patterns of employment before and after childbirth · 2020. 9. 10. · employment of women before...

Data from theNATIONAL SURVEY OF FAMILY GROWTH

Patterns of EmploymentBefore and After ChildbirthUnited States

Statistics, based on data collected in 1973, are presented on theemployment of women before marriage, between marriage and firstbirth, and between first and second births. Trends in employmentin these life-cycle stages are examined by comparing the experienceof women married in different periods. Employment of womenduring and after the pregnancy preceding the most recent live birthis also examined. These statistics on employment are shown for allever-marz-ied women, and for various socioeconomic groups.

DHEW Publication No. (PHS) 80-1980

Series 23Number 4

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFAREPublic Health Service

Office of Health Research, Statisticsr and TechnologyNational Center for Health StatisticsHyattsville, Md. January 1980

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

United States. National Center for Health Statistics.Patterns of employment before and after childbirth.

(Vital and health statistics : Series 23, Data from the National Survey of Family Growth ;no. 4) (DHEW publication ; no. (PHS) 80-1 980)

Prepared by Larry L. Bumpass and James A. Sweet.Bibliography: p. 14.1. Mothers–Employment–United States. 2. Wives–Employment–United States.

3. Women–Employment–United States. I. Bumpass, Larry L. II. Sweet, James A. III.Title. IV. Series: United States. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital and healthstatistics : Series 23, Data from the Nation~ Survey of Fami]y Growth ; no. 4. V. Series:United States. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare. DHEW publication ; no. (PHS)80-1980.HD6055.U53 1979331.4 79-607103ISBN 0-8406 -0167-0

I:or sale by the Supcrintcndcllt of I>ocunlents, L“.5. (lo\7.rl]u]cl)t Printitlg OflIcr\i”:l+illgtlm, 1). (.. ?O!(l:

NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS

DOROTHY P. RICE, Director

ROBERT A. ISRAEL, Deputy Director

JACOB J. FELDMAN, Ph.D., Associate Directorfor/inalysis

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

ROBERT A. ISRAEL, Acting Associate Director for Data Systems

ROBERT M. THORNER, SC.D., Acting Associate Director for International Statistics

ROBERT C. HUBER, Associate Director for Management

MONROE G. SIRKEN, Ph.D., Associate Director for Mathematical S tatistics

PETER L. HURLEY, Associate Directorfor Operations

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

PAUL E. LEAVERTON, ph.D., Associate Director for Research

ALICE HAYW(OOD, Information Officer

DIVISION OF VITAL STATISTICS

JOHN E. PATTERSON, Director

ALICE M. HETZEL, Deputy Director

WILLIAM F. PRATT, Ph. D., chief Family Growth Survey Branch

MABEL G. SMITH, ChieJ Statistical Resources ~ranch

RITA U. HOFFMAN, chief ProNamming Branch

Vital and Health Statistics-Series 23-No. 4

DHEW Publication No. (PHS) 80-1980Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 79-607103

FOREWORD

The National Survey of Family Growth collects information on the fertiIity,family planning practices, and reproductive health of women in the United States.The information is based on standardized, home interviews with large, nationallyrepresentative samples of women in the reproductive years.

To supplement its own analyses of the Survey’s rich data, the National Centerfor Health Statistics called upon various specialists outside the Center to prepareseveral analytical reports in this series of Vital and Health Statistics.

This report was planned by its authors, Dr. Larry Bumpass and Dr. James A.Sweet of the University of Wisconsin, within a generaI framework of analysisrequested by the National Center for Health Statistics. Dr. Bumpass and Dr. Sweetconducted the analysis and prepared a report to the Center on their findings.The report was adapted by Center staff for publication in Vital and HealthStatistics.

William F. Pratt, ChiefFamily Growth Survey BranchDivision of Vital Statistics

...III

CONTENTS

Foreword ...............................................................................................................................................

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

Source of Data ............................................................. ..........................................................................

Smmnary of Principal Findings .. .... .......................................................................................................

Trends and Dlffcrcmtials in Female Employment at Pm-dcukw Life-cycle Stages .... ................................Premarital Employment ......... ..................................... ........................ ............................... .............Employment Between Marriage and Childbfi ............. ................. .................................................Employment Between First and Second Btis .............. . .................................................................Employment Within 2 Years of the Final Birth Intended ................. ................................................

Levels and Differentials in the Probabfity of Employment During PregnancyDuration of Employment in pregnancy

.............................. ........................................................ . ..........................................

Work Since Latest Birth ....................................................................................................................Proportion Entering the Work Force After Childbirth by Tning of Entry ..................................... ..

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

List of Detailed Tables ......... .................................................................................................................

Amxndixes.-

1.

2.

3.

4.

L Technical Notes ......................... ............................................................................... ...............IL Definition of Terms .................................................................................................. .................III. Items on Questionnaire Relating to Employrncnt of Mothers in Intervals Before, Between, and

After Births ................................... ................. .................... . ...................... ............................

LIST OF TEXT FIGURES

Percent of ever-married women 1544 years of age who worked before marriage, percent of evcr-married women 1544 ycam of age with a birth or intention to have a bti who worked be-tween marriage and fit bti, and pcxent of ever-married women 15-44 years of agc with 2births or a bii and intention to have a second who worked between firstand second btis,by year of tit marriage: United States, 1973 .... ..... .................... .................... .......................

Percent of ever-married women 15-44 years of age, with work before marriage, who worked 2years or more before maniagc; pcrccmt of ever-married women 15-44 ycam of age, with a biior intention to have a bti, and with work between marriage and first birth, who worked 1year or more between marriage and fit bii; and percent of ever-married women 15-44 yearsof age, with 2 bh-ths or a bti and intention to have a second, and with work between firstand second births, who worked 1 year or more between first and second biis; by year ofilrst marriage: United States, 1973 .............. .......................... ......................... ......"" ............ ...

Percent of cvcrmanied women 1544 years of age with 1 or more cbildrcn ever born who workedduring the last(most recent) pregnancy in 1970-73, and percent of ever-married women 15-44years of age with 1 or more children ever born and employed during the last (most recent)pregnancy who worked during the last trimester of that pregnancy, by paxity: United States,1973 ........ ........................................ ........................................................... ...............................

Pcment of ever-married women 1544 years of age with 1 or more chilcbxm ever born cmpIoycdduring the last (most recent) pregnancy in 1970-73 who returned to work since the last bti,by parity: United States, 1973 ...................................................................................................

...m

1

1

2

45567

1;1012

14

15

3444

49

2

3

3

4

v

SYMBOLS

Data not available-—-----–------—--- ---

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

Quantity zero —---—-.-—- -

Quantity more than Obut less than 0.05——— 0.0

Figure does not meet standards ofreliability or precision—- *

PATTERNS OF EMPLOYMENTBEFOR_EAND AITER CHILDBIRTH

Larry L. Bumpass, Ph.D., and James A. Sweet, Ph.D.,Center for Demography and Ecology, University of Wisconsin, Madison

INTRODUCTION

The idea of a Iife cycle is an importantorganizing principIe of social science research.This concept recognizes that individuals livetheir lives in a series of typically ordered stages,and that there are crucial transition points thatinvolve decisions affecting subsequent stages.Although various spheres of life such as marriage,childbearing, and labor-force activity can bestudied individually, the life-cycle perspectivesuggests that a better understanding of each ofthese spheres of life can be achieved if they arestudied in relation to one another.

An important aspect of the Iife cycles ofwomen involves reproductive careers and labor-force activity. Throughout much of Americanhistory, labor-force activity was concentrated inone stage of the life cycle, and marriage andreproduction in another. Only a small minorityof women were simultaneously workers, wives,and mothers: a few very highly educatedwomen, women whose husbands were unable toearn enough to support their families, andwomen who were widowed, divorced, orsepmated.

In recent years this segregation of activitiesin the lives of women has diminished. As weenter the 4th quarter of the 20th century,nearly one-half of American women are in thelabor force. Among married women with chil-dren under the age of 3 in the household, aboutone-third of the mothers are employed. Never-theless, the probability of employment continuesto be influenced by the presence of young chil-

dren in the household, by the composition offamilies, and by other social and economicfactors.

This report describes and analyzes thepattern of employment of American women inrelation to childbirth. It consists of three mainsubject areas:

1.

2.

3.

Trends and differentials in female employ-ment at particular life-cycle stagesPatterns of employment during preg-nancyPatterns of employment following child-birth

SOURCE OF DATA

The statistics in this report are from Cycle Iof the National Survey” of Family G;owth(NSFG) conducted by the National Center forHealth Statistics (NCHS). The NSFG was de-signed to provide information about fertility,family planning, and those aspects of maternaland child health that are closely related tochildbearing. Data on these topics were col-lected by personal interviews with 9,797 womenaged 15 through 44 years who had ever beenmarried or who, although single, had offspringliving in the household. The interviews wereconducted between July 1973 and February1974, and centered on September 13, 1973.Respondents were selected by a multistage,area probability, cross-sectional sample ofhouseholds in the conterminous United States.

Various subsets of this sample are used in dif-ferent parts of this report; they are describedin conjunction with the analyses in which theyare used. Appendix I contains more discussionof the sample design and discussions of esti-mating procedures and limitations of the data.Appendix II contains definitions of terms usedin the report.

Two series of questions from the intervieware used extensively in this report. The firstdetermined how long a woman had workedbefore marriage and in the intervals betweenmarriage and first birth, first and second births,and second and third births. The second seriesof questions asked how Iong before her mostrecent birth the woman stopped working andwhen she began work following that birth.These questions are reproduced in appendixIII to this report.

SUMMARY OF PRINCIPALFINDINGS

Women are more likely to have workedbefore marriage than at any other life-cyclestage, less likely to have worked between mar-riage and first birth, and least likely to haveworked between the first and second births.At all three of these life-cycle stages, however,the percent of women employed has increasedover time. For instance, comparing womenfirst married in 1955-59 to women first marriedin 1965-69, the percent who worked beforemarriage increased from 80 to 84, the percentwho worked between marriage and first birthincreased from 66 to 80., and the percent whoworked between first and second births in-creased from 37 to 51 (see figure 1).

Many women worked before their lastchild was 2 years old. Among mothers whosemost recent birth occurred in 1960-64, and whointended to have no more children, 27 percentworked before the latest child’s second birth-day; the comparable statistic for women whoselatest birth occurred 2-3 years before the inter-view (in 1973) was 41 percent, a significantincrease.

Some of the increase in work activity bywomen before marriage and between births offirst and, second babies may have been tempo-

102

[ m Year of first marriage1955.59

I mYear of first marrmge 1965.691

80

60

40

20

0Worked before rnarnage Worked beween marriage Worked Mween first

and first binh and second births

1196$-57 only f,), w{>,.,,, ‘A, 2 hlr[hs or . hir!l, ti!ld i!ltc!lllo!) 10 lhWC m SCL’WIL

Figure 1. Percent of ever-married women 15-44 years of agewho worked before marriage, percent of ever-marriedwomen 1544 years of age with a birth or intention to havea birth who worked between marriage and first birth, andpercent of ever-married women 1544 years of age with 2births or a birth and intention to have a second whoworked between first and second births, by year of firstmarriage: United States, 1973.

rary or intermittent work, because the increas-ing trends are not observed always when short-terrn employment is excluded: The percent ofworkers employed for 2 or more years beforemarriage declined from 65 percent amongwomen first married in 1955-59 to 61 percentamong women first married in 1965-69, and thepercent of workers employed for 1 year or morebetween first and second births did not changesignificantly in the same period (see figure 2).

Not only do many women work betweenbirths, many work during their pregnancies.

2

lW

[

m Yearoffimmarrla,e19s5.59

w Year of f,rst marria~ 1965.691

80

t

60 -

$

&

u

Y

40 -

20 -

0 -

..

65

Wbrked 2 ye,= or more Worked 1 year or more Worked 1 year or morebefore mamagc tetwecn marrrage and between frost ●nd

fmf bmrh second b$rrh%

1196567 @ for W.!WII wth 2 h?r!hs., a hmh and mlenlmn w haw a ww.d

Figure 2. Percent of ever-merried women 1544 vears of eae.-.with work before marriaga, who workad 2 years or morebefore merriage; parcent of ever-married women 1544yaars of age, with a birth or intention to have a birth, andwith work between marriage and first birth, who workad 1year or more between marriaga and first birth; and percantof evar-marriad women 1544 years of age, with 2 births ora birth and intention to hava a second, and with workbetween first and second births, who workad 1 year ormore batween first and second births; by year of firstmarriaga: Unitad States, 1973

About 42 percent of ever-mamied mothersworked during their most recent pregnancies;and of those who worked during those preg-nancies, about one-half worked in the last 3months of the pregnancy. An earlier studyof women who had legitimate births in 1963found that 31 percent worked duning pregnancythen. 1 Working during pregnancy is more com-mon among well-educated women than amongother women, more common among black

than white women, and more common amongwomen with few chiklren than among womenwith many children (figure 3).

Among mothers whose latest birth occurredin 1970-73, and who worked during that preg-nancy, most (62 percent) had returned to workby the time of the interview. The percentsreturning to work were not very different forwomen of different educational Ievels, and thereis no consistent trend with increasing education;however, black women are more likely thanwhite women to return to work, and there issome tendency for the percent returning to

102

60

60

+z

g

!$

40

20

0

Inm

61

1

Worked during the last [most remm]oregnancy m 1970.73

Worked d.rmg the last trtrmsler ofthe last [most recent] pregmm.y m 1970.73

i-%

12 3 40, 123 4 ormore more

PARITY PARITY

—

Figure 3. Percent of ever-married women 1544 years of agewith 1 or more children aver born who workad during thelast (most recent) pregnancy in 1970-73, and percent ofever-married women 1544 years of age with 1 or morechildren ever born and employed during the lest (most re-cent) pregnancy who workad during tha last trimesterof that pregnancy, by parity: Un itad States, 1973

3

1s0—

so —

60 —

~

:

%

40 —

20 –

o .

6564

1 2 3 4 or more

PARITY

Figure 4. Percent of ever-married women 1544 years of agewith 1 or more children ever born employed during thelast (most recent) pregnancy in 1970-73 who returned towork since the last birth, by parity: United States, 1973

work to increase with the number of childrenborn (figure 4). Thus women with severalchildren are less likely to work during pregnancy,but if they do work during pregnancy they aremore likely than other women are to return towork after the birth.

The following sections contain a more de-tailed discussion of these and other findingsof the study.

TRENDS AND DIFFERENTIALSIN FEMALE EMPLOYMENT AT

PARTICULAR LIFE-CYCLE STAGES

The decade of the 1960’s witnessed a largeincrease in the employment of women, espe-cially among mothers of young children. Thissection examines that trend in terms of life-cycle stages. (For a related study of a State

population see Mott.2 ) For groups of womenmarried in successive 5-year periods beginningin 1955 (“marriage cohorts”), trends and dif-ferentials in employment and length of employ-ment are documented for the life-cycle stagesbefore marriage, between marriage and firstbirth, and between first and second births.Because interwds between births (“birth inter-vals”) tend to be short, much of the second-interval employment (between first and secondbirths) is employment of mothers of youngchildren. However, employment of such women‘is examined more directly in terms of trends inthe proportion who worked within 2 years ofthe birth of their last (most recent) child.

Marriage cohorts before 1955 are not in-cluded because they are selective of youngages of marriage, given the upper age limit of thesample; for instance, women 44 years of age in1973 who were married in 1952 were necessarilymarried before the age of 24. In other words,the sample women who married before 1955underrepresent women who married at relativelyold ages, because some women were past theupper age limit for sample eligibility (45 years)at the time of the interview. In fact, even the1955-59 sample cohort is somewhat biasedtoward younger marriage ages.

Since marriage age is related to employ-ment experience (early-marrying women tendto work less at every life-cycle stage), this biascould affect the interpretation of differencesbetween employment in the 1955-1959 marriagecohort and subsequent cohorts. However, be-cause the age-at-marriage bias in the 1.955-59cohort is not large, its effect on comparisonsis probably not great. Even if all of tbe olderbrides omitted from the sample (perhaps 5 per-cent of the 1955-59 marriage cohort) were in asingle employment category (an unlikely circum-stance) the percents reported here would changevery little.

A similar problem exists with respect to last-intended births: Cohorts of last-intended birthsare considered only after 1960 because earliercohorts must have completed childbearing be-fore age 31, and thus are selective of those whomarried young, Strategies employed to deal withthis problem (known technically as the problemof “truncated open intervals”) are explained inappendix I.

4

Premarital Employment

Proportion employ ed.–l’he proportion ofwomen who worked before maniage was Iargerin the 1970-73 marriage cohort than in the1955-59 cohort. The increase is observed inmost subgroups shown in tabIe 1, although notall of the increases are statistically significant.For two groups-those who married beforeage 18 and those who had a premarital birth—there was no increase between the 1955-59 and1970-73 cohorts. The lowest employment ratesare found for women marrying before age 18and” for women who did not complete highschool. The two are probably related: Earlymarriage is a common reason for leaving highschool.

Employment for 2 or more years.–Amongwomen who worked before marriage, the pro-portion who worked at least 2 years was notsignificantly different in the 1955-59 and1970-73 cohorts, but there were significantchanges in some subgroups (see table 2). Womenwho married at later ages and women with atleast some college education experienced in-creases in this proportion, although the latterdifference is not statistically significant. On theother hand, decreases were experienced by blackwomen, women who married young and womenin low-education groups, although the latterdifference is not statistically significant.

The proportion working at least 2 yearsbefore marriage varies directly with age atmarriage. This would be expected, because thosewho marry later have more opportunity to work.Education differentials are less clear, however.A consistently linear, positive differential byeducation is found only for the latest marriagecohort.

Employment Between Marriage andChildbirth”

Proportion employed. –Although increasesin early marital employment were registered

aWomen with a premarital pregnancy are excludedfrom this analysis. Also the 1970-73marriage cohort isnot included because so many of its members had nothad a first birth to end the interval; see appendix I for afull explanation.

among all groups considered, there were espe-cially marked increases among black womenand women with little or no work experienceprior to marriage (table 3). Among black women,the proportion working in the first interval(between marriage and childbirth) increasedfrom 51 to 73 percent, and among women whohad either not worked or worked less than aye= before marriage, the increase was from 41to 66 percent working between marriage andchildbirth.

Increases in the average lengths of firstintervals through postponement of fiist birthsincreased opportunity for employment in thisinterval. However, at leaat at the aggregatelevel, intercohort increases in employment arenot explained entirely by increases in thelength of first-birth intervals, since they occurredamong women of alI interval lengths. On theother hand, the subgroup differentials in therate of increase in employment could reflectsubgroup differences in the lengthening offirst intervals over this time period.

