOU1.741

1,1%4

7381,361

N

4

7011

1,47S156

1,137

'33820

1,170429

1,844

14$

1,0431,611

Eis

929418

1,735443411

;

46? :? '

i` .1

4

46

-4

' ;

16 4631

$5

13 3$13

2$

33 443332 3811 3129 . 35

25 -.. 4310 30IS 3918 299 . 93

15 41

$ 6 '. 3711 , IS21 373$ '. 44

N 366 N

13 -. .., 3116 .- ', 193 .'''. 9

3 IS12 ',' 4033 . 41

22 '.,-.. 4140 1 43

3 913 4110 II38 3412 11 N

4/ ' .:.. 4311 r 236 II$ II

N r. IS

23 4122 iho %ISI/ teli 31

33 ,1-:' 41'13 'N1943.

3 52 54 52 3

4 5 5S l' 0 65 61 33 4

I 21 3S ' 133 ' 5

,.., it ' t5f,

' # t

4 p, 52 ./..f 2

" v. 5

4 3. 1r

-..# 4't...-i

.' ' 43 42 ',. 44 4

IT ''''- -,

6 i 1:,--' '

6 '. 6l'.:1* -

r 1 " 3i tkc - *4

1 P0' 4 '

1 1 ''''., 7-

2 f0,1-0 5 ..

t * 3 '1 PI 41 1 4 ,

It4.'` 00

4 i1 *., / 4

mg)

33222,529.422A26.5

23223421922.019.2

21423621123.221.0

31.8213314

222

24.9

214114213

20521131.423?21.0

31.0it?714X4213

23.5

At10.

*1119116?$.9221

Hi*PI

011

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13

1 s

Vi

II

1

h

I

d. ig

Ikgig

S

j190191

FRANOINPUL ASKI

LOUISi ANA

MISSOURI

1.6

1.610

2394

43354A

19219394

CUMHUNTINGDON

LA CROSSE

INDIANA

PENNSYLVANIA

WISCONSIN

1.61,61.6

1

1

4

844664

2,013

301017

452621.

1

210

i

135

22.123.523 1

195 JASPER TEXAS , 12 44 218196 WARREN NEW JERSEY 1.6 1 810 28 39 4 6 211197 WOOD OHIO 1.6 1 76) 33 42 1 1 381198 GRANT INDIANA 1.6 1 1,679 22 28 3 4 20.9119 BOONE WEST VIRGIN 1,5 1 272 9 34 22.7

200 LAWRENCE TENNESSEE 1,5 2 539 1T 3) 24.4201 CARBON PDINSYL YANA 1,5 2 600 23 45 4 8 22.2202 MIDOLESEX CONNECTICUT 1,5 1 1,266 39 36 :,', 5 17.3

203 WASHINGTON MAINE 1 5 2 339 15 50 30.7204 THURSTON WASHINGTON 1.5 1 931 22 34 6 9 21.5

205 GRANT WISCONSIN 1.5 S 734 24 62 227206 ICCIICIEta ARKANSAS 1.5 14 62 22.8207 BLUE EAR TH MINIESOTA 1.5 2 1 039 13 26 4 8 195208 COCHISE ARIZONA 13 5 568 19 33 I 2 27.1209 SHEBOYGAN WISCONSOI 1.5 3 1,688 26 28 4 4 195

210 MERRIMACK HEW HAMPSHIR 1.5 3 1,220 26 35 6 8 211211 MOLL VIRGeM 15 1 84 4 14 217211 MAU TENNEVIE 1.5 1 112 9 34 19.5213214

1100410CRAINTEM

INOIS

KILANSAS

1.51.5 a

32

1,091446

3414

3435

S 5 201

215 'AMERICA IVAS 1,5 1 336 5 26 21.6211 RICH LAND MAMA 1.5 10 41 39.4717 WItOUJA ONTECE/etft 1.5 I 128 6 21 71 6 1 20.5211 JOHNSON 111StklUR1 11 1 296 10 29 18.329 VON BUREN

lecHitam LS 2 709 20 36 218

220 SCOTE MISSOURI 15 10 29 212221 LINN OREGON 1.5 2 959 v 28 43 1 2 241222 711 YERGE TEARS 1.5 1 249 11 39 2 7 13.1223 IONDSHA IVISCEINSII IS 2 1,876 24 21 S 4 20.0224 08 11111011 1.5 2 us II x S 1 213

22$ MOMS MIKA 1.5 1 214 II 41 2 1 11572$ 1MODUPIN LUNOIS 1.5 2 320 22 45 110221 NM* ' /DA 1.5 1 321 7 23 115221tr LICA*

LE

WASICUSWIA

1.515 1 SI

14

4011

41439.2

230 WM WM 1 5 14 45 64III MONSEN M01411111 L4 7 112/ 14 11 1 141 23 0232 :Mt PtilltIVIANIA L4 4 1 401 . I 23 3 1 233233 100/11) KANSA 1.4 2 1,841 23 29 1 1 270124 011111111 ARKANSAS L4 1 271 12 45 29.1

23$ OLAISTM IIINS01 A L4 . 2 2,001 11 22 21 21 2012X Ilk A00101 TM L4 s 2 HO e 13 43 I 3 311

11110 UMAS tA 2 NS 17 21 3 5 20 /

It,

nololunimPsysi

ON

wa0N

0N ..... 0000444N

N 4004:14 ..........

tg7.-p-;r2

g.741402t

.7.4t.lutv

.7t!ttr4 temgg; .7cixt* xmcgo sestt:tm stser4gx ;712

ti

0

110PWIWOOTM

.040(M

Oon dilo

vs we es se

M.0,

AD

AM

r"1411oilp

4w.

WO

OD

040,

01 NY

004s404404,a

4s.0) O

D 00 4/41, N

N SH

Eow

..mt

Im

Dowimpa 00not

adom

"A2MVIC 74=4*2 namnu X=== 1.1CURVA 42t5MAt VOC=Crd =X= 21=1,3* =XX

40

4

0000ftWN

AM

Itip paw

wW

OW

P5101 411211011

01

*no

04 0140 a 40 N

es.

dm. =20-u1 mpg+

.....

.......... .

M§F. tssn*

E5 xt!!

Zan' ESUR NEZ2! fifibl MEE pa

wa=

MN

Z

4.4.s4ns.40.4.s.40140d

4s.0d NN

4.4iw

ds-4..... N

OW

N4s,N

OW

N

00..... W

OO

.000

0101010004010101

aaaaa aaa4masi

wasia4m

ia

NM

OW

1111111§11 111

glii§lb

hid gliiiiii1

mid

kb! iiiimRARIR ZEE2a EAXEZ EEUR MIR ENEMA

004WC

EN

=O

WN

04EEN*H BM!

IL

411114MIsnit

ddlieldded 000.00!0P1V

ddgadddel000.001

ad diali

buoy uopylasoulow

3delPido3

SWA

N

ad1110 4001141W

PM M

a

0:103)alglft

lluddid dlIguirAfoufftw

omlam

! Alicven

i7:3-E ;Uaiut

;IEZ m"' g

""" "'

4iGR

=zm

spdsizW

me msge grg

rgIgg

-*40

N- A

Mrfar.N

wir 40

aft

gmg

NI*

..10 yr. Pe*O

f40

C) oft ...P

i

Sgra,I*!! =52144M =4=M RtICUZ .7.VUXX =XX* 3.1:44==t2X2t= .2!ettd*3 W.212

ppow.v.0 .....

==

==

2 ==

=.0

lC

00

000

OOOOOOOO

000

00

000 00

Win MB

= EaMI

S a=5:-Af E MR! 122021e EVX

FAPY olo .ir

IBM

S

- -NN

.m.40

.mo

NN

..N

N40.

~W

ar,am

t

OOOO it

000

OO

OO

O

61.1.14444444

.4.4444,044,

4"."4"

11118hid dig

dig Mil

Wol

iiiip 111tilli

dill 9llwm EREEE REECE fREER OMR AA1-02

.....

OISAfi ism OIR

innew Pam

uolletedod 000VO

Iadc

IsomogNMOm

AfJews

<ft

RM

IN

obody Isom

4 unsuun3 ass upon

OW

E

.031110 =N

MI

00141Mil IM

R61198003

0000) ligifileid10

POW

11004APA

M 10310111

MIS

...... ...

itg44r: gAt4714 4Mtidg gshtTir.!

gt-.31Z411

alstitr4g gg:4:44 4=TIOA Ittgit4e,

g*".a.

WIW

Osdh

0..1"09'11

'.,511140.4.4040

202323= ===A 421MM= *A*ga; 14=2* UMZ=U =X= ==== MUSIMM :MX

00.....

221=4"'"" 2'12= RIVA

..... 00 0000

00'00

tglza$1g Evami An

Zen aag-g iagnm m4s

114a m

a123 *33

Ode.dN

NN

ad 41.)040.10.) #41.ed.010.18

!W.F

.0404

000

000

OOOOO 00000 0.00

000

OOOOO M000

00 00 000_o

JIB ghli fdid 11111

116ial

!Rh

HI

didM

ildm dm

ilk 1111;:itE

l31iAa

AMR ZiWa Ann MOIR A23101

ams SRI

WVMown wpm

4,2 1109,11WWWWOM'Wong

a

nctinndod 000130Iod MPH

bop uogzyApunwiebYj tafm seclunop

aLL

ta agWflM

..... .4~04'4=1144 g=i0g =Mg= 211t2.6t1 0.-4.1dtit4 VV*40 gttlsl r4IT.tst*:g 0141ftsd X214,

0.1 a% w N 404 0100 00 01 AM

411 4.iNiid

404

2XA* ====i Va== ==== =ZRXIIR =ARAM ===.! =Mt= ==== 417.7

n2... ..... °Z raime.ler0 ..rmaurow oloomm ome01000.4WD 400 =fat

00 ..... 00 00 000 00 00 00 00 0400

,...FiaRE 2 'AZ OM .4:41VEV OaRE § "AR 3 AR W5I2 Ian

0.0 444.11.11111am. damn AimM 410m1 Nrdift Ow.a00

A0910 QM%Catal!ssV WI. %Mull*

('000) aquutid AnweA o OOOOO oeeee ....e aieelloPmuimuftwaYmAmmom

11111 i§lig lab ii;

gili mill 11111 igli: 11111 gilli .11§1 WI iigREIM %RUE REM RIM WM iiVEVE B305 SE3565.....

=

1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1 A

ti1

1II

ii

II

1 i

11

1

if1g

430431

432433434

435436437438

NO0AWAYST JAWMACY

S

ES.% X

CERRO GORDO

PARKER

DOUGLAS

FAWNWAPf11.0

MISSOURI

LOUISIANA

TEXAS

NEW YORK

IOWA

MIASWISCONSIN

OASIOWA

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1

1

1

4

2

1

1

2

302467

262444722

370279

675

6

8

6

2221

10

13

9

16

26

41

32

6344

39304231

3

2

5

5

14.1

29.3

34.616.9

21.7

114ao23.

21.3

6

k k!

'

SECTION II. DETAKED TABLES

'FABLE 6. NEED FOR SUBSIDIZED FAMILY PLANNING SERVICESIN 290 COUNTIVI WITH HIGHEST NUMBER OF EXCESS INFANTDEATHS 1 NEED, FY 1968; EXCESS DEATHS, 196145

NOTES TO TAKE 6.All column heaftsgs appear as In prior tables.

1 2 3 4 5 6

II

kS J

8I 1111

ii1111

U.S. (3072 Counties} -Total 148,709 5,366,747

High Excess Infant Death Counties-TotalPercent of U.S. Total

92,70662.3

2,46,32050.1

1 Cook Illinois Chicago 4,998 82,490

2 Los Angeles California Los Angeles 3,557 126,348

3 Kings New York New York 3,016 63,973

4 New York New York New York 2,950 49,183

S Philadelphia Pennsylvania Philadelphia 2,163 49,469

6 Wayne Michigan Detroit 2.170 59,380

7 Washington District of Columbia Washington 1,580 20,781

8 Bert;more Maryland Baltimotv 1,494 32,006

9 Essex New Jersey Newark 1,269 18,410

10 Harris Texas Houston 1,221 45,014

11 Bronx New York New York 1,219 36,441

12 Cuyahoga Ohio ClevJla n3 1,181 29,564

13 St. Louis Missouri St. Louis 1,112 32,412

14 Orleans 1.0UiSiael New (Peel's 1,044 26,579

IS Shelby Tennessee Memphis 918 29,273

16 Dallas Texas Dallas 890 30,285

11 San Diego Utile:tie San Diego 872 25,611

13 Allegheny Pennsylvania Pittsburgh 864 31,461

19 Norfolk Virginia Norfolk MS 19236

23 Fulton Georgia Atlanta 846 24,678

21 BOO Tens San Antonio 770 32,430

22 Dade Florida Miami 129 36,077

23 Jefferson Alabama Birmingham 629 25,685

24 lemon Kentucky Louisville 612 17,092

2S Alaska Alaska Anchorage 611 5,013

21 Milwaukee Wisconsin Milwaukee 608 14,031

27 Marion Indiana Indianapolis 603 13,802

21 Dural Florida Jacksonville (02 16,651

29 Like Indiana Gary 589 8,146

30 Jackson Missouri Kansas City 558 15,506

31 Erie New York Peal. 558 20,194

32 Maricopa Arizona Phoenix 530 23,656

33 Hillsborough Florida Tampa 506 18,458

34 Tarrant Texas Ft. Wirth 490 11,481

35 Browsed Florida Ft. Lauderdale 483 16,884

36 Denver Colorado Denver 419 10,431

3? Hertford Connecticut Hartford 436 9,95?

