ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

This report presents trends in national birth rates for teenagers, with particular focus on the decade of the 1990s. The percent change in rates for 1991-2000 is presented for the United States, and the change for 1991-99 is presented for States. Tabular and graphical descriptions of the trends in teenage birth rates for the Nation and each State, by age group, race, and Hispanic origin, are discussed. Birth rates for teenagers 15-19 years generally declined in the United States since the late 1950s, except for a brief, but steep, upward climb in the late 1980s until 1991. The 2000 rate (49 births per 1,000) is about half the peak rate recorded in 1957 (96 per 1,000). Still the U.S. rate is considerably higher than rates for other developed countries. During the 1990s rate declines were especially large for black teenagers. State-specific rates fell significantly in all States for ages 15-19 and 15-17 years, and in all but three States for ages 18-19 years. Overall the range of decline in State rates for ages 15-19 years was 11 to 36 percent. For teenagers 15-17 years, the range of decline by State was 13 to 43 percent. Reductions by State were largest for black teenagers 15-19 years, with rates falling 40 percent or more in seven States. The factors accounting for these declines include decreased sexual activity reflecting changing attitudes towards premarital sex, increases in condom use, and adoption of newly available hormonal contraception, implants, and injectables.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Volume 49, Number 10 September 25, 2001
Births to Teenagers in the United States,
1940–2000
by Stephanie J. Ventura, M.A., T.J. Mathews, M.S., and Brady E. Hamilton, Ph.D.
Division of Vital Statistics
Abstract
Objectives—This report presents trends in national birth rates for
teenagers, with particular focus on the decade of the 1990s. The
percent change in rates for 1991–2000 is presented for the United
States, and the change for 1991–99 is presented for States.
Methods—Tabular and graphical descriptions of the trends in
teenage birth rates for the Nation and each State, by age group, race,
and Hispanic origin, are discussed.
Results—Birth rates for teenagers 15–19 years generally declined
in the United States since the late 1950s, except for a brief, but steep,
upward climb in the late 1980s until 1991. The 2000 rate (49 births per
1,000) is about half the peak rate recorded in 1957 (96 per 1,000). Still
the U.S. rate is considerably higher than rates for other developed
countries. During the 1990s rate declines were especially large for black
teenagers. State-specific rates fell significantly in all States for ages
15–19 and 15–17 years, and in all but three States for ages 18–19
years. Overall the range of decline in State rates for ages 15–19 years
was 11 to 36 percent. For teenagers 15–17 years, the range of decline
by State was 13 to 43 percent. Reductions by State were largest for
black teenagers 15–19 years, with rates falling 40 percent or more in
seven States. The factors accounting for these declines include
decreased sexual activity reflecting changing attitudes towards pre-
marital sex, increases in condom use, and adoption of newly available
hormonal contraception, implants, and injectables.
Keywords: teenage fertility c State-specific birth rates c race and
Hispanic origin c teenage pregnancy
Introduction
there would have been an additional 546,000 births to teenagers over
the decade. Despite the rates reaching record lows in 2000, U.S.
teenage birth rates remain substantially higher than rates for other
developed countries. The recent decline in the 1990s is particularly
encouraging, however, because all population groups have shared in
the reductions. Moreover, teenage pregnancy rates have fallen as
well, reflected in declines in rates for all three pregnancy outcomes—
live birth, induced abortion, and fetal loss.
The birth rate for U.S. teenagers in 2000 was 48.7 births per 1,000
women aged 15–19 years, the lowest level ever reported for the Nation
(figure 1 and table 1) (1). Comparable data have been available since
1940 and the rate for that year (54.1) was about 11 percent higher than
in 2000. The rate has fluctuated somewhat but has generally trended
downward since it reached a peak in 1957 at 96.3 per 1,000, about
double its current level (except for an upward spurt 1986–91).
There have also been dramatic variations in the number of births
to teenage women. The number reached a high point in 1970, with
644,708 babies born to women aged 15–19 years, 37 percent more
than the preliminary number reported for 2000 (470,506).
Over the six decades since 1940, the major shift in teenage
childbearing patterns has been the general decline since the late 1950s
in the birth rate concurrent with a steep rise in the proportion of teenage
births that were to unmarried women
(figure 1 and table 1).
Details of recent trends and variations in teenage pregnancy and
childbearing, including discussions of the health consequences and the
demographic and behavioral factors accounting for the recent patterns,
have been published in several reports. This report summarizes the
long-term trends in key measures of teenage childbearing and reviews
in detail the changes over the last decade through 2000 in teenage
Teenage childbearing has been on a long-term decline in
United States since the late 1950s, except for a brief, but steep,
upward climb in the late 1980s through 1991. The declining teenage
birth rate has had an impressive impact on the number of babies
1991 levels throughout the 1990s instead of declining as they
Acknowledgments
This report was prepared in the Reproductive Statistics Branch (RSB) of the
Division of Vital Statistics (DVS). Yashu Patel of the RSB assisted with table
preparation and provided content review. The report was edited by Demarius V.
Miller, typeset by Jacqueline M. Davis, and graphics were produced by
Jarmila Ogburn of the Publications Branch, Division of Data Services.
born to teenagers. If the birth rates by age had remained at
2 National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 49, No. 10, September 25, 2001
Teenage birth rate is down 22 percent since 1991; rate
100
100
for 2000 is lowest ever
The U.S. teenage birth rate in 2000 was 48.7 births per 1,000
90
women aged 15–19 years, 2 percent lower than in 1999 and
22 percent below the recent peak, 62.1 in 1991 (tables 1 and 2 and
80
80
figures 1–3). The rate fell steadily throughout the 1990s, reversing a
brief but steep 24-percent increase in the late 1980s (from 50.2 in
1986 to 62.1 in 1991). The rate was at an all-time high in 1957, the
70
peak ‘‘baby boom’’ year, when it reached 96.3 per 1,000. The
previous long-term decline in the teenage birth rate was recorded
60
60
from 1957 to 1976 (unbroken except for a one-year upward tick in
1970). That decline was quite steep, averaging over 3 percent per
50
year; the decline that began in 1991 has averaged about 2.7 percent
per year.
40
40
Number of births to teenagers in 2000 is fewest since
1987
30
The most useful measure for reviewing trends in teenage
childbearing is the birth rate, which relates births to teenagers to the
20 20
population ‘‘at risk,’’ that is female teenagers. The number of births to
teenagers is also an important measure, indicating for example the
10
extent to which special support services might be required. The
number of births to teenagers under 20 years fell to 479,067 in 2000,
0 0
according to preliminary statistics (table A) (1). The number dropped
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
fairly steadily throughout the 1990s; the 2000 total was more than
NOTE: Data for 2000 are preliminary.
50,000 below the 1990 number (533,483), and more than 175,000
below the all-time high in 1970 (656,460) (2). Trends in the birth rate
Figure 1. Birth rate for teenagers 15–19 years and
and the number of births to teenagers have been fairly similar since
percent of teenage births to unmarried teenagers:
the mid-1980s (figure 2).
United States, 1950–2000
100 1,000
childbearing for the United States. Additional trend information on other
measures of teenage fertility is presented elsewhere (2). Trends in rates
900
for States for the 1990s are also presented. This is the sixth in a series
of reports first published in 1996 tracking national and State-level
80
800
teenage birth rate trends and variations (3).
Data in this report are drawn from birth certificates filed for all
700
babies born in the United States. The information is transmitted by the
States
60
600
tion’s National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) through the Vital
Statistics Cooperative Program (VSCP). Data for the territories are
500
shown in the State tables but are not included in the totals for the United
States. Information on sources and methods is presented in the Tech-
40 400
nical notes and in other reports (1,4,5).
and territories to the Centers for Disease Control and Preven-
National data in this report include preliminary statistics for 2000,
300
based on more than 96 percent of births (1). Data by State are shown
for 1990–99. Birth rates by State prior to 1990 are available for census
20 200
years (6,7). Birth data by Hispanic origin for teenage subgroups are
available since 1990 (4). In this report, data are shown separately for
100
Hispanic and non-Hispanic white women because there are substantial
differences in childbearing patterns between Hispanic and non-
0 0
Hispanic white women. About one in five births to white women are to
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Hispanic women. Data for black, American Indian, and Asian or Pacific
NOTE: Data for 2000 are preliminary.
Islander teenagers are not shown separately by Hispanic origin
Figure 2. Number of births and birth rates for teenagers
because the vast majority of these women are not Hispanic.
15–19 years: United States, 1940–2000
Rate per 1,000 teenagers 15-19 years
Birth rate per 1,000 teenagers 15-19 years
Birth rate
Percent unmarried
Number of births (in thousands)
Percent unmarried
Birth rate
Number of births
National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 49, No. 10, September 25, 2001 3
Table A. Births and birth rates for teenagers by age: United States, 1991–2000
Number of births Birth rate
10–14 15–17 18–19 10–14 15–17 18–19
Year years years years years years years
2000 ..................... 8,561 157,661 312,845 0.9 27.5 79.5
1999 ..................... 9,054 163,588 312,462 0.9 28.7 80.3
1998 ..................... 9,462 173,231 311,664 1.0 30.4 82.0
1997 ..................... 10,121 180,154 303,066 1.1 32.1 83.6
1996 ..................... 11,148 185,721 305,856 1.2 33.8 86.0
1995 ..................... 11,242 192,508 307,365 1.3 36.0 89.1
1994 ..................... 12,901 195,169 310,319 1.4 37.6 91.5
1993 ..................... 12,554 190,535 310,558 1.4 37.8 92.1
1992 ..................... 12,220 187,549 317,866 1.4 37.8 94.5
1991 ..................... 12,014 188,226 331,351 1.4 38.7 94.4
Percent change
1991–2000.................. –28.7 –16.2 –5.6 –35.7 –28.9 –15.8
NOTE: Data for 2000 are preliminary.
There are two key factors that determine, demographically, the
number of births to teenagers. These are the birth rate, which measures
the proportion of teenagers giving birth in a given year, and the number
of female teenagers in the population. As noted above, the birth rate
was in a long-term decline from the late 1950s through the mid-1970s,
followed by stability through the mid-1980s, a steep increase ending
in 1991, and the current steady decline
(table 1). In contrast, the
number of female teenagers (15–19 years) rose without interruption
through the late 1970s (from 6.6 million in 1960 to 10.6 million in 1978),
175
150
100
75
50
25
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
NOTES: Data for 2000 are preliminary. Rates are plotted on a log scale.
Figure 3. Birth rates for teenagers by age: United States,
1950–2000
reflecting the impact of the ‘‘baby boom,’’ and then dropped rapidly
through the early 1990s to 8.3 million (1992), a result of the overall
decline in U.S. fertility from the late 1950s. In recent years, the number
of female teenagers has risen again (up to 9.7 million in 2000),
reflecting the upsurge in fertility rates in the late 1980s (8–10).
The trends in the number of births to teenage women have not
always paralleled the birth rate. The increase in the number of births
in the late 1980s was fueled exclusively by the rising birth rate (the
number of teenage women was in decline). More recently, the number
of births has fallen because the drop in the rate has been more than
enough to offset the growth in the female teenage population (10).
Teenage birth and pregnancy rates decline
In order to examine trends in pregnancies among teenagers,
data on live births must be combined with data on induced abortions
and fetal losses. Because information on abortion and fetal loss is not
as current as information on live births, this report focuses on trends
and variations in live births and birth rates. A consistent series of
teenage pregnancy rates is available for 1976–97 (11). According to
the most recent complete estimates, the teenage pregnancy rate fell
19 percent from its peak in 1991 (116.5 pregnancies per 1,000
women aged 15–19 years) to 1997 (94.3) (11). The 1997 rate was
the lowest in the 20 years for which a consistent series of estimates
is available. The pregnancy rate of 94.3 in 1997 was about
80 percent higher than the birth rate for that year (52.3).
Birth rates fall for teenagers in all age groups
Over the 40-year period beginning 1960 (when rates for teen-
agers 15–17 and 18–19 years first became available), teenage birth
rates by age generally declined through the mid-1980s, increased
steeply from 1986 to 1991, and have since fallen steadily. The rate
for the youngest teenagers, 10–14 years, dropped from 1.4 births per
1,000 during 1989–94 to 0.9 per 1,000 in 1999 and 2000, the lowest
level in more than 30 years. Births to girls under age 15 years
dropped to 8,561 in 2000, 34 percent below the recent high of 12,901
in 1994 (
table A).
The birth rate for teenagers 15–17 years also reached a record
low in 2000, dropping to 27.5, down 4 percent from 1999, and 29
18-19 years
15-19 years
15-17 years
Rate per 1,000 teenagers 15-19 years
4 National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 49, No. 10, September 25, 2001
percent from 1991. The number of births to this age group fell to
157,661 in 2000, according to preliminary data (1).
Similarly, the birth rate for older teenagers declined again in 2000,
to 79.5, down 1 percent from 1999, and 16 percent from its recent high
of 94.5 in 1992. The number of births to older teenagers increased very
slightly in 2000, reflecting the growth in the female population aged
18–19 years (9,10).
Most teenage births are to unmarried women
The overall teenage birth rate has fallen steadily since 1991, and
the birth rate for unmarried teenagers has declined since 1994
(table 1). Nevertheless, the proportion of births to teenagers that are
to unmarried teenagers has continued to increase, essentially without
interruption, rising from 13.9 percent in 1957 to 78.7 percent in 1999
and 2000
(figure 1). These proportions have risen for both younger
and older teenagers (12). The steady upward climb in the percent
unmarried reflects the fact that very few teenagers are marrying and
the birth rate for married teenagers has dropped
(table 1). In fact,
major changes in marriage and in marital and nonmarital childbearing
occurred in the last half of the twentieth century and these changes
are not unique to teenagers. Thus, while the proportion of teenage
births that are to unmarried women continues to rise, teenagers do
not account for the majority of all births to unmarried women
(
table B). In 2000, 72 percent were to women aged 20 years and over
compared with about half in the mid-1970s (1,12).
