TEENAGE PREGNANCY: AN ADVOCATE'S GUIDE TO

TEENAGE PREGNANCY: 

AN ADVOCATE'S GUIDE TO 

THE NUMBERS 

A PUBLICATION OF THE ADOLESCENT PREGNANCY PREVENTION CLEARINGHOUSE 

JANUARY/MARCH 1988 

CHILDREN'S DEFENSE FUND

WHATISCDF 

The Children's Defense Fund (CDF) 

exists to provide a strong and effective 

voice for the children of Alnerica 

who cannot vote, lobby, or speak 

for themselves. We pay particular attention to 

the needs of poor, minority, and handicapped 

children. Our goal is to educate the 

nation about the needs of children and 

encourage preventive investment in children 

before they get sick, drop out of school, or 

get into trouble. 

CDF is a unique organization. CDF focuses 

on progranls and policies that affect large 

numbers of children, rather than on helping 

families on a case-by-case basis. Our staff 

includes specialists in health, education, child 

welfare, mental health, child development, 

adolescent pregnancy prevention, and youth 

employment. CDF gathers data and disseminates 

information on key issues afTecting 

children. We monitor the development 

and implementation of federal and state policies. 

We provide information, technical assistance, 

and support to a network of state and 

local child advocates. We pursue an annual 

legislative agenda in the United States Congress 

and litigate selected cases of major 

importance. CDF educates thousands of cit i 

zens annually about children's needs and 

responsible policy options for meeting those 

needs. 

CDF is a national organization with roots 

in communities across America. Although 

our main otlke is in Washington, D.C., we 

reach out to towns and cities across the 

country to monitor the effects of changes in 

national and state policies and to help people 

and organizations who are concerned with 

what happens to children. CDF maintains 

state otlkes in Mississippi, Ohio, Minnesota, 

Texas, and Virginia. CDF has developed cooperative 

projects with groups in many states. 

CDF is a private organization supported by 

foundations, corporate grants, and individual 

donations. 

CDF's Adolescent 

Pregnancy Prevention 

Initiative 

I 

nJanuary 

1983, CDF began a major 

program initiative* to prevent teen pregnancy 

and to alleviate the range of problems 

facing adolescent and female- headed 

households. 

CDF's first priority is to prevent a teen's 

first pregnancy. Our second priority is to 

ensure that teens who already have had one 

child do not have a second child. The third 

priority is to make sure that those babies 

who are born to teen mothers get adequate 

prenatal care so that prematurity, low birthweight, 

and birth defects are not added to 

their already stacked decks. 

Underlying our entire effort is the need to 

come to grips with the role and future of all 

young people in our society, and their need 

for adequate skills and gainful employment. 

We believe young people with hope and 

positive life options are more likely to delay 

early parenting. 

This report is part of a series of reports on 

adolescent pregnancy prevention that CDF's 

Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention Clearinghouse 

will produce. The reports are part of 

the Clearinghouse's effort to keep those working 

on the many components of the problem 

aware of important issues and developments 

in the field. Each report is, in many ways, a 

call to action. 

CDF wants to ensure each child a successful 

adulthood. Adolescent pregnancy robs 

millions of youths of secure futures. CDF, 

through public education and media campaigns, 

networking and coalition building, 

policy analysis and development, and carefully 

selected action programs, hopes to help 

make a difference. 

We will need your help. We have the best 

vantage point for learning what is going on at 

the federal level, but we need you to tell us 

what is going on in your states and communities. 

The reports we write will depend in 

large part on the information we receive 

from those of you in the field who are 

advocates, legislators, program administrators, 

and deliverers of services. 

*Grants from the following organizations have 

made this new program effort possible: 

MacArthur, Rockefeller, Edna McConnell Clark, 

New-Land, Robert Sterling Clark, Geraldine 

Dodge, Babcock, Ford, Packard, Helena Rubinstein, 

Samuel Rubin, van Ameringen, Eugene 

and Agnes Meyer,Joyce, Skillman, Gannett, 

and the Andrew Mellon Foundations and the 

Carnegie Corporation of New York, AT&T, 

Merrill Lynch, Sara Lee Corporation, Westinghouse, 

Ruth Mott Fund, Stanley Roth Trust, 

April Trust, Trinity Church Grants Program, 

Ounce of Prevention Fund, Philip Graham 

Fund, Wallace Funds, and the Commonwealth 

Fund. 


AN ADVOCATE'S GUIDE 

TO THE NUMBERS 

by Karen Pittman and Gina Adams 

Introduction by Marian Wright Edelman 

Much of the data :u1


AN ADVOCATE'S GUIDE TO 

THE NUMBERS 

This year, 1988, marks the beginning 

of the sixth year and second 

five-year phase of the Children's 

Defense Fund's adolescent pregnancy 

prevention project. It is a time of trans i 

tion as we build on the definition, outreach, 

and involvement efforts that 

characterized our first five years, toward 

setting and implementing specific policy 

and outcome goals for preventing teen 

pregnancy that we will advocate nationally 

and seek to demonstrate locally. 

Over the past five years we have been 

greatly heartened by the outpouring of 

interest and support by a wonderful 

variety of committed leaders of all races 

and by organizations representing many 

professional diSciplines; by the greater 

emphasis on the prevention of premature 

sexual activity and pregnancy; by 

the growing recognition that the provision 

of positive life options must be the 

cornerstone of comprehensive prevention 

efforts; by tlle understanding mat 

long-term and collaborative efforts will 

be necessaty to make a signiflcant dent 

in this complex problem; by the growing 

emphasis and cooperation on teen 

pregnancy prevention strategies mat unite 

rather than divide us; and by the willingness 

to move forward on behalf of all 

youths and especially disadvantaged 

youths. However, the central message of 

this combinedJanuaty-March issue of 

the Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention 

Clearinghouse is that me really hard 

work is now just beginning. 

In the next five years, we must use the 

strong community and national networks 

that have been forged to achieve specific 

policy outcomes and community 

support systems for children and youths 

that will give them the decent health and 

nutrition care, early childhood stimulation, 

and strong basic skills foundation 

that are the building blocks for selfesteem, 

achievement, and healthy family 

formation. 

The level of a young person's basic 

academic skills is a key determinant of 

whether she will have a child out of 

wedlock, graduate from high school, 

end up employed or on welfare, and 

perpetuate the cycle of poverty that is 

both a cause and consequence of children 

having children. Youths who by 

age 18 have the weakest reading and 

mathematics skills, when compared to 

those with above-average skills, are eight 

times more likely to bear children out of 

wedlock, nine times more likely to drop 

out of school before graduation, five 

times more likely to be out of work, and 

four times more likely to be on public 

assistance. We must also demonstrate in 

a few communities that first and second 

teen pregnancies and their negative outcomes 

like school dropouts and lowbirmweight 

births can be decreased in 

order to persuade state and national 

policymakers to make the massive preventive 

investments our children and 

youths need. To achieve this, during 

1988 CDF will select two to five local 

demonstration sites for at least five-year 

intensive efforts to show the nation that 

we can make a dif1'erence in this complex 

area. 

A Capsule History ofCDF's Teen 

Pregnancy Activities: How We 

Got Where We Are and Where 

WeAre Going 

CDF's entry into the adolescent pregnancy 

prevention field has been both 

cautious and cumulative. We wanted to 

be sure that we could successfully integrate 

a teen pregnancy prevention effort 

into our traditional program emphases. 

We also thought we had something to 

contribute because of our program experience 

in child health, mental health, 

child welfare, child care, education, and 

youth employment and because of the 

range of strategies we employ from public 

education to lobbying to state and 

local technical assistance. 

STEP 1: In 1983, we began consciousness-raising 

and networking about 

the dimensions of the teen pregnancy 

problem. We began with black women 

leaders and then expanded our efforts to 

additional networks of black, white, and 

Hispanic leaders. This networking will 

continue throughout Phase II of CDF's 

adolescent pregnancy prevention effort. 

STEP 2: Involving Key National and 

Community Groups. In 1984 Adolescent 

Pregnancy Child Watch (APCW) 

was launched in collaboration with the 

Association oflunior Leagues, me National 

Council of Negro Women, the 

March of Dimes, and the National Coalition 

ofl00 Black Women. Its goal was to 

train and help others conduct local community 

needs assessments of the teen 

pregnancy problem and to develop appropriate 

local action campaigns and 

responses. APCW is in varying stages of 

completion in more than 80 communiti 

es in 30 states. 

At our 1986 teen pregnancy prevention 

conference, we showcased nine of 

the more advanced projects. The response 

from conference participants was 

every bit as enthusiastic as ours was in 

discovering tlle energy and commitment 

of these volunteer groups and, more 

important, the determination and political 

savvy tlley are showing in developing 

action agendas for their respective 

communities. 

Our experience with Child Watch has 

reinforced our conviction mat for all its 

complexities and layers of myths and 

controversy, adolescent pregnancy prevention 

is an issue that is susceptible to 

effective and results-producing grass roots 

organizing. As a result, CDF is now 

working intenSively to involve black religious 

groups in teen pregnancy prevention 

efforts in collaboration with the 

deans of the Howard University Divinity 

School and me Interdenominational Theological 

Seminary in Atlanta and the 

president of the Chicago Theological 

Seminary. 

ADVOCATE'S GUIDE TO THE NUMBERS 3

In 1985 there were 

9 million 15- to 19-year-old 

teenage girls. Among them, 

approximately 

A Snapshot Profile of 15- to 19-Year-Old Teenage Women in 1985: 

Sexual Activity, Pregnancy, Childbearing, and Related Behaviors 

8.4 million had never been 

married 

Ever Married 

7% 

4.2 million were sexually 

active, 3.6 million of whom 

had never been married 

Never Married 40% Ever Married 7% 

Not Sexually Active 53% 

2.1 million used some 

method of contraception, 

1.8 million of whom had 

never been married 

980,000 became pregnant, 

850,000 were not married 

470,000 gave birth, 270,000 

as unmarried mothers 

110,000 had already given 

birth at least once 

No Contraception Used 76% 

Never Married 20% Ever Sexually Active 23% Not Sexually Active 53% 

Married 

4% 

" , /1" J 

Not Pregnant 89% 

I" \ /'''----------"r--------- J / 

Unmarried Sexually Active, Sexually Active, Not Sexually Active 53% 

9% . No Contraception 17% Effective COntraception 19% 

Married 2% 

No Births 95% 

1f\ ~~~~--~~'~----~i-----~ 

!Abortions Miscarriages 4% 1% Sexually \ Active, 

Not SexuaUyActive 53% 

Married 2% Not Pregnant 36% 

Unmarried 3% 

RJBirthsl% 

No Repeat Births 99% 

SOt'RCE: Calculations based on elma shown in Table 2.5. 

• Early parenthood is the culmination of a series of decisions. For every ten sexually active teens, tour do not use 

contraception, two become pregnant, and one gives birth. 

An Adolescent Pregnancy Child Watch 

Manual and slide show are available 

for those interested in beginning such 

projects. 

STEP 3: Working Together to 

Achieve a Winable Goal for Poor 

Teen Mothers and to Prevent Sec- 

ond Pregnancies. In 1985 a Prenatal 

Care Campaign designed to help reach 

the Surgeon General's 1990 goals for 

prenatal care, low-birthweight births, and 

infant mortality (teens are responsible 

for 14 percent of all births but 20 percent 

of alilow-birthweight births) was begun. 

A number of sites were targeted to 

implement intensive prenatal care campaigns 

and efforts. For example, in Texas 

with the March of Dimes we spearheaded 

a broad-based coalition that helped pass 

and retain a $91 million prenatal and 

perinatal bill for indigent mothers and 

children. Our state office and health staff 

are working with state officials, commu- 

4 ADVOCATE'S GUIDE TO mE NUMBERS

WHAT MUST BE DONE 

TO PREVENT TEEN 

PREGNANCY 

Six areas are extremely important 

in bolstering the motivation and capacity 

of teens to prevent too-early 

pregnancy. 

• Education and strong basic 

skills. Youths who are behind a 

grade or have poor basic skills or 

poor attendance are at high risk of 

early parenthood. Low-income and 

minority teens have higher rates of 

school failure. 

• Jobs, work-related skills building, 

and work exposure. Teens 

who perform poorly in schools and 

become teen parents are often teens 

with poor work-related skills and, 

because of lack of exposure to work 

place norms, those who have behavioral 

patterns maladapted to the 

employment market. 

• A range of non-academic 0.,.. 

portunities for success. Children 

and teens need to feel good about 

themselves. They need a clear vision 

of a successful and self-sufficient 

future. Self-sufficiency potential is 

related to self-esteem and self-perception. 

For youths who are not 

doing well in school, non-academic 

avenues for success are crucial. 

• Family life education and life 

planning. All teens need sexuality 

and parenting education and help in 

integrating such information into 

their thoughts about themselves and 

their futures. Parents, schools, and 

religious institutions need to communicate 

more effectively with the 

young about sexuality. 

• Comprehensive adolescent 

health senrices. A range of comprehensive 

and convenient services 

are needed for teens in a range of 

settings . 

• A national and community 

climate that makes teen pregnancy 

a leading priority is necessary, 

as well as caring adults who 

provide positive role models, values, 

and support for teens. 

The principal focus should be on 

prevention, with efforts targeted in 

five areas: 

• To reduce the incidence of first 

teen pregnancies; 

• To reduce the incidence of repeat 

teen pregnancies; 

• To reduce the number of teen 

school dropouts as a result of pregnancy 

and parenting; 

• To reduce the number of babies 

born to poor mothers who have not 

had comprehensive prenatal care; 

and 

• To increase the number of young 

people with good basic skills and 

the chance to graduate from high 

school, go on to college or get a job, 

and form healthy families. 

For some politicians and citizens, 

presentation of the increased costs 

and consequences of early childbearing 

is as important as reproductiverelated 

numbers. It is learning that 

half of all teen mothers fail to complete 

high school at a time when half 

of all high school graduates are going 

on to college or that 85 percent of the 

youngchildrenwith 15-t021-year-old 

single mothers and 36 percent of 

those in young two-parent families 

that head their own households are 

living below the poverty level that 

gives the public and policymakes 

pause. Other recent reports in 

this series deal with the causes, correlates, 

and consequences of early 

childbearing: 

• Adolescent Pregnancy: W'bose 

Problem Is ItOanuary 1985) 

• Adolescent Pregnancy: W'bat 

Schools CanDo (September 1986) 

• Welfare and Teen Pregnancy; 

W1JatDo WeKnowW'batDo WeDo 

(November 1986) 

• Declining Earnings for Young 

Men: Their Relationship to Poverty, 

Teen Pregnancy and Family Fonnation 

(May 1987) 

nity groups, and governmental agencies 

on implementation measures. In Minnesota, 

CDF's state office successfully expanded 

maternal and child health services 

through a new Right Start program after 

examining the effects of the privatization 

of health care on the poor. In the past 

five years in Ohio, CDF's state director 

collaborated with the governor and legislature 

to expand maternal or child 

health clinics from 28 to 77 Ohio counties 

and to extend Medicaid benefits to 

more than 20,000 additional poor children 

and pregnant women. And in Rhode 

Island, we have worked with a statewide 

coalition to expand the availability of 

prenatal services to mothers and babies. 