Differentials in first-interval employmentare probably related to differences in the amountof time available to work as conditioned by thelength of the first interval. Women who marriedat young ages (less than 18 years) or who didnot fiiish high schooI are Iess likely than womenwho married later or finished high school towork between marriage and their first birth. Inspite of the increases experienced over thedecade, in the most recent marriage cohort onlyabout one-half of these groups worked in thefirst interval, in contrast to over four-fifthsof the other age-at-maniage or education groupscombined. It is important to note in this regardthat although women with reported premaritalpregnancies or births have been excluded, it ispossible that the reporting error with respect topremarital pregnancies is most serious for thesegroups; that is, the low proportions workingmay reflect the influence of premarital preg-nancies not identified as such by the dating ofthe pregnancy and marital histories.

Women who worked less than 1 year beforemarriage were also less IikeIy to work aftermarriage. However, the differential in first-interval employment between those with lessthan 1 year of premarital work experience andthose with 4 or more years of such experience

5

was reduced from 40 to 21 percentage pointsbetween the earliest and latest marriage cohorts.

Employment of at least 1 year. –Unliketrends in the proportion working in the firstinterval, trends in the length of first-interwdemployment seem to be a consequence of thechanging opportunity to work resulting fromthe increasing length of time between marriageand childbirth (table 4). Among women withsimilar interval lengths there is no significantincrease. Thus differential changes in employ-ment of at least a year among other groups prob-ably reflect differential increases in first-intervallengths. For some subgroups, the increase inproportions working at least a year betweenmarriage and birth of the first child are verylarge; for instance, the proportion increasedfrom 56 to 80 percent among women marryingat ages 22 and over, and from 61 to 81 percentamong women who attended college beforemarriage. For the latest marriage cohort, therewas a direct relationship of extended first-interval employment with education and age atmarriage, and no significant difference by raceor previous work experience.

Employment Between First andSecond Birthsb

Proportion employed. —Emplo yment be-tween the births of first and second childrenalso increased among all groups considered(table 5), significantly in almost all instances.As for first-interval employment, this increaseis not simply a consequence of increasinginterval lengths since it is observed amongwomen with similar interval lengths. Therewas an irregular pattern of changes among blackwomen, including an increase for the 1965-67marriage cohort. Black women are more likelythan white women are to work between first andsecond births (62 and 50 percent, respectively),although more rapid increases among whitewomen have narrowed the gap. The rate ofincrease in employment between first and second

bWomen married in 1968-73 are not includedbecause so many of them had not had a second birthto end the interval; see appendix I for a full explana-tion.

births varied by education and previous workexperience. Whereas the rate for women with 12or fewer years of education at marriage increased16 percentage points (52 compared with 36percent), there was a statistically insignificantincrease of only 4 percentage points among thosewho had attended college before marriage. Also,among women who had not worked at all,beforetheir first birth, the proportion working in thesecond interval doubled from 22 percent in the1955-59 cohort, to 43 percent in the 1965-67cohort, compared with a modest increase from44 to 52 percent among those who worked be-fore the first birth. As a consequence of thosevaried trends, differentials in the experience ofemployment in the interval between first andsecond births tended to be reduced for race,previous work experience, and education.

The trends and differentials by age at mar-riage are particularly interesting. For all threemarriage cohorts, women who married at ages22 and over are the least likely to be employedin the interval between first and second births,although the differences are not all statisticallysignificant. This might reflect the associationof older age at marriage with greater economicsecurity and hence less need to work. (However,this interpretation is called into question by thefact that the highest education group wasneither significantly less nor more likely to workin any of the cohorts.) In any event, by the1965-67’ marriage cohort, women who marriedat ages 20 and over were 8 percentage points lesslikely to work in the second interval thanwomen married at younger ages were.

Employment of at least 1 year–Whatever itsexplanation, the decline over the last two mar-riage cohorts in the proportion of employedwomen working at least a year between theirfirst and second births occurred for all groupsconsidered, although it was not always statisti-cally significant (table 6). This proportion in-creased in most groups (not always significantly)in the 1960-64 cohort, but then returned to theearlier level for the 1965-67 marriage cohort,declining from 70 to 62 percent. Although suchcl-ianges should be regarded cautiously, the mostIikelv sort of bias does not appear responsible.Tha~ is, rather thanlengths of exposure

being an ~~tifact o; shorteramong women in the most

6

recent cohort, as a consequence of remainingtruncation (see the discussion in appendix I),the decline is greater among those with intervals3 years or more in length than among womenwith shorter intervals. If other sources corrobo-rate this finding, it is important in its implica-tion for the interpretation of recent increases inthe employment of mothers of young children.The new entrants may be seeking such employ-ment on a more short-term basis than employedwomen with young children have in the past, orthey may be entering more tentatively and with-drawing from employment upon discovering thedifficulties involved.

Employment Within 2 Years ofthe Final Birth Intended

One of the most remarkable changes in thelabor-force participation of women has beenthe increase in the employment of mothers ofyoung children. As noted, the preceding sectionrelates indirectly to that issue. The 1973 NSFGdata provide further information on the basisof reports about how soon the respondent wentback to work after her most recent child. Be-cause the information is available only for themost recent birth, some strategy must be em-ployed to maximize the comparability of thedata over time. In order to examine trends inthe proportion of mothers working when thechild is less than 2 years old, it is necessary tocount only those births that occurred at least2 years before interview. In order to avoid abias in the intervals being compared, it is alsonecessary to limit the analysis to women whointend to have no more children. This is becausewomen who intend to have more children andwhose latest birth was at least 2 years ago are aselected subset of women who gave birth in thesame year and would continue chddbearing;that is, they are selected for longer birth inter-vals. For, the sake of brevity, the followingtext will simply refer to employment of mothersof young children; it should be kept in mindthat the measure- is, more specifically, of em-ployment within 2 years of the birth of thefinal child intended. Trends are measured hereover dates of birth of final-intended children

rather than over marriage cohorts as in theprevious sections.

The increase in the employment of mothersof young children was pervasive (table 7). Forexample, similar trends were experienced atall education levels, and with some furtherreduction in the modest differences by educa-tion. Women with only one or two childrenwere more likely than women with largerfamilies to work when the youngest childwas under 2, and this difference increased overthis period. In the early 1970’s, one-half of themothers of smalI families worked within 2 yearsof the final-intended child’s birth compared withone-third of the mothers of three or morechiIdren.

B1ack women, who had the highest employ-ment level initially, experienced greater in-creases than white women did, further wideningthe difference by race. For final-intendedbirths in the early 1970’s, 62 percent of thebIack mothers worked within 2 years comparedwith 38 percent of the white mothers. Thisincreasing differential occurred despite con-siderable increases among white women.

The differences by age at marriage paralleledthose noted for second-interval employment.Women who married at 22 years of age or afterwere less likely to work soon after the birth oftheir last child than were women who marriedbefore age 18. Again, if this reflects lowerfinancial need among those who marry later,such an effect is not reflected in the educationdifferential.

LEVELS AND DIFFERENTIALS INTHE PROBABILITY OF EMPLOY-

MENT DURING PREGNANCY

In this section, levels and differentials inthe proportion of women who work duringpregnancy are examined. Data are presented onthe proportion employed at any time duringpregnancy and the proportion employed duringthe last trimester of pregnancy. The latter meas-ure is based on the subsample of women whowere employed during pregnancy.

As noted in the previous section, the sampleof latest births is not a good sample of the

$B 7

. .

experience of women giving birth in any givenperiod of time, with the possible exception ofthe most recent 9- to 12-month period. This isbecause a large fraction of women who gavebirth in a particular period, for example,1965-69, have since given birth to anotherchild, now their most recent birth, so theirearlier births are not included in the births for1965-69. The sample of most recent births isless representative of all births in a period thefurther the analysis moves back in time. Inaddition, women have aged out of the samplinguniverse. For example, women giving birth totheir latest child in 1968 who were then overthe age of 40 are not included in the sample thatwas under age 45 as of 1973. This analysis isfocused on births occurring in the period 1970-73in the attempt to use the experience of thesample that most completely represents thetotal experience of all women giving birthduring a particular time period.

An additional consideration in this regardis that aggregate employment rates of womenhave been increasing for the past several decadesby 0,5-1.0 percent per year. The total sample of“most recent births” spans a very broad periodof time. Consequently, the experience of olderwomen, whose latest birth occurred in the moredistant past, occurred in a period when employ-ment rates for women were lower.

Analyses were done for the total sample ofmost recent births and for those most recentbirths that occurred during the period 1970-73.For the reasons specified, this discussion islimited to the 1970-73 births, although theresults for all most recent births are includedin the detailed tables.

Throughout this section, the statisticalprocedure employed is “Multiple Classifica-tion Analysis. ~s8 This ca be thought of as a

multiple standardization in which compositionof the population with respect to selected vari-ables is statistically controlled while assessingthe “effect” on the rate of employment of aparticular variable of interest. In tables 8 and 9the column labeled “Percent” shows the pro-portion of women in each category who re-ported a given behavior; the column labeled“Adjusted percent” is the standardized propor-tion, adjusted for the association of each char-

acteristic with other characteristics included inthe analysis. Following table 10, which showsonly unadjusted percents, tables 11-12 also showpercent and adjusted percent columns, as justdefined.

For analyzing the interrelationships ofseveral characteristics simultaneously, MultipleClassification Analysis has certain advantagesover cross-tabulation. In cross-tabulation thesimultaneous interrelationships of several char-acteristics are analyzed by cross-classifying casesaccording to their category values on each ofthe severaI characteristics; when this is donewith relatively small samples, however, the num-ber of cases in individual cross-classified cate-gories is often too small to produce reliablestatistics. In Multiple Classification Analysisthe data are handled differently, and simul-taneous analysis of many variables need. notreduce reliability. It is possible, therefore, toconsider more different characteristics, and toconsider more-detailed categories in each ch~arac-teristic. That possibility is exploited in this andthe following sections of this report; manycharacteristics are considered simultanecmslyand some have many separate categories. Somecharacteristics that appeared earlier are definedsomewhat differently in the following sectionsto take advantage of the opportunity for moredetailed analyses afforded by Multiple Classifica-tion Amdysis. Additional discussion of MultipleClassification Analysis is contained in appendix I.

OveraU, 42 percent of women giving birthin 1970-73 worked at some time during theirpregnancy. (This compares with 38 percentof the entire sample.) This proportion variedquite widely depending on the order of thebirth (see table 8). For women giving birth toa first child, 61 percent worked; for womengiving birth to a second child, 36 percentworked. For third and higher order births, themothers had an employment rate. during preg-nancy of 28 percent. Thus the major differenceoccurred between women who gave birth to afirst child and those who had a higher orderbirth. This is probably because women havingtheir first child did not have preschool-agechildren of their own in the household duringthe time that they were pregnant; but thosegiving birth to a second or higher order child

often had preschool-age children in the house-hold. If adjustments are made for the otherfactors, the differential in employment duringpregnancy by parity increases slightly.

In Multiple Classification AnaIysis, twovariables with a common category cannot beanalyzed simultaneously. Because they have acommon category (no previous births), it wasnot possible to include in the same model boththe parity of women and the time since previousbirth, that is, the interval between the birthin question and the previous birth. This lattervariable was adjusted separately by includingall of the variables in table 8 except parity.The proportion employed during pregnancyincreases with the length of the interval, whichis equivalent to the age of the youngest childat the time of pregnancy: Women who had abirth interval of 6 years or more had an un-adjusted rate of employment of 46 percent,compared with a rate of 26 percent for thosewith an interval of less than 2 years. These dif-ferentials’ are not affected when other factors arecontrolled. This finding results primarily fromthe fact that the rate of current employmentvties directly with the age of the youngestchild. Women with a very young child tend tohave quite low rates of employment. The longerthe interval between births, the older the young-est child, the more likely the woman is to beemployed. Related to this may be the tendencyfor women with longer interwds between chil-dren to expect no more children, and to beginworking as a result of that expectation.

By age, the highest unadjusted rate of em-ployment during pregnancy occurs for womenwho were 20-24 years of age at the time of thebirth, 50 percent. However, when other factorsare adjusted, the pattern changes. Women whowere under age 20 at the time of the birth hadan adjusted rate of 24 percent; women aged 20-34 years had rates of 43-47 percent, and womenaged 35 and over (only a small proportion ofwomen in the sample) had a rate of 39 percent.The low rate of employment for women underage 20 reflects both their lack of work experi-ence prior to the birth and the disadvantagevery young women experience in the labormarket.4 The reduction in the adjusted ratefor women aged 20-24 reflects the fact that

births to women of this age are very oftenfirst births; it was noted previously that em-ployment rates are high in the pregnancy pre-ceding the first birth.

Women with higher levels of education weremore likely to work during pregnancy thanwomen were with less education. Women withless than 12 years of education had an employ-ment rate of less than 35 percent; women with13 or more years of education had rates of48-50 percent. These differentials are attenuated,however, when the effects of other factors,particubrly birth order and age, are controlled.The adjusted rate for college graduates is low(34 percent).

Black women had a rate of employment ofabout 50 percent, compared with a rate forwhite women of 42 percent. Hispanic womenhad a rate of employment of 37 percent. Aftercontrolling for other factors, the rate for Hispanicwomen is intermediate between that for whiteand black women, but closer to the rate of blackwomen.

There were modest regionzd differences inemployment during pregnancy. The adjustedemployment rate of women in the West is lowerthan average and that for women in the South ishigher, although the latter difference is notstatistically significant. There is also a slightdifference between the rate of employment ofwomen living in metropolitan areas and thoseliving outside of metropolitan areas, although itis not statistically significant. After adjustingfor other factors, women J.iving outside metro-politan areas have a rate that is about 3 percent-age points higher than that for women living inmetropolitan areas.

Rates of working during pregnancy are alsoconsidered for women classified by their currentor most recent occupation. This procedure forclassifying women by occupation is not com-pletely adequate. Because occupation is not afixed characteristic, women may reenter thelabor force in an occupation group differentfrom that they left; indeed, the probability ofworking at any given point may be related towhether a woman’s previous job was commensu-rate with her training and skib. Similarly, awoman whose family has great economic needmay be more willing to work in an occupation

9

below her qualifications than a woman who ismore affluent. Higher than average adjustedrates of employment during pregnancy arefound for women who are professionals (59 per-cent), managers (57 percent), and operatives andtransport workers (48 percent). The rates ofwomen in other occupational groups do notdiffer significantly from the average.

Finally, the year of most recent birth wasincluded as a control variable in the analysis.This variable does not represent adequately thetime trend in working during pregnant y, becausethe sample of most recent births that occurredin a given period is not a sample of the totaluniverse of births in that period, as explainedearlier. For instance, the sample of births in1970 is not representative of all births during1970, because women who had a birth in 1970and also in a later year would be classified inthe year of the most recent birth; therefore,these differentials are not easily interpreted.

Duration of Employment inPregnancy

For women employed during pregnancy, theproportion employed during the last trimesterof pregnancy is shown in table 9. In the sampleof women who gave birth to their latest childin 1970-73, 48 percent of those who workedduring their pregnancy worked in the last tri-mester. The figure for the entire sample ofwomen is somewhat lower, 45 percent. Somedifferences in this measure among subgroups ofwomen whose latest birth occurred in 1970-73,adjusted for the effects of other variables, arediscussed briefly:

1. Low-parity women (parity 1) are morelikely than high-parity women (parity 4or higher) to work into the last tri-mester of pregnancy.

2. Women 30 years old and over who gavebirth are more likely than youngerwomen, other things being equal, to workinto the last trimester.

3. Women living in metropolitan areas andin nonmetropolitan areas are equallylike~ly to work into the last trimester.

4.

5.

6.

Regional differences are small and non-significant with regard to this measure ofwork patterns.

Education does not have a linear relation-ship to working during the last trimester:High school graduates have the highestproportion, and women with less ormore schooling have lower rates.

There are no significant racial and ethnicdifferences in $e probability of workinginto the last trimester.

The timing of departure from the labor forceduring pregnancy is also described by the pro-portion still employed at each month of preg-nancy. Included in this analysis were womenwho gave birth in the 2 years before the inter-view, and who worked at some time cluringtheir most recent pregnancy. Table 10 indicatesthe cumulative proportion remaining in thework force at each month of pregnancy. For ex-ample, in the total column it will be seen thatby the 2d month of pregnancy, 7 percent ofthose who were working at the beginning ofpregnancy had dropped out and 93 percent ofwomen remained at work. By the 6th month ofpregnancy, 61 percent remained. Beyond the6th month, the proportion remaining drops offrapidly. Less than half were working by the 7thmonth, less than one-third by the 8th month,and 19 percent by the 9th month. For the totalsample, the median point at which women leavethe work force is 6.9 months. Black women havea median that is a half month earlier than thatof white women. Women who are high schoolgraduates, or who attended college remain in thework force approximately 1 month longer thanthose who did not finish high school. Womenhaving a first birth have a median of 7.2 months,and women having a second or third and higherorder births have a median duration of 6.3-6.5months.

Work Since Latest Birth

In this section, differentials are examined inthe probability that a woman who had hermost recent birth in the period 1970-73 hadworked since that birth. Forty-two percent ofthe mothers who had a birth in that period

10

had worked since their latest birth. This pro-portion varies with the length of the intervalssince the most recent birth (table 11). Fifty-sixpercent (adjusted) of women who had theirmost recent birth in 1970 had worked by thetime of interview in 1973. This compares with53 percent of those having a birth in 1971, 39percent in 1972, and 14 percent in 1973.These differentials reflect both the greateropportunity for work associated with theaging of the youngest child, and an increase inthe length of exposure to the possibility ofhaving worked.

Women whose most recent birth was afirst birth have considerably higher rates ofwork since last birth, unadjusted and adjusted,than those whose most recent birth was a secondor higher order birth. This is consistent withearlier findings that there is a large difference inemployment rates between women with one andtwo children, but only relatively small differencesbetween them and women with larger numbersof children.

The rate for black women is quite high (56percent), and that for white women is 40 per-cent. The rate for Hispanic women is not sig-nificantly different from that for white women(42 percent) and is closer to the white women’srate than to the rate for black women. Theblack-white differential is only slightly attenu-ated after controlling for other factors; however,the rate for Hkpanic women is increased, sothat it is almost as high as that for black women.

There are only insignificant differences inadjusted proportions employed with respect towhether they expect additional children. Itseems reasonable that women might pkm theirwork and childbearing so that those who havehad their last-intended child are more likelyto return to work than those who expect to havean additional child. This, however, was notfound by Sweet4 using the 1965 NationalFertility Study, nor is it found here.

Women under age 25 at the time of a birthwere more likely than older women were towork following the birth. This is true bothfor the unadjusted and the adjusted rates.

Regional differences in employment aresignificant, though not large. Women living inthe South and West have adjusted rates ofemployment higher than those of women living

in the Northeast and North CentraI Regions.Similarly, as was found for working duringpregnancy, women living outside of metropoli-tan areas have higher rates of employment thando those living within metropolitan areas,although those differences are not significant.

The association of higher education withemployment is once again found. The adjustedrate of employment since latest birth for womenwho are college graduates is 11 percentagepoints higher than the rate for women who hadnot attended high school.