Birth rates for black teenagers decline most steeply;
rates for Hispanic and black teenagers remain highest
Birth rates for black teenagers fell more steeply in the 1990s
than rates for other population groups. Overall, the rate for black
teenagers declined 31 percent from 115.5 per 1,000 in 1991 to 79.2
in 2000. The rate for 2000 was the lowest ever recorded in the 40
years for which data for black women are available (13). The rate for
Hispanic teenagers declined from 1994 through 1999 (by 13 percent),
but rose 1 percent in 2000 to 94.4 per 1,000 (the highest rate for any
population group).
Birth rates for women of Hispanic origin should be interpreted with
caution. The rates in this report are based on estimates projected from
the 1990 census. The Hispanic population in the United States has
grown dramatically over the 1990s, rising nearly 60 percent, according
to the 2000 census results recently published (14,15). This population
growth is not reflected in the postcensal estimates (projected from
1990) used in this report (10). Based on a comparison of 2000 census
results and unpublished estimates for 2000 projected from 1990, the
Hispanic populations used for this report may be about 8 percent lower
than 2000 census results would indicate (10,15). Thus, birth rates for
Hispanic women in particular are overstated because the population
base is too small. When population estimates from the 2000 census
and intercensal estimates become available, population-based rates for
the 1990s and 2000 will be recalculated and presented in a report. In
the meantime, it is recommended that caution be exercised in inter-
preting the levels and trends in rates for Hispanic women.
Rates for Hispanic and black teenagers continue to be substan-
tially higher than for other groups. The rate for Asian or Pacific Islander
teenagers has been the lowest (21.8 births per 1,000 women aged
15–19 years in 2000), followed by the rate for non-Hispanic white
teenagers (32.8). The rate for American Indian teenagers was inter-
mediate at 67.9 per 1,000 in 2000. Birth rates fell for all population
groups during the 1990s.
The birth rate for non-Hispanic white teenagers dropped 24 per-
cent during 1991–2000, while the rates for Asian or Pacific Islander and
American Indian teenagers each fell 20 percent (table 2). Rates
dropped more steeply for younger (15–17 years) than for older teen-
agers (18–19 years) in each race and Hispanic origin group (figures 4
and 5 and table 2).
Fewer teenagers have their first baby while second birth
rates for teenage mothers stabilize
The declines in teenage birth rates in the last half of the 1990s
have reflected steady reductions in the first birth rate, meaning that
fewer teenagers are becoming mothers for the first time. The first
birth rate for childless teenagers has dropped one-sixth since 1994
when it began to decline
(figure 6 and table 3). The rate in 1999 was
41.7 first births per 1,000 childless women aged 15–19 years,
compared with 50.0 in 1994. (The most recent year for which birth
rates can be computed according to the number of previous births to
the mother is 1999.) This decline is particularly significant because
teenagers having their first child account for the overwhelming
majority of all births to teenagers—about 78 percent in the U.S. since
the mid-1990s.
After falling 22 percent between 1991 and 1996, the second birth
rate for teenagers who had already had one child stabilized. In 1991
Table B. Number of total births and nonmarital births and percent of births to unmarried women, all ages and women
under 20 years: United States, 1999–2000
[Figures for 2000 are based on weighted data rounded to the nearest individual]
Total births
Births to
unmarried women
Percent to
unmarried women
Age of mother 2000 1999 2000 1999 2000 1999
All ages ................... 4,064,948 3,959,417 1,345,917 1,308,560 33.1 33.0
Under 20 years ............... 479,067 485,104 378,585 383,222 79.0 79.0
Under 15 years.............. 8,561 9,054 8,255 8,737 96.4 96.5
15–19 years ............... 470,506 476,050 370,330 374,485 78.7 78.7
15–17 years .............. 157,661 163,588 138,174 143,391 87.6 87.7
18–19 years .............. 312,845 312,462 232,157 231,094 74.2 74.0
NOTE: Data for 2000 are preliminary.
1980 1985 1990 1995
2000
10
100
Rate per 1,000 teenagers 15-17 years
Black
Hispanic
American Indian
White total
White non-Hispanic
Asian or Pacific Islander
NOTES: Data for 2000 are preliminary. Rates are plotted on a log scale.
20
40
60
80
Figure 4. Birth rate for teenagers 15–17 years by race
and Hispanic origin: United States, 1980–2000
the rate was 220.9 second births per 1,000 women aged 15–19 years
with one child, and dropped to 173.5 in 1996; the rate has changed
little since (174.1 in 1999). To put it another way, 17 percent of
teenagers who already had one child gave birth to a second child each
year, 1996–99, compared with 22 percent in 1991. Despite the decline
over the decade in repeat childbearing, about 100,000 teenagers gave
birth to a second or higher order child in 2000.
Teenage childbearing has serious health and other
consequences
Teenage mothers and their babies are at greater risk of adverse
health consequences compared with older mothers. Most teenage
mothers (and fathers as well) are not prepared for the emotional,
psychological, and financial responsibilities and challenges of parent-
hood (16). The overwhelming majority of teenage pregnancies are
unintended (17). Teenage mothers are much less likely than older
women to receive timely prenatal care and more likely to begin care
in the third trimester or have no care at all
(figure 7). They are also
more likely to smoke during pregnancy. A recent report showed that
smoking among pregnant teenagers increased during the mid- to late
1990s, while smoking rates for older women dropped (18). As a
consequence of these and other factors, babies born to teenagers
are more likely to be born preterm (less than 37 completed weeks of
gestation) and low birthweight (less than 5 lb 8 oz), and thus are at
greater risk of serious and long-term illness, developmental delays,
and of dying in the first year of life (4,19).
National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 49, No. 10, September 25, 2001 5
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
25
Rate per 1,000 teenagers 18-19 years
NOTES: Data for 2000 are preliminary. Rates are plotted on a log scale.
50
75
100
150
200
Black
Hispanic
American Indian
White total
White non-Hispanic
Asian or Pacific Islander
Figure 5. Birth rate for teenagers 18–19 years by race
and Hispanic origin: United States, 1980–2000
Teenage birth rates vary greatly by State
Birth rates for teenagers vary substantially by State (tables 4
and 5 and figure 8). In 1999, the most recent year for which
State-specific birth rates are available, the rates for ages 15–19 years
ranged from 24.0 for New Hampshire to 72.5 in Mississippi. The rate
for the District of Columbia was 83.5. The highest rate was reported
for Guam (96.6). The tremendous variation in rates by State reflects
in part the differences in the composition of the teenage population
by race and Hispanic origin (3). As indicated earlier, teenage birth
rates are much higher for Hispanic and black teenagers than for
non-Hispanic white teenagers (
table 2). Thus, States with relatively
high proportions of Hispanic and/or black teenagers would be
expected to have higher overall teenage birth rates. It is important to
keep these compositional differences in mind when comparing
teenage birth rates across States.
Another factor affects the teenage birth rates for some States,
especially rates for women of Hispanic origin. As noted earlier, the rates
in this report are based on estimates projected from the 1990 census.
While the Hispanic population in the United States has grown dra-
matically over the 1990s, rising nearly 60 percent, according to the
2000 census results recently published (14,15), increases in some
States were substantially greater (20). This population growth is not
reflected in the postcensal estimates (projected from 1990) used in this
report (21). Thus, birth rates for Hispanic women in particular are
overstated because the population base is too small. Population-based
6 National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 49, No. 10, September 25, 2001
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 1999
30
300
Births per 1,000 teenagers 15-19 years
60
90
120
150
210
NOTE: Rates are first births per 1,000 teenagers who have had no births, and second
births per 1,000 teenagers who have had one child. Rates are plotted on a log scale.
360
Second birth rate
First birth rate
Figure 6. Rates of first and second births to teenagers:
United States, 1950–99
rates for the 1990s and 2000 will be recalculated and presented in a
report when population estimates from the 2000 census and intercensal
estimates become available. In the meantime, it is recommended that
special caution be exercised in interpreting the levels and trends in
rates by State for Hispanic women.
Rates for teenage subgroups also vary substantially across
States. The rate for ages 15–17 years ranged in 1999 from 11 in New
Hampshire to 45 in Mississippi. Similarly, the rates for older teenagers
18–19 years ranged from 46 per 1,000 (New Hampshire and Vermont)
to 112 (Arkansas). And, as just noted, rates by race and Hispanic origin
vary greatly within and across States
(table 5).
Rates by State fall for younger and older teenagers
Birth rates for teenagers have been declining in the United
States since 1991. Between 1991 and 1999, birth rates for teenagers
15–19 years fell significantly in all States, the District of Columbia,
and the Virgin Islands (
table 6 and figure 9). The decline in Puerto
Rico was not statistically significant. There was a nonsignificant
increase in Guam. Declines exceeded 25.0 percent in nine States,
the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands, and exceeded
30.0 percent in five States. While States with the largest reductions
tend to have initially low rates, there have been sizable reductions in
Mothers under age
20 years
Mothers age 20
years and over
NOTE: Smoking data exclude information for California and South Dakota.
68.6
18.0
14.1
9.7
85.2
11.8
11.4
7.3
First
trimester
care
Smoking
during
pregnancy
Preterm
birth
Low
birthweight
0
20
40
60
Percent
80
100
Figure 7. Selected characteristics for teenage mothers
and mothers aged 20 years and over: United States, 1999
States with high as well as low rates, suggesting that all States can
achieve progress in reducing teenage birth rates.
Generally, the rates by State fell steadily through the decade.
However, as indicated in table 4, rates occasionally increased in some
States. For example, rates in six States and American Samoa were
higher in 1999 than in 1998. Year-to-year changes in most cases are
not statistically significant.
Birth rates for teenage subgroups also declined over the 1990s
(table 4). The rates for ages 15–17 years fell significantly between 1991
and 1999 in all States and the District of Columbia and in the Virgin
Islands. Declines in Puerto Rico and Guam were not significant.
Declines exceeded 25.0 percent in 26 States and the District of
Columbia. Rates dropped 35.0 percent or more in Maine, Massachu-
setts, Michigan, New Hampshire, and Vermont.
Birth rates by State for older teenagers, 18–19 years, also dropped
during the 1990s. Statistically significant declines were found for 47
States, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. Declines in
Connecticut, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Puerto Rico were not sta-
tistically significant. There was a nonsignificant increase in Guam.
Steep reductions in State-level rates for black and
non-Hispanic white teenagers
Rates by State for black and non-Hispanic white teenagers fell
substantially in the 1990s, reflecting the national declines in these
National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 49, No. 10, September 25, 2001 7
WA
CO
NE
KS
WI
MN
IA
MO
AK
HI
MI
OH
NY
NH
MA
CT
RI
NJ
DE
MD
PA
WV
VA
ME
VT
OK
TX
LA
AR
MS
FL
AL
GA
TN
IL
IN
KY
NC
SC
WY
ID
CA
AZ
OR
UT
ND
SD
NV
MT
11 highest rates
Significantly higher
Rate not significantly
different from U.S.
Significantly lower
11 lowest rates
DC
Figure 8. Birth rates for teenagers 15–19 years by State, 1999
rates (table 6). Trends in the rates for black teenagers could be
reliably computed for 39 States and the District of Columbia for both
1991 and 1999. Rates fell in all States and the District of Columbia.
The declines were statistically significant in all States except West
Virginia; declines in seven States were 40 percent or larger.
Birth rates for non-Hispanic white teenagers declined between
1991 and 1999 in all States. The reductions were statistically significant
except for Delaware. (Rates were not available for 1991 for New
Hampshire and were not statistically reliable for 1999 for the District
of Columbia.)
Statistically reliable birth rates were available for Hispanic teen-
agers for 37 States for both 1991 and 1999. There were significant
reductions in 12 States and increases in 13 States. The changes in 12
States were not significant.
Reflecting in part the substantial geographic concentration of the
American Indian and Asian or Pacific Islander (API) populations, sta-
tistically reliable rates could not be reliably computed for many States.
In addition, the low birth rates for API teenagers reflect small absolute
numbers of births in many States.
Birth rates for American Indian teenagers were available for 18
States for both years and for 23 States in 1999. Rates fell significantly
in 11 States between 1991 and 1999.
Birth rates for API teenagers were available for 31 States for both
years, and for 37 States in 1999. There were significant declines in five
States and an increase in North Carolina.
U.S. teenage birth rate is still the highest for developed
countries
Teenage birth rates vary substantially across developed coun-
tries (table 7). Despite the recent declines, however, the U.S. rate
remains the highest among these countries. Rates for recent years
have ranged from 4.3 births per 1,000 women aged 15–19 years in
Japan (1997) to 48.7 in the U.S (2000) (22). According to the latest
available data, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the Neth-
erlands, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland also had rates less than 10
per 1,000. A recent study showed that most developed countries
have experienced declines in teenage birth rates (23).
Factors affecting teenage birth rates
Numerous factors may account for the downward trend in
teenage birth rates during the 1990s. The steep upward climb in the
rates in the late 1980s generated widespread public concern at the
beginning of the 1990s. The changing attitudes toward premarital sex
possibly reflect the influence of a myriad of public and private efforts
to focus teenagers’ attention on the importance of pregnancy
prevention through abstinence and responsible behavior (24). Some
prevention programs have now been rigorously evaluated. While no
single effective approach has been identified, a recently published
comprehensive review of evaluation research on programs to prevent
teen pregnancy found that ‘‘more programs to prevent teen
8 National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 49, No. 10, September 25, 2001
DC
WA
CO
NE
KS
WI
MN
IA
MO
AK
HI
MI
OH
NY
NH
MA
CT
RI
NJ
DE
MD
PA
WV
VA
ME
VT
OK
NM
TX
LA
AR
MS
FL
AL
GA
TN
IL
IN
KY
NC
SC
WY
ID
CA
AZ
OR
UT
ND
SD
NV
MT
25.0 percent or more
20.0 24.9 percent
17.0 19.9 percent
15.0 16.9 percent
Less than 15.0 percent
Figure 9. Percent decline in teenage birth rates by State, 1991–1999
pregnancy are making a real difference in encouraging teens to
remain abstinent or use contraception when they have sex.’’ (25).
Findings from the National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health
(AddHealth), a large-scale, congressionally mandated survey of
students in grades 7 though 12, have suggested that enhancing the
connections of teenagers to their family and home, their school, and
their community is essential for protecting teenagers from a vast
array of risky behaviors, including sexual activity (26,27).