In every instance, we are paying particular 

attention to program elements targeted 

at pregnant or at-risk teens. A kit 

for how to mount prenatal care campaigns 

for teens in your community is 

available for your use as is an annual 

Maternal and Child Health Data Book 

with state-by-state data. 

STEP 4: Information Sharing and 

Networking. An adolescent Pregnancy 

Prevention Clearinghouse to serve as a 

central referral, resource, and information 

point was organized in 1985. The 

Clearinghouse staff also coordinates the 

production of this series of Adolescent 

Pregnancy Prevention Clearinghouse 

reports - a bimonthly publication highlighting 

specific aspects of the teen pregnancy 

problem and effective prevention 

efforts. Titles in 1987 included Adolescent 

Pregnancy: Anatomy of a Social 

Problem in Search of Comprehensive 

Solutions; Child Care: An Essential Service 

for Teen Parents; Declining Earnings 

of Young Men: Their Relationship to 

Poverty) Teen Pregnancy) and Family 

Formation; Opportunities for Prevention: 

Building After-School and Summer Programs 

for Young Adolescents; Teens in 

Foster Care; and Child Support and Teen 

Parents. Among the 1988 topics to be 

addressed are Prevention Strategies for 

Young Men and The Children of Teen 

Parents. 

To facilitate information-sharing 

among the wide variety of groups and 

diSCiplines, we host an annualAdolescent 

Pregnancy Prevention Conference. 

STEP 5: A Media Campaign. The overall 

goal of the adolescent pregnancy 

prevention media campaign is to build 


Table 1.1 

Calculating the Numbers 

QUESTION CALCUlATION MULTIPUER MEASURE 

What proportion of teens 

get pregnant each year 

#teen births + stillbirths + abortions + miscarriages 

# of teens during that same year 

x1000 

Teen pregnancy 

rate 


have babies each year 

#teen births during year 

#of teens in same year 

x1000 

Teen birth 

rate 

What proportion of unmarried teens 

have babies each year 

#births to unmarried teens during year 

# of unmarried teens that year 

x1000 

Teen out-of-wedlock 

birth rate 

What proportion of teens obtain 

abortions each year 

# of abortions to teens during year 

# of teens in same year 

xl000 

Teen abortion 

rate 

What proportion of all 

births are to teens 

#teen births during year 

#births to all women that year 

xlOO 

Percent of 

births to teens 

What proportion of teen bitths 

are to unmarried teens 

#bitths to unmarried teens during year 

# of teen births that year 

x100 

Teen out-of-wedlock 

birth ratio 

What proportion of all out-of-wedlock #births to unmarried teens during year 

birth are to teens 

#births to all unmarried women that year 

xlOO 

Percent of out-of-wedlock 

births to teens 

How much more likely are pregnant 

teens to have an abortion 

than to give birth 

# of teen abortions in a year 

# of teen births in same year 

x100 

Teen abortion 

ratio 

How much more likely are boys than 

girls to become sexually active 

# of sexually active boys in year 

# of sexually active girls in year 

Male/ female ratio 

for sexual activity 

How much more likely are sexually # of black sexually active contraceptors 

active black teens than sexually active # of white sexually active contraceptors 

'white teens to use contraceptives 

BlaCk/white ratio for 

contraceptive use 


are mothers 

What is the likelihood that a 

1S-year-old sophomore will have 

a baby before she graduates 

from high school 

# of teens who have ever given birth 

# of teens 

The sum of the first birth rates of 

1S-, 16-, and 17-year-old girls. 

Cohort measure 

Cumulative 

probabi Ii 11' 

awareness and create a climate of concern 

about children having children. The 

target group for our first wave of ads was 

the adult population, since adults have 

the authority and resources to determine 

national priorities. We also wanted 

to put the teen pregnancy phenomenon 

into a national and mainstream context. 

While the adolescent pregnancy problem 

in the black community is devastating, 

it is important for all Americans to 

understand that the face of teen pregnancy 

is not just poor, urban, or minority. 

Subsequent ads have been targeted at 

teens and at adolescent males. It is 

equally important to recognize that 

males are the too-long-neglected half of 

the problem. Print ads in poster, transit, 

and billboard formats, and radio and 

television spots are available for use 

by all (contact CDF-Media for further 

information) . 

In succeeding bites, we will be developing 

a range of targeted messages for 

Hispanics (male and female, Puerto 

Rican, Mexican-American, etc.), adolescent 

females (by age and race), parents, 

churchgoers, and others. For each segment, 

we will rely upon careful research 

and evaluation and enlisting support 

and advice from both experts on 

adolescent pregnancy prevention and 

6 ADVOCATE'S GUIDE TO THE NUMBERS

Commonly Confused 

Statistical Terms 

The first thing to note in this table 

are the differences between several 

measures that are often the source 

of confusion: 

• Pregnancy rates and birth 

rates measure different things and 

cannot be used interchangeably. The 

teen birth rate is the number of births 

in a given year per 1,000 women ages 

15 to 19; the teen pregnancy rate is 

the sum of the number of births, 

stillbirths, and estimated abortions 

and miscarriages to teens in a given 

year per 1,000 women in that age 

group. While there are certainly pregnancies 

and births to girls younger 

than 15, those rates are not usually 

calculated and used because the 

numbers are so small compared to 

their population. 

• The teen birth rate and the 

percent of all births that were to 

teens are different measures. The 

teen birth rate is the number of births 

in a given year per 1,000 women ages 

15 to 19. The percent of births to 

teens is the proportion of births 

among women of all ages that are to 

teens. It is obtained by dividing the 

number of births to teens by the total 

number of births to all women in a 

given year. These two measures are 

correlated (are generally both high 

or both low), but are not identical. 

• Unmarried or out-ofwedlock 

birth rates and the percent of teen 

births that are to unmarried teens 

are very different but commonly confused. 

The teen out-of-wedlock birth 

rate is the number of births to unmarried 

women ages 15 to 19 in a 

given year that occur among every 

1,000 unmarried women in that age 

group. The percent of teen births 

that are to unmarried teens (teen 

out-of-wedlock birth ratio) compares 

the number of births to unmarried 

teens in a given year with 

the total number of births to all teens 

(regardless of marital status). This 

ratio is not a measure of the likelihood 

of unmarried teens to bear 

children and should not be used to 

examine differences or trends in the 

fertility of unmarried teens. It does, 

however, reflect trends in marriages 

( either before conception or before 

birth) among teenage women. 

• Comparison ratios (such as 

"twice as likely as") often are confused 

with population composition 

(such as "twice as many as"). 

Comparison ratios reflect the Ckelihood 

that one group will engage in a 

particular behavior versus another. 

They are simply the rate or raw 

number of births, pregnancies, or 

other occurrences in one age, sex, 

or racial or ethnic group divided by 

the rate or raw number observed or 

estimated in another. For example, 

in 1985, 18.9 percent of black teens 

but 9.6 percent of white teens became 

pregnant. Dividing the black 

rate by the white rate tells us that 

black teens were almost twice as 

likely as white teens to become pregnant 

(a ratio of 1.97:1). Population 

compositions tell us how teens in a 

certain category ( sexually active, 

married, or pregnant) divide up according 

to a specific characteristic, 

such as age, marital status, race, or 

ethnicity. The fact that black teens, 

for example, are twice as likely as 

white teens to become pregnant in a 

given year does not suggest that 

most pregnancies are to black teens. 

• Annual rates, cohort measures, 

and cumulative probabilities 

are three different ways of presenting 

data on teens' reproductive behavior 

that give varying pictures of the teenage 

pregnancy problem. The names 

of these types of data are often very 

confusing but the ideas are straightforward, 

corresponding to three different 

and equally interesting sets of 

questions. Annual rates or ratios describe 

the present, answering for a 

given year such questions as how 

many teenage girls had sexual intercourse, 

how many became pregnant, 

or how many gave birth. This measure 

requires counts or estimates of 

events (sexual intercourse, pregnancy, 

or birth) that happened to 

teens in a given year. 

Cohort measures describe the past, 

answering such questions as have 

you ever had sexual intercourse, have 

you ever been pregnant, and have 

you ever had a child The answers 

require counts or estimates of all of 

the young women in their teens in a 

given year who have ever been pregnant 

or given birth regardless of the 

year in which the event occurred. 

The focus is on the age group, not 

the event. 

The word "will" in a question 

usually signals the need for a probability 

measure. Cumulative probability 

describes the future, answering 

question like how many of those 

who are now teens will have initiated 

sexual activity, become pregnant, 

or given birth by the time they 

are 20. These measures refer to the 

likelihood that sexual activity, pregnancy, 

or childbearing will occur 

among 15- to 19-year-old girls before 

they turn 20. 

individuals involved in marketing to and 

communicating with our particular target. 

And at every stage, we are trying to 

forge partnerships with members of the 

media, like black disc jockeys, to ensure 

ongoing efforts. 

STEP 6: Defining Positive Life Options: 

A National Policy Agenda. Two 

forthcoming 1988 publications, What 

Youths Need and Young Families, will 

outline a policy agenda for older children, 

youths, and families. By the end of 

the year, a CDF transition document will 

take a longer look at the needs of children, 

families, and the nation beyond 

th e Reagan years. 

STEP 7: Selecting and Implementing 

Local Demonstration Sites and 

Projects. In order to practice what we 

preach, we are planning and will de- 

velop an intensive, comprehensive, and 

long-range adolescent pregnancy prevention 

effort in a small number of 

carefully selected sites. After an 18-month 

planning period, site selection will be 

based on a range of demographic, political, 

and community leadership criteria. 

Specific outcome goals and evaluation 

procedures will be developed during 

broad consultation with adolescent pregnancy 

prevention and other experts and 

ADVOCATE'S GUIDE TO mE NUMBERS 7

Know Your Terms 

This report focuses on the reproductive 

and marriage behaviors of 

teens. listed below are some basic 

terms used to describe those behaviors. 

It is important to understand 

both what these terms mean and 

how the data are derived. With the 

exception of births and marriages, 

which are based on actual counts, 

other data are based on estimates, 

which may vary in quality and 

accuracy. 

Sexually active: The term sexually 

active refers to anyone who has ever 

had sexual intercourse. It does not 

imply frequency of intercourse; a 

person who has had sexual intercourse 

only once is still considered 

sexually active. 

Premarltally sexually active: The 

term premaritally sexually active 

refers to anyone who was sexually 

active before marriage. This group 

includes those who are sexuallyactive 

and have never married, those 

who are now married and were sexuallyactive 

before marriage, and 

those who are now separated, divorced, 

or widowed and were sexually 

active before marriage. 

Contraception: Contraception refers 

to all methods used to prevent a 

pregnancy except sterilization. Distinctions 

often are made between 

prescription and non-prescription 

methods and among the various 

methods according to how effective 

they are. Abortion is not a contraceptive 

method; it does not prevent 

conception, but rather prevents a 

conception from resulting in a live 

birth. 

Contraceptive use: This term refers 

to the use of any method of 

contraception to prevent pregnancy. 

It is often used to refer to a subset of 

the various methods, such as the 

effective methods. Use is described 

along several dimensions: use at first 

intercourse, time lapse between first 

intercourse and first use, and consistency 

of use. 

Abstinence: Abstinence refers to 

the voluntary decision to refrain from 

sexual intercourse. The term includes 

those who have never had sexual 

intercourse as well as those who 

have had intercourse. Unfortunately, 

data on reproductive behaviors do 

not capture this second group. 

Pregnancy outcome: This term 

refers to all the possible results of 

a pregnancy. The most common outcomes 

are live birth, abortion, miscarriage, 

and stillbirth. 

Live birth: A live birth is the productofpregnancythatshowsany 

signs of life at delivery. 

Abortion: An abortion is an induced, 

or putposeful, termination of 

pregnancy with no expectation of a 

live birth. 

Miscarriage: A miscarriag~ often 

called a spontaneous abortion, is a 

spontaneous or accidental termination 

of pregnancy before the fetus is 

viable. 

Marital status: Marital status refers 

to whether an individual is single, 

married, separated, divorced, or 

widowed. It is frequently used to distinguish 

between those who are married 

and those who are unmarried. 

Births to unmarried women: This 

term includes all births to women 

who are not married at the time of 

delivery, sometimes referred to as 

out-of-wedlock births or illegitimate 

births. 

Premarltally conceived births: 

This term includes all births to 

women who are single at the time of 

conception. 

key national and community leaders and 

networks. During the planning period, 

which we hope to complete in 1988, 

CDF staffwill be grappling with ways to 

target our overall national campaign effort 

as well as establishing criteria and a 

process for selecting the local sites for 

comprehensive action. 

The local site effort will enable CDF to 

gain hands-on experience in identifying 

and seeking local solutions to adolescent 

pregnancy that can inform our 

national and state policy development 

work Too often, national and state policy 

development is not reality-tested for 

implementation barriers. Too often, too, 

successful local efforts lack mechanisms 

and funding for continuation or broader 

adaptation with appropriate adjustments. 

The data collected and analyzed in 

this report are part of the local demonstration 

site planning process. As you 

will see as you struggle through it, this is 

a very complicated subject requiring careful 

homework, analysis, and goal-setting. 

The ultimate purpose of both our national 

and local efforts is to reduce the 

incidence of first and repeat teen pregnancies 

and births and their negative 

consequences. As you will see from the 

data, there are a number of different 

intervention points and target groups 

that must be carefully weighed. 

Local site selection and national priority 

setting are intertwined. After five 

years of sowing seeds broadly, the questions 

we will be attempting to answer by 

the end of this year will include: Do we 

focus on states that have extremely high 

numbers of teen births Do we pick sites 

where the problem may be less severe 

but where chances of designing successful 

remedies are more likely Do we 

focus on reducing the pregnancy and 

birth rates among girls 16 and younger 

or put substantial effort into neglected 

males Do we focus primarily on poor 

minOrity children or must we develop a 

more balanced set of overlapping strategies 

for poor and middle class youths in 

order to broaden the political base for 

change What kind of non-stifling yet 

reliable evaluation procedures do we 

build into" local project and national 

policy development Who should do it 

We envisage a minimum five-year effort 

in selected si tes. Making a significant 

dent in any major social problem 

requires a lot of hard work and persistence 

over a long period of time; endless 


trial and error; constant testing, retlning, 

and mixing of strategies; flexible responses 

to changing times, new needs, 

and targets of opportunity; and systematic, 

step-by-step movement toward longterm 

goals. 