18 Lobbed texas Lubbock 431 5,204

31 WW1& Massachusetts Boston 42? 15,162

40 klechitnberg N. Curima Charlotte 424 10,354

41 San Nacho California See trenciscs 41? 12,801

42 Davidson Tennessee Nashville 41$ 11,138

41 Alameda Cahloteria Oakland 413 70,881

44 Woes Mississippi Jackson 411 4,48 ?

45 Wales Tells McAllen 4(4 104646 Olialwonia Ohleloc ma Oklahoma Chly 395 12341

4? Providence lOgide Island Providence 393 13,471

4i Mobile Alabama Mobde 384 12461

49 Orange California Santa Ma 381 /210250 Hudson Na, Jersey Jersey eit/ 376 11,081

120

Tabh R Nod for Subsidized Family hoeing Services Is 290 tootles with Highest Number el Deus latent Deaths: Heed, FY 196$; tacos De Ms, 1961.65 (Reeked SiAmber et Excess lead Deaths, Defined as Those le Doss el 1).11 po 1,000 Live Births) continued

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 I

4Di)

lift

h i

1111.51

52

553455565/5859FO

6162636465666768ss70

7211

7374

757

1178/9so

$1

84$5

868/8$89

01 ,

02$3

1?It

losto

1$1

102103

Queens

CoahomaMontgomeryCameronPalm BeachMontgomeryCaddoHamiltonCharlestonGuilford

WashingtonSan Berl ardirioEl PasoNew HavenMiddlesexPrince Geo.YakPulaskiFranklinSi. Clair

GenesisPassaicRiverside

R'gDambertvidOaklandHamiltonBarrerClark

RobesonWorcesterGreenvilleOrateteflonbootiesSAMFakedhumbleOmit%

SONODeleartMbRamseyEl PesotwitHaabMsbeihellSe1gewichglades ,

WestchesterL Ma bolt

ZANSt Wiry

New York

Oniossippi

TexasFloridaAlabamaI ouisianaOhioS. CarolinaN. Carolina

MississippiCaliforniaTexasConnecticutMassachusettsMarylandVirginiaArkansasOhioIllinois

MichiganNew JerseyCaliforniaWashiritmS. CarolinaN. CarolinaMichiganTennesseeMissi;:loolNevada

N. CatalinaMassachusettsS. Urals'FloridaMkaissippiMasksNew TortConnecticutFloridaNew Mexico

ONOtri'MiwesotaColored*OhioliewilDivaWassNew kiwy

New Tetttwister*N. CorainaWOtosisawe

New YorkClarksdaleDaytonBrownsvilleW. Palm BeachMontgomeryShreveportCincinnatiCharlestonGreensboro

GreenvilleSan knordinoEl PasoNew Haven

Cemb,-idte

iirittvil I eNewport NewsLillie RockColumbusE. St. louts

FlintPatersonRiversideSeattleColo**FayettevilleRoyal 02kChattanoogaClevelandLas Yetis

levitationWorcesterUtensilsOrlandoGreenwoodOmtheLiodeaherst

OriltahndPeesecola

Paligertet

ANA.po' DarbyMemSt. NAColoreds SprintsToledoNowt*NNWWthilaMake'

MohanBaton hugeGiveraktoblokeOpehows

373369367365362347345345344340

339338337332329328322313311310

30530429729744292289282219275

272211

210268268266KS264111

tss

tSS25225024i

24824*265242241240

Mt237233 ,

HS/17

25,2242,896

10,8888,772

11,1557,09

10,1775

19,28913,414

1,312

4,48816,19311,0910,26417,8566,1241,820

11,15716,3666,903

7,4848,117

12,16615,36511,1718,107

11,3439,8203,1714,221

5,74710,8156,593

102203,111

1383IS 15710,3337,051

$391

IAN7226$,1006,071OS9,344

1022111,141

041SO

10.433$,/810121,760

Id

Table 6. Need for Subsidised ramify Planting Servkes la 290 Counties with Highest Number of Excess Infant Deaths: Flood, FY 196$; Luau Deaths, 196165 (Ranked by!limber of Excess Want Deaths, Defined as Thou In Excess of 17.6 per 1,000 LW Births) continued

4 6

E

i

Q5

u itlin

106 Florence S. Carolina Florence 227 5,241

107 Pittsilvania Virginia Danville 224 4,534

108 Mississippi Arkansas Blytheville 221 4,504

109 Nassau New York Hkksvil le 218 12,601

110 Chatham Georgia Savannah 217 7,886

111 Jefferson Tens Beaumont 216 7,435

112 Sunflower Mississippi Indianol la 215 2,i56113 Monroe New York Rochester 214 10,135

114 Stark Ohio Canton 214 6,683

115 Gadsden Florida Quincy 211 2,638

116 Pinellas Florida Tampa 210 16,025

117 Navaho Arizona Holbrook 205 2,215

118 Tulsa Oklahoma Tulsa 204 9,915

119 Polk Florida Lakeland 201 9,471

120 One: da New York Utica 201 5,187

121 Erie Pennsylvania Ede 201 5,469122 Pima Adana Tucson 200 8,679

123 Hennepin Minnesota Minneapolis 148 13,135

124 Mercer New Jersey Treat on 156 5,164125 Essex Massachusetts Lynn 195 11,088126 Wake N. Carolina Raleigh 195 8,107127 Orangeburg S. Caroli.1 Orangeburg 144 4,651118 Sacramento raliforrii!, Sacramento 192 9,504129 Albany New York Albany 192 5,849

130 Macomb Michigan warren 151 8.357

131 Madison Alabama Huntsville 188 7,293

132 Dallas Alabama Selma 185 3,378133 Rapider Louisiana Nen rtiris 184 6,566134 McLennan Ton Waco 1114 5,605135 'hats Tests Corpus Christi 161 9,587111 Ka nc Illinois Aurora 181 2,916137 Lauderdale Mississippi MeStRan 181 4,142138 Spokane 0 rshington Spokane III 5,4Il139 Calcasieu lovisia At Lake Charles 180 4,645140 Apache Arizona St. Johns 179 2,793

141 *Rink, New Mexico 6 elfin 179 2,122142 Comdata New York /muse US 7,615143 Pierce Washinglaa 1bCOM4 115 8,414144 Kern California Bakersfield 114 1.36E145 Pins! Arizona Florence 173 2,121146 Kent Michigan brand Rapids 173 6,111147 Monmoath Has kney Long Branch 172 1,1S.i.

148 Hurry S. Wolin Nieto 172 4. At)141 Lafayette leariSighl Lafayette 171 /Mg150 Camden New *sty ellMilth 111 TX*

151 igni0110 1AsiSiSfsa Ante 10 4,161152 Niagara New Yeti Matra Falls 169 3,493153 Crittenden Manus Vt.idepab 168 3,219154 Claim N. Carolina Jacksonville 168 4,20415S Wave S. Cantina Bennettsville 168 ,..311156 Coconino Arizona Flagslal 161 1,83515/ WiN Pooh Mel 161 3,488

151158 Valwsis

,..edam/FloridaNet krsty

bailitkaVineland

1E4

1613123,422lit Muskegon Michigan Muskegon 145 2,141

02

Table I. Need lot Subsidized Family Planning Unitas In 293 Counts, with Highest Number of Excess infant Deaths: Need, FT 1960; Excess Deaths, 1961-65 (Ranked byNumber of 14ccess Infant Deaths, Defined as Those In Excess of 17.8 per 1,000 live Births) continued

1 2 3 4 5 6

270

:

:II i1:111Is I 1

i! g_I ..30,

hi 1P...s.a`w3 ri.n

ga 11151E

161 Edgecombe N. Carolina Rocky Mount 154 3,024

162 Wyandotte Kansas Kansas City 163 4,137

163 Christian Kentucky If opkinsvil le 142 2,083

164 Brevard florVa Titusville 160 6,393

165 Halifax N. Carolina Halifax 160 3,595

166 Travis Texas Austin 160 9,791

167 Saginaw Michigan Saginaw 153 3,764

168 Talladega Alabama Talladega 157 3,630

169 Spartanburg S. Carolina Spartanburg 156 7,884

170 Dilloir S. Carolina Dillmr 155 2,130

171 Pe m 'scot Missouri Caruthersville 154 1,874

172 Arlington Virginia Alexandria 154 3,365

173 Fairfax Virginia Arlington 154 3,957

174 Atlantic New Jersey Atlantic City 153 5,800

175 Columbus N. Carolina WL:teville 153 3,091

176 Panola Mississippi Batesville 151 1,846

177 Gaston N. Carolina Gastonia 149 5,395

178179

Rock islandRoanoke

IllinoisVirginia

Pack IslandRoanoke

148148

2,5676,203

180 Tulare California Visalia 147 6,081

181 Terrebonne Louisiana Houma 147 3,065

182 Montgomery Maryland Bethesda 147 3,849

183 Pitt ' N. Caroline Greenville 147 5,084

184 Jefferson Louisiana Gretna 144 7,436185 Calhoun Alabama Anniston 144 4,550

186 Sussex Delareare Georgetown VI 2,452187 Lackawanna Pennsylvania Scranton 143 6,999188 Bristol Massachusetts New Bedford 142 10,152

189 Tunica Mississippi Tunica 140 1,263

190 ' Warren,

Mississippi Vicksburg 140 2,962

191 Cumberland Maine Portland 139 4,572192 , Durham N. Carolina Durham 139 4,892193 Knox - Tennessee Knoxville 139 10,955194 Dougherty Georgia Albany 138 4,041

195 Buncombe N. Carolina Asheville 138 5,799196 Dinwiddie Virginia Petersburg 138 2,611197 Nansemond Virginia Suffolk 138 2,234198 Lorain Ohi, Lorain 136 , 4,215199 luzerne Pennsylvania . Wilkes Barre 135 12,090200 Darlington

, .S. Carolina Darlington 135 3,215

201 Richmond Georgia Augusta 134 8,984202 Madison Illinois Altcin 134 4,586203 Tuscaloosa Alabama Tuscaloosa 133 6,349204 Gila Arizona Globe 133 896205 Winnebago Illinois Rockford 133 3,828206 AnneArundel Maryland Annapolis 133 4,578207 , Harrison Mississippi Biloxi 133 5,997208 ' Mahoning Ohio Youngstown 133 5,847209 Bell '.. ' Texas , Temple 133 4,602210 : Yakima Washington Yakima 132 4,071' ..

211 Beaufort S. Carolina Beaufort 131 2,689212 Madison Mississippi Canton 130 ' 2,217213 , Etowah Alabama -, Gadsded 129 4,162214. Tallahatchie Mississippi Charleston 129 1,586

215 Orange New York Newburgh - 129 4,497

223

I T 2 6

1,z1

g 1"'S;IIIIII:3 z

11 I_t R. A.3 2 el1 §12`2'.6i

216 Chester Pennsylvania W. Chester 129 4,081

217 Fayette Pennsylvania Uniontown 128 7,238218 Galveston Texas Galveston 128 5,802219 Allen Indiana Ft. Wayne 127 4,205220 Norfolk Massachusetts Quincy 127 6,150

221 New Castle Delaware Wilmington 125 6,059222 Laurens Georgia Dublin 125 1,951223 Dauphin Pennsylvania Harrisburg 125 4,783224 Russell Alabama Phenix City 124 2,843225 Lake Illinois Waukegan 124 3,994226 St. Joseph Indiana South Bend 124 3,803221 Kanawha W. Virginia Charleston 124 7,883228 Hampden Massachusetts Springfield 123 7,603229 Hale Texas Plainview 123 1,486230 McDowell W. Virginia Welch 123 3,521

231 Jones Mississippi Laurel 122 2,807232 Middlesex New Jersey New Bruns nick 122 6,543233 Madison Indiana Anderson 121 2,606234 Berrien Michigan Benton 121 3,264235 Nash N. Carolina Nashville 120 3,500236 Lowndes Mississippi Columbus 119 2,945237 Buchanan Virginia Grundy 119 2,285238 Ventura California Ventura 118 7,409239 Quitman Mississippi Marks 118 1,424240 Cambria Penosylvania Johnstown 118 6,571

241 Wilson N. Carolina Wilson 117 3,546242 New London Connecticut New London 116 3,814243 Aroostook Maine Presque Isle 116 3,245244 Craven N. Carolina New Bern 116 3,009245 Humphreys Mississippi Belzoni 115 1,482246 Yazoo Mississippi Yazoo City 115 2,145247 Allen Ohio lima 115 2,530248 Leon Florida Tallahasee 114 4,050249 St. Lucie Florida Ft. Pierce 114 2,082250 Lee Alabama Auburn 114 3,403

251 Ouachita Louisiana Monroe 114 5,605252 Holmes Mississippi Lexington 114 2,005253 Johnston N. Carolina Smithfield 114 4,019254 Peoria Illinois Peoria 113 3,556255 Montgomery Tennessee Clarksville 112 2,591256 Alachua Florida Gainesville 111 4,429257 lbeia Louisiana New Iberia Ill 2,412258 Berks Pennsylvania Reading 111 5,277259 Washoe Nevada Reno 110 1,655260 Salem New Jersey Salem 110 1,289

261 Haywood Tennessee Brownsville 110 1,3402E2 Solano California Vallejo I09 3,646263 Campbell Virginia Lynchburg 109 2,960264 Racine Wisconsin Racine 108 2,145265 Delaware Indiana Muncie 107 2,815266 Polk . Iowa Des Moines 107 5,002267 Calhoun Michigan Battle Creek 107 2,549268 Fayette Kentucky Lexington 106 5,598269 New Madrid Missouri New Madrid 106 1,619270 Wayne N. Carolina Goldsboro 106 5,233

224

AIM

4 5 6

I

gck 1

Eliat!

b Iitif11,,A=3151z

271 Potter Texas Amarillo 106 2,778

272 Henry Virginia Martinsville 106 2,475

273 Imperial California El Centro 105 1,933

274 St. Mary Louisiana rranklin 105 2,750

275 Union N. Carolina Monroe 105 2,188

276 Smith Texas Tyler 105 3,992

277 Southampton Virginia Court land 105 1,458

278 Houston Alabama Dothan 104 3.201

279 Lee Mississippi Tupelo 104 2,262

280 San Juan New Mexico Aztec 104 1,233

281 Halifax Virginia Halifax 104 2,242

282 Jefferson Arkansas Pine Bluff 103 4,621

283 Pike Alabama Troy 102 1,985

284 Pueblo Colorado Pueblo 102 2,599

285 Vermilion Illinois Danville 102 2,250

286 Catawba N. Carolina Newton 102 2,963

287 Fort Bend Texas Richmond 102 1,979

288 Plymouth Massachusetts Brockton 101 1,421

289 Bossier Louisiana Shreveport 100 2,670

290 Burlington New Jersey New Hanover 100 4,558

225

ISINOMMOIMMinliste.mtwevon~ermvp

SECTION II. DETAILED TABLES

TABLE 7. NEED FOR SUBSIDIZED FAMILY PLANNING SERVICESIN 17 COUNTIES CONTAINING HALF OF U.S. HOMEBASEDMIGRANT POPULATION: NEED, SERVICE LEVELS, EXISTINGAND POTENTIAL RESOURCES FOR PROGRAM EXPANSION,FY 1968

NOTES TO TABLE 7.All column headings appear as in prior tables except the following:

Column 20Counties with Migrant Health Project Grant Assistance: Bullet Indicates a county In which there are one or more Personal Health andSanitation Services Projects supported by a Migrant Health ProjectGrant from the Community Health Service, HSMHA, PHS, CHEW;a blank Indicate no agricultural migrant grantassisted services.