Women who were no longer man-ied at thetime of interview in 1973 have high rates ofemployment (57 percent, adjusted). Womenwhose husbands are at either extreme of theincome distribution have lower than averagerates; those whose husbands are intermediate inthat distribution have rates that are not signifi-cantly different from average.

There are some sizeable differences inemployment by occupation. Women in clericaloccupations have a lower rate of employment(36 percent, adjusted). Higher than averagerates are found for women in professional,service, and operative occupations. Women inother occupations have intermediate employ-ment rates not significantly different from theaverage in this survey.

One important issue is the extent to whichpregnancy disrupts periods of employment. Itis addressed by the following analyses of Ievelsand differentizds in returning to work followingchildbirth. Because it is possible for a woman toreturn to work after a birth only if she wasworking prior to the birth, the sample is re-stricted to women who reported working duringtheir last pregnancy ending in live birth. Again,the focus is on the experience of women whogave birth to a child since January 1, 1970.

Although 42 percent of women giving birthsince 1970 had worked since their latest birth,62 percent (adjusted) of those who were work-ing during their pregnancy had returned to workby the time of enumeration in 1973 (table 12).The average interval from last birth to time ofobservation was approximately 1?/2 years, butsome women in the sample had had only a fewdays of opportunity to return to work; that is,they had given birth just a few days before beinginterviewed. Others had given birth a full 3 years

11

before. In this analysis, there is a statisticalcontrol for year of birth to adjust for thisdifferential period of work reentry opportunity.Women who gave birth in 1973, shortly beforebeing interviewed, have a much lower thanaverage unadjusted rate of return to work (28percent); those who gave birth to their lastchild in 1970 or 1971 have a high unadjustedrate of return (74-77 percent). This reflectsboth differences in the duration of opportunityto return to work, and the probability thatmany women who gave birth in 1970 and didnot go back to work were likely to have had asubsequent pregnancy, and were thus selectedout of the sample of 1970 last births and intothe sample of more recent last births.

Fifty-nine percent of white women, com-pared with 73 percent of black women, hadreturned to work since the birth of their latestchild. The Hispanic women had a rate of returnof 66 percent. When other factors are adjusted,the rate for Hispanic women is not significantlydifferent from the rate for black women.

The unadjusted relationship between educa-tion and return to work is irregular. However,when adjustment is made for husband’s incomeand other characteristics, the relationship be-comes positive. The adjusted proportion retur-ningwas 46 percent of the women who did notattend high school and 56 percent of womenwith 1-3 years of high school, both significantlylower than the 71 percent of college graduateswho returned.

Women who were under age 20 at the timeof the birth have a high adjusted rate of retuimto work (79 percent). Women 20-24 to 30-34years have rates of 59-63 percent.

Husband’s income is not significantly re-lated to having returned to work, except thatwomen in the lowest income group are lesslikely than average to return to work. Womenwho were not currently married at the time ofinterview had an adjusted rate 11 percentagepoints above the average. The probability ofreturning to work is lower after first birthsthan after higher order births, although thedifference is not statistically significant.

Among the occupationzd categories withsufficient numbers of cases to permit analy-sis, the only significant difference is a lower

than average rate of return to work amongwomen whose most recent occupation wasclerical. Just over half (53 percent) of suchwomen had returned, compared with abouttwo-thirds to three-fourths among other occu-pations.

There are some significant regional dif-ferences in return to work. Women in the Southand West are more likely to return to work thanthose in the North Central or Northeast. Womenliving in metropolitan areas have significantlylower rates of return to work than those livingoutside of metropolitan areas.

Proportion Entering the WorkForce After Childbirth byTiming of Entry

In this section the timing of entry into thework force following childbirth is examined,with the focus on the pattern of entry by2-month intervals during the first year afterchildbirth, using a subsample of women whogave birth 12-23 months before interview.Women who gave birth in the past 12 monthsare excluded, because they had not had 12months of opportunity to enter the laborforce. Sample women who gave birth morethan 2 years before interview are excludedbecause they are not representative of womenwho gave birth in those earlier periods.

It is emphasized that these rates are thecumulative proportions of women who enteredthe work force by a given month after preg-nancy, not the proportion working in thatmonth. Many women who have returned towork in, say the 6th month after birth, may notbe working in the 12th month after birth,because there is a great deal of movement inand out of the work force following the birthof a child. In earlier studies it was shown thatabout one-half of the women who gave birth12-23 months before interview and who hadentered the work force since that birth, werenot working when interviewed.4’6

Five percent of women reported havingbegun working in the first 2 months after thebirth of their child (table 13). This is a reason-able estimate of the proportion of women whowork almost continuously through the period

12

of childbirth with only a very short period outof the labor force. By the 4th month after thebirth of a child, 15 percent of women haveentered the work force; by the 8th month thefigure is one-quarter; and by the 12th month,31 percent of women have entered the workforce.

The remaining columns in table 13 presentcumulative proportions for women by race,education, and birth order. Black women havea more rapid rate of entry into the work forcefollowing a birth: By the end of the 4th month,20 percent of the black women, comparedwith 14 percent of the white women, haveentered the work force; by the 8th month thefigures are 38 and 23 percent, respectively;and by the end of the 12th month, 44 percentof the black women and 30 percent of thewhite women have entered the work force.

LeveIs of entry also vary by education.Women who have attended college have lowerrates of entry into the work force after child-bearing than other women have. High schoolgraduates and women with less than a highschool education have patterns of entry intothe work force that are similar to each other.

Generally, women who gave birth to a firstchild have a higher cumulative rate of entryinto the work force than women who hadsecond or higher order births: By the 8thmonth after childbirth, 31 percent of thewomen who had a first birth had entered thework force, compared with 19 percent of womenwho had a second birth. Women who have hada third or higher order birth have a highercumulative rate of employment than womenwho had a second birth. A reason for the higheremployment rate of higher parity women maybe the greater economic need of large families.

Another way of looking at these same datais to focus attention on the pattern of returningto work for women who were working priorto their pregnancy. This takes into account thefact that some women remove themselves fromthe labor force for the whole childbearing

period; other women work between births oftheir children. Looked at from the perspectiveof the work force, returning to work is morerelevant than the initial employment follow-ing childbirth. From an employer’s point ofview, for example, the probability that a womanwho becomes pregnant will stop working, andthe timing of her return, are more significantthan the probability that any woman havinggiven birth will enter the work force. Of thewomen who were working during their preg-nancy, 10 percent had returned to work by the2d month following the birth of their child(table 14). More than one-quarter had returnedby the 4th month, and more than one-third bythe 6th month. By the 12th month nearly one-half had returned. For black women the rate ofreturn was considerably greater than that forwhite women. By the 8th month, 56 percentof the black women, compared with 40 percentof the white women, had returned. By the12th month, 60 percent of the black women,compared with 48 percent of the white, hadreturned. With respect to education, the highestrate of return at any given interval since birth isfor women with less than a high school educa-tion, and the lowest cumulative proportionreturning is for college-educated women. Thelevel for women who are high school graduatesis intermediate.

Women who have a high-order birth havehigh rates of returning to work; those who had afirst- and second-order birth have rates ofreturning that are quite similar to one another.Why sho~d the rate of returning be so muchhigher for mothers of high-order births than formothers of Iower order births? First, mothersof high-orde; births are more likely than othersto have an economic need motivating them toseek employment.7 A second rem,on is thatwomen who had been working prior to a third-order or higher order birth may have adaptedtheir lifestyle to working. Such women prob-ably have a higher than average commitment toworking.

000

13

REFERENCES

lNational Center for Health Statistics: Employ-ment during pregnancy: Legitimate live births, UnitedStates–1963. Vital and Health Statistics. PHS Pub. No.1000-Series 22-No. 7. Public Health Service. Washington.U.S. Government Printing Office, Sept. 1968.

2Mott, F. L.: Fertility, life cycle stage and femalelabor force participation in Rhode Island: a retrospec-tive overview. Demography 9:173-185, 1972.

3Andrews, F. M., Morgan, J. N., Sonquist, J. A., andKlein, L.: Multiple Classification Analysis, 2nd ed. ArmArbor, Mich. Institute for Social Research, 1973.

4Sweet, J. A.: Women in the Labor Fovce. NewYork. Seminar Press, 1973

5Sweet, J. A.: The Employment of Mothers ofYoung Children: 1970. CDE Working Paper 74-17.Madison. Center for Demography and Ecology, Univer-sity of Wisconsin, 1974.

6Sweet, J. A.: Return to Work After Childbirth.

CDE Working Paper 74-16. Madison. Center for Demog-raph and Ecology, University of Wkconsin, 1974.

YRindfuss, R. R., and Sweet, J. A.: Postwar Fer-tility Trends and Differentials in the United States.New York. Academic Press, 1977.

8National Center for Health Statistics: The NationalSurvey of Family Growth, Cycle I: sample design,estimation procedures, and variance estimation. Vitaland Health Statistics. Series 2-No. 76. DHEW Pub. No.(PHS) 78-1350. Washington. U.S. Government PrintingOffice, Jan. 1978.

9U.S. Bureau of the Budget: Standavd Metropoli-tan Statistical Areas. Washington. U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, 1967.

1‘U.S. Bureau of the Census: 1970 Census ofPopulation, Detailed Characteristics, US. Summary.PC( 1)Dl. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office,Feb. 1973. pp. A17-A18.

LIST OF DETAILED TABLES

1. Percent and number of women who worked before marriage, by year of first marria9e and sele=t~ characteristics: ever-married women 1544 years of age, United States, 1973 ... .......... .. ... .... ........... ... ... ... ........ ... .... .......... .. .. .... ........ .... ... ... ....... ..... ..

2. Percent and number of women who worked 2 years or more before marriage, by year of first marriage and selected char-acteristics: aver-married women 1544 yaars of age who worked before marriage, United States, 1973 ....... .. .... ... ............ ... ....

3. Percant and number of women who worked betwaen marriage and first birth, by yaar of first marriaga and selected char-acteristics: ever-married women 1544 years of age, United Statesr 1973 ... .... .... ........ .... ..... ....... .... .. .... ....... .. ..... .. .......... ... ... .. ..

4. Pemant and number of women who worked 1 year or mora between marriage and first birth, by year of first marriage andselected characteristics: ever-married women 1544 years of age who worked between marriage and first birth, UnitedStates, 1973 ... ..... ........... ... . ...... ......... ..... ... ......... ...... . .. ......... ..... ...... ....... ..... ... .......... ... ..... ....................... ............................ ......

5. Percent and numbar of women who worked between first and second births, by year of first marriage and selected char-acteristics: ever-married women 1544 years of age: Unitad Stetas, 1973 ......... ...... .... ........ ...... . .. ....... ... ... .. .. ........ ... ... ... .........

6. PerCant and numbar of women who worked 1 year or more between the first and second births, by year of first marriage andselected characteristics: ever-married woman 1544 yaars of age who worked between the first and second births, UnitedStates, 1973 ........ ..... . ..... .... ...... ..... ..... ........... ... .... .......... .... ..... ......... ..... ... .. ......... .. .. ... ......... .............. ................................. .......

7. ParCent and number of women who worked within 2 years of their final birth, by year of final birth and selected characteris-tics: ever-married women 1544 years of age whose final bhth was at least 2 yaars ego, United States, 1973 ....... ... .. .... ..........

8. Percent, adjusted percent, and number of woman who worked during tha latest pregnancy, by selected characteristics,according to year of latest birth: ever-married women 1544 yaars of age, United States, 1973 ....... ..... ... ... ....... ... .. ... .... .. ........

9. Percent, adjustad percent, and number of women who worked during the last trimester of the latest pregnancy, by selectedcharacteristics, according to year of latest birth: evar-married women 1544 years of age who worked during tha Iataat preg-nancy, United States, 1973 ... ..... ........... .... .. ..... ......... ... .. .... ......... ..... .... ......... .... ... .. .. ....... ... .. .. .. . .. ......... .... .. ...............................

10. Number of woman and percent amployed during aach month of the latest pregnancy, and median number of months em-ployed during that pregnancy, by rata, aducation, and parity: aver-married women 1544 years of age who worked duringthe latest pragnancy whose latest birth was less than 2 years ego, United Stetas, 1973 .. ... ... ..... ....... ....... .. .. ........... ..... ... ... ........

11. Percent, adjusted parcant, and number of women who worked since the latest birth, by selected characteristics, according toyear of Iatast birth: ever-married women 1544 years of age, United States, 1973 ..... .. .... .. ... ......... .... .. ... ......... .. . ... ...... ............

12. Percent, adjusted percent, and number of women who returned ~o work since the latest birth, by selected characteristics,according to year of latest birth: avar-rnarried women 1544 years of age who worked during the latest pregnancy, UnitedStatas, 1973 .... .. ........... ..... .... .. ........ .. .... .... ........ .. ..... ..... ...... .... .. .... ... ....... .. .... ..... ...... ... ...... .. .. .................. ............................ ......

13. Number and cumulative percent of women who worked since the latest birth, by number of months since latest birth,according to race, education, and parity: ever-married women 1544 years of age whose latest birth was 12-23 months ago,United Statesr 1973 ..... ...... ........... ... . ..... ......... .. .. ....... .......... ... ....... ....... ... ... .. .... .. ...... .. .... .... .......... .. ... ................. ......................

14. Number and cumulative percent of women who returned to work after the latest birth, by months since latest birth, accord-ing to race, education, and parity: ever-married women 15-44 years of age who worked during the Iatast pregnancy, UnitadStates, 1973 ....... .. ... . .. .. ... ........... .... ...... ......... ..... ..... ....... .. .. .. .. .. .... ...... .. .... ...... .......... ...... .... .......................................................

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

25

27

28

30

32

32

15

Table 1. Percent and number of women who worked before marriage, by year of first marriage and selected characteristics: @Var-marriad women 11544 years of age, United States, 1973

Characteristic

All woman .. ......... ...... .. .... ............ .. .. .. .. .. .... .. ............

-e

White .......... ......... ..... .. .. .............. .. ........ .... .. .. .. ............. .. ..... .. ...Black ................. .... ... .. ..... ................... ....... .. ..... ............. .. .... .. ..

Age at marriage

Lass than 18 yaars ...... .. ...... .. .. .... .. .. ........ .... .... .. .. ........ .... ........ .18-19 years . .. .... ........... ........ .. ........ .. ................ ...... .... ... .. .. .......20-21 yaam ...... ............. .. ........ .. .. .. .. .... .. .......... .. .. .. ..... ... .... .. .. .. .22 yaars or more .. ................ ........ .. ... .... ......... .. .. .. .... ...... .. .. ... ..

Education at marriage

Less than 12 years . ...... ..... .............. .... .... .. .. .. .. .. .... ............... ....12 years ............ .... ...... .. .... .. ............ ..... ....... ..... . .. ............... .... ..More than 12 years . .. .. .. .. .... .... .... ...... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ...... ...................

Timing of first birth

Bafora marriage ............... ... .... .. .. ... ... .. ............ .... .. . ... .. .... .. .. .. ...After marriage .... .. ............ .... .. .... .. .. ...... ................ ..... ... .. .. .. .. ...

1Includes only women fiist married 195S-’?3

Parcent

so

8776

52889495

679194

7787

84

8573

49839196

63

E

7584

Year of first marriage

79

8171

44839093

618788

6880

1955-1959

80

B268

55829091

638991

7780

EEEIEEIENumbar in thousands

4,703

4,218405

4291,5141,2391,526

8982,2761,531

3084,410

6,080

5,439550

5501,7941,6692,035

1,1703,0341,836

4235,606

4,543

4,152401

5151,5251,1961,315

1,0s12,4001,074

261

4,283

4,192

3,781377

6391,3061,0601,1s8

1,1502,172

8s5

2493934

.—

NOTE: Numbers may not add to totals because of rounding; see appendm I.

16

Table 2. Parcant and numbar of women who worked 2 years or more bafora marriage, by year of first marriage and selectadcharacteristics: ever-marriad women 11544 years of aga who worked bafore marriage, United States, 1973

Characteristic

All women ... .. .. .... .... .. ........ .... .. .... ....... ... .... .... .. ...... ..

Rata

White .. .... .. .. .... ........ .. .. ..... . .. .. ...... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. .. .... ........ .... .Black . .... .. .... .. ........ .. ..... .... ......... .. .. .... .. .. .. ........ .... ....... ......... .. ..

Age at marriage

Less than 18 years . ... ... ... ........ .. .... .... .......... .... .. .. .. .. ...... .... .. .. ...18-19 years ........ .. .. .. .. ............ .... .. .... .. ..... ... .. .. .. .. ........... ... ... ... ..20-21 years . ... .... ....... ......... ... .. .. .. .... .. ...... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ...... .. .. .. ...... .22 years or mora ... .. .. ........ .. .... .. .... ........... ... ...... ........ ...... ..... ...


Less than 12 years ........ .. .. .. .... .. ...... ... ... . .... . .. .......... .... .... ...... ...12 years .. ... ... . ..... ............ ... ... ... .. ........ .. .. .. .. .... .. ....... .... .. ...... .....More than 12 years ....... .. .. .. .. . .. ......... ..... .... ... .. ....... .. ..... ... .. .. ....

Timing of first birth

Before merri~ .......... ...... .... ............ ..... .. ... ........ ... W .. ..... .......After marriage .... ........ .. .... ..... ........... ...... ... .. ......... .. .... ..... ........

lInclude~ only women fiist married 1955-73.


1970-

1

1965- 1960-1973 1969 1964

61

6251

25396887

436269

6061

Percent

61

6159

34436381

506757

5961

62

6263

33447086

606556

6561

1955-1959

65

6571

34548081

626861

6765

EIIzEIENumber in thousands

2,867

2,613208

107587843

1,330

3861,4061,060

1852,679

3,689

3,316325

186776

1,0511,643

5902,0311,048

2513,431

2,820

2,546253

170673834

1,128

6431,561

602

1712,614

2,725

2,441268

216707644965

7091,470

540

1672,563

NOTE: Numbers may not add to totals because of rounding; see appendix I.

17

Table 3. Percent and number of women who worked between marriage and first birth, by year of first marriage and selected character-istics: ever-married women 1 15-44 years of age, United States, 1973

Characteristic

All women ......... ........ ........ ... ............ ......... ...... .. .............. ...... ...... .... ....

~

White ...... .. ........ .. ........ .................... ...... ........ .. ............ ......... ....... .. ............ ........ ...Black ........... ......... .. ...... .. .............. .. ...... ........... .. ........... .. ........ ... ... .. ................ ......

Age at marriage

Less than 18 years ... .... ...... ... ....... .. ............... ........ ....... ................ .. ........ ...... .........18-19 years ................. ...... .......... ................ .. .. .... ....... ............. ........ ...... ...... .........20-21 years .... .............. ... ....... .. .... .... ................ ...... .. .. .. ... ................ .. .... ..... .. ... .....22 years or more .............. ... ....... ....... ... ............ .... ....... ...... ................. ........ ....... .. .


Less than 12 years ...... ................. ......... ........ .... ........... ..... .... .... ....... ............. ... .....12 years ..... ... .........u......... ................. .. ........ .... .. .. ................ .... .. .. ...... .. ............ ... ..More than 12 years .. ....... ... .. .............. ... ...... ... ... ... ................ ....... .... ...... ...............