Several national surveys have reported that teenage sexual
activity has leveled off (28–30). Also important are higher rates of
contraceptive use at first intercourse, and a shift to highly reliable
hormonal methods (implant and injectable contraceptives) by some
teenagers (30,31). The long economic expansion during the 1990s
likely played a role as well, increasing economic opportunity for teen-
agers as well as older women and men. Enhanced economic oppor-
tunity may have encouraged teenagers to strive for greater educational
achievement and better career opportunities, while postponing early
pregnancy and parenthood.
References
1.
Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Ventura SJ. Births: Preliminary data for 2000.
National vital statistics reports; vol 49 no 5. Hyattsville, Maryland:
National Center for Health Statistics. 2001.
2. Ventura SJ, Freedman MA. Teenage childbearing in the United States,
1960–97. Am J Prev Med 19(1S):18–25. 2000.
3. Ventura SJ, Clarke SC, Mathews TJ. Recent declines in teenage birth
rates in the United States: Variations by State, 1990–94. Monthly vital
statistics report; vol 45 no 5, supp. Hyattsville, Maryland: National
Center for Health Statistics. 1996.
4. Ventura SJ, Martin JA, Curtin SC, Menacker F, Hamilton BE. Births:
Final data for 1999. National vital statistics reports; vol 49 no 1.
Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center for Health Statistics. 2001.
5. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital statistics of the United
States, 1999, Vol I, natality, Technical appendix. Hyattsville, Maryland:
National Center for Health Statistics. 2001. Available in CD-ROM
Series 21 no 12, and on the Internet at:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs.
6. Spratley E. Birth and fertility rates for States and metropolitan areas.
National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 21(27). 1977.
7. Taffel SM. Birth and fertility rates for States: United States, 1980.
National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat 21(42). 1984.
8. Hollmann FW. U.S. population estimates, by age, sex, race, and
Hispanic origin: 1980 to 1991. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Current
population reports, P25–1095. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Commerce. 1993.
9. U.S. Census Bureau. U.S. population estimates, by age, sex, race, and
Hispanic origin: 1990 to 1999. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
Internet release, April 11, 2000. Available at: http://www.census.gov/
population/www/estimates/nat_90s_1.html.
National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 49, No. 10, September 25, 2001 9
10. U.S. Census Bureau. Unpublished census file Natest00.txt. Population
estimates of the United States by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin:
2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
11. Ventura SJ, Mosher WD, Curtin SC, Abma JC, Henshaw S. Trends in
pregnancy rates in the United States, 1976–97: An update. National
vital statistics reports; vol 49 no 3. Hyattsville, Maryland: National
Center for Health Statistics. 2001.
12. Ventura SJ, Bachrach CA. Nonmarital childbearing in the United
States, 1940–99. National vital statistics reports; vol 48 no 16.
Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center for Health Statistics. 2000.
13. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital statistics of the United
States, 1997, volume I, natality. Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center
for Health Statistics. CD-ROM released May 2001.
14. U.S. Census Bureau. Profile of general demographic characteristics for
the United States: 1990. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Com-
merce. Released May 15, 2001. Available at: http://www.census.gov/
Press-Release/www/2001/tables/dp_us_1990.PDF.
15. U.S. Census Bureau. Profile of general demographic characteristics for
the United States: 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Com-
merce. Released May 15, 2001. Available at: http://www.census.gov/
Press-Release/www/2001/tables/dp_us_2000.PDF.
16.
Maynard RA, ed. Kids having kids: Economic costs and social
consequences of teen pregnancy. Washington, DC: The Urban Insti-
tute. 1997.
17.
Henshaw S. Unintended pregnancy in the United States. Fam Plann
Persp 30(1):24–9, 46. 1998.
18.
Mathews TJ. Smoking during pregnancy in the 1990s. National vital
statistics reports; vol 49 no 7. Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center for
Health Statistics. 2001.
19.
Mathews TJ, Curtin SC, MacDorman MF. Infant mortality statistics from
the 1998 period linked birth/infant death data set. National vital
statistics reports; vol 48 no 12. Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center
for Health Statistics. 2000.
20.
U.S. Census Bureau. Demographic profiles: Census 2000. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. Available at: http://www.census.
gov/Press-Release/www/2001/demoprofile.html.
21.
U.S. Census Bureau. Estimates of the population of states by age, sex,
race, and Hispanic origin: 1990 to 1999. Available at: http://www.
census.gov/population/www/estimates/st_sasrh.html. Internet release,
August 30, 2000.
22.
Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistical Office, United
Nations. Demographic Yearbook, 1998. New York, NY: United Nations.
1998.
23.
Singh S, Darroch JE. Adolescent pregnancy and childbearing: Levels
and trends in developed countries. Fam Plann Persp 32(1):14–23.
2000.
24.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. A national strategy to
prevent teen pregnancy: Annual report, 2000–2001. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. In preparation.
25.
Kirby D. Emerging Answers: Research findings on programs to reduce
teen pregnancy (Summary). Washington, DC: National Campaign to
Prevent Teen Pregnancy. 2001.
26.
Resnick MD, Bearman PS, Blum RW, et al. Protecting adolescents
from harm: Findings from the National Longitudinal Study on Adoles-
cent Health. JAMA 278(10):823–32. 1997.
27.
Sieving RE, McNeely CS, Blum RW. Maternal expectations, mother-
child connectedness, and adolescent sexual debut. Arch Pediatr
Adolesc Med 154(8):809–816. 2000.
28.
Abma JC, Chandra A, Mosher WD, Peterson LS, Piccinino LJ. Fertility,
family planning, and women’s health: New data from the 1995 National
Survey of Family Growth. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital
Health Stat 23(19). 1997.
29. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Trends in sexual risk
behavior among high school students—United States, 1991–1997.
MMWR 47(36):749–52. 1998.
30. Abma JC, Sonenstein F. Sexual activity and contraceptive practices
among teenagers in the United States, 1988 and 1995. Vital Health
Stat 23(21). 2001.
31. Piccinino LJ, Mosher WD. Trends in contraceptive use in the United
States: 1982–1995. Fam Plann Persp 30(1):4–10, 46. 1998.
32. Byerly E, Deardorff K. National and State population estimates: 1990 to
1994. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Current population reports,
P-25–1127. Washington: U.S. Department of Commerce. 1995.
33. U.S. Census Bureau. International programs center. Unpublished
tabulations. May 2001.
34. Heuser RL. Fertility tables for birth cohorts by color: United States,
1917–73. DHEW Pub. No. (HRA) 76–1152. Health Resources Admin-
istration. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
35. Ventura SJ, Curtin SC, Mathews TJ. Teenage births in the United
States: National and State trends, 1990–96. National Vital Statistics
System. Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center for Health Statistics.
1998.
36. Ventura SJ, Mathews TJ, Curtin SC. Declines in teenage birth rates,
1991–97: National and State patterns. National vital statistics reports;
vol 47 no 12. Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center for Health
Statistics. 1998.
37. Ventura SJ, Mathews TJ, Curtin SC. Declines in teenage birth rates,
1991–98: Update of national and State trends. National vital statistics
reports; vol 47 no 26. Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center for Health
Statistics. 1999.
38. Ventura SJ, Curtin SC, Mathews TJ. Variations in teenage birth rates,
1991–98: National and State trends. National vital statistics report; vol
48 no 6. Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center for Health Statistics.
2000.
39. Clarke SC, Ventura SJ. Birth and fertility rates for States: United
States, 1990. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat
21(52). 1994.
List of detailed tables
1. Selected measures of teenage childbearing: United States,
1940–2000 ................................... 10
2. Births for women under 20 years, by age, race, and Hispanic
origin of mother: United States, 2000, and birth rates,
1990–2000, and percent change in rates, 1991–2000 ....... 11
3. Birth rates for teenagers for first births and for second births:
United States, 1950–99 ........................... 12
4. Birth rates for teenagers 15–19 years by age of mother: United
States and each State, 1990–99 ..................... 13
5. Birth rates for teenagers 15–19 years, by race and Hispanic
origin of mother: United States and each State, 1999 ....... 16
6. Birth rates for teenagers 15–19 years, by race and Hispanic
origin of mother: United States and each State, 1991 and 1999,
and percent change in rates: United States, 1991 to 1999.... 18
7. Teenage birth rates: Selected countries, most recent available
year ........................................ 20
10 National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 49, No. 10, September 25, 2001
Table 1. Selected measures of teenage childbearing: United States, 1940–2000
Total
number of Birth rate Birth rate per Birth rate per Percent of teen
births to women per 1,000 1,000 unmarried 1,000 married births to unmarried
Year 15–19 years women 15–19 years women 15–19 years women 15–19 years women (ages 15–19)
2000 ..................... 470,506 48.7 - - - - - - 78.7
1999 ..................... 476,050 49.6 40.4 311.2 78.7
1998 ..................... 484,895 51.1 41.5 322.1 78.5
1997 ..................... 483,220 52.3 42.2 323.0 77.8
1996 ..................... 491,577 54.4 42.9 344.3 75.9
1995 ..................... 499,873 56.8 44.4 362.4 75.2
1994 ..................... 505,488 58.9 46.4 350.5 75.5
1993 ..................... 501,093 59.6 44.5 388.0 71.3
1992 ..................... 505,415 60.7 44.6 397.8 70.0
1991 ..................... 519,577 62.1 44.8 410.4 68.8
1990 ..................... 521,826 59.9 42.5 420.2 67.1
1989 ..................... 506,503 57.3 40.1 394.5 66.6
1988 ..................... 478,353 53.0 36.4 371.0 65.3
1987 ..................... 462,312 50.6 33.8 358.8 63.4
1986 ..................... 461,905 50.2 32.3 351.8 60.8
1985 ..................... 467,485 51.0 31.4 357.4 58.0
1984 ..................... 469,582 50.6 30.0 356.5 55.6
1983 ..................... 489,286 51.4 29.5 348.1 53.4
1982 ..................... 513,758 52.4 28.7 354.0 50.7
1981 ..................... 527,392 52.2 27.9 331.9 49.2
1980 ..................... 552,161 53.0 27.6 349.5 47.6
1979 ..................... 549,472 52.3 26.4 331.8 46.1
1978 ..................... 543,407 51.5 24.9 323.1 44.1
1977 ..................... 559,154 52.8 25.1 309.2 42.9
1976 ..................... 558,744 52.8 23.7 307.6 40.3
1975 ..................... 582,238 55.6 23.9 313.1 38.2
1974 ..................... 595,449 57.5 23.0 324.1 35.4
1973 ..................... 604,096 59.3 22.7 340.3 33.9
1972 ..................... 616,280 61.7 22.8 376.0 32.8
1971 ..................... 627,942 64.5 22.3 414.3 30.9
1970 ..................... 644,708 68.3 22.4 443.7 29.5
1969 ..................... 604,654 65.5 20.4 437.8 27.8
1968 ..................... 591,312 65.6 19.7 435.9 26.7
1967 ..................... 596,445 67.5 18.5 439.8 24.2
1966 ..................... 621,426 70.3 17.5 456.4 21.9
1965 ..................... 590,894 70.5 16.7 462.7 20.8
1964 ..................... 585,710 73.1 15.9 480.2 19.0
1963 ..................... 586,454 76.7 15.3 486.6 17.4
1962 ..................... 600,298 81.4 14.8 502.1 15.7
1961 ..................... 601,720 88.6 16.0 521.5 15.5
1960 ..................... 586,966 89.1 15.3 530.6 14.8
1959 ..................... 571,048 90.4 15.5 - - - 14.8
1958 ..................... 554,184 91.4 15.3 - - - 14.3
1957 ..................... 550,212 96.3 15.8 - - - 13.9
1956 ..................... 520,422 94.6 15.6 - - - 14.0
1955 ..................... 484,097 90.3 15.1 460.2 14.2
1954 ..................... 477,880 90.6 14.9 - - - 14.1
1953 ..................... 455,878 88.2 13.9 - - - 13.5
1952 ..................... 438,046 86.1 13.5 - - - 13.4
1951 ..................... 443,872 87.6 13.2 - - - 12.9
1950 ..................... 419,535 81.6 12.6 410.4 13.4
1949 ..................... 433,028 83.4 12.0 - - - - - -
1948 ..................... 431,933 81.8 11.4 - - - - - -
1947 ..................... 425,845 79.3 11.0 - - - 12.4
1946 ..................... 322,381 59.3 9.5 - - - - - -
1945 ..................... 280,997 51.1 9.5 - - - 17.5
1944 ..................... 301,130 54.3 8.8 - - - - - -
1943 ..................... 343,550 61.7 8.4 - - - - - -
1942 ..................... 341,315 61.1 8.2 - - - - - -
1941 ..................... 316,685 56.9 8.0 - - - - - -
1940 ..................... 300,747 54.1 7.4 - - - 13.6
- - - Data not available.
NOTE: Data for 2000 are preliminary.