,?1.2. 027

TOM 7. Need for Subsidized Family Planning Services in 17 Counties Containing Hall of U.S. HomeBased Migrant Population: Need, Service LeirelS, Existing sad PotentialRowans for Program Expansion, 1Y 1968 ( Designates Location of One or More Programs or Resources within County)

Estimated Family PlanningHeed and Service Levels

..,.....Existing and Potential Resources for Program Expansion

Existi g Family Pia singClinics and Agencies Related Health and Organizational Resources

C 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

i tg 4 I 1 11 11 It, 11111 9. v

1 i LP=..t.

1i".

iiv flit&IIa Isk

Isk

iiiiIs got. 1 i 9

4g x.-13

plsiIir0 r0 .0.t.0rt2 ri lxs.!ry

0.'510

oitrE0

1 1111 El 11 4* 1 1 i g'i jAl 1- IS 1°1Total 212,540 14.7 76.2 33,693 19.3 58 10 29 58 65.2 7 16 8 1 4 4 3

Hidalgo Texas 37,500 11.4 82.0 2,507 13.9 7 7 4 100.0Palm Bach Florida 20,977 9.1 81,3 2,081 11.2 7 6 100.0Pinal Arizona 150W 1.8 83.0 379 2.2 2 1 3 77.5Bexar Texas 15,000 28.1 86.6 4,349 32.4 2 13 3 48.1Cameron Texas 15,000 8.2 93.5 574 8 8 3 3 100.0

Seminole Florida 12,500 2.7 84.3 507 3.2 4 1 100.0Broward Florida 12,076 13.4 79.2 3,519 16.9 6 1 3 54.7Oade Florida 11,000 27.1 75,2 8,955 30.1 7 1 9 69.8Imperial California 10,787 1.9 100,0 1.9 5 100.0Ma ricopa Arizona 10,000 19.3 81.6 4,355 23.7 17 5 2 10 29.9

San Miguel New Mexico 10,000 .6 42.4 788 13.7 1 1 100.0Orange Florida 9,000 7.3 71.5 2,908 10.2 4 5 100.0Nueces Texas 7,500 7.2 75.4 2,358 9.6 4 2 100.0Webb Texas 7,500 5.7 100,0 5.7 1 100.0

Collier Florida 6,800 .9 68,2 413 1.3 3 1 100.0Maverick Texas 6,200 1.5 100.0 1.5 1 100.07.avala Texas 5,700 1.1 100.0 1.1

228

SECTION II. DETAILED TABLES

TABLE 8. NEED FOR SUBSIDIZED FAMILY PLANNING SERVICESIN 50 COUNTIES WITH 75 PERCENT OF INDIAN POPULATIONSERVED BY THE INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE: NEED, SERVICELEVELS, EXISTING AND POTENTIAL RESOURCES FOR PROGRAMEXPANSION, FY 196b

NOTES TO TABLE 8.All column headings appear as In prior tables except the following:

Column 1Rank Number shows the ranking, from high to low, of the 50 selectedcounties with highest Indian population (Column 4).

Column 21Counties with P.N.S. Indian Hospital: Bullet identifies a county Inwhich there is is a Public Health Service Indian Hospital.

,2,20,10/23i

railf.41

Table 8. Reed for Subsidized Family Planning Services In 50 Counties with 75 Percent of Indian Population Served by the Indian Hoek Service: Reed, Service Levels, Exist.Ins and Potential Resources for Program Expansion, FT 1968 (Ranked by She of Indian Population; Desiguates location of One or Fiore Programs or Resources within County)

Estimated Family PlanningReed and Service levels

Existing and Potential Resources for Program Expansion

Existing Family PlanningRotated Health and Organizational ResourcesClinics and Agencies

1 1 2 3 4 5 6

3

7

S Si 3g i i Itt Itlc f 11 il I i 1.11 1 1 : 111:1

8 9 110 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

ii, II lih

ill al-121 ii , m.s

3

11., 111 iiiP 11iTotal 302,285 99.3

1 Alaska Alaska 48,800 2.72 Apache Arizona 26,740 2.63 McKinley New Mexico 25,730 1.64 Navajo Arizona 24,540 1.7

5 San Juan New Mexico 16,700 .96 Conconino AT iluna 15,670 1.57 Maricopa Arizona 8,480 19.38 Pima Arizona 7,770 6.49 Sandoval New Mexico 6,730 1.3

10 Shannon S. Dakota 5,640 .3

11 Pinal Arizona 5,590 1.812 Valencia New Mexico 5,530 1.013 Oklahoma Oklahoma 5,300 11.214 Rolette N. Dakota 5,100 .415 Glacier Montana 4,940 .216 Tulsa Oklahoma 4,830 8.217 Yakima Washington 4,370 3.918 San Juan Utah 3,800 .2

19 Bernal lilo New Mexico 3,780 4.720 Fremont Wyoming 3,700 .6

21 Gila Arizona 3,520 .822 Big Horn Montana 3,520 .3

23 Cherokee Oklahoma 3,190 1.124 Caddo Oklahoma 3,120 1.325 Adair Oklahoma 3,080 1.1

26 Todd S. Dakota 3,080 .227 Karam' Minnesota 2,900 1.028 Roosevelt Montana 2,880 .429 Pennington S. Dakota 2,700 .830 Rio Arriba New Mexico 2,600 1.5

31 Commanche Oklahoma 2,540 3.032 Seminole Oklahoma 2,340 1.233 Dewey S. Dakota 2,180 .234 Delaware Oklahoma 2,130 1.135 Okanogan Washington 2,130 .736 Corson S. Dakota 2,035 .337 McCurtain Oklahoma 2,030 1.938 Sioux N. Dakota 1,980 .239 Muskegee Oklahoma 1,920 2.540 Blaine Montana 1,750 .1

41 Osage Oklahoma 1,740 .9

42 Pottawatomie Oklahoma 1,740 1.743 Lake Montana 1,710 .444 Swain N. Carolina 1,710 .645 Mayes Oklahoma 1,710 1.246 Cass Minnesota 1,710 .747 Thurston Nebraska 1,700 .348 Bingham Idaho 1,650 .749 Yuma Arizona 1,630 1.450 Okmulgee Oklahoma 1,630 1.2

83.4 20,062 119.0 42 44 19

54.3 2,292 5.0 1 891.4 239 2.3 1

75.2 527 2.1 1 377.3 503 2.2 3

74.0 321 1.2 1 1

79.9 379 1.9 1 281.6 4,355 23.7 17 5 273.7 2,280 8.7 2 1 1

97.8 29 1.3 1

67.3 158 .5 1

83.0 379 2.2 2 1

100.0 1.0

86.8 1,714 12.9 1 3

77.3 130 .6 1

53.6 175 .4 1

82.4 1,747 9.9 1 7

94.7 215 4.1 1

100.0 .2

70.8 1,925 6.6 6 2 6100.0 .6

86.7 119 .9 1

73.8 102 .4 1

68.1 494 1.6 295.2 68 1.4 1

96.4 40 1.1 1

69.3 96 .3 1

96.5 35 1.0 1

100.0 .4

94.7 44 .8 1

93.2 112 1.6 1

90.5 309 3.3 I 1

100.0 1.2

93.3 14 .2 1

100.0 1.1

100.0 .7

100.0 .3

100.0 1.9'78.6 44 .2 1

87.3 364 2.9 1

40.8 126 .2 1

90.7 87 .9 1

93.1 125 1.8 1

100.0 .4

100.0 .6100.0 1.2

89.8 75 .7 1

100.0 .3

100.0 .797.7 33 1.4 1

75.3 407 1.6 1

232

tai

sl91 68.5 31 37

10 66.03 61.62 26.33 43.81 52.82 59.8

10 29.93 95.4

3 77.5

7 86.71 19.3

1 39.15 100.04 100.02 100.01 73.22 100.0

3 75.71 32.6

42.21 100.0

1 100.0

1 79.92 100.01 100.02 70.0

1 76.12 100.0

7 1 5 26

2 100.03 100.01 100.01 100.0

1 100.0

3 100.01 100.02 100.02 100.01 100.0

2 60.21 100.0

1 94.71 100.0

INIMEWISIOMPINEM VIPIMAItitelM"Pfr y e

Section IIIDefinitions, Sources badLimitations of the Data

< .14,110

SECTION Ili, DEFINITIONS, SOURCES AND LIMITATIONSOF THE DATA'

A. GEOGRAPHIC CODING AND CONSOLIDATIONSData were gathered from many sources, none of which used thesame conventions in assigning numeric location codes. It was neces-sary to code or re -code all data on a uniform basis, and for this pur-pose the Geographic Location Codes, published by General ServicesAdministration, October 1966, were used.

1. ConsolidationsThe geographic data base of the information gathered was sc variedthat it was necessary to make a numher of consolidations in orderto maintain consistency and present all data uniformly by county.The following list identifies the consolidations by stare:

Geographic LocationStale County Included in County

Alaska

GeorgiaHawaiiIdahoMarylandMissouriMontanaVirginia

WisconsinWyoming

None StateTotal OnlyMuscogeeMaulFremontBaltimoreSt. LouisGallatinAlbemarleAlieghany

ArlingtonAugusta

CampbellCarrollChesterfieldDinwiddieFairfax

FrederickHalifaxHenricoHenryJames CityMontgomeryNansemondNorfolk

PittsylvaniaPrince GeorgePrincess AnneRoanokeRockbridgeRockinghamScuthhamptonSpotsylvaniaWashingtonWiseYork

ShawanoPark

All subdivisions

Chattahoochee CountyK *awao CountyYellowstone National Park PartBaltimore CitySt. Louis CityYellowstone National Park PartCharlottesville*Covington*Clifton Forge'Alexandria*Staunton'WaynesboroLynchburg*GalaxColonial Heights*Petersburg*Fails Church*Fairfax'WinchesterSouth Lioston'Richmond'Martinsville*Williamsburg*Radford*Suffolk'Chesapeake*Norfolk*Portsmouth'South NorfolkDanville'HopewellVirginia BeachRoanokeBuena VistaHarrisonburg*Franklin*Fredericksburg*BrIaelNorton'Hampton*Newport News'Menominee CountyYellowstone National Park Part

2. SMSA DesignationStandard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (Column 3) have been de-fined in accordance with the 1907 publication of the Bureau of the

t Column numbers cited in the text refer to columns in Table 1, Section II.

Independent cities which ere customarily treated as independent Jurisdictionsby the state have been combined with the county in which they are locatedIn order to maintain consistency of county coding; e.g., Akaandrla, Virginia,N not separately Identified Li our code, but is Included with Arlington County.

Budget.' In New England, where the Bureau of the Budget definesSMSAs by towns rather than counties, State Economic Areas (SEA)''and entiro counties were used rather than SMSAs because vital statis-tics and population estimates are available on a county basis andcannot be accurately subdivided into towns. (Table 1, following page)

In addition to the above SMSAs, 79 potential Standard Metro-politan Statistical Areas as defined by Sales Management in the 1968Survey of Buying Power'' were also identified. Those potentialSMSAs have a central city that does not yet meet the 50,000 popula-tion test. Based on analysis of their growth and development patternsthey can, however, be expected to meet all SMSA requirements inthe near future.

The cocling employed in Column 3 follows:

1 Counties in SMSAs with 50,00010 500.000 pop.2 Counties in SMSAs with 500,000 to 1,000,000 pop.3 Counties in SMSAs with 1,000,000 to 5,000,000 pop.4 Counties in SMSAs with 5,000,000 or more pop.5 Counties considered potential SMSAs6 Counties in SEAS with 50,000 to 500,000 pop.7 Counties in SEAs with 500,000 to 1,000,000 pop.8 Counties i,t SEAs with 1,000,000 to 5,000,000 pop.9 Counties in SEAs with 5,000,000 or more pop.Blank NonSMSA/SEA Counties

Code position numbers above identify counties in SMSAs or SEAsby population size of the entire metropolitan area (or potential met-ropolitan area) of which the counties are a part; e.g., a county coded1 in Column 3 of Table 1 indicates that this county is part of adefined SMSA with a population between 50,000 and 500,000. Thecode appearing in Column 3 is not to be understood to define therange of county population size unless (as is the case in LosAngeles), the entire SMSA consists of a single county.