Premarital employment

None or less than 1 year .. ....... .. ........ .... ............ .. .. ...... ...... .. .. ............ .......... ...... .. ..1-3 years .... ...... ...................... ..... .......... ................. .... . ... ..... ................... ...... ........4 years or more .. ... ................. ..... .. .. ...... ................. ... ........ ... ...... ................. ...... .. .

Interval between marriage and first birth

Less than 1 year ..... .... ...... .... .. ........... ... .......... ....... .................. .... .... ........ .............1-2 years ............. ........... ....... ... ............. .... ...... ...... .. .. ................. ........ ... ....... ... .....2 years or more .... ............. ......... ................. ...... ... ....... .. ............... ... ....... ...... .... ....


1965- 11960- 1955-1969 1964 1959

80

8173

50779088

528591

668787

597193

Percent

69

7063

45697878

457583

527780

526485

66

6751

42657675

447576

417681

566082

1965-

11960-‘1955-

1969 1964 1958

Number in thousanda

4,311

4,058222

3621,2271,3021,429

5642,2531,505

1,1271,9441,259

5761,1252,630

2,991

2,840151

375944813852

5171,597

877

7751,344

558991

1,456

2,699

2,554114

339834739771

5471,496

647

5471,268

880

670934

1/096

I Includes OS-II~ women who have had a birth (or intend a birth), were first married 1955-69, and had no premarital PregnancY.

NOTE: Numbers may not add to totals because of rounding; see appendix L

18

Table 4. Percent and number of women who worked 1 year or more between marriage and first birth, by year of first marriage andselacted characteristics: ever-married womenl 1544 years of age who worked between marriage and first birth, United States, 1973

Characteristic

All women ............ ...... ..... .......... .... ... .......... ..... ..... ........ ..... .... ......... .....

Race

White ......... ........ ..... .. .......... .. ..... ..... ......... .... .. . ... ......... .... .. ... ........ ...... ... ........ ...... .Black . ........... .. .... ..... ............. ...... .... ......... .... ... .. ........... ..... .... ........ .. . ... .. .. ........ ..... .

Age at marriage

Less than 18 yaars ... ... .......... .... .... .. ......... ..... .. ... ......... ..... ..... ........ .... .... .. ..... ...... ...18-19 years . ...... ..... .............. ... ... .... ........... ... ..... ......... .... ..... .......... .... .... .......... ... ..20-21 years ....... ..... ............. .... .. .. ............ .... .. .... ......... ...... ... .. ....... .... ..... ...... ........ .22 years or more ... ........... .. ... .. ... ........... ...... .. .. ... ....... .... ...... .. ....... .... ..... ........ .... ...


Lass than 12 years .. .... ........ .. ... ... . ... ....... ..... ..... ........... ..... .... ........ ..... ..... ......... ... ...12 years ....... ...... ..... ... ....... .. .... .... ... ........ ..... ..... ......... ..... ... ... ........ .... ..... ....... .. .... ..More than 12 years .......... ... ... .. ... .......... ...... .... ........... .... ..... ........ ..... ..... ....... ....... .

Premarital employment

None or less than 1 year .. ..... ...... ........... ... .. .... .. ....... ... .. ...... ......... ..... ... .......... ..... ..1-3 years ..... ...... ............ ...... .... .. .......... .... ........ ....... ..... ..... ... ........ .... ..... ........ ... .. ...4 years or mora ... .. .......... ...... .... .. .......... .... ... .. ........ .. ... ... .. .... ....... . .... .... ........ .... ... .

Interval between marriage and first birth

Less than 2 yaars .. ......... .. .... .... .. ......... .... ..... ... ........ ..... .... ........... ..... ..... ....... .... .. ...2 years or more .. ......... .. .. ... .. ... .. ........ ...... .... .......... ...... .... ........ .. .. ... .... ......... ...... ...


ET!Er!EPercent

72

7272

54657580

537081

697275

4291

65_

6570

54676270

586666

666268

4189

58

5766

46635956

495961

545659

3788

1965- 1960-1969 1964

1955-1959

Number in thousands

3,105

2,920159

197799973

1,139

2891,6691,221

7751,393

941

7132,381

1,945

1,840105

203636503601

2871,060

577

511831597

6311,284

1,565

1,45875

157529438438

266883403

285739518

591867

1In@jde~ ~nIy women who have had a birth (or intend a birth), were first married 1955-69, and had no Prem~ital Pregnancy-

NOTE: Numbers may not add to totrds because of rounding; see appendix I.

19

Table 5. Percent and number of women who worked between first and second births, by year of first marriage and selected characteristics: ever-marrred women1 15-44 years of age, United States, 1973

Characterrstic

All women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Race

Black.. ..................................................................................................................

Age at marrrage

50 43 35 1,462 1,853 1,463 62 49 54 200 238 257

Less than 18 years.. .............................................................................................. 18-19 years .......................................................................................................... 20-21 years.. ........................................................................................................ 22 years or more.. ................................................................................................

Education at marrrage

53 46 35 284 479 383 56 44 41 599 698 596 49 44 38 392 491 408 46 39 32 407 429 352

Less than 12 years.. .............................................................................................. 12 years ............................................................................................................... More than 12 years ..............................................................................................

Previous employment

51 43 35 410 598 505 53 42 36 847 983 842 47 47 43 417 523 404

No previous employment.. ................................................................................... 43 28 22 158 227 168 Premarrtal employment only.. .............................................................................. 50 42 32 477 665 491 Employed between marriage and first birth ......................................................... 52 50 44 1,023 1,227 1,067

Interval between first and second births

Less than 3 years.. ................................................................................................ 37 29 25 394 572 538 3-4 years .............................................................................................................. 48 40 36 456 465 417 4 years or more.. .................................................................................................. 65 62 55 828 1,061 777

Year of first mart-rage

51

Percent

43 37 I 1,678 2,083 1,747

1965- I 1960- I 1955- 1967 1964 1959

I I

Number in thousands

‘Includes only women who have had 2 births (or 1 birth and intend another) and were first married 19 5 5-67.


20

Table 6. Percent and number of women who worked 1 year or more between the first and sacond births, by veer of first marriage andselected characteristics: aver-married women 1 15-44 years of age who worked between the first and second bhths, United Statas,1973

Characteristic

All women .. ...... ......... ....... ... .......... ...... .... ......... ... ..... ......... .... ..... ...... ...

Race

Whita ... .. .......... ....... .... .... ......... .. .... ... ........... ... .. .. ... ......... ....... . ........ ...... ..... ........ ..

Age at marriaW

Lass than 18 years . ...... ............ ... ..... .. .......... ..... ..... ......... ... ..... ......... .... ... ......... .....18-19 years ..... .... .. ...... ............ ..... ..... .......... .... ...... .......... ... ... .......... .... .... ......... ....20-21 years ........ ....... ...... ........ ....... ... .......... ....... .... ........ .. .... ... ........ ..... .. ... ...... .. ...22 years or more ... ...... ..... .......... ..... .... ......... .... .... .......... ..... .... ........ ..... .. .. ........ ....


Less than 12 years . .. ..... ........... .. .... ... ........... .. ... .... ....... ... ... ..... ......... .. ..... ......... .... .12 yaars ............ ..... ... .. .. .. ........ ...... .... .. ....... ..... .... ......... ... .. .... ........ .. ..... .. ......... .....Mom than 12 years ... ... .. ......... ...... .. .......... ....... .... ....... ..... ..... ....... .. .... ..... .. ...... .. ...

Previous employment

No pmvious.employment ...... ..... ...... ....... ...... ... .... ....... ...... .... ......... .... .... .. ....... .....Premarital employment only ...... ...... .......... ....o. . ... .. ...... ..... ..... ........ ..... ... .......... ... .Employed between marriaga and first birth . .... . .. ........ ....... ... .. ..... ... ..... ... ......... ....

Interval batween f irst and second births

Less than 3 years ... .. ... ............ .... ...... .......... .... .... .......... .... ...... ......... .... ... ......... .....3-4 years .... ..... ....... ........... .... .. ..... ........... ..... ..... ......... ..... ..... ....... ...... ..... ......... .....4 yaars or more ... ....... .......... .....c..... ....... .. ... ... ... .......... .... ..... ....... ...... .... .......... .... .

Yaar of first marriaoe

1865-1867

1860.1864

1955-1968

62

6168

55855866

616067

%61

415376

70

6976

68707370

70

:;

737170

476386

63

6265

61646362

566468

525270

356184

I 1955-1959

Number in thousends

1,037

888135

155388226266

251506279

85315630

159244625

lInclude~ o~y women W. have had 2 births (or I birth and intend another) and were first m~fied 1955-67.

1,472-

1,270182

328486366307

422691364

%!853

267284919

1,087

908166

231383257221

279539277

88259753

191266653


21

Table 7. Percent and number of women who worked within 2 years of their finel birth, by yeer of finel birth and selected character-istics: ever-married women 11544 years of age whose final birth was at least 2 years ago, United States, 1973

Characteristic

All women .... .. .. .. ....... ..... ................. .... ...... ............. ..... .... ... .. ............. ..

Race

Age at marriage

Less than 18years ........... ..... ................. ...... .... .. ... ............. .. ....... . .... ............ ... ..... .18-19 years ............ ..... .. .. ....... ............... .... ... .. .... .. .............. ........ ...... .. .. .......... .. ....20-21 years ............ ........ .. ....... ... ............ ..... ..... ...... .............. ....... ... .... .. .......... ......22 years or more ......... ....... ........ .............. ... ..... ... ...... ............ ...... .... . .... ............ ....


Less than 12yaars ............... ........ .. ....... ............. ...... ... ..... ................ ...... ...... .........12 years ..... ... .. ...... ................. ... ... .... ..... ............. ... ..... ...... .........o....... [email protected] than 12 years .. .. ............. ........ ........ ............. .. ..... ....... .. ............. .. .... ...... ... ....

Previous employment

No previous employment ............ .... .... ... ....... .. ............ ......... ...... .... ........ ... ....... .. ..Premarital employment only ............. ...... .. .. .... ............. ......... ...... ............ .. ........ ...Employed between marriage and first birth .... ............ ... ....... .. ...... ............... ....... .

Children ever born

lor2 ...... .. .. ........... .... ...... ......... .............. ... ..... ....... .............. ........ ....... ............... ..3 ..... ......... .. ................ ...... ..... .... .. ........... .... ..... ........ ... .......... ..... ...... ........ ............ .4 or more ... ............... .. .......... ...... ............... ..... ........... ............. ...... .. ...... .............. .

Year of final birth

1970-1972

41

3862

46434333

413944

324541

503033

1965- 1960-1969 1964

I

Percent

33

3251

40343527

3532.35

323334

392928

27

2645

36262624

242731

242629

332125

1Include5 only women who have had a birth and intend to have no more and were first married 195S-67.

1970-1972

1965-1969

1960-1964

Number in thousands

910

724166

210332207168

287412204

115309481

548147209

1,582

1,376227

372484397353

482729399

237526836

847363384

808”

714104

222237183182

173410234

103231485

464213143


22

2 by ~elected characteristics.Table 8. Percent, adjusted percent,l and number of women who worked during the latest pregnancy,according to year of latest birth: ever-married women 15-44 years of age, United States, 1973

Characteristic

Education

Less than 9 years .. ........... ....... ... .. ... ......... ....... ... .. ............ .... ....9-11 years .... ...... .............. ..... .. ..... ............ .... ... .... .......... .... ... ... .12years .. .. .. ...... .... ........ ........ .. .. ... ........... ...... .... .......... ....... .... ..13-15 years . .... .... ............ ........ ..... ........... .... ..... ... .......... .... .. .. ...16 years or more .............. ...... ... . ............ ..... ..... ........... .... ..... ...

Husband’s income

Less than $3.000 ......... ........ ...... .......... .. ..... .... ............ .... .... .. ...$3.000.$4.999 ............ ..... ..... ........... .. ..... .... .......... ...... .. .. .... .....$5.000.$5.999 ....... ...... .... .. .............. ..... ....... ........... ..... .... .. ......$6.000.$6.999 ........ ..... ....... .. .......... ..... .. ...... ......... ..... ....... .......$7.000.$7.999 ............ .. ... . .... ........... ...... ... .. .......... .. .... .... .. .......$8.000.$8.999 ........... ...... ..... .. ......... ...... .... ........... .. .... ..... ........$9.000.$9.999 ......... .... ....... .............. ..... .... .. .......... .. .... ... .. .......$lo.ooo.$l l.999 .. ...... ..... ............ ... ... ...... ............. ...... .... .........$12.000.$14.999 ..... ... ...... ............ ...... .. ... .. ........... ..... ...... ........$15.000.$24.999 ... .......... ............ .... ... .... ............. ...... ...... ........$25,000 or more ... .... .... ...... ............ ....... .... ............ ..... ..... .......Respondent not married ... ...... ... ...... ....... ..... ........... ..... ..... .......

-

1 I ive birth .. ............. .. .. .... .. ..... ......... ....... ...... .. ......... ..... .... .. .....2 live births .... ........... ...... ... ... ......... .. ..... ...... .. ........ ..... ..... .......3 live births .......... .. ...... .. .... ... ........... ..... .... .. ........... ... . .. .. .. .......4 live births or more ...... .. .. .... .......... ...... ...... ........... ..... ..... .......

Age at birth of child

Less than 20 years .. ... .. ....... .......... .. ...... ...... ............ ..... .... ........20-24 years ..... ........ ..... ............. ... .... .. .... ... ........... ... .. .... .. .........25-29 years ...... .. .. .. .. .... ................ .... ....... ... ........ ... ... ....... ....... ..30-34 years ......... ... ...... .... ............. ..... ..... ............. .. .... ....... .......35 years or more .... .... ..... ............ ... .. ... .. .. ............ ...... ...... ........

Race and ethnicity

White. ... .. ...... ... ... ... .. ............... .... .. .. ... ........... .... .. ....... ............ ..Black ....Hispanic" ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Other race or ethnicity ............... ...... ..... .......... ..... ..... ........... ...

Occupation

Professional ....... ... ....... .......... ..... .... .. .............. ... .. ... ... ......... .....Managers ...... ...... .. .... .............. .... ...... .......... .... ... ..... .......... ..... ..Sales . ............ ... ..... ...... ............ ..... .... .. ........... .. .. ........ ......... ......Clerical .. .......... ........ ... ............ ....... .... ........... ... ... .... ............ .....Craftsman ........ ...... ...... ........... ... ... .. .... .......... .. .... .. ... ........ ... .... .Operatives and transport workers ..... ........... ... .. .... .. .. ......... .. ... .Laborers, except farm ............... .. ... .. ............... .... ....... ......... ....Farmers .............. .. .. ... ...... .......... .... .. ....... ......... ....... .... .......... .. .Farm laborers .. ...... .. .... .. .......... .... .... ...... .......... .. .... .... .. ......... ...Sewice .. ................ .. ... .. .... ........... ...... ....... .. ....... ...... .... ........... ..Private household ....... .... ... .......... ..... ....... ... ........ ..... .... .. ..........Other .. .. ... .. .......... ... .... ...... ............ ...... ........ ........ .... ...... .. ........ .

See footnotes at end of table.

Percent

3132404244

284040394240394038343147

61332826

3745363131

3848

“3629

47513441464130

●

363628*1

All women

Adjustedpercent 1

3837393935

304038393939363938363347

63322825

2142403938

37484233

49503640474128

*

303627“3

Numberin

5401,3314,0371,135

863

323446336411512522515

1,1621,1911,061

3001,186

3,3892,3201,201

983

8233,4222,577

912225

6,3481,080

52373

1,206297411

2,960154

1,317●61

●

●611,326

126●lo

Latest birth in 1970-73

Percent

3034445048

364141454847444245373149

61362927

3650403427

42503723

55583646504636

●

●253928●2

Adjustedpercent 1

4140434734

274241464347424344363251

63342827

2446434739

40534832

59573744524828

*

●283930“4

Numberin

thousands

242653

2,066596408

226285213278337324293591587388

95432

2,0081,140

429412

4331,7951,223

407113

3,189494282

28

EJ53128206

1,54278

663●28

●

‘ 22682●62●11

23

Table 8. Percent, adjusted percent,l and number of women who worked during the latest pregnancy,z by selected characteristics.according to year of latest birth: ever-married women 15-44 years of age, United States, 1973 –Con.

Characteristic

Region

Place of residence

Metropolitan ... ........... .... ................. ..... .. ... .. .... ................ ........Nonmetropolitan .. ....... ................ .. .. .... ... ..... .... ................ ........

Yeer of latest birth3

Before 1955 or J970 ........ .. ............... ... ..... ...... .... ................. ...1955-59 or 1971 .... .... ...... ... .............. ... ...... .... ... .. .. ............... ...1960-64 or 1972 ......... .... ... ... ................ ...... .... ...... ..................196559 or 1973 ......... .. ...... .. .................. .. .. ... ....... ................ ..

197073 ........... ..... .. ...... ... ........ ............... ... ... ..... .... .. .. ..............

Interval since last birth

Less than 2 yean ... ...... ....... .. ...... .... ........ .... .. ....... ...... ..............2-2.9 yearn .............. .... ...... .. .. ...... ................ .. .. .... .... .... .. .. .........3-3.9 yean ............... .... ... .. ..... .... .................. ... .. .. ....... ..............4-4.9 yean ................. .. .... .... .. ..... ... .............. .. ...... .. ...... .... ........5.5.9 yearn .. ................. .... . .. .. .. .... .... ................ ........ ...... .. .........6 years or more ............ ... ....... ...... ... ............. .. .. ........ .. ..... ........No births ..... ................. ... .... .... .. .. ... ................. ........ .. .. .... .. ......

Percent

36384335

3839

55373236

42

242832

35314561

All women

Adjustedpercent 1

36394136

3839

*3633343941

23273235334661

Numberin

thousands

1,5862,0722,8561,455

5,5852,324

*53367

1,1612,331

3,976

1,0801,103

837498303737

3,390


Percent

40414836

4145

40454240

. ..

2628

3534354661

Adjustedpercentl

41424537

4144

41454239

...

26273434384761

Numberin

thousands

7651,0481,519

661

2,7491,242

6801,1611,164

756

...

430454383

185140397

2,009

lAdju5ted by M~lti~le Cla5~ificetion Analysis for religious denomination, religious pi3rtiCipatiOn, and all other variables in this table;

see text and armendix I for further discussion.z[nclude~”only pregnancies that ended in a live birth.3Earljer date on each Iine refers to columns headed “AI] women,”

1970-73. ”and later date refers to columns headed “Latest birth in

NOTE: See appendix II for defiiitiona of characteristics, and appendm I for discussion of rounding errors.

24

Table 9. Percent, adjusted percent,l end number of women who worked during the last trimester of the latest meanancv.z bv selectedcharacteristics, according to year of latest birth: ever-married women 15-4~ years of age who worked during the latest pregnancy,

.-. . .