Table 2. Births for women under age 20 years, by age, race, and Hispanic origin of mother: United States, 2000, and birth rates, 1990–2000, and percent
change in rates, 1991–2000
[Rates per 1,000 women in specified group]
Number of
Birth rates
Percent
change in
Age and race and births rates
Hispanic origin of mother 2000 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1991–2000
10–14 years
Total ..................... 8,561 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 –35.7
White total .................. 4,451 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 –25.0
White non-Hispanic............. 1,845 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 –40.0
Black ..................... 3,833 2.5 2.6 2.9 3.3 3.6 4.2 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 –47.9
American Indian
1
.............. 161 1.3 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.6 –18.8
Asian or Pacific Islander.......... 117 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.7 –62.5
Hispanic
2
................... 2,648 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.4 2.4 –20.8
15–19 years
Total ..................... 470,506 48.7 49.6 51.1 52.3 54.4 56.8 58.9 59.6 60.7 62.1 59.9 –21.6
White total .................. 334,751 43.9 44.6 45.4 46.3 48.1 50.1 51.1 51.1 51.8 52.8 50.8 –16.9
White non-Hispanic............. 205,729 32.8 34.0 35.2 36 37.6 39.3 40.4 40.7 41.7 43.4 42.5 –24.4
Black ..................... 118,642 79.2 81.0 85.4 88.2 91.4 96.1 104.5 108.6 112.4 115.5 112.8 –31.4
American Indian
1
.............. 8,061 67.9 67.8 72.1 71.8 73.9 78.0 80.8 83.1 84.4 85.0 81.1 –20.1
Asian or Pacific Islander.......... 9,052 21.8 22.3 23.1 23.7 24.6 26.1 27.1 27.0 26.6 27.4 26.4 –20.4
Hispanic
2
................... 129,398 94.4 93.4 93.6 97.4 101.8 106.7 107.7 106.8 107.1 106.7 100.3 –11.5
15–17 years
Total ..................... 157,661 27.5 28.7 30.4 32.1 33.8 36.0 37.6 37.8 37.8 38.7 37.5 –28.9
White total .................. 107,373 23.8 24.8 25.9 27.1 28.4 30.0 30.7 30.3 30.1 30.7 29.5 –22.5
White non-Hispanic............. 59,325 15.9 17.1 18.4 19.4 20.6 22.0 22.8 22.7 22.7 23.6 23.2 –32.6
Black ..................... 44,453 50.2 52.0 56.8 60.8 64.7 69.7 76.3 79.8 81.3 84.1 82.3 –40.3
American Indian
1
.............. 2,890 39.5 41.4 44.4 45.3 46.4 47.8 51.3 53.7 53.8 52.7 48.5 –25.0
Asian or Pacific Islander.......... 2,945 11.7 12.3 13.8 14.3 14.9 15.4 16.1 16.0 15.2 16.1 16.0 –27.3
Hispanic
2
................... 48,413 60.0 61.3 62.3 66.3 69.0 72.9 74.0 71.7 71.4 70.6 65.9 –15.0
18–19 years
Total ..................... 312,845 79.5 80.3 82.0 83.6 86.0 89.1 91.5 92.1 94.5 94.4 88.6 –15.8
White total .................. 227,378 73.0 73.5 74.6 75.9 78.4 81.2 82.1 82.1 83.8 83.5 78.0 –12.6
White non-Hispanic ............ 146,404 57.3 58.9 60.6 61.9 63.7 66.1 67.4 67.7 69.8 70.5 66.6 –18.7
Black ..................... 74,188 121.1 122.8 126.9 130.1 132.5 137.1 148.3 151.9 157.9 158.6 152.9 –23.6
American Indian
1
.............. 5,171 113.4 110.6 118.4 117.6 122.3 130.7 130.3 130.7 132.6 134.3 129.3 –15.6
Asian or Pacific Islander.......... 6,107 37.3 38.0 38.3 39.3 40.4 43.4 44.1 43.3 43.1 43.1 40.2 –13.5
Hispanic
2
................... 80,984 143.5 139.4 140.1 144.3 151.1 157.9 158.0 159.1 159.7 158.5 147.7 –9.5
National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 49, No. 10, September 25, 2001
1
Includes births to Aleuts and Eskimos.
2
Includes all persons of Hispanic origin of any race.
NOTE: Data for 2000 are preliminary.
11
12 National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 49, No. 10, September 25, 2001
Table 3. Birth rates for teenagers for first births and for second births: United States, 1950–99
[Rates for first births are births per 1,000 childless women aged 15–19 years; rates for second births are births per 1,000 women aged 15–19 years who have had a first
birth]
First Second First Second
Year births births Year births births
1999 ..................... 41.7 174.1 1974..................... 49.2 173.4
1998 ..................... 43.3 174.6 1973..................... 51.0 173.7
1997 ..................... 44.7 173.7 1972..................... 53.0 185.3
1996 ..................... 46.7 173.5 1971..................... 54.7 206.2
1995 ..................... 49.2 177.5 1970..................... 57.6 227.7
1994 ..................... 50.0 189.6 1969..................... 54.8 231.6
1993 ..................... 49.3 203.6 1968..................... 54.3 237.9
1992 ..................... 48.9 216.9 1967..................... 54.1 257.1
1991 ..................... 49.6 220.9 1966..................... 55.8 268.8
1990 ..................... 47.9 218.2 1965..................... 55.9 291.5
1989 ..................... 45.9 215.0 1964..................... 58.3 323.5
1988 ..................... 43.0 205.3 1963..................... 60.3 342.3
1987 ..................... 41.8 195.8 1962..................... 61.8 352.4
1986 ..................... 41.9 193.2 1961..................... 64.7 355.7
1985 ..................... 42.1 192.1 1960..................... 65.8 359.4
1984 ..................... 41.4 185.5 1959..................... 68.4 360.7
1983 ..................... 42.2 184.5 1958..................... 69.9 352.8
1982 ..................... 43.0 188.0 1957..................... 72.7 355.8
1981 ..................... 43.0 183.1 1956..................... 71.0 355.2
1980 ..................... 44.5 187.8 1955..................... 67.5 337.4
1979 ..................... 43.8 183.1 1954..................... 68.0 331.3
1978 ..................... 43.2 177.2 1953..................... 66.2 331.2
1977 ..................... 44.5 177.7 1952..................... 64.2 322.7
1976 ..................... 44.7 168.0 1951..................... 65.0 330.0
1975 ..................... 47.3 171.9 1950..................... 59.9 316.3
National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 49, No. 10, September 25, 2001 13
Table 4. Birth rates for teenagers 15–19 years by age of mother: United States and each State, 1990–1999
15–19 years
Percent
change
State 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1991–99
United States ................ 49.6 51.1 52.3 54.4 56.8 58.9 59.6 60.7 62.1 59.9 –20.1
Alabama ................... 62.8 65.5 66.6 69.2 70.3 72.2 70.5 72.5 73.9 71.0 –15.0
Alaska .................... 41.8 42.4 44.6 46.4 50.2 55.2 56.8 63.9 65.4 65.3 –36.1
Arizona .................... 69.6 70.5 69.7 73.9 75.7 78.7 79.8 81.7 80.7 75.5 –13.8
Arkansas ................... 68.1 70.8 72.9 75.4 73.5 76.3 73.9 75.5 79.8 80.1 –14.7
California................... 50.7 53.5 57.3 62.6 68.2 71.3 72.7 74.0 74.7 70.6 –32.1
Colorado ................... 48.4 48.7 48.2 49.5 51.3 54.3 55.2 58.4 58.2 54.5 –16.8
Connecticut ................. 33.3 35.8 36.1 37.4 39.3 40.3 39.2 39.4 40.4 38.8 –17.6
Delaware................... 54.3 53.9 55.8 56.9 57.0 60.2 59.7 59.6 61.1 54.5 –11.1
District of Columbia ............ 83.5 86.7 91.0 102.1 106.8 114.7 128.8 116.1 114.4 93.1 –27.0
Florida .................... 53.5 55.5 57.7 58.9 61.7 64.4 64.8 66.3 68.8 69.1 –22.2
Georgia ................... 65.1 65.4 67.2 68.2 71.1 71.7 73.0 74.5 76.3 75.5 –14.7
Hawaii .................... 43.8 45.7 43.8 48.1 47.9 53.5 53.0 53.5 58.7 61.2 –25.4
Idaho ..................... 43.7 44.8 43.3 47.2 49.0 46.6 50.7 51.7 53.9 50.6 –18.9
Illinois .................... 51.1 53.2 54.7 57.1 59.9 62.8 63.0 63.6 64.8 62.9 –21.1
Indiana .................... 51.6 53.3 54.2 56.1 57.5 57.9 58.6 58.7 60.5 58.6 –14.7
Iowa ..................... 35.8 35.2 35.7 37.8 38.6 39.7 41.1 40.8 42.6 40.5 –16.0
Kansas .................... 47.4 47.0 48.5 49.6 52.2 53.5 55.7 55.7 55.4 56.1 –14.4
Kentucky ................... 56.4 57.0 59.6 61.5 62.5 64.5 64.0 64.7 68.9 67.6 –18.1
Louisiana................... 62.8 65.4 66.3 66.7 69.9 74.7 76.1 76.5 76.1 74.2 –17.5
Maine..................... 29.8 30.4 32.0 31.4 33.6 35.5 37.1 39.8 43.5 43.0 –31.5
Maryland ................... 42.6 43.1 43.9 46.1 47.7 49.7 50.1 50.7 54.3 53.2 –21.5
Massachusetts ............... 28.7 30.8 31.7 32.2 34.3 37.2 37.9 38.0 37.8 35.1 –24.1
Michigan ................... 40.5 42.6 43.9 46.5 49.2 52.1 53.2 56.5 59.0 59.0 –31.4
Minnesota .................. 30.0 30.6 32.0 32.1 32.4 34.4 35.0 36.0 37.3 36.3 –19.6
Mississippi .................. 72.5 73.0 73.7 75.5 80.6 83.0 83.3 84.2 85.6 81.0 –15.3
Missouri ................... 49.6 51.2 51.5 53.7 55.5 59.0 59.8 63.2 64.5 62.8 –23.1
Montana ................... 35.1 37.1 37.6 38.6 41.8 41.2 45.7 46.2 46.7 48.4 –24.8
Nebraska................... 37.0 37.0 37.2 38.7 37.6 42.8 40.5 41.1 42.4 42.3 –12.7
Nevada.................... 64.1 65.7 67.7 69.6 73.3 73.6 73.4 71.4 75.3 73.3 –14.9
New Hampshire ............... 24.0 27.1 28.6 28.6 30.5 30.1 30.7 31.3 33.3 33.0 –27.9
New Jersey ................. 32.8 34.6 35.0 35.4 38.0 39.3 38.1 39.2 41.6 40.5 –21.2
New Mexico ................. 67.4 69.0 68.4 70.9 74.5 77.4 81.1 80.3 79.8 78.2 –15.5
New York .................. 37.0 38.5 38.8 41.8 44.0 45.8 45.7 45.3 46.0 43.6 –19.6
North Carolina................ 59.5 61.0 61.3 63.5 64.1 66.3 66.8 69.5 70.5 67.6 –15.6
North Dakota ................ 27.7 30.4 30.1 32.3 33.5 34.6 36.8 37.3 35.6 35.4 –22.2
Ohio ..................... 46.0 48.1 49.8 50.4 53.4 55.0 56.8 58.0 60.5 57.9 –24.0
Oklahoma .................. 60.5 61.6 64.3 63.4 64.0 65.9 68.6 69.9 72.1 66.8 –16.1
Oregon .................... 46.5 47.4 46.9 50.8 50.7 50.7 51.2 53.2 54.9 54.6 –15.3
Pennsylvania ................ 36.2 36.9 37.3 39.3 41.7 43.8 44.3 45.2 46.9 44.9 –22.8
Rhode Island ................ 38.2 41.0 42.7 42.5 43.1 47.7 49.8 47.5 45.4 43.9 –15.9
South Carolina ............... 60.8 60.4 61.4 62.9 65.1 66.5 66.0 70.3 72.9 71.3 –16.6
South Dakota ................ 37.6 38.5 39.7 39.5 40.5 42.8 44.3 48.3 47.5 46.8 –20.8
Tennessee .................. 62.7 64.3 64.5 66.1 67.9 71.0 70.2 71.4 75.2 72.3 –16.6
Texas ..................... 70.1 70.9 71.7 73.5 76.1 77.6 78.1 78.9 78.9 75.3 –11.2
Utah ..................... 40.2 40.9 42.6 42.8 42.4 42.7 44.5 46.3 48.2 48.5 –16.6
Vermont ................... 25.7 24.4 26.9 30.1 28.6 33.0 35.2 35.6 39.2 34.0 –34.4
Virginia .................... 42.7 43.5 44.2 45.5 48.7 50.7 49.8 51.8 53.5 52.9 –20.2
Washington ................. 40.1 41.7 42.5 45.0 47.6 48.2 50.2 50.9 53.7 53.1 –25.3
West Virginia ................ 47.9 49.2 49.1 50.3 52.7 54.3 55.6 56.0 57.8 57.3 –17.1
Wisconsin .................. 35.7 34.8 35.9 36.8 37.8 38.8 41.1 42.1 43.7 42.6 –18.3
Wyoming ................... 40.4 47.8 43.3 44.0 47.2 48.2 49.6 49.6 54.2 56.3 –25.5
Puerto Rico ................. 72.0 74.3 77.8 74.8 74.3 73.6 74.7 72.7 72.4 75.2 **–0.6
Virgin Islands ................ 55.2 62.0 66.0 54.9 63.0 72.8 80.7 77.8 77.9 79.2 –29.1
Guam..................... 96.6 104.8 106.3 116.8 108.4 108.4 107.9 107.6 95.7 93.4 **0.9
American Samoa .............. 46.4 43.9 43.9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Northern Marianas ............. 62.0 65.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
See footnotes at end of table.
14 National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 49, No. 10, September 25, 2001
Table 4. Birth rates for teenagers 15–19 years by age of mother: United States and each State, 1990–1999—Con.