Setting Goals: Understanding 

the Numbers 

Successful solutions depend on clear 

and accurate definition of the problem 

one is attempting to address and the 

goals one is attempting to reach. 

Pregnancy is a well-understood, easily 

defined, and reasonably well-documented 

occurrence that happens to 6 million 

women each year, approximately 20 percent 

of whom are young women in their 

teens. The adolescent pregnancy problem, 

on the other hand, is a poorly 

understood, loosely defined set of issues 

that are very much subject to interpretation, 

misinterpretation, and debate. It is 

an umbrella issue which, depending on 

circumstances, may cover discussions of 

premarital sexual activity, sex education, 

contraceptive use, abortion, out-of-wedlock 

births, hurried marriages, and welfare 

receipt - anyone of which, unless 

we take care and understand what we 

are about, can grind the best intentioned 

efforts to a halt. TheJanuaty 1987 

Clearinghouse report, Adolescent Pregnancy: 

Anatomy of a Social Problem in 

Search of Comprehensive SolutioYlS; discussed 

both the political land mines that 

we must learn to avoid or defuse and the 

political and community climate we must 

cultivate if we are to hat"ness the energy, 

resources, and concern needed to tackle 

this problem. In this issue, we provide 

another overview of the numbers and 

concepts advocates and policymakers 

need to understand in order to set and 

accomplish teen pregnancy prevention 

goals. 

Adolescent pregnancy is a crisiS, but it 

is not a crisis because teen birth rates 

are rising, as so many believe. It is a 

crisis because the numbers and rates of 

out-of-wedlock births are rising, increasing 

the likelihood of poverty of two 

generations of children: young mothers 

and their children. 

Adolescent pregnancy is a national 

problem that affects every racial, income, 

and ethnic group in every area of the 

country. Although it disproportionately 

affects poor, minority, and urban teens, 

two-thirds of the teens who give birth 

each yeat" are white, two-thirds do not 

live in big cities, and two-thirds come 

from families with above-poverty incomes. 

We must therefore implement 

remedies that all teens need to prevent 

too-early sexual activity, pregnancy, abortion, 

and parenthood, but we must also 

target additional remedies to disadvantaged 

youths who are at greatest risk of 

teen pregnancy and the poverty it breeds. 

They need hope for a better future in 

order to be motivated to avoid premature 

sexual activity and pregnancy today. 

Adolescent pregnancy is the midpoint 

on a continuum of interconnected reproductive 

behaviors and decisions that 

stretch from the initiation of sexual activity 

to the timing of repeat births. The 

magnitude of the problem and the hope 

or fear inspired by recent trends very 

much depend on which of the many 

decision points we choose to put in 

focus. For example, by age 18 more than 

four out of ten teenage girls and almost 

two-thirds of all teenage boys, the vast 

majority of whom have never been married, 

have initiated sexual activity. While 

sexual activity rates have slowed, teen 

sexual activity is still increaSing. In contrast, 

by age 18 only one young woman 

in nine is a teenage mother and both the 

number and the rate of births to teens 

has generally been declining since the 

early 1970s. 

Estimates of both the magnitude of 

the adolescent pregnancy problem and 

of the cost, complexity, controversiality, 

and probable success of intervention 

efforts are very much dependent upon 

which of the tlve main decision points 

shown is chosen as the primary focus of 

intervention. For example, if efforts are 

focused on helping teens delay sexual 

activity, the primary target group is the 

4.8 million teens who are not yet sexually 

active with a very large secondary 

target group of3.6 million never-married 

sexually active teens who might be counseled 

to reconsider their sexual activity. 

On the other hand, if efforts are focused 

on preventing repeat pregnancies among 

teen mothers, the target group is much 

smaller. Fewer than half a million teens 

gave birth in 1985 at1d there are slightly 

fewer than 1 million teen mothers overall. 

Similarly, we need to pinpoint whether 

our concern is for all teens or only for 

unmarried teens. Marriage, while not a 

prerequisite of sexual activity, pregnancy, 

or childbearing, is a closely related behavior 

which for moral, social, and economic 

reasons factors into our concern 

about rates of adolescent sexual activity, 

pregnancy, and childbearing. Although 

only one teen in nine has given birth by 

age 18 and birth rates in general are 

declining, about two-thirds of teen births 

were to Single teen mothers, in 1985 a 

trend that has been increasing steadily 

and rapidly. 

This complicated continuum of facts 

and trends is made more difficult to 

understand and interpret by the substantial 

difference in numbers, rates, and 

trends by age, gender, race and ethnicity, 

and geographic area. For example, black 

teens are only slightly more likely to be 

sexually actively than white teens, but 

they are twice as likely to become pregnant. 

On the other hand, the birth rate 

among unmarried black teens has been 

declining while that among similar whi te 

teens has been increasing. 

In this report, which we know is a 

difficult one to read and digest and 

more technical than otl1er Clearinghouse 

reports to date, we have tried to condense, 

graph, and explain the many 

numbers, comparisons, and trends that 

together draw a statistical picture of 

the adolescent pregnat1CY problem. You 

should not try to read or absorb it all at 

once, but use it as a reference document 

or study guide. 

With charts and tables providing a 

snapshot of key facts about teen sexuality, 

pregnancy, and parenthood, the 

following section presents a general 

discussion of the trends for tl1e total 

adolescent population. The next section 

discusses racial and ethnic differences, 

followed by a summary of the available 

data on males. Another section analyzes 

state and local birth data, and finally we 

present state and local birth data by race 

at1d ethnicity. A glossary of terms and a 

discussion of data sources conclude the 

report. 

Although difficult, accurate presentation 

and understanding of the data on 

adolescent sexuality, pregnancy, and 

childbearing among American teens is 

essential to effective advocacy on behalf 

of teens. We hope this report will make 

that task easier and urge you to struggle 

with it as we have. We also hope we can 

count on your continuing strong involvement 

in solving one of the most 

important social issues faCing our nation: 

preventing children having children. 


Table 1.1 

Births to Women Under Age 20, by Age and Marital Status, 1985 

Number of Births to Teens 

Percent of Teen Births to: Percent of Births to all Women 

All Races All

Figure 1.1 

Births to Women Under 20 by Marital Status and Age, 1985 

Unmarried 18-19 151,991 

Married 18-19 147,705 

Unmarried 15-17 118,931 

Married 15-17 48,858 

Unmarried Under 15 9,386 

Married Under 15 834 0.2% 

SOllRCE: See Table l.l 

Figure 1.2 

Births to Teens Younger Than 20 By Marital Status 

U.S., 1950-1985 

Number of births (in thousands) 

700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

425,000 

Percent of all 13.9 

births that were to 

unmarried teens 

594,000 

15.4 

656,000 

199,900 

D 

562,300 

271,800 

30.5 48.3 

SOt TRCE: National Center tor Health Statisti

Table 1.3 

Birth Rates By Age and Marital Status of Mother 

U.S., 1970-1985 

All Young Women 10-14 15-17 18-19 20-24 Unmarried Young Women 15-17 18-19 20-24 

1970 1.2 38.8 114.7 167.8 1970 17.1 32.9 38.4 

1971 1.1 38.2 105.3 150.1 1971 17.5 31.7 35.5 

1972 1.2 39.0 96.9 130.2 1972 18.5 30.9 33.2 

1973 1.2 38.5 91.2 119.7 1973 18.7 30.4 31.5 

1974 1.2 37.3 88.7 117.7 1974 18.8 31.2 30.5 

1975 1.3 36.1 85.0 113.0 1975 19.3 32.5 31.2 

1976 1.2 34.1 80.5 110.3 1976 19.0 32.1 31.7 

1977 1.2 33.9 80.9 112.9 1977 19.8 34.6 34.0 

1978 1.2 32.2 79.8 109.9 1978 19.1 35.1 35.3 

1979 1.2 32.3 81.3 112.8 1979 19.9 37.2 37.7 

1980 1.1 32.5 82.1 115.1 1980 20.6 39.0 40.9 

1981 1.1 32.1 81.7 111.8 1981 20.9 39.9 40.9 

1982 1.1 32.4 80.7 111.3 1982 21.5 40.2 41.4 

1983 1.1 32.0 78.1 108.3 1983 22.1 41.0 42.0 

1984 1.2 31.1 78.3 107.3 1984 21.9 43.0 43.2 

1985 1.2 31.1 80.8 108.9 1985 22.5 46.6 46.8 

Percent change 

Percent change 

1970-85 0.0 -19.8 -29.5 -35.1 1970-85 31.5 41.6 21.8 

1980-85 0.1 - 4.3 - 1.6 - 5.4 1980-85 9.2 19.5 14.4 

SOL'RCE: National Center for Health Statistics. Percent change calculations by the ChiJdren's Defense Fund. 

• While teen birth rates did not decline as rapidly as birth rates among 20- to 24-year-old women, they did decline between 

1970 and 1985. Teen birth rates dropped fastest among 18- and 19-year-olds (down 29.5 percent). Rates among high school 

age teens (15- to 17-year -olds) declined almost 20 percent; rates among very young teens were stable. 

• Across all of the age groups, most ofd1e decline occurred between 1970 and 1980. Birth rates for 18- and 19-year-old teens 

show the least decline between 1980 and 1985 and actually have increased for the last two consecutive years. 

• The differences in the speed of the decline in birth rates across the age groups brought the birth rates of young women 15 

to 24 years old closer together. In 1970 the 18- to 19-year-old birth rate was three times greater than the 15- to 17 -year-old 

birth rate. The birth rate among 20- to 24-year-olds was almost four and one-halftimes as high. In 1985, 20- to 24-year-old 

rates were onIY3.5 times higher than 15- to 17-year-old rates. Birth rates for 18- and 19-year olds were only 2.6 times higher. 

• In conu'ast to the decline in overall birth rates among young women, birth rates among young unmarried women increased 

rapidly during the 1970s and even faster during the 1980s. The increases have been greatest among 18- and 19-year-old 

unmarried teens-41.6 percent between 1970 and 1985,19.5 percent in the five years between 1980 and 1985. The unmarried 

birth rate of18- to 19-year-olds is now equal to that 0[20- to 24-year old women. 

(18 to 19). Birth rates to very young 

teens (younger than 15) remained stable 

(see Table 1.3). 

As marriage rates among all teens and 

among those who get pregnant have 

been declining faster than birth rates, 

more births are occurring to unmarried 

teens. As Figure 1.3 shows, in 1970 three 

out of 10 of the babies born to teens 

were born to single mothers, in 1980 

almost five out of 10, and in 1985 almost 

six out of 10. There were 178,000 fewer 

births to teens in 1985 than in 1970, but 

there were 80,000 more births to unmarried 

teen mothers. 

Stated differently, overall teen birth 

rates decreased, but unmarried teen 

birth rates (births per 1,000 unmarried 

teenage women) increased 32 percent 

among 15- to 17-year-olds and 42 percent 

among 18- and 19-year-olds. 

\VItat Has Caused the Decrease 

in Teen Births and Teen Birth 

Rates 

Adolescent births, of course, are the 

potential endpoint of a chain of events 

tl1at begins when a teen initiates sexual 

intercourse. To understand why overall 

teen birth rates are down and why birth 

rates among unmarried teens are up, we 

need to examine the trends at each of 

the decision points. What has changed 

Rates of sexual activity Pregnancy Abortion 

Post-conception (or "shotgun") marriages 

The answer is all of the above, although 

the changes, in general, were 

most apparent during the 1970s and 


seem to have tapered off during the 

1980s. While there are several different 

sets of estimates of rates of sexual activity 

and contraceptive use for years between 

1971 and 1982 that give slightly 

different and conflicting pictures, the 

general picture is as follows. 

Premarital sexual activity among teenagers 

is up, having risen sharply during 

the 1970s and leveled off between 1979 

and 1982. Although previous studies suggested 

that sexual activity rates among 

teenage women increased by as much 

as two-thirds during the 1970s, more 

recent data found increases of about 43 

percent- from about 32 percent in 1971 

to about 45 percent in 1982 (Figure 1.3). 

Contraceptive use has increased slightly 

among sexually active teens, rising 

about 14 percent between 1976 and 

1979. A change in the source of contraceptive 

data between 1979 and 1982 

makes it difficult to estimate whether 

this trend has continued into the 1980s 

(Figure 1.4). 

Pregnancy rates are up slightly among 

all teenage women, increasing about 

14 percent between 1973 and 1979 and 

stabilizing during the 1980s. Much of the 

increase in pregnancy rates was due to 

the increase in sexual activity among 

teens. Pregnancy rates among sexually 

active women - those at risk of pregnancy 

- have been declining gradually 

but steadily, reflecting an increase in 

contraceptive use (Table 1.4). 

Abortion rates for all teenage women 

rose sharply during tl1e 1970s, almost 

doubling between 1973 (the first year 

for which abortion data are available) 

and 1979. The rate of increase began to 

slow in the late 1970s and appears to 

have stabilized in the 1980s. While some 

of the increased 4se of abortion can be 

attributed to increased sexual activity, it 

also can be attributed at least partially to 

the nationwide legalization of abortion 

in 1973. Abortion rates among sexually 

active teens rose 57 percent between 

1973 and 1979. They peaked in 1979 

and seem to be declining gradually 

(Table 1.5). 

Birth rates decreased by 25 percent 

between 1970 and 1985 for 15- to 19-yearold 

young women, although most of that 

decrease occurred between 1970 and 

1976. Since the mid-1970s the teenage 

birth rate has hovered between 51 and 

53 birtl1s per 1,000 teens. Between 1984 

and 1985, the birth rates for all teens (15 

Figure 1.3 

Percentage 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

Percent ofl5- to 19-Year-Old Women 

Who Had Sexual Intercourse Before Marriage 

U.S., Selected Years 

1971 

39.0 

43.4 

45.2 

1976 1979 1982 

SOl'RCES: I fofferth, S.,]. Kahn, and W. Baldwin. "Premarital Sexual Acti\'ity Among l '.S. Teenage Women Over the 

Past Three DCGldcs," Pamib' Planning Perspectil'e..

Table 1.4 

1973 

1974 

1975 

1976 

1977 

1978 

1979 

1980 

1981 

1982 

1983 

1984 

Estimated Adolescent Pregnancy Rates 

U.S., 1973-1984 

Rate per 1,000 

Women 15-19 

96.2 

98.6 

100.9 

101.1 

104.6 

105.4 

109.4 

111.2 

110.8 

111.3 

108.0 

109.0 


Sexually Active 

Women 15-19 

258 

253 

252 

247 

252 

245 

249 

245 

236 

232 

231 

233 

SOll'RCES: Al,m Guttmacher Institute. l 'npublished tabulations, 1972·1982. National 

Research Council, Risking the Future: Adolescent SexualilJ~ PregnanC)~ and 

Childbearing, Vol. II,Appendix, 1987. 