B. POPULATION ESTIMATES1. Total PopulationPopulation estimates for July 1, 1966 (Column 4) were obtainedfrom the Population Division, U.S. Bureau of the 'ensus. Thesefigures had been published previously by the Bureau the Censusin Current Population Reports, Series P.25, Nos, 401, 404, 407 and409. A detailed discussion and analysis of these county populationfigures will be given in a forthcoming summary report, CurrentPopulation Reports, Series P-25, No. 427, "Estimates cf The Popda-Hon of Counties and Metropolitan Areas, July 1, 1966, A Sumnia.-yReport."

2. Home-Based MigrantsThe source of estimates on number of migrants by county (Column 5)is mostly unpublished data, as of February, 1969, developed bythe Public Health Service from U.S. Department of Labor reports,The Good Neighbor Commission of Texas and reports of ingranthealth project grants for 1967.1968. Some of these data appear in the1969 Report of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, UnitedStates Senate, on S. Res. 122, made by its Subcommittee on Migra-tory Labor (Report No. 91-83). These data were made available bySpencer A. Larsen, M.D.; Acting Assistant Chief for Migrant Projects,Comprehensive Care Systems Branch, Division of Health Care Serv-

Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas, Bureau of the Budget, Washing-ton, D. C., 1967, as amended January 15, 1968.

. Current Population Reports, Series P23, No. 7, Nov. 19, 1962. Correspondonce from Herman P. Miller, Chief, Population Division, U.S. Bureau of theCensus.

Marketing Magazine, June 10, 1965, pp. C.13 to C15.

jiA37

TABLE I. NEAREST EQUIVALENT STATE ECONOMIC AREA OR COUNTY FOR NEW ENGLAND STANDARD METROPOLITANSTATISTICAL AREAS

Standard MetropolitanStatistical Area(s)

1960Population Nearest Equivalent

1960Population

Bridgeport, Stamford, Norwalk, Conn. 609,741 Connecticut SEA A 653,589Hartford, New Britain, Conn. 654,604 Connecticut SFA C 669,555New Haven, Waterbury, Meriden, Conn. 545,160 Connecticut SEA B . 660,315New London-Groton-Norwich, Conn. 156,913 New London County, Conn. 185,745Lewiston-Auburn, Maine 70,295 Androscoggin County, Maine 86,312Portland, Maine 120,655 Maine SEA A 182,751Boston, LawrenceHaverhill, Lowell, Mass. 2,934,884 Massachusetts SEA C 3,109,158Brockton, Mass, 149,458 Massachusetts SEA D 248,449New Bedford, Mass., and Fall River, Mass.-R. I. 281,332 Massachusetts SEA E 398,488Worcester, FitchburgLeomInstor, Mass. 405,792 Massachusetts SEA B 563,228Pittsfield, Mass. 73,839 Massachusetts SEA F 142,135Springfield, Mass, 478,592 Massachusetts SEA A 532,582Manchester, N. H. 95,512 New Hampshire SEA A 178,161Providence-Pawtucket, R. I.-Mass. 816,148 Rhode island SEA A 718,543

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports. Series P-23, No. 7, Appendix A. November 19. 1962.

Ices, HSMHA, USPHS, DHEW, and Grace K. White, Program.tnalyst, Program Review Branch, Division of Health Care Services,HSMHA, USPHS.

The data supplied for each migrant county included "number ofhome-based migrants," "number of in-migrants," and identificationof grant-assisted health and sanitation services available to migrants.

The in-migrant data contain duplication since migrants maywork in several counties during the year. Since overall duplicationis estimated to occur as much as two or three times for the year, onlythe home-based figures have been employed inasmuch as these arethe only unduplicated counts. .

Less than 50 home-based migrants in a county are not shownin Table 1 since Column 5 has been rounded (000s); these smallnumbers of migrants are, however, included in state and U.S. totals.

3. Indian Population ,

Unpublished estimates as of January 1968, of Indian population for1968 (Column 6) were secured from George Spatafore, Chief, Officeof Program Planning and Evaluation, Indian Health Service,HSMHA, USPHS, DHEW, and Everett E. White, Special Assistantfor the Office of Program Planning and Evaluation. .

. The estimates are for 276 counties which contain Indians forwhom the Indian Health Service provides medical care. The esti-mates are not inclusive of all Indian populations since there areIndians not Included in the above program of delivery of healthservices. , ' b .

4. Women 1544 ,

Estimates for each county of the number of women 15 to 44 years ofage (Column 7) as of July 1,1968, ace also part of the data receivedfrom the Bureau of the Census. These estimates were derived by acohort-component method in which the net migration rate for females15 to 44 years of age, for each county, was derived from the impliednet migration rate for the total population of the county. The figureswere adjusted to tie in with separately derived state and U.S. totalsin this age-sex group.

C. NEED FOR SUBSIDIZED FAMILY PLANNING SERVICESThe number of medically indigent women in need of subsidizedfamily planning services (Column 8) was estimated by applying the

Dryfoos-Polgar-Varky (DPV) formula to the Census Bureau esti-mates of women aged 15-44 in 1968 for each county.

This universe was defined as all fertile women who are exposedto the risk of unwanted pregnancy and who cannot afford privatemedical care. It consists of all women who are a) medically indigent;b) fertile; c) exposed to risk of pregnancy; and d) not currentlypregnant or seeking a desired pregnancy.

For purposes of approximating a national level of medical in-digency, the near-poverty level formulated by the Social SecurityAdministration appears to be the only standard applicable nation-ally which is a relatively realistic criterion of the need for subsidizedmedical care. The SSA standard is a sliding scale relating incometo family size. In 1966 the income cutoff for a non-farm family offour, for example, was $4,345 annually, with higher or lower incomelevels for larger or smaller families.

There exists no data, nationally or on a county level, with whichto enumerate precisely women who have the characteristics listedabove. The DPV formula attempts to approximate this number byusing available socio- economic and demographic information, com-bined with relevant findings of social and biological research.

The formula' was developed in 1964 by Stephen Polgar, Ph.D.,then PPWP Research Director (currently Associate Director, Caro-lina Population Center), and Mrs. Joy C. Dryfoos (currentlyCFPPD's Chief of Planning Methods), with the help of Oscar Omatl,Ph.D., cf the New School for Social Research, and approved byPlanned Parenthood-World Population's Social Science Committee,then headed by Charles F. Westoff, Ph.D., of Princeton University'sOffice of Population Research. New statistical information was incot-porated in 1988 by George Varky, PPWP Research Economist.

M. Orshansky, "Recounting the PoorA FiveYear Review," Social SecurityApril. 1966.

This follows the procedure used to deft* medical Indigency by the Depart-ment of Health, Education and Welfare, OfftOe of Program AnalYkill, InDelivery of Health Services to the Poor (1957A pseol < .1

! Its original version wet, cited In F. S. Jaffe, "Financing Family PlanningServices," Americen Journal of Public Haanh, 56117, lung 1566.

It should be emphasized that the purpose of the formula is toestimate the le el of service* needed, not to define eligibility forservices. Thus, while the formula employs certain age and incomecriteria for purpose of calculation, those who need service are notnecessarily limited to these age and income groups; nor are all mem-bers of these groups exposed to risk of unwanted pregnancy and inneed of services. For instance, the formula uses an age bracket of18-44 to define the childbearing years which actually begin earlier.Yet not all women aged 18-44 are exposed to pregnancy, while somebelow 18 are. It is considered that those above 18 not exposed topregnancy offset those below 18 who are. This also apphrs to theuse of a fixed income measure of medical indigency.

In calculating the number of women exposed to the risk of un-wanted pregnancy at any given time, the formula takes into accountthat low-income parents lave consistently stated that they want anaverage of three children. It accordingly counts them as potentialcontraceptors only when they are not seeking or having an averageof three desired pregnancies. For those not exposed to pregnancydue to permanent impairment of fecundity, it uses estimates madeby Arthur A. Campbell, Associate Director, Center for PopulationResearch, National Institute of Child Health and Human Develop-ment, DHEW.

The yardsticks of annual cash income figures used by the SSAto determine those below the near-poverty level vary with familysize and are different for farm and non-farm families. Since thedetailed data on local population by income and family size neededto apply these yardsticks directly for any given community generallyare not available, the DPV formula uses the percentage of all fami-lies with less than a single erage annual income for purposes ofcom?utation. On analysis, the most suitable and available averagefamily income for this purpose was found to be the percentage offamilies with incomes below $3,000 as reported in the 1960 Censusof Population.

The two apparently disparate income standards are in fact com-patible, as shown by the closeness of the estimates obtained for thenation as a whole by the application of this formula, and by a moreprecise count made for PPWP by the U.S. Bureau of the Censusapplying the detailed SSA near-poverty yardsticks by family size tonational data gathered through its Current Population Survey ofMarch 1966. Both estimates yielded nearly 5.3 million women as theapproximate number in need of family planning service as of thatdate. This compatibility springs principally from the followingfactors:

1) There is a disproportionately large number of elderly per-sons, who are not potential contraceptors, among families with in-corr es below $3,000 a year. Hence, the use of the percentage ofthe general population with family incomes below this figure defines,in I lfect, a childbearing population at a higher Inoume level.

2) Family incomes have risen since 1960. Thus, applying thepore village of families with incomes below $3,000 in 1960 to theestimated 1966 population defines a higher income level as of thelatter date.

The 1968 revision of the DPV formula also applies a final ad-justment factor to account for the different income levels used todefine "near poverty"' among non-farm and farm families. Thesefarm-non-farm adjustment coefficients were derived from analysis ofthe Census Bureau's special tabulation (mentioned above) of women

by age, selected characteristics, and specified poverty levels forareas of the United States classified by the proportion of the popula-tion living on rural farms.

.A. A. Campbell, "The Role of Family Planning in the Reduction of Poverty,"Journal of Marriage and the Family 30:236, May, 1968.

The DPV formula was applied in this study as follows:

Steps

1. Estimate the number of wornen of childbearing age (18.44)for each county.

2. Multiply this number by theproportion of families with Incomes below $3,000 In 1960to estimate the number ofmedically Indigent women ofchildbearing age.

3. Multiply the above number by.75 In order to deduct from itthose women who do not needprotection from pregnancy atany given time, either because of Inability to conceiveor because they are pregnantor actively seeking a pregnancy. This deduction is based onthe following steps:(a) 13% Is deducted for nat-ural or postoperative sterility.*(b) from the remaining population another 14% is de-ducted to allow for the timeperiod needed by a woman tohave an average of threewanted children.The combined effect of thesetwo deductions Is to have aremainder which is .87 x .86= .75 of the starting number.

4. Since the same cash incomerepresents a higher real in-come for a farm family thanfor a non farm family (be.cause of such items as foodwhich are not purchased), theapplication of the same income measure for both wouldtend to exaggerate the familyplanning need in farm areasand, by the same token, un-derestimate it for urban areas.Hence the number yielded by

Data Employed

Census Bureau estimates foreach county of the number ofwomen aged 15.44 In 1966,reduced by 13.2% (the proportion of all women 15.44who were aged 15.17 as reported In the 1960 Census).Percent of families with in-comes below $3,000 for eachcounty, as reported In the1960 Census.

t

Percent of population livingon farms for each county, asreported In 1960 Census.

As per estimate by Campbell, op. cit.. based on evidence from the 1960 sur-vey of American wives reported in P. K. Whitipton, A. A. Campbell and J. E.Patterson. Fertility and Family Planning in the United States, Princeton, 1966:the 13 percent excludes sub-fecundity since contraception would be neededwhere sterility has not been definitely established.

A live birth makes contraception unnecessary fora total of 15 months, corr.-posed of an average of six months of seeking a pregnancy and a furthernine months until term. A fetal death stmitarly accounts for nine months,composed of six months of seeking a pregnancy and another three monthsuntil fetal death. Assuming that fetal deaths approximate to about Ur percentof live births, the time for which a woman on the average does not need pro-tection corresponding to each five birth e. IS + .15 X 9 months a 16.35months. The total period for three live births 16.35 X 3.. 49.05 months. Ofan births 95 percent happen In the age period 18-44 (deduced from MonthlyVital Statistics Report, IS, No. II (February 10, 1967) p. 5. Hence periodof time for which contraception Is not needed due to three desired pregnan-cies between 18-44 49 X .95 months. The proportion of the 27year period

49 X .95 .

12 7 X 100 a 14.4%, rounded off as 14% In the text.

239

Steps Data Employed

step 3 was adjusted for farmpopulation concentration byuse of the following formula:

If % of the Total Population Multiply the Number ResultingThat Is RJral Farm (F) Is: from Step 3 by:

equal to or greater 1.2than .020 F °"

less than .020 1.12

D. CURRENT FAMILY PLANNING SERVICE LEVELSTo determine the number of medically indigent women receivingfamily planning services through organized programs in each countyin FY 1968 (Column 9), service statistics were sought from themajor organized channels through which medical family planningservices are delivered. These included hospitals, health departments,clinics operated by Planned Parenthood-World Population (PPWP)Affiliates and other agencies, and 0E0-funded projects in which themedical services are not delivered through hospitals, health depart-ments or PPWP Affiliates.

1. Objectives and Definition of the Study UniverseThe basic objectives were to 1) obtain, as accurately as possible, anunduplicated count of medically indigent patients receiving familyplanning services in the study year, and 2) identify the locations offacilities providing these servien by city and county.

Achievement of these objectives was limited by the po&ly struc-tured state of the family planning field. At the outset of the study, forexample, there was no established universe of facilities providingfamily planning services to medically indigent patients, although dis-parate information existed of varying extent and quality on agenciesproviding services. It was clear from previous studies that the recordsystems in different types of clinics varied so considerably that manyfacilities could not be expected to provide accurate information onpatients served (as distinguished from visits) or on ircome status oftheir patients. These limitations required that the study adopt meth-ods of triangulation from previously known data for purposes ofdefining the universe and securing the best approximation possibleof the current level of family planning services.