15–17 years
Percent
change
State 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1991–99
United States ................ 28.7 30.4 32.1 33.8 36.0 37.6 37.8 37.8 38.7 37.5 –25.9
Alabama ................... 38.3 40.7 43.4 45.3 47.2 50.8 48.2 46.3 47.7 47.4 –19.7
Alaska .................... 24.5 24.8 25.1 26.5 29.6 32.3 33.4 34.5 35.3 31.2 –30.6
Arizona .................... 41.8 45.2 44.0 48.9 47.7 50.2 49.6 51.2 51.4 47.7 –18.7
Arkansas ................... 37.6 41.4 42.9 44.9 47.9 48.8 45.9 46.8 49.4 50.4 –23.8
California................... 30.9 33.4 36.2 39.2 43.4 45.5 46.4 46.1 46.9 44.6 –34.1
Colorado ................... 28.7 29.0 29.9 30.2 32.7 34.3 34.9 36.7 35.3 33.1 –18.8
Connecticut ................. 18.7 21.4 22.5 24.4 26.6 28.9 26.4 25.9 26.3 26.4 –28.8
Delaware................... 33.7 33.9 36.8 41.0 39.2 44.6 39.2 43.8 40.3 38.4 –16.3
District of Columbia ............ 67.0 65.5 65.9 79.0 78.3 87.9 102.1 88.6 102.8 88.4 –34.8
Florida .................... 30.9 33.3 35.1 36.7 40.0 42.4 42.1 42.2 44.0 44.9 –29.8
Georgia ................... 38.1 40.3 44.0 45.4 48.3 48.5 48.9 48.4 50.6 50.1 –24.7
Hawaii .................... 25.6 29.5 25.3 28.0 27.6 31.7 29.7 31.5 34.7 32.5 –26.2
Idaho ..................... 25.1 24.5 23.3 26.5 26.7 27.0 29.4 28.5 29.3 26.3 –14.4
Illinois .................... 29.5 32.7 34.4 36.1 38.4 41.1 41.4 40.3 40.6 40.1 –27.3
Indiana .................... 27.5 28.9 32.1 32.9 34.7 34.9 34.4 34.6 35.2 36.3 –21.8
Iowa ..................... 18.3 18.6 20.1 21.4 22.1 22.7 23.1 21.0 22.8 20.4 –19.8
Kansas .................... 24.2 24.8 27.5 27.8 29.9 30.3 31.0 30.3 29.4 30.4 –17.6
Kentucky ................... 30.3 31.5 35.4 36.9 38.9 39.7 39.6 38.8 42.6 40.8 –28.9
Louisiana................... 37.9 40.4 42.1 42.9 45.3 51.3 52.6 52.4 51.1 49.5 –25.8
Maine..................... 13.8 14.9 15.4 16.8 19.2 18.1 20.0 21.2 23.8 23.3 –42.0
Maryland ................... 25.2 26.4 28.2 29.6 32.0 32.5 33.8 32.8 35.2 33.5 –28.4
Massachusetts ............... 16.2 18.2 19.1 19.9 21.7 23.7 23.6 24.7 25.2 23.7 –35.6
Michigan ................... 22.0 23.9 25.4 28.2 30.1 31.6 32.8 33.6 35.5 36.0 –38.1
Minnesota .................. 16.2 16.5 17.8 18.5 19.4 19.8 20.4 20.6 20.7 19.9 –21.7
Mississippi .................. 45.0 47.2 50.2 52.1 57.7 58.2 57.6 59.1 60.1 57.5 –25.1
Missouri ................... 26.9 28.6 29.6 31.0 32.6 35.4 36.6 38.2 38.7 39.3 –30.6
Montana ................... 18.5 19.8 20.1 21.2 22.8 22.1 26.5 25.8 23.6 24.0 –21.6
Nebraska................... 20.1 20.5 21.3 22.2 22.0 24.2 22.7 22.8 23.6 23.0 –14.8
Nevada.................... 37.0 38.2 42.2 42.1 43.8 46.6 44.9 42.7 43.9 42.5 –15.8
New Hampshire ............... 10.5 13.1 14.0 15.1 14.6 14.5 14.7 14.8 17.1 17.1 –38.4
New Jersey ................. 18.2 20.2 21.3 22.9 24.4 25.6 25.1 24.4 26.3 24.4 –30.9
New Mexico ................. 42.8 44.2 44.4 45.8 48.9 51.7 53.6 51.5 50.0 46.9 –14.4
New York .................. 21.3 22.4 23.4 25.6 27.6 29.8 29.8 29.0 29.1 27.5 –26.7
North Carolina................ 34.8 36.2 37.7 40.8 41.6 43.5 42.9 43.8 46.2 44.9 –24.8
North Dakota ................ 12.9 16.1 14.3 16.1 17.8 15.4 17.6 17.8 18.1 15.6 –28.7
Ohio ..................... 24.7 26.7 28.6 29.5 32.6 33.7 34.8 34.9 36.2 34.3 –31.8
Oklahoma .................. 33.1 35.0 37.3 37.2 38.7 40.5 40.5 41.1 41.7 38.8 –20.7
Oregon .................... 25.3 26.3 27.0 29.4 30.0 30.1 30.2 30.3 31.3 30.7 –19.2
Pennsylvania ................ 20.5 21.8 21.9 24.5 26.2 28.0 28.4 28.7 29.2 28.4 –29.8
Rhode Island ................ 21.6 24.4 27.6 27.3 26.5 32.2 33.5 29.7 30.1 31.6 –28.2
South Carolina ............... 38.1 39.6 40.0 41.3 43.5 45.7 43.6 45.8 48.0 47.0 –20.7
South Dakota ................ 19.3 19.6 21.8 22.4 21.4 23.0 24.9 26.9 26.3 23.9 –26.7
Tennessee .................. 35.0 37.7 38.5 40.2 42.0 43.2 43.4 44.6 47.8 45.0 –26.8
Texas ..................... 43.9 45.2 47.1 48.8 50.6 51.8 51.3 51.1 50.4 48.0 –13.0
Utah ..................... 22.6 22.2 23.7 24.3 25.2 24.9 25.7 26.1 27.0 26.3 –16.2
Vermont ................... 12.1 11.4 12.1 15.2 10.8 16.5 17.0 17.3 21.3 19.5 –43.1
Virginia .................... 23.0 24.3 26.1 27.7 30.7 31.2 30.6 31.0 31.8 32.1 –27.6
Washington ................. 21.5 23.2 24.5 26.1 28.0 28.5 29.3 30.8 31.0 29.6 –30.5
West Virginia ................ 24.4 26.2 27.5 28.7 30.5 32.5 33.5 32.4 32.4 33.0 –24.7
Wisconsin .................. 20.1 19.6 21.4 21.7 22.6 23.0 23.9 23.9 24.8 24.2 –19.1
Wyoming ................... 22.0 22.8 23.3 24.9 24.6 24.9 26.9 24.8 26.4 29.7 –16.8
Puerto Rico ................. 50.3 54.4 57.6 55.6 53.7 54.4 54.6 51.6 50.8 50.9 **–1.0
Virgin Islands ................ 32.0 40.1 46.6 35.0 38.3 48.9 52.4 51.1 48.6 43.6 –34.2
Guam..................... 54.9 60.4 61.4 69.5 70.3 69.6 70.2 65.8 55.0 50.5 **–0.2
American Samoa .............. 21.6 17.3 20.7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Northern Marianas ............. 50.5 50.4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
See footnotes at end of table.
National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 49, No. 10, September 25, 2001 15
Table 4. Birth rates for teenagers 15–19 years by age of mother: United States and each State, 1990–1999—Con.
18–19 years
Percent
change
State 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1991–99
United States ................ 80.3 82.0 83.6 86.0 89.1 91.5 92.1 94.5 94.4 88.6 –14.9
Alabama ................... 95.9 100.4 100.2 104.1 104.3 103.4 102.3 109.9 109.5 101.4 –12.4
Alaska .................... 67.7 68.6 73.6 75.2 81.2 90.0 91.6 108.6 111.7 120.0 –39.4
Arizona .................... 111.1 108.2 111.2 110.7 121.0 123.5 126.4 128.3 122.6 111.6 –9.4
Arkansas ................... 112.3 114.0 119.2 121.7 112.0 117.1 114.7 117.1 122.8 120.7 –8.5
California................... 78.5 83.4 90.5 99.1 107.0 110.8 112.3 116.0 113.6 104.3 –30.9
Colorado ................... 78.0 79.0 77.2 79.7 80.3 85.7 86.6 91.5 91.4 82.9 –14.6
Connecticut ................. 57.6 58.6 58.1 58.3 59.7 58.2 58.4 59.3 59.4 53.9 **–3.0
Delaware................... 82.3 81.7 83.3 79.9 83.4 82.9 89.4 82.0 87.1 71.4 **–5.5
District of Columbia ............ 100.4 110.8 122.4 132.5 145.7 151.0 162.8 148.1 125.5 96.7 –20.0
Florida .................... 88.6 90.8 94.2 94.1 96.4 98.3 98.6 101.6 102.9 100.6 –13.9
Georgia ................... 104.0 102.5 102.8 103.3 106.7 107.4 108.4 111.6 110.9 108.5 –6.3
Hawaii .................... 67.2 67.3 69.6 76.2 76.3 83.6 85.0 83.1 91.5 102.0 –26.5
Idaho ..................... 68.9 73.1 72.5 77.7 82.7 76.4 83.2 87.8 90.8 84.8 –24.2
Illinois .................... 83.6 85.0 87.6 90.9 94.0 96.7 96.1 98.7 99.1 93.3 –15.7
Indiana .................... 86.8 89.5 87.6 91.4 92.2 92.4 94.0 93.7 95.2 87.8 –8.8
Iowa ..................... 61.4 60.3 60.4 63.6 64.9 66.5 69.3 72.3 71.5 65.7 –14.1
Kansas .................... 81.5 81.1 81.7 84.2 87.6 90.1 94.3 95.6 94.1 89.9 –13.4
Kentucky ................... 93.1 94.2 95.0 97.9 98.2 102.1 100.2 103.0 105.5 103.0 –11.7
Louisiana................... 96.9 100.6 101.4 102.3 106.8 109.6 110.9 112.2 111.4 106.9 –13.0
Maine..................... 54.8 54.5 58.3 54.5 56.7 62.8 62.8 66.6 70.1 68.8 –21.8
Maryland ................... 69.9 69.2 68.8 72.3 72.6 76.5 74.5 76.6 79.8 78.4 –12.4
Massachusetts ............... 47.2 49.5 50.8 50.6 53.5 57.3 58.1 56.0 52.9 47.0 –10.8
Michigan ................... 68.2 70.9 72.2 75.5 79.3 83.8 83.6 89.8 91.1 88.8 –25.1
Minnesota .................. 51.2 52.7 55.1 54.2 53.8 57.9 57.8 60.0 61.4 57.6 –16.6
Mississippi .................. 111.0 110.3 108.8 110.5 115.2 120.2 121.2 120.6 120.4 111.0 –7.8
Missouri ................... 83.4 85.7 86.3 89.7 91.9 96.2 95.2 100.8 100.7 93.0 –17.2
Montana ......... ......... 60.2 63.3 65.2 65.8 72.1 72.1 76.3 78.3 83.0 85.8 –27.4
Nebraska................... 61.4 61.6 61.6 63.7 61.4 70.8 66.8 68.5 69.2 68.0 –11.2
Nevada.................... 106.9 109.5 109.1 113.5 121.1 116.2 117.1 113.9 119.1 115.1 –10.3
New Hampshire ............... 46.0 50.0 53.0 50.9 57.1 55.2 55.0 54.4 53.8 51.3 –14.4
New Jersey ................. 55.5 56.9 56.7 55.3 59.6 60.6 57.6 61.0 62.9 62.4 –11.7
New Mexico ................. 104.6 107.5 106.3 110.7 115.2 118.4 123.7 124.1 124.4 124.2 –15.9
New York .................. 59.8 62.4 62.3 66.4 69.1 70.1 69.4 69.3 69.0 63.4 –13.4
North Carolina................ 96.3 98.5 97.3 97.5 98.1 100.3 101.4 105.6 101.7 94.4 –5.3
North Dakota ................ 50.0 52.5 55.0 58.1 58.5 65.5 67.4 68.3 62.4 62.3 –19.9
Ohio ..................... 77.2 80.3 82.6 82.6 85.7 87.4 89.2 91.5 93.8 88.1 –17.7
Oklahoma .................. 101.7 102.6 107.4 104.7 103.4 104.9 111.2 113.3 115.6 104.3 –12.0
Oregon .................... 78.4 80.0 78.2 84.7 83.6 83.5 84.4 89.6 90.7 87.9 –13.6
Pennsylvania ................ 60.1 60.2 61.3 62.5 65.9 68.0 68.0 68.9 70.5 64.9 –14.7
Rhode Island ................ 63.2 65.8 65.6 65.7 68.9 71.5 73.5 72.1 63.6 55.7 **–0.6
South Carolina ............... 91.9 89.8 93.0 94.2 97.1 96.9 97.8 104.6 105.4 101.4 –12.8
South Dakota ................ 63.4 66.0 66.3 66.0 70.1 74.1 74.7 81.9 79.2 78.7 –20.0
Tennessee .................. 102.7 103.4 103.8 105.8 108.1 113.5 109.7 109.5 112.1 107.3 –8.4
Texas ..................... 108.1 109.3 110.1 111.3 115.4 116.4 117.8 120.2 119.3 112.2 –9.4
Utah ..................... 62.7 65.6 68.3 68.6 67.7 70.4 74.0 78.4 79.8 78.7 –21.4
Vermont ................... 46.3 44.6 51.2 54.1 57.0 58.7 62.8 62.0 62.0 49.6 –25.4
Virginia .................... 70.0 70.7 70.8 71.6 74.8 78.8 76.7 80.1 81.2 77.7 –13.8
Washington ................. 67.6 69.6 70.7 74.5 78.1 78.9 82.2 81.5 86.5 84.4 –21.8
West Virginia ................ 81.0 81.5 80.3 81.9 85.6 87.0 88.2 90.7 93.2 89.9 –13.1
Wisconsin .................. 59.2 58.1 58.8 60.7 62.1 63.6 67.5 70.1 71.2 66.1 –16.8
Wyoming ................... 68.2 86.5 75.8 74.9 84.5 86.4 86.0 89.8 98.6 98.1 –30.9
Puerto Rico ................. 102.7 102.3 106.6 102.7 104.1 102.6 105.4 105.3 105.9 113.3 **–3.0
Virgin Islands ................ 89.9 94.5 96.7 84.9 100.1 108.8 123.4 118.3 124.0 138.0 –27.5
Guam..................... 163.3 176.1 178.2 191.5 167.2 167.5 164.8 170.2 156.1 156.4 **4.6
American Samoa .............. 86.3 86.4 81.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Northern Marianas ............. 76.4 83.7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - Data not available.