Table 1.~ 

Estimated Abortion Rates Among Adolescents 

U.S., 1973-1984 

1973 

1974 

1975 

1976 

1977 

1978 

1979 

1980 

1981 

1982 

1983 

1984 


Women 15-19 

22.8 

26.9 

31.0 

34.3 

37.5 

39.7 

42.4 

42.9 

43.3 

43.5 

42.0 

44.0 


Sexually Active 

Women 15-19 

61 

69 

78 

84 

90 

92 

96 

94 

92 

90 

89 

93 

SOl'RCES: Alan Guttmacher Institute. 1 'npublished tabulations, 1972·1982. National 

Research Council, Risking the FuUt1Y!: Adolescent Sexualil)l PregnancJI and 

Childbearing, Vol.I1, Appendix, 1987. 

to 19) and for women ages 20 to 44 in 

every racial and age subgroup rose slightly. 

The lag in accurate estimates of abortions 

and pregnancies makes it difficult 

to interpret this small rise, but the consistency 

of the increase across all subgroups 

of women makes it worth noting 

(Figure 1.5). 

In summary, the decline in adolescent 

birth rates during the early and middle 

1970s came in the midst of increases in 

both sexual activity and pregnancy. 

Among teenage women, as among all 

women, sexual behavior was changing 

rapidly. Premarital sexual activity became 

more openly acknowledged and, if statistics 

are correct, more common. The 

desire to delay childbearing was apparent 

in the fact that teens increased their 

use of both contraception and abortion 

(see Figure 1.6). 

During the 1970s and early 1980s the 

outcome of sexual activity shifted dramatically. 

In 1973, when about three of 

every 10 teenage girls were sexually 

active, one in four of these sexually 

active teens became pregnant and one 

in six gave birth. In 1979 there were 

more than four sexually active teens 

among every 10 teenage girls. Slightly 

fewer than one in four of these girls became 

pregnant but only one in eight 

gave birth, reflecting increased use of 

both contraception and abortion (Figure 

1.6). In 1985 an estimated 4.2 million 

Table 1.6 

Percent of Adolescents Who Ever Have Married, By Sex 

U.S., 1970, 1980, 1984 

Age 15-17 18-19 15-19 

Males 

1970 1.4 8.7 4.1 

1980 0.6 5.8 2.7 

1984 0.3 3.2 1.5 

Females 

1970 4.7 23.4 11.9 

1980 3.0 17.8 8.9 

1984 2.0 12.9 6.6 

SOl'RCE: National Research Coundl, Risking the Future: Adolescent SexualilJ\ PregllauC,l\ and Cbildbearillg, Vol. I, 

1987. Calculations by the Children's Detense Fund. 

Table 1.7 

1970 

1975 

1980 

1985 

Number, Rate, and Percent of Births to Teens 

That Were to Unmarried Adolescents 

U.S., Selected Years 

Number of Births 

190,500 

222,500 

262,777 

270,922 


Unmarried 

Women 15-19 

22.4 

23.9 

27.6 

31.6 

SOl'RCE: National Center for Health Statistics. Calculations by the Children's Defense Fund. 

Percent of 

All Teen 

Births 

29.5 

38.2 

47.6 

58.0 


Figure 1.5 

Adolescent Birth Rate 

U.S., 1970-1985 

Births Per 1,000 

15- to 19-Year 

Old Women 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

Year 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 

SOL'RCE: National Center t()r Health Statistics, "Advance Report of Final Natality Statistics, 1985," Monthly Vital StClIL~tics Report, Vo/. 36,July P, 198"'1, 

teenage girls were sexually active. If 

these teens made decisions about contraception, 

pregnancy, and childbearing 

similar to their counterparts in the early 

1970s, there would have been at least 

100,000 more adolescent pregnancies 

and almost 200,000 more births to adolescent 

than there actually were in 1985. 

What Has Caused the Increase 

in Births to Unmarried Mothers 

Although changes in the use of contraception 

and abortion led to declining 

birth rates despite rising rates of sexual 

activity during the 1970s, what accounts 

for increases in the number and rate of 

births to unmarried teens The increase 

in sexual activity among unmarried teens 

that occurred during the 1970s set the 

stage for increases in unmarried births 

as the size of the "at-risk" population 

grew. But this increase only partially 

explains the rise in births to unmarried 

mothers. 

The decision to marry can be made in 

conjunction with any of the reproductive 

decisions - initiation of sexual activity, 

anticipation of a pregnancy, or anticipation 

of a birth. The data on increased 

rates of premarital sexual activity clearly 

suggest that more and more teens are 

not linking the initiation of sexual intercourse 

with marriage, which heightens 

the chances that pregnancy will occur 

outside of marriage. But to what extent 

are marital decisions still linked to the 

discovery of an unintended pregnancy 

Have we completely moved out of the 

era of "shotgun" marriages Of teen 

marriages in general 

Teen marriages have dropped off 

sharply. In 1970 almost 12 percent of all 

15- to 19-year-old girls and about 4 

percent of 15- to 19-year-old boys had 

married. By 1980 these percentages had 

dropped to about 9 percent and less 

than 3 percent, respectively; in 1984 they 

were down further, to 6.6 percent and 

1.5 percent, respectively. In 1984, only 

one teenage girl in 15 and one teenage 

boy in 67 married (Table 1.6). 

Premarital conceptions are up among 

adolescent women. In the early 1960s, 

46 percent of teen mothers gave birth to 

premaritally conceived babies; by the 

early 1970s this proportion was up to 66 

percent; in 1980 and 1981, seven out of 

10 conceived when they were Single 

(Figure 1.7), 

Unmarried pregnant women now are 

less likely to marry before the child's 

birth. In the early 1960s more than half 

of the teen women who conceived premaritally 

and continued the pregnancy 

married before childbirth. By the early 

1970s this proportion was 47 percent. A 

sharp change in decision-making occurred, 

however, between the early 1970s 

and early 1980s, paralleling the general 

changes in decision-making about premarital 

sexual activity and childbearing. 

Only one-third of women with premaritally 

conceived babies in 1980 and 1981 

married before the birth (Figure 1.7). 

Birth rates of unmarried teens are 

rising steadily. As a consequence of these 

trends, the number ofbitths to unmarried 

teens, the unmarried teen birth rate, and 

the proportion of all teen births that are 

to unmarried teens (the out-of-wedlock 

ratio) increased during the 1970s and 

the 1980s, shOwing no signs of slowing 

down (Table 1.7). 


Figure 1.6 

120 

110 

100 

~ 90 

o 

~ 80 

"'0 

(5 

. 70 

~ 

~ 60 

.9 

!6 50 

8 

5- 40 

t 

~ 30 

20 

10 

AaolescentPregnancyRates ana Outcomes U:S., 1970-1984 

The 1970s Saw An Increase In Adolescent Pregnancy Rates But the Most DramatiC: Changes 

Were In Sexual Activity Rates and Pregnancy Outcomes 

260 

240 

5 220 

8 

o 

~ 200 

:s 

~ 180 

; 160 

9 

!6 140 

~ 120 

~ 

5100 

t"S 

~ 80 

a 60 

...... 

~ 40 

20 

= 

1975 

1975 

• Birth Rate Abortion Rate (not available 1970-1972) 111 Miscarriage Rate (not available 1970-1972) 

• In 1973 there were 981,000 pregnancies among 15- tQ,19-year-old teens (a pregnancy rate of96 per 1,000). SiXty-two 

percent ~64,000) of these pregnancies t;esulted in live births. In 1980, they ear1;hatboth the number and rate of teenage. 

pregnanGie!8 peaked, there were,) 1>6 million teen pregnancies (a pregnan~xater.Qf 111 per 1,000). than half (47.9 

percent) of these pregnancies resulted in live births: ' 

• The increase in teen pregnancy';tates during the 19708 masks the much more sizable increase in sexual activity rates among 

teens. Pregnancy rates increased by about 14 percent between 1973 and 1979, but sexual activity rates rose at three times that 

rate. Pregnancy rates among sexually active teens actually showed a gradual decline during these years, reflecting an increase 

in contraceptive use. 

• Estimates suggest that both the pregnancy rate and the proportion of pregnandes ending in births have been basically 

stable since 1980. The estimated num};)er of pregnancies has declined from 1.1 fllillion in 1980 to 1 tpillion in 1984, reflecting 

a decline fotme number of teens. 

SOURCE: Nati'oJ1 ~uR eseregnancy, and Childbearing, Val.lI, Appendix, 1987. 

Figure 1.7 

TOTAL, 

1960-64 

1970-74 

1980-84 

Percentage of First-Born Babies Conceivea Out of 

WeaIock by Year of Baby's Birth ana Mother's Marital Status 

Number of births to teens 15-19 (in thousands) 

100 200 300 400 o Stp.gie at first birth 

Single at conceptiop., 

66.4% married at first birth 

• Married at conception 

SOURCE: M. O'Connell and C. Rogers, "Out ofWedlo

Table 1.8 

Health 

Receiving late or no prenatal care 

Babies born at low birthweight 

Profile of Adolescent Mothers in the Years After Their 

Children are Born 

Age of Mother 

Younger 

than 15 15 to 17 18 to 19 15 to 19 20 to 24 

65.3% 

12.9% 

52.7% 

44.8% 

30.0% 

9.3% 

6.9% 

Marital Status 

Married at birth of child 8.0% 33.2% 

Of mothers who were unmarried at birth of child, percent who married within: 

One year 19.1% 

Three years 38.6% 

Of women who marry at various ages, percent who separate within five years 

23.7% 

49.3% 

24.0% 

44.1% 

14.8% 

73.7% 

19.4% 

41.5% 

9.9% 

Repeat Pregnancies and Births 

Of women who have their first child at various ages, percent who have a repeat birth within: ai 

Two years 26.0% 20.0% 22.0% 

Three years 42.0% 41.0% 46.0% 

Of teens having a premarital first pregnancy, percent who have a second premarital pregnancy within: 

12 months 

18 months 

24 months 

School Completion 

Of high school sophomores, percent who dropped out before graduation: 

Unmarried, with child 

Married, with child 

51.4% 

75.4% 

Unmarried, no child 

Married, no child 

7.9% 

59.6% 

Percent of teens who had their first child at various ages, who had completed high school by ages 20 to 26: 

Total 

Diploma 

50.2% 

32.0% 

70.2% 

60.7% 

G.E.D. 18.2% 9.5% 

17.1% 

25.5% 

37.8% 

61.1% 

47.6% 

13.0% 

90.0% 

86.0% 

4.0% 

Poverty 

Of women in their mid-20s who had their first child at various ages, percent whose incomes were below 150% of poverty 

78.0% 50.0% 51.0% 

29.1% 

Welfare Recipiency 

Of women who had their first child at various ages, percent who starred receiving welfare within four years: 

Total (married and unmarried) 52.0% 42.0% 

Unmarried at birth of child 73.0% 73.0% 

46.0% 

73.0% 

Of women who had their first child at various ages and who starred receiving welfare, percent who left welfare within four years: 

Total (married and unmarried) 70.0% 82.0% 76.0% 

Unmarried at birth of child 66.0% 76.0% 71.0% 

a/ Age categories for repeat birth data are less dlan 16 ye-drs, 16 to 18 years, and 19 to 21 years. 

SOURCES: Data in this table come from a variety of sources, which cover years ranging from the early 19705 to 198'). Many of these studies are included in Volumes I and II 

of Risking the Future, National Research Council (Washington, D.C., 1987). Others have been published in \·".trious editions of Family Planning Ptm{X!CtU'C'S. 

Given that the data in this tahle are based on different studies that nOt ()n~ ' examine dilferent populations and data sources, but also span a number of years, th~>y should on~' be 

ust-xI to gain a general perspective of the problems faced by young mothers. 


Summary 

The overall trend during the 1970s was 

toward increased sexual activity and increased 

choices of non-traditional solutions 

to unintended premarital pregnancies 

- abortion and single parenthood 

(at least at the time of birth). The rapid 

move away from marriage in generaland 

in the face of unintended pregnancy 

- has pushed up rates of premarital 

sexual activity and births to unmarried 

mothers. Data suggest that intervention 

efforts should not focus on increasing 

teen marriages, which increase the 

chance of repeat childbearing and school 

dropout among teenage women and 

have high failure rates, but instead 

should focus on delaying sexual activity 

and increasing effective contraceptive 

usage among sexually active teens. 

Teen births are down from a decade 

ago. But the problems faced by young 

mothers-in the areas of health, single 

parenthood, subsequent childbearing, 

school completion, poverty, and welfare 

recipiency - are so great that even if the 

number of teen births had dropped by 

half, the urgency of the problem would 

not be greatly reduced (Table 1.8). The 

younger the mother is when her child is 

born, the more difficulties she is likely to 

face. 

RACIAL AND ETHNIC 

DIFFERENCES 

Crafting a range of effective solutions 

to the problem of teenage 

pregnancy requires understanding 

all the facts and understanding them 

for all racial and ethnic groups. There is 

probably no single set of facts more 

misunderstood and misinterpreted than 

the data on racial and ethnic differences 

in teenage pregnancy and ch ildbearing. 

So many of the political and programmatic 

decisions about strategies for dealing 

with at-risk teens and teen parents 

are either implicitly or explicitly influenced 

by beliefs about how the adolescent 

pregnancy problem plays out across 

racial and ethnic groups. 

While there are many subtle differences 

in the reproductive behavior of 

white, black, and Hispanic teens that are 

worth discussing, there are four basic 

points that need to be clearly understood: 

• Minority teens do not account for 

the majority of teen births. 

• Minority teens, however, are disproportionately 

likely to give birth 

and, among teens who give birth, black 

teens are disproportionately likely to be 

unmarried. 

• These higher birth rates are not 

solely or even primarily due to racial and 

ethnic differences in rates of premarital 

sexual activity. Rather they reflect the 

cumulative effects of racial and etl1l1ic differences 

at each point of decision-making 

(marriage, sexual activity, contraceptive 

use, and abortion). 

• These incremental ditTerences 

in marriage and reproductive decisionmaking 

seem to be linked to higher rates 

of poverty and lower academic skills 

among black and Hispanic young women 

and unemployment and low wages 

among black young men. 

The data on racial and ethnic differences 

in early childbearing are complex. 

The main points are summarized in the 

text that follows but many more interesting 

findings are contained in the tables 

and charts provided. 