United States, 1973

Characteristic

Less than 9 yearn ... .... .. ... .. ... ........ ..... ...... ........ ..... ... ... ....... ... .. ..9-11 yearn .... ............... .. ..... ........... ..... .... .......... .... ....... ...... ...... .12 yearn .. .... ..... ..... .. ... ..... .. .... .. ...... .... ...... .......... .... ...... ...... ...... .13-15 yeaE .. ..... .......... ... .... ..... ......... ... .. ...... ....... ...... ... .. ........ .. .16 years or more ......... ..... .. .... ........ .... .... .... ....... .. .. .... ........... ...

Husband’s income

Lass than $3.000 .... ........... ..... .... .......... .. .... . ... ........ ... .. ..... ..... ..$3nm*999 ... ..... ........... ...... ... .. ......... .. ..... .. ........ .... .... .........$5.w4599 ... .. ... ... ........ .. .... .. .. ........... .... ..... ......... .. ..... ........

$6.W46399 . .... .. .. .. .......... ... ... .. ........... ..... .... ....... ... .. ... .... .....$7.m47999 .. .. .... ..... .......... .... .. .. .. ........ .... ..... ........... .. ... ... ....$6.0m*83w .. ..... ..... ........... ... .. ..... ....... ... .. ..... ......... .. .... ... .....$9.wti9999 . ... ... ..... ........... .... ....... ....... ... . ...... ......... .... .... .....$lotm.$ll#999 ........ ........... .. .. ... ............ ... .... .. ........ .. .... .... ....$12.~~14.999 .... ... ........... .. ... .... .. ....... ... .. .... .. ......... ..... .... ....$15.~.$24S9 ... ....... .......... ... .... .. .......... ..... . .. ... ....... ..... ... ....$25,000 or more .... ..... .. ......... ..... ...... ........ ..... ... .. ........ .. .... ... ...Respondent not married ......... ..... ..... ......... ... .. .... ........ ...... .... ...

Parity

1 live hrth .. ... ...... ......... ..... .... .......... ...... .. .......... .. . ...... ...... .......2 live births ......... ........ ....... ... . ......... .. ... ...... ........ ... ...... ....... .....3 live births ..... .. .......... ... ... ..... .......... ..... . .. ........ ...... .... .......... ...4 live births or more .... ..... ..... .......... .... ...... ......... ... ...... ......... ...

Aoe at birth of child

Less than 20 yearn ........... ...... .... .......... .... .. .. .. ......... ..... .... .. ..... .20-24 yea~ .. .. .... ... .... .. ....... ........ . .......... .. .. .. ... .......... ... ....... ..... .25-28 years ...... .. .... ..... ........ .... .. .... .. ........ .... .... .. ...... .. .. .. .. ... ......30-34 yearn .. ....... ... . .... ........ .... ... .. ... ...... ....... .... ........... .... .... .....35 years or more .. .. .... ........... ..... .... ........ ..... ..... .......... .... ...... ...

Race and ethnicity

White .......... ....... ..... ............ .... ...... .. ....... ...... .... ........... ..... ...... ..Black .. .... ........... ..... ... ... .......... ... .. ...... ...... .. .. .... .... ........ .. .. .. .... ..Hispanic ...... .......... .. .. .. .... ........ .. ..... .. .......... ..... .. ... .. ....... .... .... ..Other race or ethnicity ... ......... .. ... .. .. .......... ...... .... ...... .... .. .. .. .. .

Occupation

Professional ....... ......... ..... . .... ........ .. ... .. ... ... ........ .... .. .. . .......... .. .Managers .... ..... . .. .. ........ .. .. ...... ......... ..... .. .. .. .......... .. ..... .......... ..sales ........ .. .. .. ... .. ........ .. .... .... .......... ..... ... ... ....... .. .... ..... ......... ...Clerical ... .. ... ....... ........ .. ... ..... .. ......... .... .... .. ....... .... .. .... ........ .. .. .Cratiman .. .. ... . ... ........ .. ... ... ..... ......... ..... ..... ...... ... .... ... . .... ...... ..Operatives and transport workers ...... ..... .... .......... ..... .... ..........Laborers, except farm ...... .... .... ............ .. .. .. .. ......... ..... ...... .......Farmers .. ....... .... .............. ..... ..... ......... .. ... .... .......... .. ... ..... ........Farm laborem ... ....... .......... .... ..... ......... ... ...... .......... ..... ..... .......Service .......... ... .. .... .......... ....... .... .......... .... .. .... ......... .... ....... .....Private household ... ........... .. ... .... ............ ..... ... ......... .. .. ....... .....Otier ........... .... ... .... ... ........ ..... .. ....... ....... ..... ..... .......... ..... .... ....


Percenl

3435494451

445154394645484150404844

50424237

4044464847

45414669

496342504238

*

*

3458

*

All women

Adjustecpercentl

3841484245

465254424446474148364647

50424336

3943474951

4447

●4867

496442484639

*

●

3661

●

Numberin

thousands

181472

1,981498438

230131181160235232244472590424142516

1,690%6510360

3271,4931,185

433106

2,816438238

50

580186173

1,476●84497

*

●

45474

●


Percent

3838534258

455660425048574750425542

53464434

3848505450

493851

●

557252523843

●

●

32●

*

Adjustedpercentl

4147533944

475663455049554746394649

54474328

3645516258

484749

●

557360504246

#

*

34●

●

Numberin

thousands

90249

1,105248238

12988

128116168157166279284161

52182

1,060521187142

162888608222●58

1,555188142

*

31192

108785*3O286

●

*

219*●

25

Table 9. Percent, adjusted percent,l and number of women who worked during the last trimester of the latest pregnancy, 2 by selectedcharacteristics. accordina to vear of latest birth: ever-married woman 15-44 vears of a~a who workad durirm the Iatast cwaanancv.United States,” 1973–CO;. “

All women

Region

Northeast .. .............. .. ....... ...... ............... ...... .... ... ............ .. ..... ..North Central ............. ....... .. ... .............. ........ ......!.. .......... .... .. ..South ... .. ..... ............... ...... .. .... .......... .. .. ...... ...... .............. ... ..... .West ....... ................ .... . ... ...... .. .......... .......... ...... .. ............ ....... ..

Place of residence

Metropolitan ....... ...... .. .... . ..... .......... ........ .. .... .. ............ ... ... ... ...Nonmetropolitan ... ..... ........ ............. .. .... ...... .... ............ ....... .. .. .

Year of latest birth3

Before 1955 or 1970 ....... ............ ...... ......... ........... .. .. ...... ....... .1955-59 or 1971 .. ....... .... ............ ....... ...... ............. .. ....... ...... ...1960-64 or 1972 ... ...... ... ............ ...... ...... .. ... ......... .. ........ ........ .1965-69 or 1973 ;.. ....... .......... ... ........ ........ ............ ...... ... ... .. ....1970.73 . ... ........ ... ... ... ............. .... .. ... ....... .. .......... .. ...... .. .. .. .......

Percent

45424647

4546

2824454348

Adjustedpercentl

45424548

4446

2724454448

Numberin

thousands

704669

1,306677

2,5041,061

*I588

522710

1,921

.-.

—

Latest birth in 1970-’73

Percent

53464750

4849

44494656. ..

Adjustedpercentl

48474951

4849

47484852. ..

Numberin

thousands

401487708328

1,317604

394572532423

...

I Adju5ted ~~ ~ultiP1e Clw5ifjcation Analysis for ~eligiom denomination, religious participation, and all other variables in this table;

see text and appendix I for further dkcussion.21nc]udes only pregnancies that ended in a live birth.3Earfier date on each line refers to COlumnS headed “~1 women?”

1970-73. ”and later dste refers to columns headed “Latest birth in

NOTE: See appendix II for definitions of characteristics.

26

Table 10. Number of woman and parcent employed during aech month of tha Iatast prugnamcyr 1 and madian number of monttrs em-ployad during that pregnancy, by race, education, and parity: ever-married women 15-44 years of age who worked during the latestpregnancy whose latest birth was less than 2 years ago, Unitad States, 1973

Month of pregnancy

AH women ......... .. .... .... .......... ...

Before pregnancy ... ...... .......... .. .. . ..... .........

2d ... .. ..... ... .......... .. .. .... .... .. .......... .... ... .. .....3d .. ..... ...... ........ .... ..... ...... ... ......... ... .. ..... ...4th .. ...... .. .... ........... ..... .. .. .. .......... ..... ..... ....

Median m~ths employed ..... ...... .... .. .. .....

Education I Puity

Total*Whita Black Lees than 12 yews More than ,

2I

3 or12 years 12yeera more

II I 1 I 1 1 I I

Number in thousands

2,280 # 2,033 I 242 t 533

100.088.893.286.576.469.461.048.632.719.2

100.096.693.488.576.770.061.549.233.519.1

100.098.691.685.871.884.856.142.125.919.2

100.095.180.480.867.058.650.338.626.620.9

1,175 I 583 I 1,208 I 628 I 453

Percent

100.097.084.487.677.974.663.251.731.7I a9

Numbar

100.097.893.68fJ.681.788.162.351.440.318.2

100.098.896.080.281.974.166.454.635.820.5

100.093.788.582.270.662.854.440.927.714.2

100.095.891.182.968.588.455.543.331.222.5

6.0 7.1I

7.1 7.2 6.3 6.5

lJn~ludes only pregnancies that ended in a live IMh.21ncludea races other than white or black.

27

Table 11. Percent, adjusted percent,l and number of women who worked since the latest birth, by selected characteristics, according toyear of Iatast birth: ever-married women 1544 years of age, United States, 1973

Characteristic

Education

Lees than 9 years .. .. .... ..... ............... ... ..... ..... ... ............. .... ..... .. .9-11 years ..... ... ..... ....... .... ............ .. ......... ...... ............... ... .... .... .12 years .... .. .... ...... .. .... ................ .... .... .... .... .... ............ ....... ......13-15 years... ... ... .... ... .. ............ ... ..... ..... .... .. ............. ... ..... ... .. ...16 yaars or more . ... ... ............... .. ........ .. .... ................ ........ ...... .

Husband’s income

Less than $3,000 ................ .. ....... ...... ................ ......... ...... .......?$3,000-$4,999 .............. .... ........ .. ...... .... ............ .. .... .. .. .... .. .......

$5.000.$5.999 ................ .. .. .... .. .. ..... ................. ..... .... .. ..... .......$6.QO0.$6.999 ......... .... ..... ..... .. ..... .. ................. ...... ..... ..... ... .....$7.00Q.$7B99 .............. ... ....... ....... .............. ........ ... ..... ... .........$8.000.$8399 ........ ... ......... .. ...... .. .............. .. .. .. .. ........ .... ........ .$9.mo49399 ......... ... ..... .... ....... .................. .... .. ........ .... ........ .$10,000-$11,998 .. ... .. ........ ... .. .. .. .. .......... .... ...... .... ... ... ........... ..$12,000-$14,999 . .. ...... ... ......... ............... ... .... .. ..... ................ ...$15,000-$24,999 ........ .... ....... .. ............. .. ...... ........ ................. ..$25,000 or more ....... ............ ............. ... ...... ......... .. ............... ..Respondent not married ....... .............. ......... ...... .... .............. ....

Parity

1 live Mrth ......... .... .. ... .... ....... ................ ...... ... ...... .. .............. ...2 live births ..... .. .. ....... ..... .. ... ............ ... ... ..... ........ .. ........... ... .. ..3 live births .... ....... .. ........ .. ................ .... .... .......... .............. .... ..4 live births or more .... ..... ............... .. ... ...... ..... .. ............... ... .. ..

Age at birth of child

Less than 20 yeers ................. .. ......... ..... ................ ...... .... .... ....20-24 yaars . ...... .. ... ................ ....... .. .. ..... ............... .. .... .. .. ...... ...25-29 years . .... .... .. ...... .......... .. .......... ...... .... ............ ...... .. ... ... ...30-34 years . ....... .. .................. ......... .... .... .. .......... .. .... .... .. ........ .35 yaars or more .................. .. ...... .... ...... ................. ..... ... ...... ..

Rata and ethnicity

Black ..... ... .. ............. .... ... ....... ..... .... ............. ..... .. .. ....... ... .........Hispanic .... .............. ... ...... .. .. ..... .. ............. .. ...... ... ....... .............Other race or ethnicity .. ....... .. .............. .. ... .... ....... ... ............. .

Occupation

Professional ... .... .. .... ... ... ... .. .............. ......... ......... ............... ......Managers ...... ... ....... .... .. .. .................. ...... ... .... .. .. .............. ...... ..Sales ........ ... .. .. ...... .. .. .. .. .. .......... .. .. .... ...... ...... .. .. .......... .... .. .. .... .Clerical ...... ......... .... .. .. .... ........ ..... ....... .. ...... ................ .... .... .... .Craftsman ........ ... .... .. ... ............ .. .... ....c.c.. ............... ......... .. ...... .Operatives and transport workers ... ........ .. ............ ... .... ... .........Laborers, except farm ......... .. .. .... .. ........ .... ............ ...... .. .. .. .. ....Farmers . .. ... ..... .. .... .......... .. .... ..... ........ ............. .... ... .... ..... .. ......Farm laborars ... ........... .. .... .. .. .... ..... ............. .... .... ... ....... .. ........Sewice ......... .......o........ ... .........c. ...... .............. .. ..... ..... .. .. ..........Private household ....... ...... .. .. ...... ................ ........ .. ... .. ............ ..

Percent

52615B5662

505760536455575557554579

65575654

7364544759

57735550

63756453706858

*

726657

1

All women

Adjustedpercentl

5256595865

536061576557595757554271

62565660

7463544B46

57676261

65736555686651

*

626456

2

Numberin

thousands

9052,5385,6531,5141,216

578635503559780717753

1,5981,7671,716

4361,993

3,6114,0072,4012,042

1,6244,6673,6651,383

429

9,5211,642

799125

1,617437773

3,826234

2,185118

*

1212,431

256*1 o


Percent

3545433942

34425040504544383B332B63

51403533

6146353524

40564235

43504637505355

*

625143

2

Adjustedpercentl

3439444345

33434B414444463940363057

47413738

5943374031

40525045

525447365052

*4O*

544941

*

Numbarin

thousands

2B2865

2,019465357

214291260247362311293535496346

B5555

1,6801,267

518504

7331,6511,070

419101

3,038553320

43

440111263

1,24178

764*43

*

*54892

92*11


28

Table 11. Percent, adjusted percent,l and number of women who worked since the latest birth, by selected characteristics, according toyear of latest birth: ever-married women 1544 years of age, United States, 1973 – Con.

Region

Northeast ....... .. ... .. ...... ... ...... ..... ...... ... .. ....... ... ...... ...... .... ........ .North Central ... .... ... ... ...... ...... .... ........... ..... .... ........ ......... ... .. ...

west ........................................................................................

Pltw of residence

Metropolitan .. ........ .. .. .. .. ..... .. ......... ...... ... .. ......... ...... ... .......... ..Nonmetropoliterr ..... .... .... .... ... ......... ...... ..... .......... ..... .. .. ......... .

Year of latest hirth2

Before 1955 or 1970 .... .. ........... ... .. ..... .. ..... ....... .... .......... ... .....1965-59 or 1971 ... ... .. ..... ......... ....... ..... ........ ...... ..... ......... .. .. ...1680-84 or 1972 ... .. .... ..... ........... ..... ... .. .......... .... .... ........... .....1885-69 or 1973 ........ ..... ... ......... ...... ...... ........ ... ... .... ......... ... . .f970.73 ....... ............ .. .. ... ..... ......... ...... .... ... ........ .... ...... ... ........ .

Additional children expected

None ............ ... ... ..... ... ......... .. .. ... ..... ........ ... .. .. .... ........ ....... .... ..1..... .. .. .... ............ .. ..... .. ........... .. ..... ... .......... .. .... ... .. .. ....... ...... ...2 or more .. .. ....... .. ..... .... .. .. ........ ..... ...... ...... .... ... ...... .. ...... .. .... ..

Percent

525s6262

5761

10088788642

565s63

All women

Adjustedpercentl

54576161

5860

7883796842

5759

● 60

Numberin

2,2913,0534,1192,577

8,3783,635

97874

2,8264,2733976

4,s852,5624,862

latest birth in 1970-73

Percent

32404844

4145

55533916...

354743

Adjustedpercentl

37384545

4143

%3814...

414441

Numberin

thousands

6121,0221,519

807

2,7491,242

1,2241,3671,081

302...

1,1101,4771,355

lAdjusted by MuItipIe cl=~fjcation AnaIySiS for religious denomination, religious participation, and all other ~fib~~ in th~ tabte;CC%?to t and appendix I for further dmussion.

#Earlier date on each line refera to columns headed “MI women,” and later date refers to columns headed “Latest biith in1970-73.”

NOTE: See appendix II for definitions of characteristics, and appendix I for discussion of rounding errors.

28

Table 12. Percent, adjusted percent,l and number of woman who returned to work since the Iatast birth, by selected characteristics,eccordi ng to year of latest birth: ever-married women 1544 years of age who worked during the latest pregnancY,2 United States, 1973

Characteristic

Education

Less than 9 years .. .. .... ..... .. ..... .. .. ........... .... ...... .. .... ................ ..9-11 years .......... .......... ... .... .. .................. .... .. ... ..... .. .......... .... ...12 years ............. ....... .... ......... ................ ...... ...... .... ............ ......13-15 years . ..... ..... ... ........ ................ .... ..... ... ..... ........... .... ........16 years or more .. .......... ................. ..... .. ......... ............ .... ...... ..

Husband’s income

Less than $3.000 ......... ... ............... ......... .... .... .. ............ ... ..... .. .$3.000.$4.999 .. ....... ...u................ ...... .. .. .... .. ............... ...... ... ....$5.000.$5n999 ...... .. .... .............. .. .... ........ ... ... ............... ... .. .. .... .$6,000-$6,999 . .. .. .................. .. ...... .. .... .. ................ .. .... .. .. .... .. ..$7,000-$7,999 .................... .. ...... ........ ................ ........ .... ... ......$8.000.$8.999 ............. .... .... .... .... .... .... .. .......... ....... ... ....... .......$9,000-$9?899 ............. ... ...... .. .......... ............. .. .. .... ...... .. ..........$10,000-.$11999 .... .... ........... .... . ... ............... ......... ...... .. ..........$12,000-$14,988 .... .... .... ... ....... .. ............... ..... .. .. .. ...... .. ...........$15,000-$24,999 .. .. ..... .... .. .... .. .............. .. .. .. ... ...... .. ... .. ........ .. ..$25,000 or mora ........ ... .. ..... ................. .. .... ... ....... .. .. ............. .Respondent not married .. ... .. ............ .. .. .. .... .... ........ ... ........... ...

Parity

1 live birth ~... .... ........ ... .................. ... .. ... .. .... .... ................ ... .... .2 live births .... ....... .... ............ .. .. ...... .......... .. .. ............... .. ...... ...3 live birtha .......... .. .............. ........ ... ..... .. .... ........... ... .. ....... ......4 live births or more ....... .. .......... .... ... .. .. ................ .... . .... ...... ...