** Not significant at p < .05.
Table 5. Birth rates for teenagers 15–19 years, by race and Hispanic origin of mother: United States and each State, 1999
[Rates per 1,000 women in specified group]
16
15–19 years 15–17 years 18–19 years
White White White
State All Total Non-Hispanic Black Hispanic
1
All Total Non-Hispanic Black Hispanic
1
All Total Non-Hispanic Black Hispanic
1
National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 49, No. 10, September 25, 2001
United States ................ 49.6 44.6 34.0 81.0 93.4 28.7 24.8 17.1 52.0 61.3 80.3 73.5 58.9 122.8 139.4
Alabama ................... 62.8 52.5 50.8 83.2 136.2 38.3 29.5 28.4 56.3 87.1 95.9 84.9 82.3 117.1 *
Alaska .................... 41.8 29.8 29.0 66.7 57.6 24.5 15.9 15.0 * * 67.7 50.3 49.9 * *
Arizona .................... 69.6 69.7 39.6 74.9 125.4 41.8 41.9 19.2 47.3 84.5 111.1 110.7 70.0 116.1 184.9
Arkansas ................... 68.1 59.9 57.4 96.5 121.2 37.6 29.9 28.4 64.3 66.3 112.3 104.1 100.1 140.4 204.8
California................... 50.7 55.2 25.2 58.4 83.4 30.9 34.1 12.2 35.3 55.3 78.5 84.7 43.7 89.8 121.9
Colorado ................... 48.4 47.6 29.9 67.4 116.3 28.7 28.1 15.0 42.8 79.4 78.0 76.7 52.1 104.4 171.0
Connecticut ................. 33.3 29.1 16.1 67.1 114.4 18.7 16.1 7.2 39.6 73.8 57.6 50.8 30.9 115.1 183.9
Delaware................... 54.3 40.4 35.7 99.8 116.6 33.7 23.8 20.8 65.8 * 82.3 62.3 55.0 149.7 *
District of Columbia ............ 83.5 23.2 * 127.8 * 67.0 27.0 * 81.2 * 100.4 21.5 * 213.1 *
Florida .................... 53.5 45.3 39.5 83.5 62.5 30.9 24.8 20.3 53.2 39.7 88.6 77.4 70.2 129.2 96.3
Georgia ................... 65.1 55.8 49.3 84.4 154.5 38.1 30.2 26.5 54.2 89.3 104.0 93.4 82.9 126.2 246.8
Hawaii .................... 43.8 16.9 14.7 31.0 98.2 25.6 7.1 5.3 * 59.4 67.2 28.4 25.6 * 150.0
Idaho ..................... 43.7 43.4 38.2 * 91.9 25.1 24.6 19.5 * 72.0 68.9 69.0 63.4 * 120.2
Illinois .................... 51.1 40.3 27.5 105.2 102.2 29.5 21.6 13.1 67.9 62.8 83.6 68.3 49.1 160.6 162.4
Indiana .................... 51.6 46.7 44.6 97.2 99.6 27.5 23.8 22.5 60.1 57.2 86.8 80.0 76.7 153.3 163.1
Iowa ..................... 35.8 33.9 31.8 95.5 106.6 18.3 16.8 15.2 62.6 71.7 61.4 59.0 56.1 138.5 162.1
Kansas .................... 47.4 44.0 38.3 97.6 108.3 24.2 21.7 17.3 59.1 72.1 81.5 77.1 69.5 152.3 161.7
Kentucky ................... 56.4 53.8 53.2 85.3 112.1 30.3 28.5 28.0 51.2 * 93.1 89.5 88.6 130.3 *
Louisiana................... 62.8 45.3 45.6 89.7 33.8 37.9 23.5 23.4 60.6 23.8 96.9 76.0 77.0 127.6 46.7
Maine..................... 29.8 29.5 29.4 * * 13.8 13.6 13.5 * * 54.8 54.6 54.4 * *
Maryland ................... 42.6 29.0 26.6 73.0 59.2 25.2 15.2 14.0 47.4 30.7 69.9 50.5 46.4 112.9 99.3
Massachusetts ............... 28.7 25.4 17.9 68.0 101.9 16.2 14.1 8.8 38.5 65.8 47.2 42.1 31.5 116.5 158.7
Michigan ................... 40.5 32.9 30.4 79.8 88.2 22.0 16.7 14.7 49.8 59.6 68.2 57.3 53.9 125.7 130.0
Minnesota .................. 30.0 24.0 21.0 109.9 137.5 16.2 11.6 9.8 70.5 83.0 51.2 42.7 38.1 174.7 219.6
Mississippi .................. 72.5 53.3 53.0 95.0 61.8 45.0 27.5 27.3 65.4 * 111.0 89.7 89.3 135.5 *
Missouri ................... 49.6 43.1 42.0 92.0 87.7 26.9 21.8 21.1 58.8 52.9 83.4 74.5 72.8 142.9 135.3
Montana ................... 35.1 29.7 28.8 * * 18.5 14.6 14.4 * * 60.2 51.9 50.2 * *
Nebraska................... 37.0 32.9 28.6 97.5 97.2 20.1 16.9 13.2 64.1 69.4 61.4 55.8 50.4 150.8 140.5
Nevada.................... 64.1 63.9 45.3 81.6 112.7 37.0 37.0 23.3 48.8 75.2 106.9 106.0 80.5 132.5 168.1
New Hampshire ............... 24.0 24.3 23.5 * * 10.5 10.5 10.1 * * 46.0 46.7 45.5 * *
New Jersey ................. 32.8 25.3 13.5 72.6 76.6 18.2 13.3 5.7 45.1 47.0 55.5 44.1 25.8 112.2 119.1
New Mexico ................. 67.4 68.6 37.7 50.4 91.8 42.8 43.9 18.2 31.0 63.9 104.6 105.3 67.2 * 132.9
New York .................. 37.0 32.5 20.5 59.3 73.7 21.3 18.2 10.6 36.3 43.9 59.8 52.7 34.3 94.9 117.7
North Carolina................ 59.5 50.5 43.0 80.2 219.0 34.8 27.2 23.3 52.8 114.7 96.3 85.8 72.8 119.8 380.4
North Dakota ................ 27.7 22.9 22.5 * * 12.9 10.0 9.8 * * 50.0 42.1 41.2 * *
Ohio ..................... 46.0 39.6 38.6 88.6 76.0 24.7 19.8 19.1 57.0 49.4 77.2 68.6 67.4 135.2 113.8
Oklahoma .................. 60.5 55.9 52.0 82.9 107.6 33.1 29.5 26.6 52.3 68.2 101.7 95.8 90.2 122.4 168.6
Oregon .................... 46.5 46.2 38.7 64.5 119.3 25.3 24.6 19.1 40.0 78.6 78.4 78.7 68.1 101.5 181.2
Pennsylvania ................ 36.2 29.2 25.5 93.6 114.0 20.5 15.3 12.7 62.2 75.5 60.1 50.3 45.0 143.7 173.3
Rhode Island ................ 38.2 34.2 25.7 66.2 115.4 21.6 18.6 12.1 38.5 76.9 63.2 57.5 45.7 * *
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 5. Birth rates for teenagers 15–19 years, by race and Hispanic origin of mother: United States and each State, 1999—Con.
[Rates per 1,000 women in specified group]
15–19 years 15–17 years 18–19 years
White
White White
State All
Total Non-Hispanic
Black Hispanic
1
All Total Non-Hispanic Black Hispanic
1
All Total Non-Hispanic Black Hispanic
1
South Carolina ............... 60.8 49.2 46.9 80.5 128.8 38.1 27.8 26.3 55.2 84.5 91.9 78.1 75.0 115.4 179.0
South Dakota ................ 37.6 27.5 27.0 * * 19.3 12.9 12.4 * * 63.4 47.4 47.0 * *
Tennessee .................. 62.7 55.4 53.7 90.6 136.1 35.0 28.4 27.3 60.1 83.8 102.7 94.9 92.3 132.0 208.6
Texas ..................... 70.1 71.3 41.9 76.0 107.4 43.9 44.7 21.7 48.3 73.3 108.1 109.8 71.2 114.7 157.2
Utah ..................... 40.2 39.6 33.0 * 118.8 22.6 22.3 17.0 * 84.6 62.7 61.8 53.4 * 164.0
Vermont ................... 25.7 25.9 26.1 * * 12.1 12.0 12.1 * * 46.3 47.1 47.7 * *
Virginia .................... 42.7 33.7 31.1 73.8 73.6 23.0 16.8 15.1 44.1 43.3 70.0 57.2 53.3 113.8 114.3
Washington ................. 40.1 39.3 32.6 60.7 98.0 21.5 20.8 15.9 33.1 64.9 67.6 66.6 57.3 100.2 146.4
West Virginia ................ 47.9 47.2 47.1 71.7 * 24.4 23.8 23.6 43.9 * 81.0 80.2 80.2 107.5 *
Wisconsin .................. 35.7 27.3 24.2 122.9 110.7 20.1 13.6 11.5 82.4 69.4 59.2 47.6 42.9 190.2 177.3
Wyoming ................... 40.4 39.6 37.4 * 65.0 22.0 21.3 19.2 * * 68.2 67.1 64.7 * *
* Figure does not meet standards of reliability or precision (based on fewer than 20 births or fewer than 1,000 women in specified group).
1
Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race.
NOTE: Rates by race and Hispanic origin cannot be computed for the territories because populations are not available by race and Hispanic origin for these areas. Rates are based on populations provided by the U.S. Census Bureau and, therefore, may differ from
those computed on the basis of other population estimates.
National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 49, No. 10, September 25, 2001 17
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Table 6. Birth rates for teenagers 15–19 years, by race and Hispanic origin of mother: United States and each State, 1991 and 1999, and percent change
in rates: United States, 1991 to 1999
[Rates are births per 1,000 women in specified group]
18
White non-Hispanic Black American Indian Asian or Pacific Islander Hispanic
Percent change Percent change Percent change Percent change Percent change
State 1991 1999 1991–99 1991 1999 1991–99 1991 1999 1991–99 1991 1999 1991–99 1991 1999 1991–99
National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 49, No. 10, September 25, 2001
United States ................ 43.4 34.0 –21.6 115.5 81.0 –29.9 85.0 67.8 –20.2 27.4 22.3 –18.4 106.7 93.4 –12.5
Alabama ................... 56.4 50.8 –9.9 111.0 83.2 –25.0 * * * * 18.3 * * 136.2 *
Alaska .................... 50.8 29.0 –42.9 * 66.7 * 115.3 75.5 –34.5 * 43.9 * * 57.6 *
Arizona .................... 53.5 39.6 –25.9 126.7 74.9 –40.9 103.8 77.7 –25.2 27.8 26.1 **–6.1 131.1 125.4 –4.4
Arkansas ................... 66.8 57.4 –14.1 127.3 96.5 –24.2 * * * * * * * 121.2 *
California................... 42.9 25.2 –41.2 98.7 58.4 –40.8 50.9 45.5 **–10.6 27.9 19.1 –31.5 122.4 83.4 –31.9
Colorado ................... 40.2 29.9 –25.7 122.3 67.4 –44.9 76.3 74.5 **–2.3 35.5 27.8 **–21.8 118.7 116.3 **–2.0
Connecticut ................. 20.4 16.1 –21.0 98.4 67.1 –31.9 * * * 19.1 13.8 **–27.7 131.9 114.4 –13.3
Delaware................... 37.5 35.7 **–4.8 134.0 99.8 –25.5 * * * * * * * 116.6 *
District of Columbia ............ 10.2 * * 135.3 127.8 **–5.5 * * * * * * * * *
Florida .................... 50.6 39.5 –21.9 132.4 83.5 –36.9 61.5 52.4 **–14.8 15.8 16.0 **1.5 60.5 62.5 **3.4
Georgia ................... 54.7 49.3 –10.0 118.4 84.4 –28.7 * * * 28.1 18.1 –35.5 90.5 154.5 70.8
Hawaii .................... 37.9 14.7 –61.3 * 31.0 * * * * 64.7 56.0 –13.5 116.0 98.2 –15.3
Idaho ..................... 48.9 38.2 –21.9 * * * * * * * * * 124.9 91.9 –26.4
Illinois .................... 36.9 27.5 –25.4 146.1 105.2 –28.0 * 28.0 * 12.7 10.1 **–20.8 103.4 102.2 **–1.2
Indiana .................... 53.0 44.6 –15.9 126.6 97.2 –23.2 * * * 13.9 18.6 **33.6 64.4 99.6 54.7
Iowa ..................... 39.5 31.8 –19.6 138.1 95.5 –30.8 * * * 32.9 35.0 **6.3 80.9 106.6 31.8
Kansas .................... 46.8 38.3 –18.1 131.4 97.6 –25.7 * 50.9 * 38.6 25.1 **–34.9 98.1 108.3 **10.4
Kentucky ................... 64.8 53.2 –18.0 117.6 85.3 –27.5 * * * * 24.2 * * 112.1 *
Louisiana................... 52.7 45.6 –13.5 117.5 89.7 –23.6 * 63.1 * 19.2 22.9 **19.5 24.8 33.8 **36.4
Maine..................... 43.3 29.4 –32.2 * * * * * * * * * * * *
Maryland ................... 36.2 26.6 –26.5 96.9 73.0 –24.6 * * * 12.1 10.9 **–10.1 44.2 59.2 34.0
Massachusetts ............... 25.3 17.9 –29.1 95.7 68.0 –28.9 * * * 30.6 23.6 –22.9 129.8 101.9 –21.5
Michigan ................... 41.1 30.4 –26.0 130.1 79.8 –38.7 * 43.1 * 19.4 23.4 **20.6 90.3 88.2 **–2.3
Minnesota .................. 29.2 21.0 –28.0 156.3 109.9 –29.7 144.2 97.0 –32.7 70.7 64.8 **–8.3 100.9 137.5 36.3
Mississippi .................. 59.1 53.0 –10.3 117.6 95.0 –19.2 * * * * * * * 61.8 *
Missouri ................... 51.3 42.0 –18.2 146.3 92.0 –37.1 * * * 19.6 20.7 **5.8 67.4 87.7 30.2
Montana ................... 38.7 28.8 –25.5 * * * 131.8 89.8 –31.9 * * * * * *
Nebraska................... 34.7 28.6 –17.6 130.3 97.5 –25.2 * * * * 23.2 * 99.8 97.2 **–2.7
Nevada.................... 60.4 45.3 –25.1 138.4 81.6 –41.0 * 50.0 * 42.8 40.9 **–4.5 114.1 112.7 **–1.2
New Hampshire ............... 23.5 * * * * * * * * * *
New Jersey ................. 18.2 13.5 –26.0 103.3 72.6 –29.7 * * * 7.3 6.5 **–10.7 85.1 76.6 –10.0
New Mexico ................. 50.9 37.7 –26.0 100.8 50.4 –50.0 91.8 70.0 –23.7 * * * 101.0 91.8 –9.1
New York .................. 26.3 20.5 –22.1 76.7 59.3 –22.7 29.9 29.0 **–2.9 10.7 12.3 **15.0 85.4 73.7 –13.7
North Carolina................ 52.5 43.0 –18.0 110.9 80.2 –27.7 97.5 87.4 **–10.4 33.2 49.1 47.8 104.0 219.0 110.6
North Dakota ................ 28.8 22.5 –22.0 * * * 143.2 92.1 –35.7 * * * * * *
Ohio ..................... 48.9 38.6 –21.0 134.7 88.6 –34.2 * * * 15.2 14.5 **–4.4 83.1 76.0 **–8.5
Oklahoma .................. 61.5 52.0 –15.5 132.0 82.9 –37.2 90.2 79.5 –11.9 36.5 16.3 –55.3 91.7 107.6 17.4
Oregon .................... 49.2 38.7 –21.4 113.1 64.5 –43.0 84.5 76.0 **–10.0 21.5 28.4 **32.3 131.4 119.3 **–9.2
Pennsylvania ................ 33.1 25.5 –22.8 132.5 93.6 –29.4 * * * 18.9 15.2 **–19.5 130.1 114.0 –12.4
Rhode Island ................ 33.5 25.7 –23.4 120.6 66.2 –45.1 * * * * 56.8 * 109.2 115.4 **5.7
See footnotes at end of table.