Figure 2.1 

Percent of Teen Births That Were to White, Black, or 

Hispanic Teens* in 1985, by Type of Birth and Age of Mother 

Population of 

Births To Teens 

All Adolescent Under 20 Under 18 

Women (477,705) (1 78,009) 

Repeat Births To Teens 

(Hispanic Data Not 

Available) 

Births To 

Unmarried Teens 

82.2 

67.1- 

61.9 

Under 15 

(10,220) 

Under 20 

(1 08,585) 

60.8 

Under 18 

(23,021 ) 

Under 15 

(372) 

57.5 

Under 20 

(280,308) 

o White 

• Black 

• Hispanic 

'Note that percentages will add to more than 100 percent because Hispanics c,m be of either rdcial !,'foup. 

SOl 'RCE: National Center Ic)r Healdl Statistics. Calculations by the Children's Defense Fund. 


Table 2.1 

Births to Women Younger than 20, by Race and Ethnicity, 

Age, and Marital Status, 1985 

PercentofB~ 

Race, Ethnicity, 

Nmm~ofB~roT~ Percent ofTeen B~ 

ro AD Women That 

and Under Under 15-17 18-19 Under 15-17 18-19 Were to Women 

Marital Status 20 Years 15 Years Years Years 15 year Years Years Younger than 20 

All a/ 

Total Births 477,705 10,220 167,789 299,696 2.1% 35.1% 62.7% 12.7% 

Married 197,397 834 48,858 147,705 0.4% 24.8% 74.8% 33.8% 

Unmarried 280,308 9,386 118,931 151,991 3.3% 42.4% 54.2% 6.7% 

% Unmarried 58.7% 91.8% 70.9% 50.7% 

# First Births 369,120 9,848 145,140 214,132 2.7% 39.3% 58.0% 23.7% 

% First Births 77.3% 96.4% 86.5% 71.4% 

Race 

White 

Total Births 322,826 4,101 106,042 212,683 1.3% 32.8% 65.9% 10.8% 

Married 177,315 721 44,701 131,893 0.4% 25.2% 74.4% 33.6% 

Unmarried 145,511 3,380 61,341 80,790 2.3% 42.2% 55.5% 6.9% 

% Unmarried 45.1% 82.4% 57.8% 38.0% 

# First Births 256,844 3,957 94,342 158,545 1.5% 36.7% 61.7% 20.5% 

% First Births 79.6% 96.5% 89.0% 74.5% 

Black 

Total Births 140,130 5,860 56,809 77,461 4.2% 40.5% 55.3% 23.0% 

Married 13,969 77 2,613 11,219 0.6% 18.7% 80.3% 34.5% 

Unmarried 126,161 5,783 54,196 66,242 4.6% 43.0% 52.5% 5.7% 

% Unmarried 90.0% 98.7% 95.4% 85.5% 

# First Births 101,265 5,646 46,622 48,997 5.6% 46.0% 48.4% 42.4% 

% First Births 72.3% 96.3% 82.1% 63.3% 

Ethnicity b/ 

Hispanic 

Total Births 61,512 1,250 22,725 37,537 2.0% 36.9% 61.0% 17.0% 

Married 29,617 263 8,962 20,392 0.9% 30.3% 68.9% 11.8% 

Unmarried 31,895 987 13,763 17,145 3.1% 43.2% 53.8% 30.1% 

% Unmarried 51.9% 79.0% 60.6% 45.7% 

# First Births n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 

% First Births n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 

a All indudl'S rdCl.'S Olhl'f Ihan "nile and bl:Kk. 

b Hispank's are :01 elhnk group, nOI a mel', and Iherefore the white, blick, and Hispank' percentages and numbers do nO! sum to Ihe 100ai for an rdl·es. Hispanks can be coumed 

in any mdal group allhough Ihe majority are t'Oumed as ",nite. 

SOl'RCE: N:uional Center for Health Statislks, cakulations by Ihe Children's Defense Fund. 


Know Your Terms 

Race Versus Ethnicity. The most 

important fact to remember when 

discussing racial and ethnic differences 

in sexual activity, pregnancy, 

and childbearing is the difference 

between race and ethnicity. Hispanics 

are not a race but an ethnic 

group. Although there are differences 

in the preferred racial identification 

among the various S\:Jbpopulations 

of Hispanics, in general about 95 

percent of Hispanics who identify 

themselves with a racial group identify 

themselves as white. In effect, 

this means in any table giving racial 

and ethnic data, the numbers of 

white, black, and Hispanic teens will 

add up to more than the total because 

some Hispanics are counted 

in both the Hispanic and white or 

black columns. There is no simple 

way to correct for this double 

counting. 

Some data sources, such as the 

National Center for Health Statistics 

- the primary source of birth data - 

do analyze information on both race 

and ethnicity in order to calculate 

data for Hispanic and non-Hispanic 

populations. Most data sources, however, 

either do not collect this data 

or do not report racial and ethnic 

data this way. 

Figure 2.2 

Births to Women Younger than 20, 1985, by Race and 

Ethnicity, Marital Status, and Age 

White, Married, 18-19 131,893 

White, Unmarried, 18-19 80,790 

Black, Unmarried, 18-19 66,242 

White, Unmarried, 15-17 61,341 

Black, Unmarried, 15-17 54,196 

White, Married, 15-17 44,701 

Hispanic, Married, 18-19 20,392 

Hispanic, Unmarried, 18-19 17,145 

Hispanic, Unmarried, 15-17 13,763 

Black, Married, 18-19 11,219 

Hispanic, Married, 15-17 8,932 

Black, Unmarried, younger than 15 5,783 

White, Unmarried, younger than 15 3,380 .71 

Black, Married, 15-17 2,613 .55 

Hispanic, Unmarried, younger than 15 987 .21 

White, Married, younger than 15 721 .15 

Hispanic, Married, younger than 15 263 .06 

Black, Married, younger than 15 77 .02 

SOVRCE: National Cenrer for Health Statistics. Calculations by the Children's Defense Fund. 

When examining ethnic data, it is 

important to recognize that Hispanics 

are an ethnic group, not a race. Therefore 

the percentages given on the distribution 

of teen births to whites, blacks, 

and Hispanics do not add to 100. Hispanics 

can be counted in any racial 

group. 

Differences in Early 

Childbearing 

Minority teens do not account for 

the majority of teen births. But 

minority teens are disproportionately 

likely to give birth. 

In 1985 there were about 323,000 births 

to white teens, 140,000 births to black 

teens, and 62,000 births to Hispanic teens 

(two-thirds of whom were Mexican 

Americans). White teenage women 

accounted for 68 percent of all teen 

births, 62 percent of the births to schoolaged 

teens (younger than 18), and 52 

percent of the births to unmarried teens. 

Only among teens younger than 15 did 

the number of nonwhite births exceed 

the number of white births (Tables 2.1 

and 2.2 , Figure 2.1). 

Very often concern, even outrage, focuses 

on births to young black and 

Hispanic unmarried teen mothers. But in 

1985 white married 18- and 19-year-old 

young women made up the single largest 

group of teen mothers, accounting for 

more than one-quarter (27.6 percent) of 

teen births. In contrast, less than 2 percent 

of teen mothers were unmarried black 

or Hispanic teens younger than 15 and 

only 16 percent were unmarried black or 

Hispanic teens younger than 18 (Figure 

2.2). 

20 ADVOCATE'S GUIDE TO TIlE NUMBERS

Table 2.2 

Births to Adolescents of Hispanic Origin by Hispanic 

Subgroup, by Marital Status, 1985 

Subgroup 

Percent of Births 

(% of Hispanic Number of Births to Teens 

Percent ofTeen Births to AD Women That 

teen births Under Under 15-17 18-19 Under 15-17 18-19 Were to Women 

to subgroup) 20 years 15 years Years Years 15 years Years Years Younger than 20 

All (100.0%) 

Total Births 61,512 1,250 22,725 37,537 2.0% 36.9% 61.0% 16.5% 

Married 29,617 263 8,962 20,392 0.9% 30.3% 68.9% 11.3% 

Unmarried 31,895 987 13,763 l7,145 3.1% 43.2% 53.8% 29.0% 

% Unmarried 51.9% 79.0% 60.6% 45.7% 

Mexican (69.0%) 

Total Births 42,474 885 15,850 25,739 2.1% 37.3% 60.6% 17.5% 

Married 23,025 221 7,280 15,524 1.0% 31.6% 67.4% 12.8% 

Unmarried 19,449 664 8,570 10,215 3.4% 44.1% 52.5% 31.1% 

% Unmarried 45.8% 75.0% 54.1% 39.7% 

Puerto Rican (11.9%) 

Total Births 7,348 162 2,823 4,363 2.2% 38.4% 59.4% 20.9% 

Married 1,920 14 512 1,394 0.7% 26.7% 72.6% 11.2% 

Unmarried 5,428 148 2,311 2,969 2.7% 42.6% 54.7% 30.2% 

% Unmarried 73.9% 91.4% 81.9% 68.0% 

Cuban (1.1%) 

Total Births 707 14 206 487 2.0% 29.1% 68.9% 7.1% 

Married 444 2 96 346 0.5% 21.6% 77.9% 5.3% 

Unmarried 263 12 110 141 4.6% 41.8% 53.6% 16.3% 

% Unmarried 37.2% 85.7% 53.4% 29.0% 

Central and 

South American (5.4%) 

Total Births 3,346 52 924 2370 1.6% 27.6% 70.8% 8.2% 

Married 2,105 10 287 1,808 0.5% 13.6% 85.9% 7.9% 

Unmarried 1,241 42 637 562 3.4% 51.3% 45.3% 8.7% 

% Unmarried 37.1% 80.8% 68.9% 23.7% 

Other and 

Unknown Hispanic (12.4%) 

Total Births 7,637 137 2922 4578 1.8% 38.3% 59.9% 17.5% 

Married 2,861 16 787 2,058 0.6% 27.5% 71.9% 9.7% 

Unmarried 4,776 121 2135 2520 2.5% . 44.7% 52.8% 33.4% 

% Unmarried 62.5% 88.3% 73.1% 55.0% 

SOURCE: Data from the National Center te)r Health St:nistks. calculations by the Children's Defense Fund. 


Table 2.3 

Estimated Rates of Sexual Activity, Pregnancy, and Childbearing 

in 1985, per 1,000 White, Black, and Hispanic Teenage Women (15-19) 

Among 1,000 Teenage Women 

(15-19), Number Who in 1985: 

Comparison Ratios 

Estimated Rates 

Black! Hispanic/ Black! 

White Black Hispanic White White Hispanic 

Were sexually 

active 447 585 471 1.31:1 1.05:1 1.24:1 

Were sexually 

active but had 

never used 

contraception 211 282 248 1.33:1 1.17:1 1.13:1 

Became pregnant 96 189 n.a. 1.97:1 n.a. n.a. 

Gave birth 43 97 82 2.27:1 1.92:1 1.18:1 

SOl:'RCE: Cakulati

nam or parents, it has been somewhat 

comforting that, among all racial and 

ethnic groups, the majority of the teen 

births were to 18- and 19-year-old teens. 

One-quarter of the births to older white 

teens and one-third of the births to older 

black teens, however, were repeat births, 

suggesting that these young women began 

childbearing during their school-age 

years (Figure 2.1). 

Minority teens, especially black 

and Puerto Rican teens, are disproportionately 

likely to be unmarried 

at the time of birth. 

• Black teens who gave birth were 

twice as likely as white teens to be 

unmarried. FOlty-five percent of the births 

to white teens, 52 percent of the births 

to Hispanic teens, and 90 percent of the 

births to black teens in 1985 were to 

unmarried teen mothers (Table 2.1). 

• This difference in the likelihood that 

the teen mother was married combines 

with the difference in overall teen birth 

rates between blacks and whites to make 

black 15- to 19-year-old young women 

4.6 times as likely as white 15- to 19- 

year-olds to give birth while unmarried 

(Table 2.6). 

• While there were not Significant overall 

differences in the likelihood that a 

white or Hispanic teen giving birth in 

1985 was unmarried, there were sizable 

differences anlong different subgroups 

of Hispanic teens. Puerto Rican teens 

were similar to black teens: 74 percent 

of the Puerto Rican teen births were to 

unmarried teens. The figures tor Mexican- 

American teens (46 percent) were 

similar to those of white teens and those 

for the Cuban and Central and South 

American teens (37 percent) were even 

lower (Table 2.2). 

The gap between bbck and white 

birth rates and unmarried birth rates is 

narrowing. 

• Birth rates for black and white teens 

declined between 1970 and 1985, but 

black birth rates declined faster. Black 

teen birth rates declined 31 percent 

between 1970 and 1985; white rates 

declined 25 percent (Table 2.4). 

• More Significant is the narrowing of 

the racial gap in unmarried birth rates 

between 1970 and 1985. In 1970 an 

unmarried black teen was nine times as 

likely as an unmarried white teen to give 

birth. By 1985 an unmarried black teen- 

Figure 2.3 

Cumulative Rates ofSexuaiActivity, Pregnancy, and 

Childbearing Among White, Black, and Hispanic Teenage Women Under 18 

Each year, one of 10 teenage women becomes pregnant and one of20 gives birth. But how many teens will become 

pregnant or parents before they end their teen years Bet()re they have a chance to graduate from high school 

White Black Hispanic 

Sexually active 

White: 42% Black: 59% Hispanic: 40% 

mPregnant 

White: 21 % Black: 41 % Hispanic: NA 

lmtm Gave birth 

Mm White: 7% Black: 26% Hispanic: 14% 

SOL 'RCES: Mott. Frank. "Pace of Early Childbearing Among Young American Mothers." Ohio State l 'nin~rsity. Fl11ruary 1911S, unpublishl'tl paper. Risking the Future Adolescent 

Sexuality. Pn'Wumc.l' and Childbearing, National Research Council, Appendix. 19117. Compiled by the Children's Defense Fund. 

• By their eighteenth birthday, 7 percent of white teens, 14 percent of Hispanic teens, and 26 percent of black teens have 

had a child. Black school-age teens are almost four times as likely to have hecome parents is white teens; Hispanics are twice 

as likely. 

• Black and Hispanic teens, however, are not two to four times as likely to hecome sexually active or pregnant before their 

eighteenth hirthday; reflecting the fact that it is differences in the use of contraception and abortion, rather than differences 

in sexual activity alone, that explain racial and ethnic differences in early childbearing. 


Table 2.5 

Reproductive Profile of Women 15 to 19 byRaee 

and Ethnicity, 1985 a/ 

Estimates (in thousands) and Percents 

Race 

Ethnicity 

Total White Black Hispanic 

" % 

,. 

% 

" 

% 

,. 