Aga at birth of child

Less than 20 years .... ..... ... .. .. .... .... .............. .... ....... ..... .............20-24 years.. ....... .... .... .... .. ...... .. .. ............ .. ........ .. .. .. ... ............. .25-28 years ....... .... .. ..... ... .. .. .. ...... .......... ...... .. .. .. ..... ............... .. .30-34 years .. ... .......i...l . .. ..... ................. ..........l.l . ... ... ............... .35 years or more ..... ......i . ............... .... ......lc...... .. .............. .. .....

Race and ethnicitv

White ..... ..... ... .. .... .. .................... ...... .. ........ ................ ...... .. ... ...Black ........ ... .... ................... ........ .... ..... ................. ....... ... ..... ....Hispanic .. ... ... ... ... ................. ...... ....... .............. .... .. .. .. ....... ... ....Other race or ethnicitv ... ...... .. ...... .. ................ .. .... .. .... .... .........

Occupation

Professional ............ .......... ..... .... .. ........... .... .... .. .... .. .............. .. .Managers ......... ... ..... ... ........ ... ............... ....... ... .... .. ............ .. .. ...Sales ...... ........ .. .. ...... .. ......!. ............ .. ....... ... .... .. ............ .... .... ... .Clerical ...... .. .. .....!. .. ..... .. ............... ..... ... ... .. .... .............. .. ...... ....Craftsman ... ..... . .. .... ..... ................ ....... ... ... ... .... ........... .. ...... .....Operatives and transport workers ... .. .... ... .. ..... ........ .... ...... .. ... ..Laborers, except ferm ........... ........ ...... .. .. .............. .......... ...... ..Farmers .. .. ... .. ... ... ................ ...... .. ...... .. ............. .... ..... .. .. .... .. ....Farm laborars .. ... ......... ...... ..... .... ...... .... ............ ...... .. ........ .......Service ......... .................... .. .... .... ...... ............ .... ...... ...... ............Privete household .... ... ......... ...... ................. ...... ..... ..... ..... ...... ..Other . .... .. ............... ..... ..... .. ...... .............. ........ .. ..... ..... ......... .. ..


‘arcent

7579737277

677373697869717271777387

71748081

8774727568

736473

100

74837469796070

83797892

All women

~ercentl

6571747687

647473718172737573757181

71757982

9076717064

73807695

72817770778166

73797885

inhousands

3981,0662,951

814661

350188245282399355361828837815215

1,020

2,3991,737

972788

7122,5111,855

677153

4,568887377

72

681245305

2,036121

1,046*42

*491,055

99*9

Last birth in 1970-73

‘ercent

6367605766

416266596854615958586580

58656470

7858606954

597366

*

63615753617279

827070

*9 I

ldjusted)ercent 1

4656636371

386468596458646060596373

59656265

7959606351

606869

*

666561536371

*7 I

776662

*6(1

Numberin

thousands

149439

1,25133q271

11796

14116322817717435Q340222*61’347

1,16Q736272293

3321,049

730284*62

1,872363184

*

35778

119810*48478*22

*I8480*44

*5

30

Table 12. Percent, adjusted percent,l and number of women W+IO returned to work since the latest birth, by selacted characteristics,according to year of latest birth: avar-married women 1544 yeara of a~ who worked during the latest pregnency,2 United States,1973 – Con.

Charectaristic

Region

Northeast .... ............ .... .... .. ......... ..... .... .. ...... ... ..... .. ........... ... ....North Central ........ .. .... .. .... .......... ..... .... ..... ...... ..... .... ......... .. .. ..

Wast ... .... ..... ... ........... .. ....... ......... ... . .. ... ........... ..... ... .. .. ........ ....

Place of rasidence

Metropolitan ... .......... ...... ...... ........ .... .. .... .......... .. . ..... ......... .. .. .Nonmetropolitin ....... ..... ....... ......... ..... .... .......... ..... ... .. .......... ..

Year of latest birth3

Before 1955 or 1970 ... .... ... .... ........... ...... ... ........... ..... ... .. ....... .1955-59 or 1971 .. ........ .. .. ... ....... ........ .... ...... .. ........ .... ..... ....... .1960-64 or 1972 ............ .... .... ............ .... ...... .. ........ ..... .... ........1965-69 or 1973 ......... .... .... .... .. .......... ... .... .. ........... .... .... ........1970.73 ....... ... .. .. .... ............. .. . ..... .......... .... ... ... .. ....... ... ... .. .......

Additional children expected

None ........... .. ..... .. ..... ............. .... .... ............ ... .... ........... ... ... . ....1....... .. .. ........... ..... .. ..... ... ....... .... .. ... .......... .. .... ... ... ....... .... . .... ...2 or more ........ ....... ..... .......... ...... .... ........... ...... .. .. ......... ... ...... .

Percent

71727778

7477

10094936462

756879

All women

Adjustedpercentl

71737777

7378

9390908562

757475

Numberin

1,1111,4902,1871,123

4,1171,810

*55345

1,0783,3412,460

2,0841,5832,219


Percent

55576863

6066

77746028...

615966

Adjustedpercentl

57566763

5966

75746128.. .

616064

Numberin

thousands

416603

1,024414

1,646813

690864694212

...

708947800

lAdjusted by Mu@Ie Clarification ~alysi~ for re]i~ow denomination, religious participation, and all other variables in th~ table;

see text and appendix I for further discussion.21nc]udes OnIY pre~ancies that ended in a live b~th-3&fier date on each line refera to columns headed “~ women, ,, and later date refers to columns headed “Latest birth in

1970 -73.”

NOTE: See appendix H for definitions of characteristics.

31

Table 13. Number and cumulative percent of women who worked since the Ietest birth, by number of months” since latest birth,

according to race, education, and parity: aver-married woman 1544 years of age whose latest birth was 12-23 months SLSO,UnitedStatas, 1973

Months since latest birth

All women ..... ...... ........ .. ......... ..

2 ..... ... .. .............. .. .... .. ...... .. .. .............. .. .... .

4 ..... ............. .......... .... ....... ... ........... .. ...... ..

6 ....... .......... .... ........ ...... ..... ............. .. ... ... ..

8 ............. .... ...... .......... .............. ...... .... .... ..

10 .......... ..... ..... .. .. .... .. ............ .... .. .... ... ..... .

12 ...... ... ...... .. ......... ..... ........... ..... ...... .... .. ..

E Race

Total 1

Wh ita Black

2,686 n 2,388

I

5.2 5.2

14.9 14.0

20.0 18.6

24.6 22.9

28.7 27.1

-u_l13

Education I Perity

E51c4E2Number in thousands

1-1 2

268 I 733 I 1,390 I 562 I 1,039 I 833

Cumulative percent

*5.6 *7.9 ●4 .7 *3.O *3.6 *5.719.7 16.8 15.3 *11.3 16.3 13.5

30.6 21.0 21.5 14.6 23.3 17.0

38.2 25.9 26.5 18.1 31.3 18.841.3 30.6 30.6 21.4 34.0 24.443,6 33.8 32.9 23.5 36.9 26.5

3or’

more

815

*6.7

14.5

18.8

21.9

26.2

38.8

Table 14. Number and cumulative percent of women who returned to work after the latest birth, by months since latest birth, accorsfhgto race, education, and parity: ever-married women 1544 years of age who workad during the latest pregnancy,l United States,1973

*

Months since latest birth

All women ......... ..... .... ... ...........

....... .... ..... ... .... .. ... ........... .. .... .... .. ..... ... ....: ... .. .. .. .. .. ... ..... ................. ..... .. .. ...... .. ........6 ... .... .. ..... ... . ..... .............. ... ... .. .... ... .. .........8 ....... . ... ...... .. .......... ... ...... ... ........ .... ....... ...10 .............................................................12 ..... ...... .... ............ ... .... ... ...... .... ............ ..

II Race “1 Education I Parity

Total 2

White Black Less than 12 years More than , 2 3 or12 years 12 years more

Number in thousands

1,165 II 1,028 ! 124 I 266 I 619 I 280

Cumulative percent

m

603

*4.520.930.842.243.746.0

326 I 236

‘14.227.933.936.942.845.6

*1 7.938.046.449.758.863.5

lrncludes onl y pregnancies that ended in a live ~~th.21ncludes races other than white or black.

32

APPENDIXES-

CONTENTS

L

IL

IIL

L

IL

L

IL

IJ.L

IV.

TeefmicfdNotes..............................................................................................................................Background ...............................................................................................................................Statistical Design .......................................................................................................................Measurement Process ................................................................................................................Data Reduction .........................................................................................................................Reliability of Estimates .............................................................................................................Nonsarnpling Error ................................................... ........................................................ .........Interview Nonresponse ..............................................................................................................Item Nonresponse .....................................................................................................................The Open Interval Problem ...................................... .................................................................

34343435353536404042

Definition of Terms ........ ................................................................................................................ 44

Items on Questionnaire Relating to Employment of Mothers in Inta-vrds Before, Between, andAfter Births ................................................................................................................................. 49

LIST OF APPENDIX FIGURES

Relative standard errors for numbers of women, by race: National Survey of Family Growth,Cycle I ............................. ................................................ ............................................................ 37

Relative standard errors for percent of total and white women (base of percent shown in curve inthousands): National Suivey of Family Growth, Cycle I ............................................................ 38

LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES

Approximate standard errors for estimated percents expressed in percentage points for white andtotal women: National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle 1 ................... ...................................... 39

Approximate standard errors for estimated percents expressed in percentage points for blackwomem National Survey of Family Growth, Cycle I .................................................................. 39

Approximate standard errors for estbnated numbers for white and total women: National Surveyof Family Growth, Cycle I ................................................................. .......................................... 39

Approximate standard errors for estimated numbers for black women: National Survey ofFamily Growth, Cycle I ................” ............................................................................................. 39

33

APPENDIX I

TECHNICAL NOTES

Background

This report is one of a series of statisticalreports based cm information collected from anationwide sample of wornen by the NationalSurvey of Family Growth, conducted by theNational Center for Health Statistics.

The National Survey of Family Growth(NSFG) utilizes a questionnaire to obtain demo-graphic information and information on fer-tility, family planning, and health factors relatedto childbearing. As data relating to varioussubjects within these broad topics are tabulatedand analyzed, separate reports are issued. Thepresent report is based on data collected in thefirst cycle of the survey which was centered onSeptember 1973.

The population covered by the sample forthe NSFG is women 15 to 44 years of age livingin households in the conterminous United Statesat the time of interview who were ever marriedor had offspring living with them. The sampledid not include women living in institutions orgroup quarters. Personal interviews were con-ducted by the staff of the National OpinionResearch Center (NORC), Chicago, beginning inJuly 1973 and ending in February 1974.

Statistical Design

The sampling plan for the survey was amultistage probability design. Black householdsand households of all other races were selectedat different probabilities so that the sample wascomposed of about 40 percent black women and60 percent women of all other races. The samplewas designed so that tabulations could beprovided for each of the four geographic regionsof the United States.

34

The first stage of the sample design consistedof drawing a sample of primary sampling units(PSU’S). A PSU consisted of a county, a smallgroup of contiguous counties, or a standardmetropolitan statistical area as defined by theU.S. Bureau of the Census in March 1971. Thesecond and third stages of sampling were used toselect several segments (clusters of about 100dwelling units) within each PSU. A systematicsample of dwelling units was then selected fromeach segment. Each sample dwelling unit wasvisited by an interviewer who listed all house-hold members. If a woman under 45 years ofage, ever married, or with offspring in thehousehold, was listed as being in the household,an extended interview was conducted. If morethan one woman in the household met the .eligibility criteria, one of the women was ran-domly selected for an extended interview.

Since the design of the NSFG was a complexmultistage probability sample, the derivation ofestimates involved three basic operations:

2.

2.

Injlation by the reciprocal of the prob-ability of selection. —The probability ofselection is the product of the prob-abilities of selection from each step ofselection in the design (PSU, segment-stratum, listing unit, household, and sam-ple persons within household).

Nonresponse adjustment.–The estimateswere inflated by a multiplication of twofactors. The first has the number ofsample households in a given PSU andstratum as its numerator and the numberof households screened in the PSU andstratum as its denominator. The secondfactor has as its numerator the number of

screened households having an eIigiblewoman of a specific age and race classand PSU group, and as its denominator,the number of women actually inter-viewed in the same age and race class andPSU. Screener response for the totalsurvey was 89.8 percent and interviewresponse was 90.2 percent for the totalsample, yielding an overall response rateof approximately 81.0 percent.

3. Poststratificatt’on by marital status-age-race. —The estimates are ratio adjustedwithin each of 12 age-race cells to anindependent estimate of the populationfor ever-married women. These indepen-dent estimates were derived from theU.S. Bureau of the Census Current Popu-lation Surveys of 1971-73. The numberof single women with offspring Iivingwith them were inflated by steps 1 and 2.

All figures are individually rounded; aggre-gate figures are rounded to the nea-est thousand.The sums of aggregates and percents may notadd up to the total due to the rounding.

The effect of the ratio-estimating process isto make the sample more closely representativeof the population of women under age 45 years,living in households in the conterminous UnitedStates, and ever married or with offspring livingwith them. The final poststratification reducesthe sample variance of the estimates for moststatistics.

Descriptive material on the sampling designand estimation procedures may be found inanother reports

Measurement Process

Field operations for the survey were con-ducted by NORC as agent for NCHS. Theirresponsibilities included pretesting the interviewschedule, selecting the sample, interviewingrespondents , and carrying out quality controIchecks. The questionnaire was pretested inNovember 1972 and subsequent smaller fieldtrials were held in March 1973. Interviewerswere trained for a week prior to fieldwork andhad their first few schedules reviewed thor-oughly. During the first part of the fieldwork,

NOTE: A list of references follows the text.

each interview schedule was reviewed for thecompleteness of certain key items and moreintensive review and folIowup were performed iferrors were discovered. Review and followupwere reduced to a sample of each interviewer’swork in the later part of the fieldwork. A10-percent sample of all households with tele-phones was recontacted to verify the interviewand the accuracy of a few items. All of theseoperations were monitored by NCHS.

The parts of the interview schedule appli-cable to this report are reproduced in appendixHI. The compIete schedules are avaiIable uponrequest. Two different forms were used, one forinterviewing currently married women and theother for interviewing widowed, divorced, sepa-rated, or single women with their own childrenliving with them. The two forms differ mainly inwording when reference is made to the husband;there are a few questions in each schedule thatdo not appear in the other.

Data Reduction

Coding and keying were done by NORC andthe U.S. Bureau of the Census. Each coder’swork was systematicalIy sarnpIed for verifica-tion. Keying at the Bureau of the Census wasperformed on key-to-disk equipment programedto reject invalid entries. Each keyer’s work wassystematically sampled for verification. The datawere edited by the Bureau of the Census andNCHS to minimize internal inconsistencies.After editing, value entries were imputed tocases with missing data on an item-by-item basis.No item with more than 15 percent missing datawas included in the imputation. The imputedvalue entry for a case was selected from arandomly chosen case with simiktr character-istics such as race, age, and marital status, usinga procedure known as “hot deck” imputation.

Reliability of Estimates

Since the statistics presented in this reportare based on a sample, they may differ some-what from the figures that would have beenobtained if a compIete census had been takenusing the same questionnaires, instructions,interviewing personnel, and field procedures.This chance difference between sample resultsand a complete count is referred to as sampIing

35

.+

error and is measured by a statistic called thestandard error of estimate. The relative standarderror of an estimate is obtained by dividing- thestandard error of the estimate by the estimateitself and is expressed as a percent of theestimate. Included in this appendix are chartsand tables from. which the relative standarderrors can be determined for estimates shown inthis report. In order to derive relative errors thatwould be applicable to a wide variety of healthstatistics and that could be prepared at amoderate cost, a number of approximationswere required. As a result, the charts provide anestimate of the approximate relative standarderror rather than the precise, error for anyspecific statistic. The standard errors were com-puted using a progedure known as balancedhalf-sample replication.g

The chances are about 68 out of 100 that anestimate from the sample would differ from acomplete census by less than the standard error.The chances are about 95 out of 100 that thedifferences between the sample estimate and acomplete count would be less than twice thestandard error. In this report numbers andpercents that have a standard error more than25 percent of the estimate itself are considered“unreliable.” They are marked with an asteriskto caution the user, but may be combined tomake other types of comparisons of greaterprecision.

In this report, sample stati~ics are-comparedamong subgroups or across yearn., using thenormal deviate test at the .05 level of confi-dence. A statistically significant differenceamong comparable proportions or other statis-tics from two or more subgroups is one suffi-ciently greater than zero that a difference ofthat size or larger would be expected in less than5 percent of repeated samples of the same sizeand type if there were no true difference in thepopulations sampled. If the observed differenceor a larger one could be expected in more than 5percent of repeated samples, one cannot besufficiently confident to conclude that there is atrue difference in the populations. When anobserved difference is sufficiently greater thanzero to be statistically significant, the truedifference in the population is estimated to lie

NOTE: A list of references follows the text-

between the observed difference plus or minustwo standard errors of that difference in 95 outof 100 samples.

When two or more sample statistics arecompared and the y have only small, statisticallynonsignificant differences among them, theymay be referred to as the “same” or “similar.”However, where a substantial difference ob-served is found to be not statistically significant,one should not conclude that no differenceexists, but simply that such a difference cannotbe established with 95-percent confidence fromthis sample. Observed differences that aredescribed in terms such as “greater,” “less,”“larger, “ “smaller,” etc., have been tested andfound statistically significant. Lack of com-ment in the text about any two statistics doesnot mean the difference was tested and found tobe not significant.

The standard error of a difference betweentwo comparative statistics, say the proportionwith characteristic M among black women com-pared with white women, is approximately thesquare root of the sum of the squares of thestandard errors of the statistics considered sepa-ratel y.

A formula for the standard error of adifference, d = PI - P2, is

u/j = <(PI’ J’pl)z + (P*VP2)2

where PI is the proportion for one group, P2 theproportion for the comparative group, and VP~and ‘Vp z are the relative standard errors of PIand P2, respectively. This formula wiIl representthe actual standard error quite accurately for thedifference between separate and uncorrelatedcharacteristics, although it is only a roughapproximation in most other cases. The relativestandard error of various proportions can beestimated from figures I and II and tables I-IVfor statistics based on the NSFG.

Nonsampling Error

In addition to sampling error, the surveyresults are subject to several sources of potentialnonsampling error, including interview non-response, nonresponse to individual questionswithin the interview, inconsistency of responsesto individual questions, respondent error ormisreporting, and errors of recording, coding, or

36

Figure 1. Relti-va standard errors for numbers of women, by race: National Survey of Familv Growth, Cvcle I

Lua

A’ 3 4 56789A’ A’

3 456789 3 4 56789A 2 3 456789A 2 3 456789

1 10 100 1@O

ESTIMATED NUMBER OF WOMEN (IN THOUSANDS)

Example of use of chart: An aggregate of 2 million women (on the scale at the bottomrelative standard error of 4.8 percent, or a standard error of 96,000 (4.8 percent of 2 million).