Table 6. Birth rates for teenagers 15–19 years, by race and Hispanic origin of mother: United States and each State, 1991 and 1999, and percent change
in rates: United States, 1991 to 1999—Con.
[Rates are births per 1,000 women in specified group]
White non-Hispanic Black American Indian Asian or Pacific Islander Hispanic
Percent change Percent change Percent change Percent change Percent change
State 1991 1999 1991–99 1991 1999 1991–99 1991 1999 1991–99 1991 1999 1991–99 1991 1999 1991–99
South Carolina ............... 54.6 46.9 –14.0 102.8 80.5 –21.7 * * * * 23.5 * 65.6 128.8 96.4
South Dakota ................ 35.6 27.0 –24.0 * * * 146.3 111.4 –23.8 * * * * * *
Tennessee .................. 61.9 53.7 –13.3 129.3 90.6 –29.9 * * * 24.6 31.3 **27.0 44.6 136.1 205.2
Texas ..................... 49.6 41.9 –15.5 116.0 76.0 –34.5 49.4 32.4 –34.4 17.8 15.0 **–15.7 110.2 107.4 –2.5
Utah ..................... 44.4 33.0 –25.6 * * * 86.9 66.5 –23.4 37.0 39.0 **5.3 104.3 118.8 13.9
Vermont ................... 39.5 26.1 –33.9 * * * * * * * * * * * *
Virginia .................... 40.5 31.1 –23.3 98.3 73.8 –24.9 * * * 14.6 13.9 **–4.7 62.0 73.6 18.6
Washington ................. 46.5 32.6 –29.9 97.4 60.7 –37.6 102.1 68.4 –33.1 25.4 26.9 **5.8 125.8 98.0 –22.1
West Virginia ................ 57.4 47.1 –17.9 85.2 71.7 **–15.9 * * * * * * * * *
Wisconsin .................. 30.1 24.2 –19.8 173.7 122.9 –29.3 95.8 93.2 **–2.7 72.4 65.3 **–9.9 93.0 110.7 19.0
Wyoming ................... 50.0 37.4 –25.3 * * * * * * * * * 76.3 65.0 **–14.8
* Figure does not meet standards of reliability or precision (rate based on fewer than 20 births or fewer than 1,000 women in specified group).
** Not significant at p < 0.05.
- - - Data not available.
NOTES: Birth rates by State shown in this table are based on population estimates provided by the U.S. Census Bureau and, therefore, the rates shown here may differ from rates computed on the basis of other population estimates. Rates by race and
Hispanic origin cannot be computed for the territories because populations by race and Hispanic origin are not available for these areas.
National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 49, No. 10, September 25, 2001 19
20 National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 49, No. 10, September 25, 2001
Table 7. Teenage birth rates: Selected countries, most
recent available year
Births per 1,000
Country women 15–19 Year
Australia ................... 20.5 1995
Austria .................... 14.7 1997
Belgium ................... 11.9 1992
Canada.................... 24.5 1995
Denmark ................... 8.3 1996
Finland .................... 9.1 1997
France .................... 7.9 1993
Germany ................... 9.7 1996
Greece .................... 12.1 1997
Ireland .................... 16.1 1996
Israel ..................... 16.7 1997
Italy ...................... 6.8 1995
Japan..................... 4.3 1997
Netherlands ................. 5.6 1996
New Zealand ................ 34.0 1996
Norway .................... 12.8 1997
Portugal ................... 21.3 1997
Russian Federation............. 44.7 1995
Spain ..................... 7.5 1996
Sweden ................... 7.8 1996
Switzerland ................. 5.7 1996
United Kingdom ............... 30.2 1997
United States ................ 48.7 2000
SOURCE: Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistical Office, United Nations.
Demographic Yearbook 1998. (See reference 22.)
National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 49, No. 10, September 25, 2001 21
Technical notes
Sources and methods
Data shown in this report for 2000 are preliminary and are based
on more than 96 percent of births in that year (1). The records are
weighted to independent control counts of births received in State
vital statistics offices in 2000 (1). Data shown in this report for
1985–99 are based on 100 percent of the birth certificates registered
in all States and the District of Columbia. The data are provided to
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for
Health Statistics through the Vital Statistics Cooperative Program
(VSCP). In 1984 and earlier years, the VSCP included varying
numbers of States that provided data based on 100 percent of their
birth certificates. Data for States not in the VSCP were based on a
50-percent sample of birth certificates filed in those States. Informa-
tion on sampling procedures for 1984 and earlier years is provided in
the annual report, Vital Statistics of the United States, Volume I,
Natality, Technical Appendix (5). Missing data for age, race, and
marital status of mother are imputed. In 1999 age of mother was
imputed for 0.02 percent of the births and race of mother was
imputed for 0.4 percent of the births. Marital status of mother was
imputed for 0.03 percent of the births in the 48 States and the District
of Columbia where this information was obtained by a direct question;
when marital status was not reported on the birth certificate, it was
imputed as married. More information on the reporting of these items
on the birth certificate is presented in other reports (1,5,12).
Tabulations by race and Hispanic origin of mother are based on
this information as reported on the birth certificate. Race and Hispanic
origin are reported as separate items on the birth certificate. Although
the overwhelming majority of Hispanic births (97 percent in 1999) are
to white women, there are substantial differences in teenage child-
bearing patterns between Hispanic and non-Hispanic white women.
Therefore, data are shown separately for these groups.
Population data for computing birth rates were provided by the
U.S. Census Bureau (8–10,21,32–33). Rates by State shown here may
differ from rates computed on the basis of other population estimates.
State rates are based on mother’s place of residence. The rates in this
report are based on estimates projected from the 1990 census. It should
be noted that the Hispanic populations in some States have grown
dramatically over the 1990s according to the 2000 census results
recently announced (14,15). For example, the number of Hispanic
persons in North Carolina increased nearly five times between 1990
and 2000 from about 77,000 to 379,000 (20). This population growth
is not reflected in the postcensal estimates used in this report. Based
on a comparison of 2000 census results and unpublished estimates for
2000 projected from 1990, the Hispanic populations used for this report
may be about 8 percent lower than 2000 census results would indicate
(10,15). Thus, birth rates for Hispanic women in particular are over-
stated because the population base is too small. When population
estimates from the 2000 census and intercensal estimates become
available, population-based rates for the 1990s and 2000 will be
recalculated and presented in a report. In the meantime, it is recom-
mended that caution be exercised in interpreting the levels and trends
in rates for the U.S. as a whole and by State for Hispanic women. As
mentioned, because of differences in projections and counts, it is
anticipated that the rates based on the 2000 census will differ from
those based on the 1990 census.
Population estimates by race and Hispanic origin are not available
for the territories. Birth rates are not available for American Samoa for
1991–96 and the Northern Marianas for 1991–97, because birth data
were not collected.
Rates were not computed if there were fewer than 20 births in the
numerator or fewer than 1,000 women in the specified group in the
denominator. In tables 5 and 6, an asterisk is shown in place of the rate.
Data on birth rates for women who have not had a live birth (i.e.,
childless women) and for women having a second child are included
in this report. Information on the derivation of these rates is provided
elsewhere (34). The rate for childless women enables us to measure
precisely changes in first-time childbearing among teenagers who have
not yet had a child. It is thus a refinement of the first birth rate, which
relates first births to all teenagers, regardless of whether they have had
any children. To put it another way, the denominator for the first birth
rate is all teenagers; the denominator for the first birth rate for childless
teenagers is all teenagers who have not had a birth. For teenagers,
the differences between the first birth rate and the birth rate for childless
women are relatively small and the trends are similar, because most
teenagers have not had any children. For example, the first birth rate
for all teenagers 15–19 years declined from 46.5 in 1991 to 38.9 in
1999, a reduction of 16 percent. The birth rate for childless teenagers
declined from 49.6 in 1991 to 41.7 in 1999, a reduction of 16 percent.
The second birth rate for women who have had a first child is also
a refinement of the second birth rate, which is computed on the basis
of all women in a given age group, regardless of whether they have
had any children. Thus, while the denominator for the second birth rate
is all teenagers, the denominator for the second birth rate for women
who have had a first child is all teenagers who have given birth to one
child. For teenagers, the differences between these rates are sub-
stantial, again because most teenage women have not had any chil-
dren. However, the trends in the rates have been fairly similar. For
example, the second birth rate for all teenagers 15–19 years declined
from 12.4 per 1,000 in 1991 to 9.0 in 1999, a reduction of 27 percent.
The second birth rate for teenagers with one child declined from 220.9
per 1,000 in 1991 to 174.1 in 1999, a drop of 21 percent.
Random variation and significance testing
The number of births reported for an area is essentially a
complete count, since more than 99 percent of all births are regis-
tered. Although this number is not subject to sampling error, it may be
affected by nonsampling errors such as mistakes in recording the
mother’s residence or age during the registration process.
When the birth rate is used for analytic purposes the number of
events that actually occurred can be thought of as one in a large series
of possible results that could have occurred under the same circum-
stances. When considered in this way, the number of births is subject
to random variation. A probable range of values may be estimated from
the rate according to certain statistical assumptions, i.e., these sta-
tistical assumptions can be used to estimate the variability in birth rates.
For our purposes, assume that the denominators of these rates
(the population estimates) have no error. Although this assumption is
technically correct only for denominators based on the census that
occurs every 10 years, in general, the error in intercensal population
estimates is usually small, difficult to measure, and therefore not
considered. (See however, discussion of rates for Hispanic teenagers
in previous section.)
22 National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 49, No. 10, September 25, 2001
Computing confidence intervals for rates
The confidence interval is the range of values for the birth rates
that you could expect in 95 out of 100 cases. The confidence limits
are the end points of this range of values (the highest and lowest
values). Confidence limits tell you how much the rates could vary
under similar circumstances.
Confidence limits for rates are estimated from the number of births
on which the rates are based. Below are detailed procedures and
examples for each type of case.
95-percent confidence limits for rates based on less than 100
events
When the number of events in the numerator is less than 20, an
asterisk is shown in place of the rate because there were too few
births to compute a statistically reliable rate. When the number of
events in the numerator is greater than 20 but less than 100 and the
rate is small, the data are assumed to follow a Poisson probability
distribution. Confidence limits for a rate can be estimated using the
two formulas that follow and the values from a Poisson probability
distribution (1):
Lower limit = R c L
Upper limit = R c U
where
R = the birth rate
L = the value that corresponds to the number of events in the
numerator, B, of the rate in a Poisson probability distribution
U = the value that corresponds to the number of events in the
numerator, B, of the rate in a Poisson probability distribution
Example
Suppose that the birth rate for Asian or Pacific Islander women
15–19 years of age in State X was 37.3 per 1,000, based on 78
births in the numerator. Using the values from a Poisson probability
distribution:
Lower limit = 37.3 c 0.79046 = 29.5
Upper limit = 37.3 c 1.24805 = 46.6
This means that the chances are 95 out of 100 that the actual birth
rate for Asian or Pacific Islander women 15–19 years of age in State
X lies between 29.5 and 46.6.
95-percent confidence limits for rates when the numerator is
100 or more
When the number of events in the numerator is greater than
100, the data are assumed to approximate a normal distribution. In
this case, the formulas for the birth rate R based on the number of
births B are:
Lower limit = R – [1.96 c (R /
B )]
Upper limit = R + [1.96 c (R /
B )]
where
R = the birth rate
B = the number of births
Example
Suppose that the birth rate for black women 18–19 years of age
in State X was 103.8 per 1,000, based on 22,678 births in the
numerator. Therefore, the 95-percent confidence interval would be:
Lower limit = 103.8 – [1.96 c (103.8 /
22,678)]
= 103.8 – 1.35
= 102.45
Upper limit = 103.8 + [1.96 c (103.8 /
22,678)]
= 103.8 + 1.35
= 105.15
This means that the chances are 95 out of 100 that the actual
birth rate for black women 18–19 years of age in State X lies
between 102.45 and 105.15.
Significance testing
One of the rates is based on fewer than 100 cases
To compare two rates, when one or both of those rates are
based on less than 100 cases, you first compute the confidence
intervals for both rates. Then you check to see if those intervals
overlap. If they do overlap, the difference is not statistically significant
at the 95-percent level. If they do not overlap, the difference is indeed
‘‘statistically significant.’’