% 

(000) total (000) total (000) total (000) total 

Population of young 

women ages 15-19 

in 1985 (OOO's) 9,019 7,418 1,379 794 

Never married 8,424 93.4% 6,854 92.4% 1,356 98.4% 705 88.8% 

Ever married 595 6.6% 564 7.6% 23 1.6% 89 11.2% 

Sexually Active 4,200 46.6% 3,319 44.7% 806 58.5% 374 47.1% 

Never married, 

sexually active 3,605 40.0% 2,755 37.1% 784 56.8% 285 35.9% 

Contraceptive 

Users 2,138 23.7% 1,751 23.6% 418 30.3% 177 22.3% 

Never married, 

contraceptive users 1,828 20.3% 1,412 19.0% 397 28.8% n.a. n.a 

Pregnancies 983 10.9% 712 9.6% 260 18.9% n.a. n.a 

Premarital 

pregnancies 850 9.4% 590 8.0% 255 18.5% n.a. n.a 

Abortions 399 4.4% 287 3.9% 91 6.6% n.a. n.a 

Births 467 5.2% 318 4.3% 134 9.7% 66 8.2% 

Unmarried births 271 3.0% 142 1.9% 120 8.7% 34 4.2% 

Married births 197 2.2% 177 2.4% 14 1.0% 32 4.0% 

First births 359 4.0% 253 3.4% 96 7.0% n.a. n.a 

Repeat births 108 1.2% 66 0.9% 39 2.8% n.a. n.a 

NOTE: Subtotals may not sum to totals due to rounding. 

a. 111e total category includes races other than white and black. Note that Hispanics are an ethnic group, not a race, and theretore the white. black, and Hispanic numbers \\ill not 

sum to the total. Hispanics can be counted in any radal group, although the majority are included in the white category. 

SOl'RCE: The data in dlis table come rrom a variety of sources, whit'h (O\,er years ranging rrom 1979 to 1985. Many of these studies are includc-'d in Volumes I and II of Risking the 

Future, Nation:d Research Coundl (W:L~hington, D.C., 198:); all of the binh data are I()r 1985, and come rrom the National Center for Health Statistics. Note, how('\'er, mat the 

results rrom these studies often have been rt"('a1culaK-'d to show the proponion of aU teenagers who are in various ('ategories (lilt example, me number of wens who were 

c'ont!""cepti\'e users as a Prolxmion of all teens, rather than as a proponion of those who are sexually acti\'e); therefore. the results in this table may look som('What different than 

the results shown in the indi\'idual swdies. Calculations bv the Children's Defense Fund. 

Gi\'en tllat rhe estimates are bm;ed on \'arious sllldies t/;m co\'er a number of years, they should on~' be used to g'din a genel"dl understanding of the I'arious steps between sexual 

actiYiry and C'driy parenthood, and should not be used as precise estimates. 

age woman was still more than four times 

as likely as an unmarried white teenage 

woman to give birth, but black unmarried 

teen birth rates declined 17.5 percent 

while white unmarried teen birth rates 

almost doubled (Table 2.4). 

• During 1980-1981, more than 70 

percent of all first-born children among 

teens were conceived or born to unmar- 

ried teens. These figures increased substantially 

for both black and white teens 

since the 1950s; the proportion of first 

births to black teens that were conceived 

or born before marriage is now virtually 

100 percent (Figure 2.4). 

• Sharp differences persist between 

the percent of black and white teens 

who, having conceived before marriage, 

marry before childbirth. In the early 

1950s white teens were twice as likely to 

marty before childbirth as blacks, but by 

1980-1981 they were five times as likely 

(Figure 2.5). 


Differences In Decision-Making 

From Sexual Activity To 

Childbearing Among All Teens 

Differences in early childbearing 

are not solely or even primarily 

due to racial and ethnic differences 

in rates of sexual activity. 

There are several steps between the 

initiation of sexual activity and childbirth. 

Once sexually active, decisions 

about contraceptive use determine a 

teen's risk of pregnancy. Once pregnant, 

decisions about pregnancy outcomes determine 

whether a teen becomes a parent. 

It is racial and ethnic differences in 

decisions at those steps, not differences 

in rates of sexual activity, that account 

for most of the differences in rates of 

early childbearing between white and 

minority teens. 

Among every 1,000 black, Hispanic, 

and white teenage women in 1985,97 

black teens, 82 Hispanic teens, and 43 

white teens gave birth. Black teens were 

more than twice as likely as white teens 

to give birth; Hispanic teens were almost 

twice as likely. These large racial and 

ethnic disparities are much smaller at 

each of the steps that lead to childbearing 

(Table 2.3). 

Black Teenage Women 

• There were an estimated 1.4 million 

15- to 19-year-old black women in the 

United States in 1985. Almost six out of 

10 of these young women were sexually 

active (58.5 percent), only half ofwhom 

had ever used some contraceptive 

method. That year, almost two out of 10 

black teens became pregnant and one 

out of 10 gave birth (Table 2.5). 

• Black teens (regardless of marital 

status) were 2.3 times as likely as white 

teens to give birth in 1985, but only 

twice as likely to become pregnant and 

1.3 times as likely to be sexually active 

(Table 2.3). Only one-quarter (24 percent) 

of the difference in the relative 

likelihood that a black teen will give 

birth is accounted for by black/ white 

differences in sexual activity. The biggest 

single explanation of the higher 

black teen birth rates is the difference in 

contraceptive use (Figure 2.6). 

• Black and white sexually active teens 

are about equally likely to report that 

they have ever used some method of 

contraception, but black sexually active 

Table 2.6 

Estimated Rates of Premarital Sexual Activity and Pregnancy, 

and Unmarried Childbearing in 1985, per 1,000 White, Black, and 

Hispanic Teenage Women (15-19) 

Among 1,000 teenage 

women (15-19), the 

number who: 

Are premaritally 

sexually active 371 568 

Are premaritally 

sexually active but 

have never used 

contraception 181 280 

Become premaritally 

pregnant 80 185 

Give birth when 

unmarried 19 87 

Among 1,000premaritally 

pregnant teenage 

women (15-19), the 

number who: 

Have an abortion 490 370 

Get married before 

gh·ing birth 220 86 


unmarried 160 414 

SOURCE: Calculations ba~ed on data shown in Table 2. S. 

teens are 1.5 times as likely as white 

sexually active teens to become pregnant 

(Table 2.7). While black teens are 

actually more likely than whites to use a 

highly effective method of contraception 

when they use one, this increased 

protection is more than offset by a tendency 

to delay the use of contraception 

longer after initiating intercourse and to 

use contraception inconsistently. These 

differences in the timing and consistency 

of contraceptive use account for 

half of the racial differences in early 

childbearing. 

• The remaining quarter (24 percent) 

of the racial differences in early childbearing 

are because pregnant black teens 


Estimated Rates Black! Hispanic/ Black! 

\\'bite Black Hispanic \\'bite \\'bite Hispanic 

-- 

359 1.53:1 0.97:1 1.58:1 

359 1.55:1 1.98:1 0.78:1 

n.a. 2.32:1 n.a. n.a. 

42 4.55:1 2.21:1 2.06:1 

n.a. 0.76:1 n.a. n.a. 

n.a. 0.39:1 n.a. n.a. 

l1.a. 2.59:1 n.a. n.a. 

are less likely to have abortions (Figure 

2.6). 

Hispanic Teenage Women 

• In 1985 there were an estimated 

800,000 Hispanic 15- to 19-year old 

women in the United States. Slightly less 

than half of these young women were 

sexually active (47.1 percent). Twentytwo 

percent of all Hispanic teens (about 

half of the sexually active Hispanic teens) 

had ever used some method of contraception. 

That year 8.2 percent of all 

Hispanic young women gave birth. There 

are no abortion data, and therefore no 

pregnancy data, for Hispanics (Table 

2.5). 


Figure 2.4 

Percent of First Births to Women 15 to 19 That 

Were Conceived Before Marriage, 1950-1954 to 1980-1981 

100 . 

75 

.... .... 

.. 

.... 

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

Black ."..,..--------;", 

"".... 

...... 

White 

,," ",--------- 

o~------------------------------------------~ 

1950-54 1955-59 1960-64 1965-69 1970-74 1975-80 1980-81 

Years 

SOI!RCE: O'Connell, Martin and Caro!}n C. Rogers, "Out·ofwedkx:k Births, Premarital Pregnancies, and their Effect 

on Fami!}' Formation and Dissolution," Family PiannillgPer!;pecfilVJS, Vol. 16, No. "Uu!}· August 19&1). 

Figure 2.5 

Percent of First Births to Women 15 to 19 Where Marriage 

Occurred Between Conception and Birth, 1950-1954 to 1980-1981 

loo~----------------------------------------~ 

75 

'5 50 

i 

25 

All Races 

-------........ .... 

...... Black 

........ _-------....... ............ .... .... .... .... .... ------- 

o~------------------------------------------~ 

1950-54 1955-59 1960-64 1965-69 1970-74 1975-79 1980-81 

Years 

SOURCE:SeeFigl:::. lre_2"".~ ___ ~_~ ___________ ~ ________ ~ 

• Hispanic teens were 1.9 times as 

likely as white teens to give birth in 

1985, but were no more likely to be sexually 

active (Table 2.3). The differences 

that exist in early childbearing between 

whi te and Hispanic young women, therefore, 

must be accounted for entirely by 

ethnic differences in decisions made 

about contraception and abortion. Because 

abortion data are not available for 

Hispanics, the relative importance of differences 

in contraceptive use and abortion 

cannot be determined . 

• The data available on contraceptive 

use among Hispanic young women suggest 

that there are not sizable ethnic 

differences in the proportion of teens 

reporting that they have ever used a 

contraceptive method. Whether there 

are ethnic differences in the timing and 

consistency of contraception is not 

known. 

Poverty and Poor Basic 

Academic Skills Explain Racial 

and Ethnic Differences in Early 

Childbearing 

These incremental differences in reproductive 

decision-making are linked to 

higher rates of poverty and lower academic 

skills among black and Hispanic 

young women. Black, white, or Hispanic, 

one of every five 16- to 19-year-old 

young women with below-average academic 

skills coming from poor families 

was a teen mother in 1981. Black, white, 

or Hispanic, only 3 to 5 percent of 16- to 

19-year-old women with solid academic 

skills whose families had above-poverty 

incomes were teen mothers that year. 

Once sexually active, teens need to 

decide to use some form of contraception 

in order to avoid pregnancy. Once 

pregnant, parenthood is the most likely 

outcome unless adoption or abortion 

decisions are made. It is important to 

understand that the differences in birth 

rates between black, white, and Hispanic 

teens do not for the most part reflect 

differences in decisions to become pregnant, 

but differences in teens' level of 

motivation to take specific actions to 

avoid pregnancy or childbirth . 

Poor teens with poor basic skills are 

less likely to have other more positive 

life options that make early parenthood 

an unattractive and irrational choice. 

• Poor teens are four times more likely 

to have poor basic skills than are teens in 


Table 2.7 

The Likelihood of Taking Various Steps &om Sexual Activity Through Birth and Beyond, 

For All Female Adolescents (15-19), by Race and Ethnicity a/ 

likelihood that: 

Sexually active teen women will 

Percent 


Race Ethnicity Black! Hispanic/ Black! 

Total White Black Hispanic White White Hispanic 

Use contraception 50.9% 52.8% 51.8% 47.3% 0.98:1 0.90:1 1.10:1 

Become pregnant 23.4% 21.5% 32.3% n.a. 1.50:1 n.a. n.a. 

Give birth 11.1% 9.6% 16.6% 17.5% 1.73:1 1.83:1 0.95:1 


unmarried 6.5% 4.3% 14.9% 9.0% 3.48:1 2.10:1 1.66:1 

Pregnant teenage women will 

Have an abortion 40.6% 40.3% 35.0% n.a. 0.87:1 n.a. n.a. 

Give birth 47.5% 44.7% 51.5% n.a. 1.15:1 n.a. n.a. 


unmarried 27.6% 19.9% 46.1% n.a. 2.31:1 n.a. n.a. 

Teens who have had a first 

birth will 

Have a second birth 

\vithin 2 years 22.7% 20.7% 24.0% 29.0% 1.16:1 1.40:1 0.83:1 

within 3 years 43.3% 44.6% 39.3% 48.3% 0.88:1 1.08:1 0.81:1 

Complete high 

school by 

mid-20s 57.9% 54.5% 66.6% 27.3% 1.22:1 0.50:1 2.44:1 

Go onto welfare 

within 4 years 

of giving birth 46.0% 37.0% 70.0% n.a. 1.89:1 n.a. n.a. 

Get otT of welfare 


once on 76.0% 82.0% 67.0% n.a. 0.82:1 n.a. n.a. 

Teens who have had a premarital 

first birth will 

a 

Go onto weltare 


of giving birth 73.0% 72.0% 77.0% n.a. 1.07:1 n.a. n.a. 

Get off of welfare 


once on 71.0% 77.0% 67.0% n.a. 0.87:1 n.a. n.a. 

Ilisp,mics arc an t:thnk group. not a ,",ICc. \\11ile Ilispanks c:m be included in any rJd,~ group, the majority are counted ,~s white. 

SOl'RCES, Some of the data in this table (through hirth) come !Tom Table 2.S, and the rest come Irom a number of studies ofteen mothers. These studies examine adolescents 

owr ditlerent pericx.ls, ranging Irom 19"9 through 19H~. Gh'cn that the l'Stimates art: based on ,'anous studies that cover a number of YC"Jrs, they should only be lLscd to gain a 

generJiunderst,mding of the Iikelihcxx.l of making ,'",ious 'tlVS from sexu ,~ allh'it)" through parenthcxx.l, and should not be used 'lS prt'

Figure 2.6 

What Explains the Fact that Black Teens Are 2.3 Times 

as Likely to Give Birth as White Teens 

24% more likely to 

carry the pregnancy 

to term 

50% more likely to become pregnant 

once sexually active because of 

differences in consistency and 

timing of contraceptive use 

2% more likely to hm'e nel'erused 

contraception once sexually allive 

What Explains the Fact that Black Teens Are 4.6 Times as Likely 

to Become UnmarrledMothers as White Teens 

50% less likely to marry 

betore the birth once 

premari tally pregnant 

SOl'RCE: Based on data shovm in Table 2.5. 

families with incomes above the poverty 

level; one in five poor teens with lower 

than average basic skills is a mother. The 

proportions of poor white, black, and 

Hispanic teens with below-average basic 

skills who are mothers are almost identical 

(Figure 2.7)' 

Differences In Marriage Rates 

Among \Vhite And Minority 

Teens 

Racial differences in the likelihood 

of unmarried childbearing 

are not solely or even primarily 

due to differences in rates of premarital 

sexual activity. 

Marriage rates, and consequently unmarried 

birth rates, are very different 

among Hispanics, blacks, and whites. In 

1985,11 percent of Hispanic teen women 

and 7.6 percent of white teen women 

but only 1.6 percent of black teen women 

were married (Table 2.5). 