To establish a provisional universe of organized family plan-ning services, previous surveys, miscellaneous governmental andnon-governmental reports and other data were examined. From thesediverse sources, an initial list was made of the agencies reported tobe involved in the provision of organized family planning medicalservices (whether In free-standing clinics or as part of larger systemsof care). This list included public and voluntary hospitals, healthdepartments, Planned Parenthood clinics, 0E0 family planningprojects, Neighborhood Health Centers, Maternity and Infant Careprojects, and other agencies known to be engaged in demonstrationor research projects related to family planning. Analysis of the listled to the conclusion that a differentiated survey approach, as de-tailed below, would be required for each major type of agency.

In order for the data to be comparable, patient service level in-formation was sough: for fiscal year 1968 (July 1, 1967-June 30,1968). Health departments and hospitals usually report statistics on

The estimates of women in need, obtilned by step 3 of the formula for a setof eight separate segments of the U.S. population, showed differences fromthe direct counts of them (*Wined from the March 1956 CPS date mentionedabove. These ware strongly correlated with the percent of the total populalion In these segments living on rural farms In 1960. The above equation isderived Porn a least square regression of an eight-point scatter of farmadjustment coefficients known accurately from the special tabulation of CPSdata of March 1966. The regression was manually adjusted to Improve thefit at the smaller values of F.

240

a fiscal year basis, and monthly reports of Planned ParenthoodAffiliates could be grouped by any selected 12-month period.

2. Definition of Family PlanningFor the surveys, the following definition of family planning wasadopted:

Family planning is defined as any medical means by which conception is prevented or postponed. It is also called fertility regulation,contraception, birth control, planned parenthood and includes therhythm method.

3. HospitalsThe provisional universe for the hospital survey was constructedfrom the following sources:

1) The American Hospital Association, in its 1968 survey ofaffiliated institutions, included questions which yielded informationon hospitals providing family planning services. The survey included4,345 non-federal, short-term general hospitals; 254 respondentsstated that they provided family planning services.

2) In 1967, the Center for Population Planning of the Univer-sity of Michigan, in cooperation with the American College ofObstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Public HealthAssociation, conducted a survey of 364 hospitals with Ob /Cyn resi-dency programs. This yielded information on number of ward deliv-eries, postpartum return rates and family planning service levels;238 of the hospitals responding to this survey stated that theyprovided family planning services."

3) During the summer ei 1967, Planned Parenthood-WorldPopulation sent detailed questionnaires to a group of hospitals se-lected on the basis of data available from the 1966 Hospital GuideIssue of the Journal of the Art erican Hospital Association. The 1,279hospitals surveyed included ell hospitals with more than 1,000 de-liveries and others listed in the Guide as reporting the provision offamily planning services. This survey yielded 444 respondents, ofwhich 204 hospitals report.ii the provision of medical family plan-ning services through their facilities.

4) As part of a special project, the Pennsylvania and NewJersey Hospital Associations conducted surveys in 1968 to determinethe availability of family planning services in affiliated hospitals withmore than 500 delivf,ries annually. Of the combined total of 202hospitals surveyed by the two Associations, 71 respondents reportedthat they provided these services."'

In all, the Michigan, Planned Parenthood-World Population,Pennsylvania and New Jersey surveys yielded a total of 513 hospitalswhich had reported the provision of family planning services. Elimi-nation of duplicates resulted in a list of 421 separate hospitals whichhad responded affirmatively to one or more of the four previoussurveys. A deck consisting of these entries was than sent to the AHAso that a comparison could be mad with their 1938 survey data. Thiscross-check with responses to the AHA survey did not yield anyadditional hospitals claiming to provide family planning services.Where AHA respondents provided estimates of family Manningpatient visits, however, the figures were entered on the cards andreturned to CFPPD so that these data could provide an additionalcheck on the reliability of responses to the Center survey.

We an Indebted to James Cooney, Ph.D., of the American Hospital AssoclaVon for providing the tabulations from this survey In advance of publication.

Johan W. Eliot M.D., Ph.D., of the Center for Population Planning. Universityof Michigan, generously permitted us to obtain data from his fifes.

*, We are indebted to John S. Worman, Executive Director, Hospital Associationof Pennsylvania and Jack Owen, Direcior, New Jersey Hospital Associationfor sharing the results of their surveys.

Copies of this unduplicated list were then mailed to all PlannedParenthood Affiliates with a request to inform the Center of anyother hospitals providing services in their communities which werenot included. An additional 10 hospitals resulted from this request.Reports on hospital family planning services also were requestedfrom the Indian Health Service of the Health Services and MentalHealth Administration which added 30 hospitals to the file. Thesurvey of Maternity and Infant Care Projects (discussed below)yielded data on eight additional hospitals.

Thus, the final universe of hospitals surveyed for this study cameto 483. Since the previous surveys end the AHA questionnaire cov-ered most hospitals which were likely to be providing family plan-ning services, it is believed that this universe constitutes most, if notall, hospital -based family planning services in FY 1968.

4. Health DepartmentsThe selection of a universe for obtaining data on the family planningactivities of official health departments was made particularly diffi-cult by the Inadequate information available regarding the organiza-tion and programs of local public health agencies. It was known fromprevious studies conducted by the American PubPc Health Associa-tion that many local health derartments provide few if se-; personalhealth services.' A survey of all health units in more t!'acti 3,000counties, and of those dty health units which are not within thejurisdiction of those counties, see.aed neither feasible Ln terms oftime and budget constraints, nor purposeful in terms of the likeli-hood of obtaining usable information. Attempts were made to obtaininformation on county health departments providing personal healthservices, a universe which would have been more appropriate to thisstudy and which would have reduced the health department surveyto more manageable proportions. However, such information appar-ently has never been collected by federal agencies or professionalorganizations.

In dew tag a feasible approach to the health departmentsurvey, the fing earlier surveys and reports were analyzed:

Is The American Public Health Association survey, FamilyPlanning Policies and Activities of State Health and Welfare Depart-ments, 1967.'1"

11) The Children's Bureau reports, 'Family Planning Services:Maternal Oa Child Health Programs," for FY 1967 and FY 1968(preliminary) compned by the Research Division of the Child HealthStudies Branch, Social and Rehabilitation Service, DHEW.

3) The Children's Bureau reports, 'Statistical Summary ofPatients Served ender Maternity and Infant Care Projects," foe FY1987 and FY 1968, compiled by the National Center for SocialStatistics, SRS, DHEW.

The APHA data showed an Increase over previous years in theember of state health departments providing family planning serv-ice data. A comparison of the data submitted for fiscal 1967 by statehealth departments to APHA and the Children's Bureau (in the MCHreport) was made by ranking the states by the number of familyplanning patients reported, as shown in Table 11 (following page).

Each tabulation resulted in a listing of 15 jurisdictions whichappeared to amount for nearly 95 permit of all reported healthdepartment family plenelt.g activity. (The table also illustrates thewide variation in the repeating of famly planning services by statehealth departmeets.)

Together, the two reports covered 19 states and the Districtof Columbia. This list was analyzed and reduced by eliminating thosestate health departments known to be reporting family planning

(rowed iliartins. MO. 04eedet. Coma" flanning Program, F.PFLIL 0LrOdedessva *Mee on gvestfen.

0. Holm" L. Coma. I. OM. Mole MOIL ...Ws. 44.1 febrility. 065.

services which were provided priremily or wholly by Maternity andInfant Care (MIC) projects or by Planned Parenthood, or which werefinanced primarily under 0E0 grants. This Ieft 14 sta' lnd the Dis-trict of Columbia which defined a universe of particular interest tothe study: those jurisdictions which appeared to contain almost all ofthe family planning services provided through normal health depart-ment channels and financed primarily through federal Maternal andChild Health (MCII) formula grants and local matching funds.These 11 states and the District of Columbia (whose family planningprogram is funded, in part, by a direct Congressional appropriation)were selected for more persistent follow-up than the remaining 38state health departments. Although questionnaires requesting patientdata and dirge locations for each county in their jurisdictions weremailed to the directors of all 51 Maternal and Child Health pro-grams, the directors of the 15 selected programs were contacted bytelephone beforehand to inform them of the survey and to ascertainthe nature of the data they would be reporting.

At the same time, questionnaires requesting patient data byclinic location were sent to 50 MIC project directors, since experi-eace had shown that accurate information about family planningservices provided through these projects was not always availableat the state agency level.

5. Planned Pa reNhoodThe survey of Planned Parenthood-World Population Affilietes in-volve(' a clearly defined universe of 128 local agencies providingmedical contraceptive services in free-standing clinics, hospitals, orhealth departments in FY 1968. (There were, in addition, 31 PPWPAffiliates which provided no medical services and these were notsun-eyed.)

Statistics on new and old patients and visits, and socio-eccnornicdata for new patients, were available at the national office of PlannedParenthood-World Population in annual reports provided on a calen-dar year basis by each Affiliate. In addition, similar data were avail-able on a monthly basis for the 89 Affiliates participating in thePlanned Parenthood Automated Record System (ARS), as of June19E8. For the purposes of this study, it vas necessary to obtainpatient data for &seal 1968 and to secure local Ark addresses andthe number of patients served by clinic location for those Affiliatesprodding services at more than one facility and, occasionally, inmore than one county. In addition, Affiliates were asked to indicatethe participation of other igencies (0E0, health departments, and/or hosiitals) in either funding or staffing the service at each clinklocation. This information was needed to enable the staff to approxi-mate the number of patients reported by Planned Parenthood whowere duplicated in the data reported by the other agencies, sincethe operation of family planning clinics often involves multi-agencyPao kfrotion-

For Affiliates in the ARS, patient data collected from the rya-tern's monthly printouts were entered fcc each clink location on thesurvey forms by. code number (the only means of identifying theclinic on the printout). These Affiliates were asked to verify or cor-rect the patient figure' allocated, and also to provide street addressesfor act numerically coded location. Affiliates not participating in theARS were asked to summarize their monthly records for each cliniclocation and to provide street addresses.

4. 0E0 Family Planning ProgramsThe Offee of Economic Opportunity had funded '43 family plan-ning programs prior to July 1968; the medical services in most ofthese programs wen provided by health department', Planned Par-enthood Affiliates or hospitals. A separate survey of 0E0-fundedprograms operated by these service agencies was unnecessary sincepatient data was to be collected directly through surveys of thedelivery agencies. However, rt was necessary to obtain info nnation

241

TABLE D. COMPARISON OF PATIENTS RECEIVING FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES IN FISCAL 1967, AS REPORTED TO THEAMERICAN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION AND THE CHILDREN'S BUREAU, DHEW

APHA SURVEY OF HEALTH DEPARTMENTFAMILY PLANNING SERVICES, FY '67*

Number ofFamily Plan.

State Wog PatientsCumulative

TotalCumulative

Percent

California 95,423 95,423Virginia 59,673 155,096Illinois 34,090 139,186Florida 28,600 217,786Georgia 20,701 238,487 68.0%Alabama 13,285 256,7nNorth Carolina 16,443 273,215Washington, D.C. 10,700 283,915South Carolina 10,093 294,008Meryiand 8,401 302,409 86.2Tennessee 7,137 309,546New York 6,219 315,765Pennsylvania 6,000 321,765Michigan 5,257 327.022West Virginia 2,714 329,736 94.0

Total patients for 61 reportingjurisdictions: 350,629

CHILDREN'S BUREAU MCH REPORT OFFAMILY PLANNING SERVICES, FY '6700

Number ofFamily1,1an.

State fling PatientsCumulative

TotalCumulative

Percent

Alabama 45,000 45,000Florida 28,704 73,704California 28,165 101,869Virginia 24,899 126,768Mississippi 13,736 140,504 61.2%Georgia 13,208 153,712North Carolina 13,165 166,877South Carolina 12,803 179,680Tennessee 7,433 187,113Kentucky 6,632 193,745 84.4Maryland 6,448 200,193Texas 5,793 205,986New York 4,299 210,285Kansas 3,775 214,060Arkansas 2,446 216,506 94.3

Total patients for 31 reportingjurisdictions: 229,487

The American Public Health Association survey, "fanny Planning Policies and Actlynies of State Health and Welfare Depptrnents. 1961," reported In Hartingof al. op. en.

Cisildrin's Somali revolts: "runny Planning Services: Maternal and Chad Health Programs, se :SO" *0i/ramify), cottoned I. the Research Division of the ChildHealth Stoats trench Int ball'W.

on the programs administered by Community Action Agencies wheremedical family planning .services were not provided by a health de-partment, hospita' oe Planned Parenthood Affiliate. Data on 28 ofthese programs, including patient statistics, were made available forthis study by filo-Dynamics, Inc., which had surveyed all 0E0-funded family planning services during the fall of 1968.'

A special reference should be made here to the LovistanaFamily Planning Program, Inc., funded primarily by 0E0, whichinitiated and operates is Otte wide program. Patient data and clinkaddresses for FY 1008 by pt,Ish (county) were obtained fa thisprogram directly from the Center for don and Family Studiesof the Tulane University School of ls1

P. Other Family Mating ProgramsTwo other programs which were known to be providing Family plan-ning services to medially indigent women were also surveyed:

1) The clinics of the Family Planning Centers of Los Angeles,Inc.

2) The clinks operated by Settee Family Planning, Inc., intitade/phia, a demonstration project supported by the PopulationCouncil.

& Design, Pretesting and Fielding of the SurreysThe lack of a national family pleasing patient reporting system de-termined the method and design of the hospital and health depart-mad surveys. Based upon esp.rienct with other family planningturps, ft was that trues of the data submitted would be

see me Indebted le Pato ikon* el die-Ormoace. t e.lee thribIr4 the mynaof those noestienrobile aveletAs.

242

difficult to interpret. Simple questionnaires were believed essentialto secure the largest possible response, minimize the difficultia forsurvey coders and reduce the possibility of error for respondents.