Example
Is the birth rate for American Indian women 15–19 years of age
in State X significantly lower in 1999 (28.7 per 1,000) than in 1991
(29.2)? The rate for American Indian women is based on 77 events in
1999 and 93 events in 1991. The rate for American Indian women is
based on less than 100 events for both time periods; therefore, the
first step is to compute the confidence intervals for both rates.
Lower Limit Upper Limit
1999 ..................... 22.65 35.87
1991 ..................... 23.57 35.77
These two confidence intervals overlap. Therefore, the 1999
birth rate for American Indian women 15–19 years of age in State X
is not significantly lower (at the 95-percent confidence level) than the
comparable rate in 1991.
Both rates are based on 100 or more events
When both rates are based on 100 or more events, the
difference between the two rates is considered statistically significant
if it exceeds the statistic in the formula below. This statistic equals
1.96 times the standard error for the difference between two rates.
1.96
Œ
R
1
2
+
R
2
2
N
1
N
2
where
R
1
= the first rate
R
2
= the second rate
National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 49, No. 10, September 25, 2001 23
N
1
= the first number of births
N
2
= the second number of births
If the difference is greater than this statistic, then the difference
would occur by chance less than 5 times out of 100. If the difference
is less than this statistic, the difference might occur by chance more
than 5 times out of 100. We say that the difference is not statistically
significant at the 95-percent confidence level.
Example
Is the birth rate for non-Hispanic white women 15–19 years of
age in State X (32.3 per 1,000) significantly higher than the
comparable rate for non-Hispanic white women in State Y (28.7)?
Both rates are based on more than 100 births (3,679 for State X and
9,478 for State Y). The difference between the rates is
32.3 – 28.7 = 3.6. The statistic is then calculated as follows:
1.96
Œ
32.3
2
3,679
+
28.7
2
9,478
= 1.96 x
([1043.29/3,679] + [823.69/9,479])
= 1.96 x
0.2836 + 0.0869
= 1.96 x
0.3705
= 1.96 x .61
= 1.20
The difference between the rates (3.6) is greater than this
statistic (1.20). Therefore, the difference is statistically significant at
the 95-percent confidence level.
Related reports
This is the sixth in a series of reports on national and State-level
teenage birth rates. Previous reports covered trends for 1990–94,
1990–96, 1991–97, and 1991–98 (3, 35–38). State-specific teenage
birth rates by race and Hispanic origin for 1994–98 are shown in
those reports. Comparable rates for 1990 were published elsewhere
(39).
24 National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 49, No. 10, September 25, 2001
Contents
Abstract....................................... 1
Introduction .................................... 1
Teenage birth rate is down 22 percent since 1991 ........ 2
Number of births to teenagers in 2000 is fewest since 1987 .. 2
Teenage birth and pregnancy rates decline ............. 3
Birth rates fall for teenagers in all age groups ........... 3
Most teenage births are to unmarried women ........... 4
Birth rates for black teenagers decline most steeply ....... 4
Fewer teenagers have their first baby; second birth rates
stabilize .................................... 4
Teenage childbearing has serious health and other
consequences ................................ 5
Teenage birth rates vary greatly by State .............. 5
Rates by State fall for younger and older teenagers ....... 6
Steep reductions in State-level rates for black and
non-Hispanic white teenagers ..................... 6
U.S. teenage birth rate is still the highest for developed
countries ................................... 7
Factors affecting teenage birth rates .................. 7
References..................................... 8
List of detailed tables ............................. 9
Technical notes ................................. 21
DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
National Center for Health Statistics
6525 Belcrest Road
Hyattsville, Maryland 20782-2003
DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 2001–1120
PRS 01-0580 (9/2001)
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300
Suggested citation
Ventura SJ, Mathews TJ, Hamilton BE. Births to teenagers in the
United States, 1940–2000. National vital statistics reports; vol 49 no 10.
Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center for Health Statistics. 2001.
National Center for Health Statistics
Director, Edward J. Sondik, Ph.D.
Deputy Director, Jack R. Anderson
Division of Vital Statistics
Director, Mary Anne Freedman
To receive this publication regularly, contact the National Center for Health
Statistics by calling 301-458-4636. E-mail: nchsquery@cdc.gov
Internet: www.cdc.gov/nchs
Copyright information
All material appearing in this report is in the public domain and may be
reproduced or copied without permission; citation as to source, however,
is appreciated.
FIRST CLASS MAIL
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
CDC/NCHS
PERMIT NO. G-284
... American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) women are 50% more likely to be obese than non-Hispanic whites (Arias, Heron, & Xu, 2017). American Indian and Alaska Native youth are also disproportionately affected by adolescent obesity, adolescent pregnancy, and GDM; all with nearly twice the U.S. prevalence (Garrett, Dube, Winder, & Caraballo, 2013;Ventura, Mathews, & Hamilton, 2001). Gestational diabetes mellitus and obesity complications during pregnancy include maternal high blood pressure, preeclampsia, morbidity from operative delivery, and high maternal risks of developing type 2 diabetes in the future (American Diabetes Association, 2007). ...
Article
Introduction American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) girls have double the risk of obesity, pregnancy, and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) than the general U.S. population. The purpose of this study was to beta test Stopping GDM (SGDM), a GDM risk reduction intervention for at-risk AIAN teens, before beginning a randomized controlled trial. Method A sample of 11 AIAN mothers and daughters were recruited through an urban Indian health program. Daughters were at risk of GDM as assessed by a BMI ≥ 85th percentile. Pre- and posttest online questionnaires evaluated the online intervention (e-book and video). Results Mean pre- to posttest knowledge increased for mothers and daughters on diabetes prevention, reproductive health, and GDM knowledge. Daughters demonstrated an increased self-efficacy for healthy living and pregnancy planning. Satisfaction for the e-book, video, and online survey was moderately high to very high. Discussion The SGDM intervention is feasible and acceptable in AIAN mother–daughter dyads. These findings informed the SGDM intervention and the randomized controlled trial evaluation protocol.
... American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) adolescents have nearly twice the US prevalence of adolescent obesity, pregnancy, and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) [1,2]. Obesity increases the risk of GDM [3]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Purpose of Review To provide an updated synopsis of the research and clinical practice findings on pregnancy and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) adolescents and to describe the newly developed “Stopping GDM,” an early intervention, culturally tailored risk reduction program for AIAN girls and their mothers. Recent Findings Five research articles met our inclusion criteria. Three retrospective quantitative studies published in the past 10 years corroborated a 1.5 to 2 times higher prevalence for GDM for all age groups in the AIAN population as compared to other ethnic groups, and that the percentage of GDM cases attributable to overweight and obesity was highest for AIs (52.8%). Moreover, First Nations women across all age groups had more adverse pregnancy risk factors than non-First Nations women. Out of the five selected articles, two were qualitative research articles: one examined AIAN women’s experiences of having GDM or type 2 diabetes (T2D) during pregnancy and the other appraised the understanding of GDM and reproductive health of at-risk AIAN girls. Summary There is a paucity of research published on this topic. AIAN females are at high risk for developing GDM. Early, culturally responsive interventions and cohort follow-up studies are needed among adolescents and young adults, using technology that appeals to this age group.
... For example, a national survey on drug abuse has found that Asian-Americans have a lower rate (2.8%) of illicit drug use compared to other ethnic groups (7.2% for non-Hispanic whites, 6.4% for Hispanics, and 7.4% for African-Americans) (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2001). Research has also found that Asian-Americans have lower teenage birth rates (Ventura, Mathews, & Hamilton, 2001) and non-marital birth rates for teenagers aged 15-19 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2002), child abuse and neglect rates (U.S. ...
Article
This study addresses the characteristics and needs of Asian-American grandparent caregivers. This population has been ignored in the past by social services providers and researchers in New York City. For this study, one hundred and one Chinese-American and Korean-American grandparents were recruited with the help of various organizations. The results suggest that most Asian-American grandparents are extensive caregivers who provide a significant proportion of their grandchildren's day care while the parents are at work, without having legal guardianship or primary care-giving responsibility. It also appears that major difficulties and needs of Asian-American grandparent caregivers may be different from those of non-Hispanic whites, African-Americans and Hispanics since the groups are different in terms of immigration history, acculturation and their status as grandparent care-givers. Surprisingly, and contrary to widespread perception, Asian-American grandparent caregivers want access to services that are appropriate to their needs. Implications of the results for practice and research include the need for service extension for Asian-American grandparent extensive caregivers, implementation of culturally and linguistically appropriate services and programs, education of social work practitioners and program planners and further studies.
... Source. U.S. vital statistics data(5,49,50). ...
Article
Full-text available
Over the past two decades, births to U.S. teenagers have fallen and no longer follow overall fertility patterns. Yet the unique challenges faced by teenage mothers and their families justify continued research. Across disciplines, newer work has furthered our understanding of teenage motherhood today. In this article, I highlight four areas of progress: processes of selection into teenage motherhood, the broader consequences of teenage childbearing beyond the socioeconomic realm, heterogeneity of effects, and the application of life course principles. Emerging societal trends such as complex family structures, a stalled recovery from the recession for families of low socioeconomic status, and a rapidly evolving political environment for reproductive health care continue to challenge the lives of teenage mothers. Given that the consequences for teenagers of becoming mothers may change, continued research is needed. Shifts in policy to favor supporting teenage mothers and addressing the causes of both teenage pregnancy and social disadvantage may help improve the lives of these mothers and their families.
... Many school systems refused to hire married women as teachers because they might "get pregnant" [There was virtually no thought that a single woman teacher would get pregnant]. One might think that the advent of the pill would reduce pregnancies, but what it did was to create an argument in favor of premarital sex since the establishment"s primary opposition was that the girl would get pregnant (Ventura, Matthews, & Hamilton, 2001). Initially, the pill encouraged sex. ...
Article
Although teenage pregnancy rates have decreased over the past 30 years, many adolescents become pregnant every year. It is important for pediatricians to have the ability and the resources to make a timely pregnancy diagnosis in their adolescent patients and provide them with nonjudgmental counseling that includes the full range of pregnancy options. Counseling includes an unbiased discussion of the adolescent's options to continue or terminate the pregnancy, supporting the adolescent in the decision-making process, and referring the adolescent to appropriate resources and services. It is important for pediatricians to be familiar with laws and policies impacting access to abortion care, especially for minor adolescents, as well as laws that seek to limit health care professionals' provision of unbiased pregnancy options counseling and referrals, either for abortion care or continuation of pregnancy in accordance with the adolescent's choice. Pediatricians who choose not to provide such discussions should promptly refer pregnant adolescent patients to a health care professional who will offer developmentally appropriate pregnancy options counseling that includes the full range of pregnancy options. Pediatricians should be aware of and oppose policies that restrict their ability to provide pregnant adolescents with unbiased counseling that includes the full range of pregnancy options. This approach to pregnancy options counseling has not changed since the original 1989 American Academy of Pediatrics statement on this issue.
Article
Full-text available
Background Single mothers in South Korea are vulnerable to developing smoking habits, due to many difficulties and limitations; however, they have often been overlooked by smoking cessation support services. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the general and smoking-related characteristics of single mothers registered with the Visiting a Smoking Cessation Service in Seoul, South Korea, to identify factors associated with smoking cessation maintenance at 4 weeks and 24 weeks after they initially quit smoking. Methods The participants were 77 single mothers registered in the Smoking Cessation Service Program. Data were included from a three-year span (January 2017–December 2019). Smoking cessation counseling, motivational enhancement, and self-exploration counseling were provided for six months. The participants were evaluated on their smoking cessation status at 4 weeks and 24 weeks. Results Most participants were aged 22 years or younger. The rates of smoking cessation maintenance were 58.4 and 18% at 4 weeks and 24 weeks, respectively. The higher the number of counseling sessions, the higher the participants’ chances of maintaining smoking in all non-smoking periods, and whether pregnancy, CO level, and drinking were significant only in a short-term non-smoking period (4 weeks). Conclusions Our results suggest that the number of smoking cessation counseling sessions is important for long-term smoking cessation beyond short-term cessation in single mothers. To increase the smoking cessation rate of single mothers, it is important to conduct customized smoking cessation counseling at the time of smoking cessation and continue such counseling in the long term.
Chapter
The rates of adolescent pregnancy are lower than they have ever been, but there were still 229,715 births to teenagers age 15–19 in 2015 (Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJ, Driscoll AK, Mathews T, Natl Vital Stat Rep 66(1):1, 2017). Adolescent pregnancies are at increased risks of adverse outcomes, both for mother and child. Poor eating habits in adolescence can compromise intake of nutrients and energy needed for growth, even more so for a pregnant adolescent. The unique concerns regarding adolescent nutrition in pregnancy, including nutritional screening, requirements, recommendations and interventions, are addressed in this chapter.
Article
Full-text available
Every year in America almost 500,000 teenagers give birth. Most are unmarried and many are not ready for the emotional, psychological, and financial responsibilities and challenges of parenthood. Teenage childbearing has important health and social consequences for these young women, their babies, and their families. Recently, the teenage birth rate has declined in all States. Rates for black teenagers have dropped more than for any other population group. Contributing to this decline are indications that teenagers today are less likely to be sexually active, and sexually active teenagers are more likely to use contraception. This publication presents the latest statistics as well as trends on the important topic of teenage childbearing in the United States. Data are from the National Center for Health Statistics' (NCHS) National Vital Statistics System. Patterns of teen childbearing can be examined in terms of numbers and rates of births. The numbers indicate how many teenagers gave birth in a given year. The teenage birth rate is defined as the number of births to a group of 1,000 teenagers. Rates among different population groups can be compared because they are all computed on the basis of 1,000 women. The number of births to teenagers is affected by both the birth rate (the proportion of teens giving birth) and the number of teen- aged women in the population. Therefore, trends in the birth rate and the number of births are not necessarily the same. To measure pregnancies, data on live births must be combined with information on induced abortion and fetal loss. Because abor- tion and fetal loss statistics are not as current as live birth statistics, this report focuses on trends in births, with a brief discussion of pregnancy trends. Teenage Birth Rate Declines in 90's; Reverses Trend of the Late 80's