105)0

of the chart) of all races has a

Figure 11. Relative standard errors for percent of total and white women (base of percent shown in curve in thousands): National

I.1.l>

Survey of Family Growth, Cycle I100

9080

70

60

50

$0

30 L u ml I I N I .“. I <1 I ml I I i 1 1*

1111

20

10987

6

5

4

3

2

1.9.a

.7

.6

.5

1 I I I [ I I I 1 1 1~

.-

.4

.3

.2

‘~ 2 3 45678’! 2 3 45678:~o 2 3 ““’:~m

ESTIMATED PERCENT

Example of use of chart: An estimate of 10 percent (from the scale at the bottom of the chart)of a pop;latiok sub~-oup of 1 million women (filth curve from the top) has a relative standard errorof 20.0 percent, or a standard error of 2.0 percent (20.0 percent of 10 percent).

Table 1. Approximate standard errors for estimated percents expressed in percentage points for white and total women: NationalSurvey of Family Growth, Cycle I

>

Base of parcent

lm.m ..............................................................................................................m.m ..............................................................................................................l.m.m ...........................................................................................................

Estimated percent

2 or98

3.01.30.90.50.40.30.3

—5 or95

.

4.62.11.50.80.60.50.5

10or90

f

30 or 40 or70 50

9.7 10.44.3 4.63.1 3.31.8 1.81.4 1.51.2 1.21.0 1.0

20 or80

50

10.64.73.31.91.51.31.1

6.42.82.01.20.90.80.6

8.53.82.71.51.21.00.8

5;ooo;fMo ......... ..... ... ... ......... ... ... ..... ........... .. ..... .......... ..... ... .. ...... ... ... .... ......... ... .7.m.m ......... ....... .... ........... ..... .... ........ ....... ... .. ........ .... .. .... ........ .. .. .... .......... .. .lo.m.m ......... .. ....... .......... ... .. .. .... .......... .... .... ........ ...... .... ....... .. ..... ... .. ........ ...

Table 11. Approximate standerd errors for estimated percents expressad in percentage points for Mck women: National Survey ofFamily Growth, Cycle I

Estimated percent

5 or95

12.38.73.92.71.61.21.00.9

10 or80

17.012.0

5.43.82.21.71.41.2 E

30 or 400r ~70 80

25.9 27.7 28.3~8.3 19.6 20.0

8.2 8.8 8.95.8 6.2 6.33.3 3.6 3.62.6 2.8 2.82.2 ~3 2.41.8 2.0 2.0

Base of percent

5@ ............ .... .... ...... .......... .. ... ..... . .. .......... ..... .... .. ........ ..... .... ......... .. ...... ... .......lo.m ... .. ... ........ ... ... .. ...... .......... . .. .... .... ....... ...... ... ... ...... .. .. .... .... ........ .. ... .... .......60,000 .. ........... ... .. .. .. ... ... .. .......... ..... ... ......... .. ..... .. . .......... ...... ..... ........... .... .. ... ....

2 or98

7.95.62.51.81.00,80.70.6

20 or80

22.616.0

7.15.12.92.31.91.6

m;m..............................................................................................................l.m.m ...........................................................................................................

Table ill. Approximate standard errors for estimated numbers TeblelV. Approximate standard errors for estimated numbersfor white and total women: National Survey of Family for black women: National Suwev of Family Growth,Growth, Cycle I

—Cycle I

Relativestandard

error

Relativastandard

error

Standarderror

Standarderror

Size of estimate Size of estimate

50,000 .................................................Ioo,ooo ...............................................200,000 ...............................................5U0,000 ...............................................l,m#m ............................................2,000,000 ..... .. .. .. .......... .. ..... ... .. .. ...... ...5,000,000 ... ....... ......... .. .. .. .. ...... .......... .Io,ooo,ooo .. ... ... ... .......... .. ... .. .... .... ......20,000,000 ..... .. .......... .. ..... ... ...... ........ .

30.021.215.0

9.56.74.83.02.21.5

15,00021,00030,00047,00067,00095,000

151,000216,000311,000

25,000 .... ......... .. .. ....... ........ ....... .. ... .....50,000 .... .. ...... ... ... ..... ......... .. . .... .... ......100,OOO .. ... ...... ....... ..... ......... ..... ..... .....150,000 ... .. ........ .... ...... ...... .... .. ... . ... .....250,000 ..... ....... .... .. .. .. ........... ..... ... ......350,000 .... ......... .... .. .. .. .. ........ .... .. .... .. ..500,0Q0 .... .......... ....... . ............ .... ...... ...750,000 .. .... ........ .... ... .. ... ......... ... ... .. ....l,m,w ... ......... .. .. ... . .... ...... ... ..... ... ...

25.317.912.710.3

8.06.85.74.74.0

6,0009,000

!3,00016,00020,00024,00028,00035,00040,000

39

keying by survey personnel. It is impossible tomeasure the extent of nonsampling errorsaccurately. Although some useful approximatemeasures can be made of some types of nonsam-pling error, the survey must rely upon severalquality control procedures and other methodsincorporated into the survey design to minimizenonsampling error.

Estimated numbers of women representingthe numerators of the percents shown have beenpresented in the tables for the readers’ conven-ience. These estimates are subject to somewhatlarger rounding differences than usual, sincethey are the products of the whole percentsshown and the corresponding subpopulations ofever-married women 15 to 44 years of age ex-pressed in thousands. Column sums may occa-sionally differ from their totals by as much as apercentage point or fractionally higher. How-ever, individual figures will be rounded withinhalf a percentage point of the sample value,which is generally well within the sampling vari-abilityy of the estimate.

Interview Nonresponse

Interview nonresponse, or the failure toobtain whoIe interviews, arises from severalsources—incomplete Iisting of households for thesamplirijg frame, inability to screen all samplehouseholds for eligible respondents, and inabil-ity to complete a full interview. Completeness oflisting cannot be tested directly as it requires anindependent, accurate accounting of the house-holds that should have been listed. In the NSFG+listing accuracy was tested at the time ofscreening by use of the “half open interval”check for missed households; that is, at desig-nated sample households, the interviewer wasrequired to check for dwelling units between thesample household just screened and the nextlisted dwelling unit. This procedure resulted inthe addition of 781 missed units or an additional2.4 percent to the original sample of dwellingunits to be screened.

Of the original sample of 32,818 dwellingunits to be screened, 3,820 were found to bevacant, not dwelling units, or group quarters. Ofthe remaining dwelling units, 9.7 percent werenot successfully screened. This included 2.3percent refusals to have the household members

listed; 1.6 percent with language problems,illness, or otherwise unavailable -in ‘the fieldperiod; 4.6 percent where no one could befound at home; and 1.1 percent for otherreasons such as refused access to the unit.

Of the 26,177 households for which screen-ing was completed, 10,879 were found tocontain an eligible respondent. However, inter-views were not completed in 9.8 percent ofthese cases because of refusals by the eligiblerespondents (5.0 percent ); language, illness, andrelated problems (2.0 percent ); and no contactafter repeated calls (2.7 percent).

The nonresponse adjustment for interviewnonresponse described above imputes to non-responding dwelling units and women the char-acteristics of similar respondent dwelling unitsand women.

{tern Nonresponse

Nonresponse to individual questions (itemnonresponse) was less than 2 percent for abouthalf (51 percent) of the items. Item nonresponseoccurred when the person refused to answer thequestion, when the person did not know theanswer to the question, when the question waserroneously not asked or the answer not re-corded by the interviewer, and when the answerwas uncodable. For 37 percent of the items,nonresponse occurred between 2.0 and 10.0percent. For the remaining 12 percent of theitems, nonresponse was greater than 10 percentof persons eligible to answer the items. IHalf ofthese high nonresponse items were concentratedin two areas-detailed income questions andquestions about the reasons for switching fromone contraceptive method to another. The re-maining high nonresponse items were generallythose asked of small numbers of persons.

The amount of missing data or imputedvalues for various items will usually be shownwith the definition in appendix II, especiallywhere it is substantial. Some illustrative itemswith their associated nonresponse rates are: thenumber of children ever born (pari~y) (nomissing data), intentions about having anotherchild (O.7 percent), whether no contraceptivemethod was used or whether contraception wasstopped in order to become pregnant (1.9

40

percent), highest grade of school attended (O.1percent), and total family income (6.8 percent).

For most items, an adjustment for missingdata was made by one of four imputationprocedures. In order of frequency employedthey were: (1) “hot deck” imputation, (2)imputation from a sorted file, (3) editing fromother data within the same case, and (4)allocation based on technical judgments.

“Hot deck” imputation refers to a procedurein which the file is first randomized. Next amatrix is created for values of items (e.g., race,age, and marital status) judged to be correlatedwith the item to be imputed (e.g., number oftimes married). A reasonable “cold deck” value(e.g., 2 = married twice) is assigned to each cellof the matrix in case the first file record withthe given characteristics has missing data. Therandomized file is processed and each record isidentified as belonging to one cell of the matrix(e.g., white, age 25-29, currently married). Theitem to be imputed is checked: If it is blank—not applicable (e.g., not married before), it isignored; if it has a missing data code, the code inthe matrix is placed in the record. If it has anacceptable code, that code replaces the codealready in the matrix, and it remains in thematrix until another record with the samecharacteristics and a known code is encountered.This insures that the probability of a code beingassigned to a record with missing data is thesame as the probability of that code occurringamong records with the same characteristics butwith known data.

For imputation from a sorted file, therecords are first sorted by selected character-istics (e.g., marital status, race, and age) so thatthe first group of records would be currentlymarried, black women aged 15-19, the secondgroup would be currently married black womenaged 20-24, etc. An initial value is assigned forthe item to be imputed–e.g., 4 (tubal ligation)for type of sterilization-and for any itemdependent on the item to be imputed–e.g., 9(not ascertained) as to whether the operationwas for contraceptive reasons. The ordered file isprocessed and each record is checked. If theitem to be imputed is bknk—not applicable, it isignored; if it has a known code, it and itsdependent items would replace the existing setof values; if it has a missing data code, it and its

dependent items wocdd be changed to the presetvalues just stated. This procedure insures thatthe imputed code is reasonable for the orderingcharacteristics and that the probability of assign-ment is the same as in the population in general.There will be some bias, however, as theboundaries between groups are crossed.

Where sampIing error =ffects the precision ofsurvey estimates, nonsampling error introducesbias. Imputation procedures reduce this bias tothe extent that the assumptions about therelations between respondent and nonrespond-ent characteristics are true. But the amount ofremaining bias, if any, cannot be measured.Therefore, stringent quality control procedureswere introduced at every stage of the survey,including the check on completeness of thehousehold listing mentioned earlier, the exten-sive training and practice of interviewed, fieldobservations of interviewed, field editing ofquestionnaires, short verification interviews witha subsample of respondents and missed house-holds, verification of coding and editing, anindependent recode of a sample of question-naires by NCHS, keypunch verification, and anextensive computer “cleaning” to check forimpermissible codes, missing data, and responseinconsistencies. One source of bias that can beevaluated through speciaI studies but cannot becontrolled is respondent error, whether delib-erate or unwitting. In this as in other surveys,the data are subject to problems of accuraterecall and of the stability of respondents’ viewsfrom one time to the next.

Standardization. –The overall rate at whichan event occurs in a population depends on thedistribution of its members in different cate-gories (its “composition”), and the rates atwhich the event occurs in each category (its“category-specific rates”). For instance, theoverall birth rate of a population depends on itsage composition and age-specific birth rates. Adifference between the overall rates of twopopulations may result from differences in theircompositions, differences in their category-specific rates, or some combination of both; ~forinstance, if the birth rate of a population ishigher than that of another, it may be becauseits population is more concentrated in the youngages which have high birth rates, or because itsbirth rates are higher at all ages, or both.

41

Often interest focuses on differences inrates, not differences in composition, so statis-tics are needed that are unaffected by differ-ences in composition. The category-specificrates, such as the age-specific birth rate, havesuch characteristics but they pertain only- toparticular categories, whereas it is often desiredto have a single statistic that pertains to thewhole population. A variety of techniques hasbeen developed to produce overall rates forpopulations that are unaffected, or relativelyunaffected, by population composition; theymay be referred to collectively as techniques of“standardization.” Although the several tech-niques differ in significant details, they havea common strategy: Assume the populationsbeing compared have the same “standard” com-position, apply the category-specific rates ofeach population to the numbers in each categoryof the standard population, sum the numbers ofevents that would have occurred in each popula-tion under these assumptions, and divide by thetotal number in the standard population toarrive at a standardized overall rate. The stand-ardized rate is interpreted as the rate that eachpopulation would have if its composition werethat of the standard population. It is an artificialrate that corresponds to no real rate, but itmakes possible interpopulation rate comparisonsthat are unaffected by differences in compo-sitions.

The Multiple Classification Analysis (MCA)technique used in this report is analogous tostandardization just described in that it adjustsrates (through multiple regression) for dif-ferences in composition. This procedure was de-veloped at the University of Michigan, and isnow widely available as a part of many comput-er software packages. MCA computes standard-ized rates for subpopulations, using the totalpopulation as the standard. The MCA-stand-ardized rate, like any standardized rate, may beinterpreted as the overall rate which the subpop-ulation would have if it had its own category-specific rates, but the composition of the totalpopulation. Because all MCA-standardized ratesin a table use the same total population as stand-ard, comparisons between them are unaffectedby differences in composition. It is not appro-priate, however, to compare MCA-standardizedrates from different tables in this report.

The adjusted percents shown in each tablehave been standardized for all other variablesshown in the same table, and, where indicated,by religious denomination and religious partic-ipation as well. The categories of religion used inthe standardization were: Catholic, Baptist,Lutheran, Fundamentalist, other Protestantdenominations, and other and Jewish. The cate-gories of religious participation were: weeklyattendance at religious services, once a month ormore, occasionally, never, refused an answer,and no religion. A further discussion of thedefinitions of these variables is found inappendix II. For the employment variablesconsidered, there were few significant differ-ences between groups of women classified byreligious denomination and religious participa-tion.

In Multiple Classification Analysis, as inother techniques of standardization, it isassumed that the effect of one variable on asecond is the same for all values of any third (orfourth, or fifth, etc.) variable included in theanalysis. (In technical terms, it is assumed thatthe effects are “additive.”) In fact, the effect ofone variable on a second is sometimes differentfor different values of a third variable. (Intechnical terms, there are “interactions” amongthe variables.) In such cases, interpretationsbased on assumptions of equal effects may bemisleading; that possibility is often outweighed,however, by. the gain in interpretive insightderived from standardizing for one or morevariables simultaneously.

The relative standard errors of MCA-stand-ardized percents are estimated to be approxi-mately equal to the relative standard errors ofunadjusted percents, so the same tables andcharts of standard errors may be used.

The Open Interval Problem

For all intervals of time not necessarilycompleted before the date of interview (allexcept the interval before marriage), somestrategy must be employed to avoid a downwardbias in the estimation of the experience of themore recent cohorts when intercohort comparis-ons are being made. For example, for womenmarried only a few years before interview,

42

women who have already had a first birthrepresent those with the shortest intervals andthus the least opportunity to work before theirfirst birth. Among women of the same marriagecohort who wiIl eventually have a first birth,some who have not yet worked since marriagewill do so before ti,eir first birth.

Two strategies are employed to minimize thepotential bias from open intervals. First, laborforce participation levels are not considered forthe most recent cohorts in which the proportionof closed intervals of aJl intended intervals isquite low. Thus, although we can examinepremaritzd employment for the 1970-73 mar-riage cohorts, the series for first-birth intervalsnecessarily terminates in 1969, and that forsecond-birth intervals terminates in 1967.Eighty-seven percent of the 1965-69 cohortintending a first birth were at first or higher

parity and 72 percent of the 1965-67 cohortintending a second birth were at second orhigher parity.

The second strategy is to include the openinterval experience of the remaining women whointend to close the interval in question. Sincethe previous rule necesszu-iIylimits such womento those with longer intervak, any remainingunderestimate of their employment experienceshould be minimal. Thus, included in themeasure of “ever worked” for a given interval isthe experience since the beginning of thatinterval of women who intend to close it. Forexample, the measure of employment before thefirst birth includes in the numerator zero-ptitywomen who intend to have a child and who haveworked since marriage; the denominatorincIudes all zero-parity women who intend tohave a child.

000

APPENDIX II

DEFINITION OF TERMS

Age.–Age of women at different events intheir lives is classified according to the lastcompleted year or age at last birthday. Age isgenerally calculated by subtracting the reporteddate (month and year) of birth from thereported date of the event for which age is beingcalculated. In some instances, the month of anevent was unreported and age was then calcul-ated using the years only. In still other in-stances, the respondent did not recall a givendate but did recall her age at the time of theevent and-reported this directly. ,

Age of the respondent at the interview(current age) was known for every case, sincethis was a sampling criterion. However, for otherevents (such as marriage, the birth of a child, ordivorce), the date may not have been completelyreported or neither date nor age at the* eventmay have been recorded. In these cases, age wasimputed by imputing a year in which the eventwas presumed to have occurred. These imputa-tions were then checked for consistency withthe dates and ages reported at other relatedevents.

Race. –Women are classified as white, black,or “other races” according to the interviewer’sobservations at the time of interview. Agreementbetween this classification and the respondent’sown reports of ethnic origin, also obtained inthe interview, was very high; for instance, ofthose classified as “black” by interviewerobservation, 100 percent reported their ethnicorigin as at least partly “black, African, orNegro t’ and of those who reported their ethnicorigin as “black, African, or Negro,” 96 percentwere classified as “black” by interviewer obser-vation. Race was imputed for 10 cases.

Ethnicity.–Information about ethnic originswas obtained for the woman and her husband by

asking, “What is your (his) origin or descent?”Persons were classified as being of Hispanicorigin if any of the following responses weregiven: Mexicano, Chicano, Mexican American,Puerto Rican, Cuban, Hispano, or any otherSpanish origin or descent. Persons who did notgive any of those responses were classified asbeing not of Hispanic origin. Persons may havemore than one origin or descent, and multipleresponses to the questions were recorded. How-ever, any of the responses listed above :resultedin classification of the person as being ofHispanic origin, regardless of any otherresponses that may have accompanied it. Itshould be noted that in this report the classifi-cations of race and ethnicity are independent;

each ethnic category may include persons of allraces, and each racial category may includepersons of all ethnic groups. Etlulicity wasreported for more than 99 percent of respond-ents and husbands.