The questionnaires (see Section 111-G) were thus designed toask a minimum of questions and to place emphasis on defining familyplanning as any medical means by which conception is pees. knsted orpostponed, including the rhythm method. (The opestionnaires notedthat other terms for family planning include fertility n.,uletion, con-traception, birth control, planned parenthood.) A distinction wasdrawn between patients and visits. Although more detailed ques-tionnaire. might have aided in interpreting the data, longer formswere less likely to yield adequate returns.

Eight cities were selected for field testing of the survey insten-meas. Criteria foe selection included whether or not they had ahospital family planning clink, an 0E(>-funded paled, an MICproject or a PPWP Affiliate. Approximate)), 10 days in the fieldduring December 1968 were devoted to pretesting the hospital andPP Affiliate survey instrtmnents and obtaining Wormation on thefamily planning activities of relatei MIC Projects and CAP Agencies.

AE of the questionnaires were walled during the first two weeksin January, accompanied by letters rhich explained the purposes ofthe surveys. The Istal questionnaires were directed to the Chiefsof Ob/Gyrs, with Information copies to hospital administraton andto the executives of the state hospftal assorietions.

Compktion rates hr caection of service data are shown krTable III (following page):

eadrrari...04.

the Rowlett 114etpRal Attaistie41 did not en-Wiese. the Moved. but tdlend Rt topesystotAith eat Noted to the tootling OttItt.

TABLE III. COMPLETION RATES r(IR COLLECTION OFSERVICE DATA

Total TotalTotal Number of Number ofNumber ofAgencies

Agencies,Data

Agencies,No Data Cornple-

Alenci In Universe Obtained Obtained Lion Rate

Hospitals 469 455" 14 97%State Health Dept.

Programs 51 50... 98%Planned Parenthood 128 128 100%M IC Protects 50 60 100%

Most of the data on patients tented wore obtained through the mall survey.In the use of a few non-respondents to the CFP20 hospital surrey. data wereobtained from recent surveys conducted by the New Jersey and Permsylvsn'sHospital Associations.

" Data were obtained foe 455 out of the total of 169 hospitals surveyed: Affirms-Vve data were coded foe 433 hospitals; 20 others reported no organizedfamily Maiming sere cos during fiscal 196.

4" Ono state department of hearth (Tennessee) did not respond to the survey;Informatitot on LORI county programs In the state was obtained directlyfrom the peogronts and was entered in the 61*.

9. Eating Ow of Medical indipncy Status of Reported PatientsSince dela on the kicceS status of patients were available only forPlanned Parenthood Affiliates, estimates of the number of medicallyindigent patents receiving family planning services through hospi-tals, health departments and other agencies surneyel were based oncertain assumptions. It was known that different agencies (e.g., hos-WA and 0E0 programs) have very varied eligibility requirementsfor free family planning services.

By definition, the medically indigent family Is unable to affordthe coat of private medical care and is therefore more likely to utilizeclink facilities when health services are needed. The assumptionwas made that the family planning servkes of hospitals, health de-partments and 0E0-funded clinics (regardless of the operatingagency providing the service) were, In all likelihood, utilized pri-marily by medically indigent women. Thus, the patient figuresreceded by these agencies to the surveys were coded, after editingfa consistency, with no effort made to distinguish the proportionof patients who were medical y indigent. 'Ibis procedure undoubt-edly ovetestimates the number of medically indigent women eweh .ing services through these agencies, since some patients above themedical Indigency level probably were served. In the absence ofdetailed dodo -economic data on the characteristks of patients, how-even there was no alternative but to accept the reported figures asrepresenting medically indigeot patients.

P l a n n e d Parenthood Affiliates serve both the medically indigentand those at slightly higher Income levels. !mime, family size and

rdata on new patients sieved by a representative sample ofAttlistes which participate In the Automated Record System

(ARS) were used to develop a procedure for estimating the numberof medically Indigent ;talents In all Planned Parenthood clinics.'The Income/family file standards developed by the Social SecurityAdministration to deffae the "nei epoveref levels' (adjusted up-wed to reflect the oast of living increase tince 1906) wereto the actual data obtained from the ARS on income and f sireof new patients it the 111 sample Affiliate*.

*114 pro/01440o wet geelotiod by Manse Snyder. Ph D. Director. ant*mime wry. Datum% tworwrialst of IkPerts Doetertenefill of Research.

Ondloneky, to. ell.

The estimating procedure assumes that the distribution of medi-cal indigency status is the same for new and old patients since theproportion of Planned Parenthood's new patients with incomes below$75 weekly has been relatively constant for nearly a decade whenchanges in consumer prices are taken into account. It also assumesthat the proportion of patients who are medically Indigent does notvary significantly between Affiliates participating in the ARS andthose which do not. The method Is based on the linear correlation(positive) between the percentage of new patients who are medi-cally indigent and the average number of living children of all newpatients.

For ease in calculation, the estimation of the percentage ofpatients who are medically indigent was undertaken in two steps.The first step involves calculation of medically indigent new patientsas a percentage of all patients with weekly incomes of $100 or less.The second step adjusts this percentage to apply to all new patients,including those with incomes of $100 or more.

To develop the estimating formula, Individual patient recordsfrom the 21 sample Affiliates for the first quarter of 1968 approzi-mate!), 10,000 cases were classified according to the SSA poverty,near-poverty and non-poverty standards, and by weekly incomesbelow and above $100. This procedure established for each Affiliatethe number and percent of all new patients who were medically in-digent, and the number of new patients with weekly incomes below$100. The proportion, all medically indigent patients divided by thetotal number of new patients with Incomes below $100, (Y), andthe average number of living children per patient per Affiliate, (X),was then plotted on a graph and the linear regression was calcu-lated. The resulting equation Is: Y = 36.2 + 19.6X.

As would be espeded, the degree of association between Y andX was high, with a oorrelatior coefficient of .85. (A coefficient of 1.0Indicates perfect correlation.) When the values of Y obtained fromcalculation of the regression equation are compared with the aotualvalues obtained for the 21 sample Affiliates from ARS records, theaverage difference was five percentage point.

Calculated vaines of I' were then multiplied by the ratio of newpatients with weekly incomes below $100 to the total number ofnew patients reporting an Income, In order to convert Y to YZ (thepercentage of all new patients who are medically indigent). Thus,

YZ

number of medically indi-gent patients

total number of patientswith incomes below $100

total number of patientswith incomes below $100

total number of patientswith known Incomes

This method was applied to all Affiliates regardless of whetherthey part kipated In the ARS. Since the Affiliate survey provided databy clink location, it was posubk to obtain figures on the medicallyIndigent proportion of the total caseload for each clink by applyingthe percentages derived from the procedure descrited above, andthese figures were entered into the file.

The estimates are subject to some error, in that the bask datafrom which they are derived represent the average foe each Affiliate.Some Affiliates operate more than one clink (I e., in different loca-tions) and, hence, the estimate for an Individual clink is expected toshow some deviattan from the average for the Affiliste. For hospital,health department, and OEO clinics operated by Planned Parent.hood Affiliates, tune assumption was made that these clinics were pi-Inertly utilized by medially* indigent patients. and the figures hethole individual clinics were coded as repxled. This followed theassumption used for reports from health department, hospital and0E0 clinics vented by other agencies, as noted above.

10. Coding Methodology end Elimination of DoplicationsThe nature of the da:n obtained from the beefiest health department

243

and MIC project surveys was so diverse as to require formal methodsof analysts and interpretation in order to yield an approximation ofthe number of family planning patients served by these agencies.

For the hospital survey, responses to the questions regardingthe location and organization of the services (i.e., separate familyplanning clinic, postpartum clinic, etc.), the number of visits and theaverage number of visits per patient were used to interpret thefigures on patients served. Hospitals with separately organized familyplanning clinics were best able to provide relatively firm statisticson the number of women served. In those instances where Byreswere available only for the number of visits, the respondent wasusually able to estimate the number of patients based on an annualaverage of two to three visits per patient.

More ambiguous responses were provided by hospitals in whichfamily planning services were delivered through obstetric and post-partum clinics. In these cases other sources were used to validate ormodify the . esponse. A similar procedure was adopted where therespondent could not provide separate patient data on family plan-ning*, or where the figures entered were questionable (when checked.for example, against the number of deliveries for that hospital). Forexample, the University of Michigan study of Ob/Cyn residencyprograms yielded data for most of the 238 responding hospitals re-porting the prevision of family planning services on: the number ofnon-private deliveries; postpartum return rates of non-private pa-tients and percentages of postpartum patients receiving family plan-ning care. These rates were used to calculate an estimate of thehospitals new family planning patients in the study year. To estimatecontinuing patients from the previous years it was assumed thatapproximately the same number of postpartum patients were pro-vided family planning services in the previous year and that half ofthem returned for an annual re-examination in FY 1968. This per-centage was applied to the previous year's new patients to yield sfigure for continuing patients. Continuing and new patients werecombined to estimate the total number of women receiving familyplanning services through the hospitals. Table IV (below) illustratesthe estimating method employed on the data obtained from theMichigan study.

Responses to the CFPPD survey from hospital programs whichhad also responded to the Michigan questionnaire were comparedwith the patient et:smates derived through this method. Where theMichigan-derived estimates were judged to be more accurate thanthe response to the CFPPD survey, the former were coded; thisoccurred in less than 10 percent of the cases.

Additional resources used foe validating hospital responses werethe AHA report on the number of births for each hospital, and theprevious hospital family planning strtveys conducted by PlannedParenthood-World Population and the two state hospital associa-tions. Pet the hospitals least able to identify the number of familyplanning faticnis (usually those whose services were providedthrough gynecological or genets] outpatient Anita) the figuressubmRted were analysed by employing a method similar to thatillustrated in Table IV. However, since data on postpartum returnrates and on the proportion of all deliveries which were non-privatewere not available fa these hospitals, It was eonsenatively estimated

that 50 percent of all deliveries returned for postpartum care and50 percent of the postpartum patients received family planning.Where the respondents stated that no estimate could be made, theanalyst did not attempt to determine a figure. In 28 such cases, thehospitals were coded in the report as providing services, but no pa-tient figures were assigned.

The data provided on family planning actin"' if health de-partment programs also posed certain diEN.1:;es i .en responsesfrom the surveys of Maternal and Child Health c ',sins and Mater-nity and Infant Care projects were checked against previous reportsto the Children's Bureau and the American Public Health Associa-tion, the figures in some instances were not comparable. In dealingwith the incompaiability of the data, no single method was used tosubstantiate or modify the estimates. In most instances the procedurewas to write or telephone the respondent and, where possible, toconsult with persons at the local level who were considered knowl-edgeable about the delivery of family planning services throughhealth department clinics.

Two state health departments presented particular problems inthe coding of the data by county. Tenneme had reported somecounty data to the APHA survey but did not respond to the CFPPDstudy. Information was obtained for some Tennessee counties fromother sources, and these figures were coded.

The response from the Virginia Health Department was scru-tinized closely for a number of reasons. 71e Department had re-ported 59,673 family planning patients to the APHA for FY 1967,and 21,899 to the Children's Bureau for the same fiscal period.Furthermore, figures obtained from the health departments in Rich-mond, Norfolk and Alexandria for the PPNVP 1967 SMSA study' hadbeen questioned by two PPWP Affiliates in the state. (Through 0E0funding, these Affiliates had assigned personnel to provide educa-tional services in several public health clinics and were thus quiteknowledgeable about the service levels in their areas.) In responseto the CFPPD survey, tht state 1...elth department reported a state-wide total of 30,628 patients in FY 1968. Further checking with thehealth department, the Affiliates involved and other resources madeclear that the county and state figures reported by the state healthdepartment probably represented visits, not patients; and there wassome evidence that the figures may have represented cumulativevisits since 1900. Moreover, ft was apparent that 'patients' did notnecessarily mean women remising medical family planning services;in some counties it appeared to define educational contacts. There-fore, since the data provided by the state could not be distributedcanting the counties and independent cities, only the data for Norfolkand Richmond, where estimates could be made based on informedlocal Judgment, were coded.

In relation to all chancels through which services were reported,a Nober difficulty arose from duplicate reporting as a consequenceof the multiple participation of agencies In the delivery of theseservices in some public health or hospital fedThav, Thus, the patent

r. s ha. spat C J. earnsehe, mote rem Oa to 11/40ented tonal Min-now Serie*, IA rid SWIM oft Wen than 80,000 Pignrtatiek MVP. 1,41.

TABLE IV. ESTIMATINO METHOD FOR HOSPITAL CLINICS (BASED ON MICHIGAN STUDY)

Number ofvon-privateMikado

2,000

Estimatedpostpartumreturn rats

80%

Estimatedambit c4patientsreturreingpostpartum

1,600 80%

Estimated % ofPotemtvrilpatients retehingbody planning

Es:motet,number Al newfamily planningpatients (N)

1,280

Estimatednumber ofmedinoingpatients townpt evievs you

64) (SO% 14)

Estimated total numberof Family utenningpatients (P)

1,920 (N SO% N

244

served by a Planned Parenthood Affiliate using its staff and budgetin a health department location was often reported twice, as was thepatient served by a health department in a hospital clinic. If theservices were funded by an MIC project grant, the same patientcould appear on three different reports.

An attempt was made to sort out these duplications when thedata were entered on the county worksheet used for keypunching.This worksheet was designed so that all facilities and agencies couldbe identified with the patient data each claimed in their responsesto the Center survey. Reported figures were entered in the appro-priate agency columns assigned to hospitals, Planned Parenthoodclinics, health departments, MIC projects, 0E0 programs (otherthan health department, Planned Parenthood or hospital-operated)and other organized family planning services. (For a copy of theworksheet, see Section III-C.)