Among evety 1,000 white, Hispanic, 

and black teens in 1985, 19 white 

unmarried teens gave birth, as did 42 

Hispanics and 87 blacks. Hispanic teens 

were more than twice as likely to give 

birth as single mothers as were white 

teens; black teens were almost five times 

as likely. These differences, again, reflect 

incremental differences in decisions to 

marry rather than large ditferences in 

rates of premarital sexual activity. 

Unmarried Black Teenage Women 

• In 1985 black teen women were 1.5 

times as likely to become sexually active 

before marriage, but they were 2.3 times 

as likely to become pregnant while unmarried 

and 4.6 times as likely to give 

birth while Single. Clearly, racial differences 

in premarital sexual activity are 

not the leading cause of differences in 

unmarried childbearing (Table 2.6). 

• Only 15 percent of the difference in 

the relative likelihood that a black teen 

will give birth as a single parent is 

accounted for by black/white differences 

in marriage before the iniation of sexual 

activity. Almost one-quarter (22 percent) 

of the difference is attributable to the 

fact that white teen women are more 

likely to marry before experiencing a 

pregnancy, 13 percent to the fact that 

white teen women are more likely to 

terminate a premarital pregnancy, and 

50 percent to the fact that white teen 

women who choose to continue the 


pregnancy are more likely to many before 

the birth (Figure 2.6). 

Unmarried Hispanic Teenage Women 

• There is a difference in white and 

Hispanic rates of unmarried childbearing 

(Hispanic rates are more than twice 

as high) but it is due entirely to the fact 

that Hispanic teens are twice as likely to 

give birth. Hispanic young women are 

less likely to be premaritally sexually 

active than white young women and 

those who give birth are slightly less 

likely to be married at the time of birth. 

Racial Differences In Marriage 

Parallel Racial Differences In 

Young Male Skills, Employment, 

And Earnings 

Differences in family poverty and poor 

skills among white and black teen women 

account for differences in rates of early 

childbearing. There is an additional racial 

difference however, in the likelihood 

that the teen mother will be unmarried 

and a considerable part of that seems to 

be attributable again to economic factors 

- but in this case the economic status of 

the father. 

The partners of teen mothers are most 

often 20 to 24 years old. Regardless of 

race or educational attainment level, 

young men ages 20 to 24 with earnings 

above the poverty threshold for a family 

of three are three to four times more 

likely to be married than young men 

witll below-poverty earnings. Radical economic 

shifts in the past decade have 

made it more difficult for these young 

men to support families. 

• The average earned income for a 

male between dle ages of20 and 24 

dropped by roughly one-fourtll between 

1973 and 1984. This drop affected all 

groups of young adult males - whether 

white, black, or Hispanic - although 

young black men suffered the most severe 

losses. 

• The sharp decline in real earnings 

among young men has taken its toll on 

marriage rates of young adults. In 1974, 

approximately two in five young men 

ages 20 to 24 were married. Between 

1974 and 1984, the marriage rate for 

dlese young men fell by one-half. 

• In 1984 young black men were 2.4 

times more likely than young white men 

to be unemployed and 2.5 times less 

likely to be married. 

Table 2.8 

Poverty Rate Among Children Younger than Three in Households 

Headed by 15- to 21-Year-Olds, 1986 

Head of Household 

Total Male Female 

-- --- 

Total 66.8 35.6 84.4 

White 60.7 38.0 80.0 

Black 81.6 

.. 90.0 

Hispanic 60.6 

.. 74.6 

• Population t(K) small t()r reliahle eslimates. 

SOl!RCE: Bure:lU of the Census. l 'npuhlishL'd data, March 19!P. Calculations hy the Children's Ddcnse Fund. 

Figure 2.7 

Parenthood by Poverty and Basic Skills 

Levels, 16- to 19-Year-OIds, 1981 

Below-average basic skills, family 

incomes below poverty 

o 

White 

Black 

Hispanic 

Average or better 

basic skills, family 

incomes above poverty 

SOl'RCE: l·npuhlisht..'d analyses of the Nalional Longitudinal Surwy, toune~,. of Andrew Sum, Nonhe'l'tem 

L'niversity. Calculalions hy the Children's Defense Fund. 

The Common Plight Of 

Teen Parents 

Minority teens are more likely 

to become mothers during their 

adolescent years. But once 

mothers, and especially once 

unmarried mothers, black, white, 

and Hispanic teens look very 

similar on measures such as rates 

of school completion, repeat 

births, poverty, and welfare 

receipt. 

Given that poverty and poor skills are 

the underlying factors behind racial and 

ethnic differences in early childbearing, 

it is not surprising that once they have 

children white, black, and Hispanic teens 

are more alike on measures like school 

completion and reproductive behavior 

than white and minority teens in general. 

There is little comfort in tllis fact, 

however, because it is indicative not of 

the relative success of minority teen 

mothers at managing the economic realities 

of parentllood but of the nation's 

failure to assist any teen mothers make 

this transition successfully. 

Repeat Births 

Among young women who have had a 

first birth, a black teen is slightly more 

likely to have a repeat birth within two 

ADVOCA 'fE'S GUIDE TO THE NUMBERS 29

years but slightly less likely to have one 

within three years. An Hispanic teen 

mother is 1.4 times as likely to have a 

repeat birth within two years than a 

white teen but only slightly more likely 

to have a repeat birth within tllree years. 

These data suggest that there may be 

slight racial differences in the spacing of 

childbirth among teen parents during 

the three years after birth, but not in 

number of children (Table 2.7). 

There are differences in the marital 

status of tllese mothers at tlle time of 

both the first birth and the repeat birth. 

Black teen mothers are 2.6 times as 

likely as white teen mothers to be unmarried 

at the time ofbirm. Racial 

differences in marriage persist after the 

birth, however. While teen-specific data 

are not available, research shows that, in 

general, black unmarried mothers are 

only half as likely as white unmarried 

mothers to marry within a year after me 

birth. 

School Completion 

Among teen motllers, interestingly, black 

women are more likely to have completed 

high school-about two-thirds of 

black teen mothers graduate, compared 

with 55 percent of white teen momers. 

Both of these graduation rates compare 

well to that of Hispanic teen mothers. 

Only 27 percent of Hispanic women in 

their twenties who had been teen motllers 

completed high school. But graduation 

rates for Hispanic teens, regardless 

of parenthood, are very low (Table 2.7). 

Poverty and Welfare Receipt 

In 1986 two-mirds of all children younger 

than three who lived in young families 

(with a head of household younger 

than 22) were poor. Further, 61 percent 

of white and Hispanic children and 82 

percent of black children in young fami 

lies live in poverty. Among children in 

young families headed by single females, 

75 percent of Hispanic, 80 percent of 

white, and 91 percent of black children 

are poor (Table 2.8). The higher poverty 

rate among black children is due in part 

to tlle greater proportion of black families 

headed by single women. 

Welfare receipt is the only post-birth 

measure on which the black/white difference 

approaches me differences found 

in pre-birth measures. Black teen mothers 

are almost twice as likely as white 

teen momers to go on welfare wimin 

Table 3. 1 

Mothers Younger than 20 and the Reported Age of the Fathers of 

Their Chlldren, by Age and Marital Status of Mother at the Time of 

Birth of the Child, 1983 a/ 

All Mothers Younger 

All Mothers Younger Than Than 20 Who Report 

20 Years Old the Age of the Father 

Age of Father Married Unmarried Total Unmarried Total 

Younger than 18 3.0% 4.3% 3.7% 12.7% 5.8% 

18-19 21.5% 10.3% 15.4% 30.0% 24.0% 

20-24 59.8% 15.2% 35.6% 44.3% 55.5% 

25-29 11 .8% 3.2% 7.1% 9.4% 11.1% 

30+ 3.5% 1.3% 2.3% 3.7% 3.6% 

Not stated 0.5% 65.7% 35.8% 

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Total number 

of mothers 228,962 270,076 499,038 

Percent of all mothers 

in marital status 

category 45.9% 54.1% 100.0% 

All Mothers Younger 

All Mothers Younger Than Than 15 Who Report 

15 Years Old the Age of the Father 


Younger than 18 19.9% 

18-19 31.6% 

20-24 37.2% 

25-29 6.0% 

30+ 3.2% 

Not stated 2.1% 

100.0% 

Total number 

of mothers 936 



category 9.6% 

four years after the birth of a child and 

about 20 percent less likely to leave the 

welfare rolls within that time period. But 

much of this difference is due to black/ 

white differences in marriage rates both 

before and after the birth of a child 

(Table 2.7). 

11.3% 12.1 % 48.6% 39.8% 

7.0% 9.4% 30. 1% 30.8% 

4.0% 7.2% 17.4% 23.8% 

0.7% 1.2% 2.8% 3.8% 

0.2% 0.5% 1.1% 1.8% 

76.7% 69.6% 

100.0% 100.0% . 100.0% 100.0% 

8,816 9,752 

90.4% 100.0% 

ADOLESCENT MALES AND 

THEIR REPRODUCI1VE 

BEHAVIOR 

In recent years, as both tlle consequences 

of early parenthood and 

the number of Single teen mothers 

have grown, mere has been increased 

interest in the reproductive behaviors of 


AD Mothers Ages 15 to 17 

AD Mothers Ages 

15 to 17 Who Report 

the Age of the Father 


--- 

Younger than 18 8.0% 7.0% 7.3% 21.2% 13.4% 

18-19 34.0% 12.2% 19.3% 36.9% 35.3% 

20-24 48.0% 11.4% 23.3% 34.7% 42.8% 

25-29 7.1% 1.8% 3.5% 5.4% 6.4% 

30+ 2.2% 0.6% 1.1% 1.8% 2.0% 

Not stated 0.7% 67.0% 45.5% 

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Total number 

of mothers 56,048 116,625 172,673 



category 32.5% 67.5% 100.0% 

AD Mothers Ages 18 to 19 

AD Mothers Ages 

18 to 19 Who Report 

the Age of the Father 


Younger than 18 1.2% 1.8% 1.5% 5.0% 2.1% 

18-19 17.3% 9.0% 13.5% 24.9% 19.2% 

20-24 63.7% 18.9% 43.2% 52.4% 61.3% 

25-29 13.3% 4.5% 9.3% 12.6% 13.2% 

30+ 3.9% 1.9% 3.0% 5.2% 4.2% 

Not stated 0.5% 64.0% 29.5% 

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 

Total number 

of mothers 171,978 144,635 316,613 

Percent of aU mothers 


category 54.3% 45.7% 100.0% 

a Dala on Ihe age of Ihe lalher are l'(,IIt'

Table 3.2 

Percentage of All Young Men and Women Ages 15 to 19 Who Have Ever 

Been Married, 1984 

Total White Black Hispanic 

Boys 

15-19 1.5% 1.7% .07% 3.2% 

15-17 0.3% 0.4% 0.0% 1.0% 

18-19 3.2% 3.5% 1.8% 6.5% 

20-24 25.2% 27.3% 11.9% 34.0% 

Girls 

15-19 6.6% 7.6% 1.6% 11.2% 

15-17 2.0% 2.3% .07% 4.3% 

18-19 12.9% 14.8% 2.8% 20.9% 

20-24 43.1% 46.5% 24.3% 50.8% 

SOl'RCE: Bure'llI of the Cen$u~ • .I1al11al !;1alllS and liebig Arrangements, :'Iarch 198'1, Tahle 6. 

Table 3.3 

Cumulative Sexual Activity Rates by Age at Initiation, Gender, and Race 

and Ethnicity 

Cumulative Percentage Sexually Active 

AD White Black Hispanic 

Age Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls 

Before age 15 16.6 5.4 12.1 4.7 42.4 9.7 19.3 4.3 

Before age 16 28.7 12.6 23.3 11.3 59.6 20.1 32.0 11.2 

Before age 17 47.9 27.1 42.8 25.2 77.3 39.5 49.7 23.7 

Before age 18 64.0 44.0 60.1 41.6 85.6 59.4 67.1 40.2 

Before age 19 77.6 62.9 75.0 60.8 92.2 77.0 78.5 58.6 

Before age 20 83.0 73.6 81.1 72.0 93.9 84.7 84.2 69.5 

SOl'RCE: Nmional Re~arch Council, Riskbtg the Future, Volume 1 Washington. D.C., 198'7, page 43. 

NOTE: SOlm:es were inter"iewed in 1983. 

Table 3.4 

Percent of Sexually Active Metropolitan-Mea Young Men and Young 

Women Whose First Intercourse Involved the Use of a Contraceptive 

Method, by Age at First Intercourse and Race, 1979 

% Who Used any Method 

Age at First AD White 

Intercourse Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys 

Younger than 15 34.0 31.0 36.4 33.2 27.8 

15-17 48.5 52.1 48.9 52.9 44.7 

18 or older 59.1 62.3 59.4 63.7 * 

ALL 44.1 48.9 46.0 51.2 34.0 

SOl!RCE: ;'>latinnal Research Coundl, Risking the filfure, Volume I, Washingtoll, D.C., J9H~. page 49. 

·Sample «Xl small to calculate reliahle percentage. 

Black 

Girls 

26.9 

48.8 

47.7 

40.8 

men are more likely to be sexually active 

than are adolescent women of the same 

ages. 

Cumulative sexual activity rates (the 

proportion who are sexually active at a 

given age) for young men and women 

are equally divergent (Table 3.3). A national 

survey of young adults who were 

20 or older in 1983 found that almost 

two out of three young men (64 percent) 

had become sexually active by the 

time they turned 18, compared with 

about two out of five ( 44 percent) young 

women. These proportions rose to 83 

percent for young men and 74 percent 

for young women by the time they 

turned 20. 

Contraceptive Use 

A study of the conu'aceptive practices of 

premaritally sexually active meu·opolitan· 

area teens in 1979 found that 44 percent 

of teenage boys used a contraceptive 

method at first intercourse (slightly less 

than the 49 percent of teenage girls) 

(Table 3.4). Interestingly, the difference 

between the sexes is greater among 

teens who planned to have their first 

intercourse. In this group, almost threequarters 

(72 percent) offemales used 

some form of contraceptive method (in· 

cluding male methods), but only half 

(51 percent) of the teenage males did, 

suggesting that male responsibility campaigns 

are appropriate. 

It is important to note that teens of 

both sexes who are older when tl1ey 

initiate sexual activity are more likely to 

use some form of contraception at first 

intercourse. About one-tl1ird of boys who 

were younger than 15 years old when 

they became sexually active used contraception 

at first intercourse, compared 

with almost 60 percent of tl10se who 

were older than 18 when they initiated 

sexual activity (Table 3.4). 

What Do We Know About Young 

Fathers 

Although tl1e data are not complete, 

many of the fathers of children born to 

adolescent mothers are not adolescents 

themselves. 