Rega”on of residence. –Data are classified byregion of residence into the four major Censusregions: Northeast; North Central, South, andWest. Sample size very greatly restricts thepossibility of meaningful analyses by socialcharacteristics among smaller geographic divi-sions. The areas comprising these four majorgeographic regions are:

Geogaphic regi”on anddivision

States included

Northeast

New England ...........Maine. New Hamp-shire, Vermont, Mas-sachusetts, Rhode Is-land, Connecticut

44

Middle Atlantic .......New York, New .ler-

North Central

East North Central

West North Central

sey, Pennsylvania

...Ohio. Indiana, IIIinois,Michigan, Wisconsin

..Minnesota, Iowa, Mis-souri, North Dakota,South Dakota, Ne-braska, Kansas

south

South Atlantic .........Delaware. Maryland,District of Columbia,Virginia, West Vir-ginia, North Caro-lina, South CaroIina,Georgia, Florida

East South Central ...Kentucky. Tennessee,Alabama, Mississippi

West South CentraI ..Arkansas, Louisiana,Oklahoma, Texas

West

Mountain .................Montana. Idaho, Wy-oming, Colorado,New Mexico, Arizona,Utah, Nevada

Pacific ......................Washing-ton. Oregon,AIaska, California,Hawaii

Metropolitan-ra onmetropolitan residence.–The population residing in standard metropoli-tan statistical areas (SMSA’S) constitutes themetropolitan population. Except in NewEngland, an SMSA is a county or group ofcontiguous counties that contains at least onecity of 50,000 inhabitants or more, or %vincities” with a combined population of at least50,000. In addition to the county or countiescontaining such a city or cities, contiguouscounties are included in an SMSA if, accordingto certain criteria, they are essentiality metropoli-tan in character and are socially and economi-cally integrated with the central county. In NewEngland, SMSA’S consist of towns and cities,rather than counties. The metropolitan popula-tion in this report is based on SMSA’S as defined

in the 1970 census and does not include anysubsequent additions or changes. For a detaileddiscussion see the Bureau of the Budget publica-tion, Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas:1967.9

Man”tal status. –Marital status was a criterionof sample selection. The NSFG sampled womenwho were currently married at the time ofinterview, had ever been married, or had neverbeen married but had offspring (i.e., childrenborn to them) in the household. Current maritalstatus was recorded in seven categories in re-sponse to the question, “Is (PERSON) nowmarried, widowed, divorced or annulled, sepa-rated, or has he/she never been married?” Theseven categories in which answers were recordedwere: married, informal union, widowed,divorced or annulled, separated, single with ownchildren, and never married. Women in the k.stcategory were not eligible for the survey.

Married women include those, legaIIy orformally married, whose husbands are living inthe household or are temporarily absent onbusiness, ihess, vacation, etc. and those who areinforndy married or “living together” with amale partner whose usual residence is the samehousehold. Women currently in informal unionswere reported separately but me too few to beseparately classified for analytical purposes.Information on informal unions was obtainedonly if volunteered by the respondent in thecourse of listing household members and theirrelationship to the head of the household.

Divorced women include those legally sepa-rated from their former spouses by a legal decreeof divorce or annulment and free to remarry.AIthough those legally separated but withoutfreedom to remarry belong in the later categoryof separated, there was no direct question in theinterview to establish the issue of freedom toremarry, with certainty. The term “divorce” ispresumed to refer most generally to “absolute”decrees.

Widowed women are those previouslymarried women whose most recent spouses aredeceased.

Separated women are those legally or in-formality separated from their former spouses.Included here would be cases of desertion,


45

informal separation by mutual agreement, andlegal separations in which the partners are notfree to remarry.

Single with own children is a category ofwomen who have begun their childbearing andhave never been married. However, some ofthese women were probably missed in the surveybecause this category was not identified by adirect question. These are single women whohave one or more children born to them andliving with them in the household. Single womenwho gave a child up for adoption or who boardthe child elsewhere, and those who have not hada live birth are not included in the survey.

Marrz”age cohort.–A group of women whowere first married in a specified calend~ periodconstitutes a marriage cohort. Because the infor-mation for classifying women in marriage co-horts comes from a sample at one point in time,the sample of all women who married in aspecific period may be biased. Women who weremarried in a specific period but who wereoutside the ages included in the sample, 15through 44 years, would not be represented inthe marriage cohorts constructed from thesedata. This bias is negligible for recent cohorts,but is significant for earlier cohorts; in earlycohorts, many women who ‘were of relativelyadvanced age at the time of their marriage werepast age 45 at the time of interview, and are notrepresented in the sample. The effect of theiromission is to overrepresent early-marryingwomen in the early cohorts constructed fromthe sample data. For that reason, marriagecohorts earlier than 1955 are not considered inthis report.

Employment in life-cycle stages.–ln addi-tion to her current employment status, respond-ents were asked: “Did you ever work for pay?”in various, specified earlier periods as appro-priate: before first marriage, since first mar-riage, between marriage and first birth, betweenfirst and second birth, between second and thirdbith, and between the third and last birth.Within these periods, women were classified asemployed if they worked for pay and notemployed if they did not. The rate of nonre-sponse to these questions was low, its maximumbeing for questions about employment betweenthe births of the third and the last child: Em-

ployment status was not ascertained for 3percent of women asked about the period, andduration of employment was not ascertained for9 percent. Missing values were imputed.

Employment before and after last birth.–T.odetermine the relationship between pregnancy,childbirth, and employment, women who hadhad a live birth were asked: “How long beforethe birth of your last child did you stopworking?” and “In what month and year didyou begin to work after your (last) child wasborn?” Women who reported they stopped work9 months or less before the last birth wereclassified as having been employed during thatpregnancy; if they reported stopping 3 mo?t%sor less before the birth, they were classified ashaving worked in the last trimester of thepregnancy. These classifications assume a9-month pregnancy before the last birth, and,therefore, may produce erroneous classifications Jof women whose pregnancies were significantlylonger or shorter; in the aggregate, however,these errors would tend to cancel one anotherout.

Responses to the second question, aboutstarting work after the last birth, were used inconjunction with the reported date of the lastbirth to compute the number of months be-tween the birth and subseqiient employment.

About 7 percent of women to whom thesequestions applied could not be classified becauseof missing, data; values were imputed for thosecases.

Occupation.–Ociupation was determined byasking women: “What (is/was) your (main)occupation? That is, what (is/was) your jobcalled? What (are/were) your most importantactivities or duties? What kind of place (do/did)you work for? What do they make or do?” Theanswers to those questions were recorded ver-batim and used by coders to find the mostappropriate standard job title in the 19’70 U. S.’Census occupation classification. If the re-sponses indicated more than one occupation, theprimary occupation was coded. If none wasprimary, the first-mentioned occupation wascoded. Although the classification used was verydetailed, occupations have been grouped intomajor categori& forpractice of the U.S.

this report, according to theBureau of the Census. For a

46

more detailed discussion, see the Department ofCommerce publication, 1970 Census of Popula-tt”on, Detailed Characteristics, U.S. Summa~. ~O

Income.–To determine the husband’s in-come, currently married women whose husbandshad worked in the past 12 months were asked:“In the past 12 months–that is since (MONTH)1972–what did your husband earn in wages,salary, or in his own business or profession?”For the 44 percent of women who did not knowtheir husband’s income or who refused toanswer the question the interviewer continued:

“Here is a card showing amounts of weeklyand yearly incomes. Next to each amount is aletter. Would you tell me what letter representsthe income before taxes and other deductionsthat your husband earned in wages, salary or inhis own business or profession during the past12 months.”

Weeldy incomes were converted to annualamounts. Husband’s income was determined forall but 7 percent of the women asked thesequestions, and values were imputed for them.Since the questions ask only about wages, salary,and business and professional income, this meas-ure of income does not include other forms ofincome, such as unemployment compensation,social security income, welfare payments, anddividends. Information was obtained on theseother sources of income by other questions, butwas not used for this measure of income.

Education. –Education is classified accordingto the highest grade or year of regular school orcollege that was completed. Determination ofthe highest year of reguhr school or collegecompleted by the respondent is based on re-sponses to a series of questions concerning (a)the last grade or year of school attended, (b)whether or not that grade was completed, (c)whether any other schooling of a vocational orgenerally nonacademic type was obtained, and(d) whether or not such other schooling wasincluded in the years of regular school or collegereported in (a). Information on education wasreported almost completely: OnIy about 1 per-cent of the data was imputed.


Education at marriage.-h addition to thequestions about education at the time of theinterview, women were asked: “What was thehighest grade or year of regular school (orcollege) you had completed at the time of your(first) marriage?” Although the foIIowup ques-tions that asked about current educationalattainment were not asked about education atmarriage, responses were coded in the samecategories. Response to this item was nearlycomplete, with less than 1 percent of valuesbeing imputed.

Reli#”on. –Women were classified by religionin response to the question: “Are you Protes-tant, Roman CathoIic, Jewish, or somethingelse?” In addition to the three major religiousgroupings, two other categories-other and none–were used. Since the category of Protestantincludes numerous individual denominations,these respondents were further asked to identifythe denomination to which they belonged.Those who answered “other” to the originalquestion and then named a Protestant denomi-nation were included with their own groups.Although specific denominational names wereobtained and recorded, the numbers of cases formost denominations were too few to producereliable estimates, so they have been combinedin larger categories. Data on religious denomina-tions were reported for all but 26 respondentcases, or more than 99 percent, and these fewcases were imputed.

Reli@-ous participation. –Roman Catholicwomen were asked: “How often do you receivecommunion?” Women in other religious groupswere asked: “About how often do -you usuallyattend religious services?” For only 6.9 women,less than 1 percent , uncodable answers wereobtained, and values were imputed for them.For the purposes of this report, it was assumedthat the question asked Catholic women, andthe question asked other women, were enoughalike to be regarded as measuring the broadlyequiwdent aspects of behavior, so there is onereligious participation measure for all religiousgroups.

Parz”ty.-Parity is the fact or condition ofhaving borne children and is specified in termsof the number of live births a woman has had. Awoman with no live births is referred to in

47

obstetrical and demographic terminology as“nulliparous” or of “zero parity”; a woman withone live birth is referred to as “primaparous” orof “first parity, ” and so forth. A woman’s parityin these surveys is determined from the qhes-tions: “Have you given bitth to a baby at anytime?” and, if yes, “Altogether, how manybabies have you given birth to, including anywho died very young?” The accuracy of thisinformation is further verified by obtainingdetailed data about each pregnancy and addi-tional information on those pregnancies endingin live issue. A complete pregnancy history was aprimary focus of the survey and information onthe number of live births and number ofpregnancies was obtained for 10g, percent of therespondents.

Timing of first birth.–The first live birth isclassified as occurring before or after the first oronly marriage. If the first birth precededmarriage, a woman is classified as having had apremarital birth.

Timing of first pregnancy. -If a woman’sfirst pregnancy ended before marriage, or lessthan 7 months after marriage, she is classified ashaving had a premarital pregnancy.

Additional births expected.–The number ofchildren a woman expects to give birth to in thefuture, including current pregnancy (if appli-cable) is termed, “additional births expected. ”Women who were sterile or married to sterilemen were classified as expecting zero additionalbirths. Those physically able to have births wereasked whether they and their husbands intendedto have any babies in the future and, if so, howmany. Women who did not know whether theyintended any future births, or did not know a

particular number they intended to have, wereasked for the smallest and largest numbers theyexpected to have. Women who reported aparticular number of children they intended tohave were asked how sure they were abouthaving specifically that number. Those uncertainof having that specific number were also askedfor the Imaximum and minimum numbers theyexpected to have.

For each woman, there is a maximum,minimum, and central number of additionalbirths expected. If a woman reported a specificnumber she intended to have, that was con-sidered the central number she expected. If shewas sure about it, that was also the minimumand maximum number she expected. For awoman who was not sure of having just herintended number, the smallest and largest num-bers she expected were her minimum andmaximum numbers, respectively. For a womzmwho did not report any specific number ofintended future births, the average of the small-est and the largest numbers became her centralexpected number. In this report, discussion ofadditional births expected refers to the centralnumber unless specifically identified otherwise.

Since this datum was generated from basicinterview data for which missing data hadalready been imputed, there were no missingdata for additional births expected. It should benoted, however, that imputed data were used ingenerating additional births expected for about6 percent of the cases.

Last child intended. –If a woman had one ormore live births, and she was sterile or intended ‘to have no more children, then her mostrecently born child was the last child intended.

48

000

f? U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, 19S0 C-31 1-240 (40)

e

APPENDIX Ill

ITEMS ON QUESTIONNAIRE RELATING TO EMPLOYMENT OF MOTHERS

IN INTERVALS BEFORE, BETWEE-N, AND AFTER BIRTHS

A. IF YES: Altogether, how long did you work bO 61

before you were (first) married? (YEARS)Less than one year 00

143, IF RHAS NEVER HAD ALIVE BIRTH, SKIP TO Q. 148 (SEE RECALL CHART@);OTHERWISE CONTINUE.

Between the time of your (first) marriage Yes . . . (ASKA) . 1 10

and the birth of your (first) child, didyou ever work for pay?

No. . . . . . . . .2

A. Altogether,.how long did you work between 11 12

the time of your (first) marriage and the (YEAR)birth of your (first) child? Less than one year . 00

l!!!, :~Tg;~H;::sy:o;::u;IRTH’ SKIP TO INTERV. CHECK ITEM BELOW (SEE RECALL.

Between the birth of your first child and Yes . . . (ASKA) . 1 13

the birth of your second child, did youever work for pay?

No. . .: . . . . .2

A. Altogether, how long did you work between 14 1sthe birth of your first child and the (YEARS)birth of your second child? Less than one year . 00

14.5,IF RHAS HAD ONLY TWO LIVE BIRTHS, SKIP TO INTERV. CHECK ITEM BELOW (SEE RECALLCHART ~; OTHERWISE CONTINUE.Between the birth of your second child and Yes . . . (ASKA) . 1 16

the birth of your third child, did you everNo. . . . . . , . .2

work for pay?

A. Altogether, how long did You work between 17 18the birth of your second child and the (YEARS)birth of your third child? Less than one year . 00

1~~, IF RI-M HAD ONLY THREE LIVE BIRTHS, SKIP TO INTERV. CHECK IT13fBELOW (SEE RECALLCHART @j); OTHERWISE CONTINUE.

Between the birth of your third Yes .,. ~ASK A) . 1 19

child and the birth of your lastchild, did you ever work for pay?

NO (SKIP TO Q. 149). 2

A. Altogether, how long did youwork between the birth of your (YEARS)

20 21

third child,and the birth of Less than one year . 00your last child?

INTERVIEWER CHECK ITEM

MORE THAN ONELIVE BIRTH: DID R WORK BETWEEN BIRTH OF NEXT TO LAST CHILD AND LAST CHILD?

Yes . . . . CHECKD& CONTINUE WITH Q. 147.

No. . . . . CHECKm& SKIP TO Q. 149.

Don’t know . CHECK~ CONTINUE WITH Q. 147.ONLY ONELIVE BIRTH: DID R WORK BEFORE BIRTH OF CHILD?

Yes . . . . CHECKO & CONTINUE WITH Q. 147.

No. . . . . CHECK m& SKIP TO Q. 149.

147, How long before the birth of your (last) child did you~ working?

Less than one month (SKIP TO Q. 149) . 00 22 23

Number of months (SKIP TO Q. 149)

One year or more (SKIP TO Q. 149) . . 12

1~~, Since you were (first) married, Yes (ASK A) . ...1have you ever worked for pay?

24

No. . . . . . . . .2

A. Altogether, how long haveyou worked since your (YEAR)

25 26

(first) marriage? Less than one year . 00

~, IF NO LIVj3BIRTHS, sKIp TO Q. 157 (SEE REcmL cH,ART@); OTHERWISE CONTINUE.Have you worked for pay at any time since your (last) child was born?

Yes .1 41

No . &I; ~0 4.”1{7~ . 2

~, Altogether, how long have you worked Less than one year . . . . 00 42 43

since the birth of your (last)child? Number of years . .

~, Inwhatmonth andyeardid you begin mm 1$4 47

to work after your (last) child wasborn? (MONTH) (yEAR)

Series 1.

Series 2.

Series 3.

Series 4.

Series 10.

.Sf’rrc\ /2.

.Vfries t ;,

Swie.s t4,

Series 20.

Series 21.

Series 22.

.%7ies 23.

.

VITAL AND HEALTH STATISTICS Series

Programs and Collection Procedures.–Reports which describe the general programs of the NationalCenter for Health Statistics and its offices and divisions and data collection methods used and includedefinitions and other material necessary for understanding the data.

Data Ezmluatiorr and .Methods Research. –Studies of new statistical methodology including experi-mental tests of new survey methods, studies of vital statistics collection methods, new analyticaltechniques, objective evaluations of reliability of coIlected data, and contributions to statistical theory.

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

Documents tzrzd Committee Reports. –Final reports of major committees concerned with vital andhealth statistics and documents such as recommended model vital registration laws and revised birthand death certificates.

Data Fro m the Health lnterzreu Survey. – Statistlm on illness, accidental injuries, disability, use ofhospital, medical, dental, and other services, and other health-related topics, all based on data collectedin a continuing national household interview survey.

l)ata b TOm the Health Examination Survey and the Health and Nutrition Examirwtion Swoey. Datafrom direct examination, testing, and measurement of national samples of the civilian noninstitu-tionalized population provide the basis for two types of reports: (I) estimates of the medically definedprevalence of specific diseases in the United States and the distributions of the population with respect(o physical, physiological, and psychological characteristics and ( 2) analysis of relationships among thevarious measurements without reference to an explicit finite universe of persons.

L)uta From th< lnstitutionaliz~d Population Survey s.--Disct)ntinued effective 1975. Future reports fromthese surveys will he in Series 13.

Data on Health Resources (’utilization. --Statistics on the utilization of health manpower an[i facilitiesproviding long-term care, ambulatory care, hospital care, and family planning services,

Data on Health Resources: .Wurzpo uwr and Futilities. –Statistics on the numbers, geographic distribution. and characteristics of health resources including physicians, dentists, nurses, other healthoccupations, hospitals+ nursing homes, and outpatient facilities.

Data on Morta/it},. –\’arious statistics on mortality other than as included in regular annual or monthlyreports. Special analyses by cause of death, age, and other demographic variables; geographic and timeseries analyses; and statistics on characteristics of deaths not available from the vital records based onsample surveys of those records.

Data o n .Vatality, .}larriugc, u n(l [Jiz)orc,. I:,wi[>us statistics on natality, marriage, and divorce othexthan as included in regular mnual or monthlv reports. Special analyses by demographic varlahles;geographic and time series ,Iti.IIJ ses; stu(fies {If fertility; and statistics on {characteristics o} births not

available from the vital records based on sample surveys of those records.

Data From the Notional .Wortality and .Vatalit~ Stir? ey.c. Discontinued effective 1975 k uturr rrportsfrom these sample surveys ljased on vital re(t]rds \viil be included in Series 20 and 21, respective.,

Data From the National Sur:ev of Family Growth. Statistics on fertility, family formation and dis-solution, family planning, and related maternal and infant health topics derived from a biennial surveyof a nationwide probability sample of ever-married women 15-44 years of age.

For a list of tit{es of reports published in these series, wr]te to: Scientific and Technical Information BranchNational Center for Health StatisticsPublic Health ServiceI{vattsville, hid. 20782

/