These separate figures were then examined, county by county,against the reported addresses for the particular facilities. In manycases, it was clear that two or more agencies were reporting the samepatients. The duplicated data were then recorded on the worksheetin the overlap column. The data did not permit a detemtination tobe made of which agency was primarily responsible for providingthe services in these cases of duplicate reporting, and no attemptwas made to ascribe the patients to or.e or another service agency.In instances where the state MCH director reported that familyplanning services were available in some counties, or in the state as awhole, only through an MIC protect, the figure provided was enteredonly in the MIC column. All columns were totaled and the estimatedfigure for patients served through all agencies was obtained by sub-totaling the agency columns and subtracting the overlap figure'.Patients reported by MIC projects but who were also reported bythe agencies providing the family planning service (e.g., health de-partments or hospitals) accounted for the largest siagle part of theoverlap total. The balance consists of patients duplicated usually asa consequence of multiple service agency involvement in a singlelocation.

It should be emphasized that this procedure eliminated onlythe most obvious ducaeons, leaving an unknown amount of dupli-cition in the published figures. Nevertheless, it provided at /east aminimum estimate of the extent of duplicate reporting: Even afterthe survey responses were edited for corsistency and visit data trans-lated into patient figures, of the 839,058 patients claimed as familyplanning patients in the separate responses of health departments,hospitals, Manned Parenthood Affiliates and other clinics, 61,532 oreight percent were weeded out as obvious duplications, leaving anet figure of 773,111 patients served in FY 1968 by all agencies.

The estimated ursmet need for family planning services in eachcounty (Column 10) was derived by subtracting the total served(Column 9) from the total ie need (Column 8). The percent 'm-imed is presented in Column 11.

E. SELECTED HEALTH AND DEMOGRAPHIC INDICESBask population and socio-econontk Information was employed inthis study to appeudmate the site or 'tope of need for subsidizedfamily planning services. In addition, a number of health and demo-graphic Indices were assembled as appradrrsate measures of theintensify of need for family planning *Mots. These include data oninfant mortality, birth ceder, illegitimacy and prematurity, since thereduction of these rates is among the significant secondary objectivesof a family phrasing program.

I. Infant Mortality and boss InlaM OathsThe Wait weak), rate cried (Column It) Is the average numberof deaths of infants under one-year per 1,000 live blithe, by residenceof mother, in the five-year period 196I-65. The number of thesedeaths in excess out 17.8 pet 1,000 !tee births is presented in Ca-ms 13.

These data are derived from the Children's Bureau Study ofexcess infant deaths done by the George Washir.gton UniversityOperational and Demographic Analysis for Maternal and ChildHealth Project.'

The number of excess infant deaths was calculated for eachcounty by multiplying the positive difference between 17.8 endthe actual recorded infant mortality rate for each county by thenumber of births for the five-year period. The rate of 17.8 representsthe upper limit of the first decile In the U.S. array of county rates for1961-65, as defined in the Children's Bureau Study:

The concept of excess infant mortality In an area is based on thedifference between the actual number of infant deaths occurringthere in the stipulated period of time, and the smaller number whichwould have occurred if a lower death rate, which had been achievedby certain other areas, had prevailed In the area In question. Inthese studies, the five-year county Infant mortality rate which oc-cupied the tenth percentile position In the national array of countyrates was selected as the ceiling risk above which newborn poputaLions should not be exposed. In counties with Infant mortality ratesequal to or lower than the tenth percentile rate, there were by defini-tion no excess deaths. For all other counties, the excess was esti-mated, as just mentioned, by the difference between actual numbersof deaths ANS numbers expected if the tenth percentile rate pre.veiled.

To conform to the geographic coding employed in this study,information for a small number of locations identified in the Chil-dren's Bureau publicetiart was combined, Al indicated earlier (Sec-tion 1111-A).

A special problem was presented by the infant mortality ratefor New York City which, in the Children's Bureau publication, rep-resents a summary for the entire city with no separate figures for thefive individual counties. To obtain county data for this study, Infantmortality rates for each °aunty in New York City were summarizedhoe data available at the Bureau of Records and Statistics of theNew York City Health Department. For the five -year period 1981-65, the New York City monis provided a total of 767,483 live births,which Is 23,509 less than the 790,992, shown in the Children'sBureau study.' 6* This difference may be attntuted to, the fact thatthe N.Y.C. Health Department does not record births to city resi-dents occurring outside of the city, whereas the Notional Center forHealth Statistics, which provided the basic data for the Children'sBureau study, does allocate such births to residence of mothers.

National and state Infant mortality rates shown are taken direct-ly from the cited source. Totals for excess infant deaths were calcu-lated after adjustments described above.

2. Estimated Fertnity RatesData on births in each county in 1906 was secured from the natalitytape file provided by the Division of Vftal Statistics, National Centerfor Health Statistics, Health Services and Mental Health Administra-tion, VSPHS, DIIE1V.1 The 1966 natahty tapes represent a 50 per-cent sample of all births occurring In the United States, and the data

U.S. ChldreA's &Am. Intent opt PerMstat MortaNti Rates Sr Ate e,4toter: U.S. ERA lush *A1 tevrAA 155140. 114145. MS-

" WC 0.111.

". INe. p esa.

I ma teal:44.0;0A act tesitUftes er PoSeet b. Greve, 1kb. Dirtdor: Rebel A.IsrA44. U S, DeptA7 Nettie.; and AAA IL ',amis..% CAW Roomy StoistietInns*. Is grettfvPy ackfteMeAret

24S

are therefore subject to some sampling error, particularly in respectto counties with small populations.

Data summarized by county from the 1966 natality tapes andused in this study (Columns 14.18) were based on place of residenceof mother. Estimated county fertility rates (Column 14) the num-ber of births per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44 were calculated using1966 births to women aged 15 to 44 as the numerator and the CensusBureau estimate of women aged 15 to 44 in 1966 as the denominator.

3. Birth Order, Illegitimacy and PrematurityData on live birth order is based on the number of children boonalive to the mother, including the birth in 1968. Live first births(Column 15) and live births of fifth or higher birth order (Column16) are presented as percents of all live births in the county.

Out-of-wedlock birth were reported in 1966 in 34 states andthe District of Columbia. For these states, the ratio of out-of-wedlockbirths per 1,000 live births (illegitimacy ratio) is presented in Col-umn 17. No ratio is shown for the following 18 states which did notreport out-of-wedlock births:

Arizona IdahoArkansas MarylandCalifornia MassachusettsColorado MontanaConnecticut NebraskaGeorgia

Nev ,r HampshireNew MexicoNew YorkOklahomaVermont

An index of prematurity by weight is presented in Column 18,using infants weighing 2,500 grams or less at birth as the numerator,and all live births as the denominator.

F. EXISTING AND POTENTIAL. RESOURCES FORFAMILY PLANNING PROGRAMS

In collecting senice data, the study gathered information on existingfamily planning programs under a variety of auspices. In addition,a considerable amount of data was assembled on resources in eachcounty which are potentially available for delivery of family planningmedical services or for partk Ipation in a family planning program.These potential resources were defined as I) existing health sersiceagencies and personnel in both public and private sectors; 2) specialhealth projects relevant to maternal or family health care; and 3)other organizational resources and supportive programs. The arrayof information (Columns 19-36) provides a brief summary of themajor resources available in each county which might participate inexpansion of family planning programs.

1. PhyskisnaData on non-federal phjskians in patient care (Columns 19-24)were extracted from the American Medical Association's master tapefile of all physicians in the U.S. and possessions for 1966, comprisingapproximately 300,000 ntases.° Counts were run of the number ofphysicians in each county categorized in three groupings:

PAyskiens number of physicians, defined by the AMA asnot employed by governmental agencies, who are In active practicedelivering t sedical care to patients. Excluded, for example, are Or).*tarts primarily with research, administration and fu -time teaching; also excluded are interns, residents and fellows. Col-umn 19 presents the total number of physicians as defined above,with office addresses In the county. Col-. am 20 presents the ratio ofthis number per 100,003 population, using as the denominator theCensus estimate of 1966 population.

too fittio.noi Center for NW* tirtnticii. Vire tlatisfic4 of ttio Vonasloe. IN& Venom 5. leftism 4.

6. to:trawls** of Barak its ;a V.S. Arriofifon Votreol Asaotiatvra. Clitatb.Meisel firs).

246

General practitioners The number of physicians included inColumn 19 who identify their primary specialty as "general prac-tice." Column 21 presents their number, and Column 22 the ratioof general practitioners per 100,000 population, derived in the samemanner as described above.

Obstetrician - Gynecologists The number of physicians includedin Column 19 who identify their primary specialty as "obstetrics andgynecology." Column 2.1 presents the number, and Column 24 theratio of obstetrician-gyrecologists per 100,000 population, again de-rived in the same manner as described above.

2. Hospitals and Medical SchoolsFrom the American Hospital Association's (AHA) 1967 Annual Sur-vey tape the following information for each county was extracted:The number of short-term, general service, non-profit hospitals"reporting births, operated by private agencies and non-federal gov-ernmental agencies, including, however, the Public Health Serviceand Indian Health Service hospitals. The number of these hospitalsis presented in Column 25. Births in 1967 in these hospitals, as re-poded to AHA, are presented in Column 28.

All hospitals which reported providing organized family plan-ning services In fiscal 1968 In response to the CFPPD survey rueenumerated in Column 27. (See Section 111-D.)

The 1967 American Medical Association Directory lists 89approved medical schools In the United States. A bullet () inColumn 28 denotes the location in a county of one or more of theseapproved schools.

3. 0E0 ProgramsColumns 2941 summarize Office of Economic Opportunity programsof special relevance to the expansion of family planning services.

Community Action Agencies (CAAs) are the local groups whichorganize and direct the anti-poverty program in each community.Counties with functioning CAAs, as of August 1968, are identifiedby a bullet in Column 29; the list was derived from CommunityAction Agency Atlas (OEO Manual 0003.1, August 1, 1968) whichenumerates 1,012 CAAs throughout the country. Many CAA: operatein more than one county; thus the total number of counties withactive CAM is 2,018.

OW Pernik Planning Protect grants have been a major sourceof funds for expansion of family planning senices since 1966. Thegrants are usually administered by the CAA and delegated to a heal hdepartment, Planned Parenthood Affiliate or othe: agency for opera-tion of the family planning service. Counties with one or more OEOfamily planning project grants, as of November, 1968, are noted bya bullet in Column 30, identified from a list compiled by Bio-Dynamics, Inc of Cambridge, Massachusetts, fur a survey whichthey conducted for 0E0 in the fall of 1968. Their Hon inmaking this and other data a% &Roble is gratefully ged.

OW Neighborhood Health Center grants are designed to estab-lish programs in urban or rural areas to provide comprehensivehealth care to low-income families. Counties with one or more OEO-funded Neighborhood Health Centers, as of October 1968, areIdentified by a bullet in Column 31, from a list supplied by the Officeof Health Seniors, Community Action Program, 0E0.

4. Other Federal sod Local ResourcesColumns 32,38 summarize other federally supported program: andlocal resource' relevant to the provision or support of family plan-ning senices.

ra ruitusne. and 0/owes:tea in wining lei from P4 Arnorion flospitalAsootiotiewt, no sr* oniloblie4 N Jornot P. Connor. imp, (snow, ',song piPirsimeti tortes and Atka a. stn... Otretior, biottion of Ws Collaction.

" Nonprofit torNoles opeoratta tauirtaa.

Model City grants, administered by the Department of Housingand Urban Development (HUD), have been awarded to enablecities to plan and develop needed programs in housing, employment,education, social and health services (including family planning).As of December 1988, according to information reported by HUD,130 cities had been awarded Model City planning grants. Countieswith one or more of these grants are identified by a bullet in Col-umn 32.

Maternity and Infant Care (MIC) Project grants, administeredby the Children's Bureau, SRS, DHEW, have made it possible forsome local health departments and hospitals to provide comprehensive health and social services (including family planning) to "high.risk' mothers and infants, particularly Er, low - income areas. As of1988, 50 MIC projects were functioning in 80 communities. Coun-ties with one or more MIC projects in fiscal 1988 are identified bya bullet In Column 33.

Neighborhood Service Profect (NSP) grants, administered bythe Health Services and Mental Health Administration, DHEW, aredesigned to provide comprehensive medical services to families indesignated geographic areas of need. As of April 1969, 17 projectgrants had been awarded, according to Information provided byCommunity Health Services, 11SMHA, DHEW. Counties with oneor more NSP projects are denoted by a bullet in Column 34.

Counties ahem the load public health departmentfamily planning seniors in fiscal 1988 are identified by a tr°u11:detfil

Column 35. The Identification is based on the responses of statehealth dr partmetrts to the CFPPD survey discussed above (Seethe111-D). bullets identify 1,031 counties where state health depart-ments reported health department family planning services, Includ-ing 189 where no estimate of patients served could be secureJ.

Planned Parenthood Watts are identified by a bullet In Col-umn 38. The identification includes counties to which 128 localgroups affiliated with Pit nned Parenthood-World Pop llation oper-etta medical family planning clinics in fiscal 1088, and for whichdata on patients served is included In the report. -

A. SURVEY INSTRUMENTSThe questionnaires and fir tens used In CFPPD's surveys of hospital,health department and Plat,:ird Parenthood clinics follow on the nextpage. Also included is a copy of the County Data Worksheet used torecord responses to the surveys and sort out apparent duplication:.

24?

CENTER FOR FAMILY PLANNING PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

The Technical Assistance Division of Planned Parenthood-World Population

S43 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10022 (212) 732-1100

PlannedParenthoodWorldPopulation

Chi/frownJerome H. Ho NM, Ph. D.

01111M1101 t iv. CornmitleeJoseph D. Frisky, M.D.

hoiden.Atli* V. Criimactur,S4 D.

Chief brook,. °heirPad H. Tod& Ir.

roa 111161Itt PtA POIINC1110C111414 DIIMILOPIttNt

Dottiertedniclk S fire

NAMPIkt AOY1$0111, COV1001.

Chompla*Ifneph D. Sentry, M.D.

CArall S. M D.Ude C. Carter, Si.MAMA S. Canner!. 14 D.Leslie Corsa, H.. M O.lanes k. DwimeveviMA G. mildAvystoil lint. Pt. D.M.ye w. treivulta. N4 D.Pact II. Coillmts. Ed D.WAsa CwAvivMurray Crabl. Ibt D.Darold NAHA', NI D.teat, M. Helloak IA D.1441 t. 5. 14eliswak Ir., M D.Once Haft', M D.Cry L 1,,tt.M. Ne.eloo Lan. M D.Itttsum V. tevriafewp$4 P Marta. U r..

tract M. 140essetatarsi ri 024.4c M O.AM14 14. Pelv44044444 M. hot a. U D.Neu honeWass H. ItsikiseseStros. tutor,. M D.Deans 9.11141 14 O.0.4.4W P. iworte. M D.Hoard C. fillet. 14 D.Clemitiolet dente, 14 D.Mane Yaffe0 11441.444 Iffember

ins I. Ueda, Pl. D.fossil M. Mt445..A1sios11. NVeSp.S1 D.

248

Sample Letter sent to Hospitals'Chief of Obstetrics

January 6, 1969

Dear Doctor:

Your assistance is needed for a brief but important surveywhich we have been asked to undertake by the U.S. Office ofEconomic Opportunity. The survey is part of a series of studiesdesigned to assemble statistical data from all agencies providingfamily planning services. It has the support of the AmericanHospital Association and continues the effort initiated by theA.H.A. to collect national service.data on all hospital-basedfamily planning prlgratas. The information secured in thesestudies will assist the Federal agencies in determining theirfuture family planning programs.

In response to various recent surveys conducted by theA.H.A. and other organizations, your institution provided informa-tion on the number of patient visits for family planning services.However, for the purpose of our study we need to know the numberof patients served by your clinics, the number of patient visitsand the average number of visits per patient per year. Sincethe resurvey is being sent only to those hospitals which haveindicated that they provide family planning services, it isparticularly important that we obtain full information fromeach hospital.

Would you be kind enough to fill out the enclosed question-naire and return it to us by January 18, 1969? A stamped, addressedenvelope is enclosed for your convenience in replying.

Your cooperation is deeply appreciated and we thank youfor taking the necessary time in behalf of this project.

Sincerely, yours,

Alan F. Cuttmacher, M.D.President

Raymond L. LetnetDirector of Planning

th: 12/30/68

CENTER FOR FAMILY PLANNING PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT Sol #PLANNED PARENTHOODWORLD POPULATION

Hospital Family Planning Survey

Name of Hospital

Street Address(Number) (Street)

(City) (County) (State) (Zip Code)

1. Does your hospital provide medical sandals In family planning? Family planning is defined as any medical means by which conceptionis prevented o postponed. It Is also called fertility regulation. contraception, birth control, planned parenthood and Includes therhythm method.

Yes-- NoIf so, are these services provided through (Check all that apply):

family planning clink organized upend* from other clinics

combined obstetrics /gynecology clinic

separately organized gynecology clink

maternity clink and/or separately organized post pa rtum clink

_ other (Specify)

2. Please onto the following patient data for fiscal year 1968 (July 1,196? June 30,1968):

Total Number holly Planning Patients Served(My 1, 1961 June I), 1968)

retel Numbet fan* Planning Patient Visits(Arty 3, 196? June 30,1965)

Average Numb*, of Visits per Patient per Veer(hrty 1, 196? June 30,1968)

(Name of Renecivrt Please Print)

(Ta)

(Date)

249

CENTER FOR FAMILY PLANNING PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

The Technical Assistance Division of Planned ParenthoodWorld Population

543 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10033 (313) 9324100

PlannedParenthoodWorldPopulation

ChairmanWoos H. Holland,

Chairman [anodise Cenonfilreirrupit D. Stash-y.14 D.

PresidentAlas 9. Gotham Sat. M D.

Oat, Eteritin ClewPaul H Todd. fr.

ctaI II 505 ftlQtt MIMING1110CILAM IfttOWtArt

DOM.,trtderkt s liale

NA I MAI. A ittt$01 V COVNt It

Chao's.Meth D. lanky. M D.

Garold S. Stnistris. M D.Usk C. Carte.. fr.tlitahttis I. Csswell. 14 D.ttslin Cori& ir.. M D.fawn R. OlistassIAA G PriMfiatviertd Fist. rib 0.Mess W. fray:arm W D.fatt It. Contrasts, trl O.lemma CiottastMortal Cunt 141 D.Donald Harting. N4 D.this M. Hrlknart. M D.fain t. S. Henosos. ft.. M D.Snit feting. %I 0.

rrsCl fuselsW. Merles Inns. S4 D.Nerwas V. torteIrrw$41 P Marts, M D.Irani W. NefeskiaIllwarl 0 traria. M D.Atria H. NarkConks W. hrtto. M D.Nan here

H Itstoissei&Twos. t Issmra. 14 D.Caws. Rasta. WA D.Denali P. %mu. 14 O.Howard C Try1W. D.. ,4 D.Clirtskhts thief. /4 D.Marta MeD *stand WarantaClcarks I. Mike. P1. D.Sawase114.1040.. WI D.Alonzo S. lertg, 14 D.

Sample of Letter sent to HospitalDirectors of Maternal and Child Health

January 10, 1969

Dear

The Center for Family Planning Program Development, undercontract to the Office of Economic Opportunity, is conductingsurveys of health departments, hospitals, and clinics in theUnited States which provide family planning services.

The purpose of the preaent brief but important survey of healthdepartments, which has the support of the American PublicHealth Association, is to obtain current service level data onfamily planning clinics administered or financed through stateand local health departments. Such programs would includeMaternal and Child Health programs, Maternity and Infant CareProjects, and other programs which may exist in pArticularlocalities.

We have been close consultation with Dr. Donald Harting,Director of the Family Planning Program of the APHA, inrelation to previous APHA studies, since the preaent surveycontinues these efforts.

In response to the APHA's 1967 questionnaire, information wasprovided on the number of clinics and patients served in yourstate for a one-year period. For your convenience, we have listedon the enclosed worksheet the counties for which services werereported.

Would you please be kind enough to enter on the enclosed form therequested data for each county for Fiscal Year 1968 (July 1, 1967 -June 30, 1968), as followss

(Please list additional counties where applicable, and delete anywhere services were not provided in Fiscal Year 1968.)

Column 1: Name of county where any medical family planningservice administered or financed by the healthdepartment was delivered during Fiscal Year 1968.(Exclude any service providing only referrals.)

Column II: Number of clinic locations within the countyfor Fiscal Year 1968.

250

.:olumn III:

Column IV:

Column V:

Total number of family planning patients servedduring Fiscal Year 1968.

If data available to you permit only a roughestimate for Column III, please indicate by acheck (.1) in Column IV.

If figure in Column III includes HIC Projectpatients, please enter in Column V the number(or your best estimate) of MtC patients included.

We would also appreciate receiving from you the came and addressof each clinic location where patients currently receive familyplanning service. Such information received from health departments,hospitals, clinics, and other agencies will enable us to assemble anational list of service locations which we believe will be of greatvalue to the health field.

We would deeply appreciate the return of this form by Januar? 24,1969. A stamped, self-addressed envelope has been enclosed r

your convenience.

Thank you very ouch for your valued assistance in this project.Any additional comments you wish to make will be mort welcome.

Data from this and the other national studies we are conductingwill be available on request.

Sincerely yours,

Alan F. Cuttmacher, M.D.President

Raymond C. LernerDirector of Flemming

AFC/RCLatenclosure

PSI

CENTER FOR FAMILY PLANNING PROGRAM DEVELOPMENTPLANNED PARENTHOODWORLD POPULATION

Survey of Family PlanningServices Administered or Financed by Health Departments

Name of Respondent State Seq.

Title

Dale

(Family Planning is defined as any medical means by which conception is prevented or postponed. It is also called fertility regulation, contraception, birth cc trot, planned parenthood, and includes the rhythm method.)

1. If there have not been any family planning services provided by or through the state or local health departments, please check hereand return form to us.

2. If family planning services were administered or financed by the state o' local health departments during fiscal year 1968 (July 1.1967 June 30, 1968), please list below the following information for each county:

Name of county Number of clinics incounty duringFiscal Year 1968

IIITotal number of familyplanning patients servedduring Fiscal Year 1968

IVIf figure InColumn III is estimate,check here

VNumber of MIC projectpatients included inColumn III (if any)

...

WIIIIIIIIIIM111111110011111

CENTER FOR FAMILY PLANNING PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

The Technical Assistance Division of Planned Parenthood-World Population

545 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10022 (212) 752-2100

PlannedParenthoodWorldPopulation

Chairman1410111,1 H. Holland, Ph.D.

Chairmen Eeecutioe Corollate.Joseph D. Beasley, M.D.

PrteidentAlan F. Gutttnacher, M.D.

MI Declaims OfficerPaul H. Todd. Jr.

MICR FOR FAMILY PLANNP4GPROGRAM DIVTIOFNITAT

Directorreederkk S. Jaffe

NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL

ChairmanJoseph D. Beulah M.D.

Gerald 5. Bernstein, M.D.Lisle C. Carter, Jr.Elizabeth B. Connell, M.D.Leslie Corse, Jr., M.D.James R. DumpsonJohn G. FaildRaymond Flak, Ph.D.Mays W. Freymann, M.D.Jack R. Goldberg, Ed.D.Willi am GorhamMurray Grant, M.D.Donald Harting, M.D.Louie M. Heilman, M.D.John L. S. Hollorrtan, Jr., M.D.Bruce Jessup, M.D.Guy P.. juti:sW. Newton Long, M.D.Norman V. LondeJoseph P Martin, M.D.Frank W. NotcsteinEdward O'Rourke, M.D.MAD H. PelavinGordon W. Perkin, M.D.Nora Mrs -

William H. RobinsonSeymour L Roomy, M.D.George Rosen, M.D.Donald P. Swartz, M.D.Hamm! C. Taylor, Jr., M.D.Christopher Tietze, M.D.Mart* ValleD. Richard WennerCharles F. Westoilf, Ph.D.Samuel M. INishik, M.D.Alonzo S. Yerby, M.D.

Sample Letter sent toDirectors of PlannedParenthood Affiliates

FOR ACTION

January 8, 1969

TO: Executive Directors of Planned Parenthood Affiliateswith Medical Services

FROM: Alan F. Cuttmacher, President

Raymond C. Lerner, Director of Planning

The Center for Family PlanningProgram Development is undercontract to the U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity to assemblea wide range of statistical data from Planned Parenthood, hospitalsand health departments for the more than 3,000 counties and 110Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas in the United States.This national file of information will be invaluable in planningfor the orderly development of family planning services throughoutmuch of the country. As part of these on-going studies, we will begathering information from all service agencies on current levelsof family planning services: the number of women served annuallyby the different agencies, the number and location of clinics, andthe auspices under which services are provided. Fiscal year 1968is used in order that data from various sources may be renderedcomparable.

Attached is a form (and a duplicate copy in blue for your records)which we would most appreciate your completing. For those of youwho are in the Automated Record System, we have filled in theservice figures available to us here at the national office; pleaseverify these figures and in addition, please provide information onthe specific address of each of your branch clinics. For those ofyou who are not in the Federation's record system, please provideus with service data (Column II) as well as branch clinic addresses(Column 1).

Since we must meet a deadline for the submission of our reportto the 0E0, we would most appreciate receiving your responses byJanuary 17.' A stamped, addressed envelope is enclosed for yourconvenience.

Thank you for taking the time to assist us.

AFG/RCL/lrenc.

253

CENTER FOR FAMILY PLANNING PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT Seq #PLANNED PARENTHOODWORLD POPULATION

PPWP Medical Affiliate Questionnaire

Clinic Locations and Service Levels

Affiliate

1. All corrections In the Information we have listed should be made In Red Ink above that item.

If medical services are provided at only one center, please check here

Column I

,,........Column II Column III Column IV

List in Column I all clinic locations in operation during thetime period of July 1, 1967, to date.,

In Column II enter service data (total numberof patients served) onlyfor those clinics in op-eration during rascalYear 1968 or a 1.,::rtionthereof.

(July 1, 1967June 30,1968)

In Column III, for allclinics listed in ColumnI, answrr yes if clinic isstill in operation and noif not.

In Column IV check anyor all sponsorships inaddition to Planned Parenthood which apply.

,-.

Name

Number ofpatients served

.

Yes

No

OEO

Hosp.

Health Dept.,

Other(explain)

Address(number) (street)

(city) (county)

(state) (zip code)

..............

Name

Number ofpatients served

Yes

No

OEO

Hosp.

Health Dept.

Other(explain)

Address(number) (street)

(city) (county)

(state) (zip code)

254

CENTER FOR FAMILY PLANNING PROGRAM DEVELOPMENTPLANNED PARENTHOOD-WORLD POPULATION

COUNTY DATA WORKSHEET

STATE

COUNTY

NO. OF FAMILY PLANNING PATIENTS FY '68

CODED BY DATE

CHECKED BY DATE

SHEET OF

FAMITY IDENTIFICATION HOSPITAL PP HD MIC OEO OTHER SUBTOTAL

ASSUMEDOVERLAP

COUNTYTOTAL

PATIENT TOTAL

FACILITYSUMMARY

NO. OFHOSPITALSSURVEYED

NO. OFHOSPITALRESPONSES

NO. OFHOSPITALF.P. SERV.

NO. OFPPCLINICS

NO. OFHOCLINICS

NO. OFMICFACIL.

NC. OFOEOFACIL.

NO. OFOTHERFACIL.

ODING COMPLETE FOR K.P. El

DATE

255

1. ooirrioncarr PRINT/NO OFFICE t 110 0 318-010