While birth certificates are mandatory 

in the United States, women are not 

required to supply information about 

the father of the child. Not surprisingly, 

marital status is the single most impor· 

tant determinant of whether information 


on the father is provided, and unmarried 

mothers are far less likely to provide 

such information. Given that almost six 

of 10 ofthe births to teens in 1985 were 

to unmarried teens, we should expect 

the information we have on the partners 

of teen mothers to be far from complete. 

Detailed unpublished data from 1983 

show that less than 1 percent of the 

married teenage women but two-thirds 

of the unmarried teenage women who 

gave birth in 1983 did not provide information 

on the father of their child, 

meaning that, overall, we do not have 

information on 36 percent of the fathers. 

Looking at the married teenage women 

who gave birth, it is clear that the fathers 

tend to be older. In 1983 less than 

one-quarter of the fathers were teens, 60 

percent were 20- to 24-year-olds, and the 

remaining 15 percent were older than 

25. Age of father clearly varies with age 

of mother. Nineteen percent of the husbands 

of 18- and 19-year-old mothers 

were teens, compared with 42 percent 

of the husbands of 15- to 17 -year-old 

mothers and 52 percent of the husbands 

of teens younger than 15 (Table 3.1). 

It is more difficult to get a sense of the 

ages of the partners of unmarried teen 

mothers because of the huge gaps in 

information. The lack of information is 

particularly evident for younger teen 

mothers because they are less likely to 

be married - less than one-quarter of 

the unmarried teen mothers younger 

than 15 reported the age of their partner. 

Looking just at the ages of the partners 

for whom there is information, however, 

it appears that unmarried partners are 

slightly younger than those who are 

married (refer to Table 3.1, last two 

columns). This would not be surprising, 

given that younger men are less likely to 

be able to support a fanlily and therefore 

may be less likely to marry. 

Racial and Ethnic Differences 

In general, the racial and ethnic differences 

among young men parallel those 

seen among young women. Black males 

are more likely to be sexually active and 

less likely to be married when compared 

with whites. Hispanic males have sexual 

activity rates similar to those of white 

. teens, and higher rates of marriage. 

Black males are also less likely to use a 

contraceptive method at first intercourse 

than are white males. These differences 

are primarily due to the fact that black 

males are younger when they initiate 

sexual activity. Among young men who 

began having intercourse when they 

were older than 15, there were only 

small racial differences in the use of a 

contraceptive method and black males 

were much'more likely to have used a 

prescription method (Table 3.4). 

Black adolescent mothers are much 

less likely to report the age of their 

partner than are white adolescent mothers. 

In 1983, 62 percent of the black teen 

mothers and 25 percent of the white 

teen mothers did not report the age of 

their partner. Most of this difference, 

however, was due to the fact that black 

teen mothers are less likely to be married 

when looking only at unmarried teen 

mothers, there are relatively few racial 

differences in the likelihood of reporting 

the age of the father. Data on the age 

of the partners of Hispanic teen mothers 

are not available. 

A forthcoming issue of the Adolescent 

Pregnancy Prevention Clearinghouse 

series will examine more closely the 

male side of the adolescent pregnancy 

problem, focusing on what is known 

about the reproductive and parenting 

behaviors of adolescent males and young 

fathers, as well as information about 

programs that provide services to this 

population. 

GEOGRAPHIC 

DIFFERENCES 

Adolescent pregnanc.y is a national 

problem but it will require local 

solutions within a national framework 

When presented with national data 

charting this serious issue, state and 

local policymakers, administrators, and 

program planners often ask for evidence 

that this problem has relevance for them. 

The tables and figures presented in this 

section show that, in general, the states 

along the southern band of the United 

States (stretching from the Pacific to the 

Atlantic) have higher than average adolescent 

pregnancy and birth rates, and 

teens account for a higher proportion of 

the births to all women in these states. 

The opposite of each of these statements 

is generally true for the states 

along the northern band of the countly. 

However, these tables and figures also 

show that no state is immune from the 

teenage pregnancy and early childbearing 

problem, and that it surfaces in 

different states in different ways: 

• States with the highest numbers of 

adolescent pregnancies and births are 

not necessarily the same states that have 

the highest adolescent pregnancy and 

birth rates. In 1985 there were 25,500 

babies born to teens in New York- more 

than six times the number born to teens 

in New Mexico - but the 1985 teen birth 

rate in New Mexico was almost twice 

that of New York 

• Adolescent pregnancy and birth rates 

vary widely among states. In 1981 (the 

latest year for which teen pregnancy data 

are available by state) the national teen 

pregnancy rate was 111 pregnancies per 

1,000 adolescent (15- to 19-year-old) 

girls. State teen pregnancy rates, however, 

ranged from 70 to more than 140. 

Similarly, the national teen birth rate was 

51 births per 1,000 adolescent girls in 

1985, while estimated state rates ranged 

from 30 to 78 births per 1,000 15- to 

19-year-old girls. 

• The nature of the adolescent pregnancy 

problem in any particular state 

varies depending on whether the focus 

is the proportion of all teen girls who 

become pregnant or the proportion of 

all teen girls who give birth. In some 

states as few as one-third of the teen 

pregnancies ended in a live birth in 

1981 , while in others as many as twothirds 

did so. 

• The level of concern about any particular 

state may depend not only on the 

level of the pregnancy or birth rate, but 

also on whether the rates are increasing 

or decreasing. In 1980 the adolescent 

birth rate in Rhode Island was 33 births 

per 1,000 teenage women, less than half 

that of teens in West Virginia (68 per 

1,000). But Rhode Island's teen birth 

rate increased four points between 1980 

and 1985, while West Virginia's rate 

dropped 15 points to 53 per 1,000. 

This section contains data on early 

childbearing for each state and for the 

108 largest U.S. cities, including the numbers 

and rates of teen pregnancies and 

births and the percent of births to all 

women that were to teens. (All of these 

measures, plus cautions about calculating 

and using state and local estimates, 

are discussed in the Appendix.) Selected 

ADVOCATE'S GUIDE TO TIlE NUMBERS 33

Table 4.1 

Numbers of Births to Teens and to All Women, and the Size of the 

Estimated Female Adolescent Population in 1985 Ranked by the Number 

of Births to Teens That Occurred in Each State a/ 

Of All u.s. 

Births to 

Number of 

Women Under Births to Births to Female Births to 

20, % in Women Women Teens Women of 

State State 15-19

data, in the following section, also show 

some of the ways states differ on these 

measures for different racial and ethnic 

subgroups. 

Number of Births and Birth 

Rates by State in 1985 

In 1985 roughly 467,500 teenage girls 

between 15 and 19 years old gave birth; 

this was 5l.2 births per 1,000 girls in this 

age group. However, both the number 

and rate of births to adolescent girls 

varied widely between states. 

• Nine states-California, Texas, New 

York, Florida, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, 

Georgia, and Michigan (ranked in 

descending order) - accounted for half 

of all of the births to teenagers in the 

United States in 1985. California and 

Texas alone accounted for 20 percent of 

all teen births (Table 4.1). 

• Only four of the nine states with the 

highest number of teen births had adolescent 

birth rates that were worse than 

the national average (California, Texas, 

Florida, and Georgia). Only two (Texas 

and Georgia) had rates that placed them 

among the 10 states with the worst 

(highest) birth rates. The differences 

show that the extent of the problem in 

each state cannot be gauged accurately 

by the number of births to teenagers 

alone (Table 4.2). 

• With the exception of Mississippi 

(78.3 births per 1,000 teens), estimated 

state birth rates in 1985 ranged about 21 

points around the national average (5l.2 

births per 1,000 teens), from a low of 

30,3 births per 1,000 adolescent girls in 

Massachusetts to a high of73.4 births 

per 1,000 teens in Louisiana. The extreme 

gap reflects the general difference 

between southern and northern states 

(Table 4.2). (The estimated state teen 

birth rates for 1985 should be interpreted 

with caution, because they are 

based on estimates of the size of the 

female adolescent population rather than 

actual counts. Particular caution should 

be taken with the states that are starred, 

because their populations are small 

enough that the estimated birth rates 

could be several percentage points off. 

See Appendix.) 

• Seventeen states had teen birth rates 

that were Significantly worse (more than 

five points higher) than the national 

average of5l.2 births per 1,000 teenage 

girls. Fourteen of these 17 states spanned 

Figure4.1 

Estimated Adolescent Birth Rates per 1,000 Women (15-19), 1985 

• 

O 

More than five points 

above the national 

average 

Within five points of the 

national average 

I11I'II More than five points 

!lID below the national 

average 

SOl'RCE: I)ata Irom the National Center Ii" Health Statistics. Caln.Guions by the Children's Detense Fund. 

Figure 4.2 

Estimated Pregnancy Rates for Teen Women, 1981 

SOl'RCE: Data Irom Alan GUllmacher Institute. 

• 

More than six points 

above the national 

average 

Within sLx points of the 

O 

national average 

More than six points 

lower than the national 

average 


Table 4.2 

Birth Rates for Women Ages 15 to 19 per 1,000 

Ranked in Descending Order by State, 1985 

Rank State Birth Rate Rank State Birth Rate 

1 MISSISSIPPI 78.31 25 OHIO 49.48 

2 LOUISIANA 73.38 26 IlliNOIS 49.31 

3 TEXAS 72.84 27 COLORADO 48.16 

4 -NEW MEXICO 72.38 28 -HAWAII 47.99 

5 ARKANSAS 72.03 29 -SOUI'H DAKOTA 46.17 

6 OKlAHOMA 68.96 30 • IDAHO 46.11 

7 ARIZONA 67.93 31 MARYIAND 45.55 

8 GEORGIA 67.40 32 VIRGINIA 45.09 

9 AlABAMA 63.95 33 ·MONTANA 44.20 

10 SOUI'H CAROliNA 63.38 34 WASHINGTON 44.01 

11 KENTIJCKY 62.89 35 MICHIGAN 43.17 

12 TENNESSEE 60.71 36 OREGON 42.75 

13 ·NEVADA 58.71 37 • MAINE 41.86 

14 ·WYOMING 58.48 38 PENNSYLVANIA 40.02 

15 FLORIDA 58.47 39 • NEBRASKA 39.43 

16 ·ALASKA 57.45 40 WISCONSIN 38.88 

17 NORTH CAROUNA 56.78 41 ·VERMONT 37.20 

18 CAliFORNIA 54.14 42 NEW YORK 37.03 

19 MISSOURI 54.08 43 ·RHODE ISLAND 37.02 

20 WEST VIRGINIA 53.20 44 *NORTH DAKOTA 35.04 

21 INDIANA 51.84 45 IOWA 34.32 

46 NEWJERSEY 33.45 

UNITED STATES TOTAL 51.23 47 ·NEW HAMPSHIRE 32.00 

48 CONNECTICUT 31.42 

22 KANSAS 51.22 49 MINNESOTA 31.03 

23 -DElAWARE 50.87 50 MASSACHUSETTS 30.34 

24 -UTAH 50.46 

NOn:: The District of Columbia is not included in the table because of the inaccur:I

Table 4.3 

Estimated Number of Pregnancies and Pregnancy Rates 

per 1,000 Women Age 15-19, by State, 1981 

(Ranked in Descending Order By Pregnancy Rate) a/ 

Total Number 

Total Number 

of Pregnancies Pregnancy Rate of Pregnancies Pregnancy Rate 

to Adolescents per 1,000 Teens to Adolescents per 1,000 Teens 

Rank State (15-19) in 1981 (15-19), 1981 Rank State (15-19) in 1981 (15-19), 1981 

UNITED STATES hi 1,109,530 

1 NEVADA 5,100 150 26 KANSAS 10,540 104 

2 CAIJFORNIA 145,730 145 27 MICHIGAN 43,130 102 

3 TEXAS 89,910 139 28 MISSOURI 22,020 102 

4 MARYLAND 25,720 135 29 KENTIJCKY 16,340 100 

5 FWRIDA 52,670 134 30 NEW JERSEY 30,800 98 

6 WYOMING 2,650 131 31 IlliNOIS 48,580 98 

7 

NEW MEXICO 8,340 131 32 WEST VIRGINIA 8,070 98 

8 GEORGIA 32,300 129 33 IDAHO 4,130 97 

9 AlASKA 2,150 127 34 CONNECflCll 12,970 96 

10 OKIAHOMA 16,310 125 35 OHIO 44,930 95 

11 ARIZONA 14,880 122 36 llAH 6,390 93 

12 MISSISSIPPI 14,780 120 37 MONfANA 3,190 92 

13 wmSIANA 24,470 119 38 MAINE 4,630 92 

14 WASHINGTON 20,260 116 39 INDIANA 23,140 92 

15 COWRADO 14,830 116 40 VERMONf 2,240 91 

16 ARKANSAS 11,790 116 41 PENNSYLVANIA 45,220 89 

17 HAWAII 4,570 116 42 RHODE ISlAND 3,740 87 

18 SOUTH CAROUNA 17,200 115 43 WISCONSIN 18,180 82 

19 AlABAMA 20,530 114 44 NEBRASKA 5,650 81 

20 OREGON 11,950 112 45 SOUTH DAKOTA 2,640 81 

21 VIRGINIA 26,560 112 46 MASSACHUSETTS 20,600 79 

47 NEW HAMPSHIRE 3,300 78 

UNITED STATES AVERAGE 111 48 MINNESOTA 14,100 75 

49 NORTH DAKOTA 2,200 74 

22 TENNESSEE 22,450 111 50 IOWA 9,140 70 

23 NORTH CAROUNA 29,290 110 

24 DElAWARE 3,090 107 

25 NEW YORK 80,060 106 

a Pregnancies are the sum of estimated abollions, estimated miscarriages, and billhs, by age at outcome. 

b The District of Columbia is nO! induded in the table due to the inacClIrJcy ofcity·I",·e1lx'pulation estimates. 111e pregnancies that (xutrred to teens there are induded in 

the C.S. totals. 

SOl'RCES: Congressional Research Sel\;ce, '"Teenage Pregnancy and Chiidbe".uing: Inciden(:e Data,"Janllary 9, 19B"7, pp. 12·13. Ot;ginal data from the Alan GlIumacher Institute. 

nancies to teens vary widely between 

states, as does the proportion of pregnancies 

that end in live births. 

• The latest available state-level pregnancy 

data (1981) show that eight 

states-California, Texas, New York, 

Florida, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and 

Michigan - accounted for half of all of 

the teen pregnancies in that year. 

Georgia, with an estimated 32,300 

pregnancies to teenagers, had the ninth 

highest number of teen births. These 

nine states are the same as those that 

accounted for half of the births to teens in 

1985 (Table 4.3). 

• States with the largest number of 

pregnancies do not necessarily have the 

highest pregnancy rates. Of the nine 

states that accounted for the largest number 

of pregnancies in 1981 , only four 

(California, Texas, Florida, and Georgia) 

had estimated pregnancy rates higher 

than the national average in that year. In 

contrast, some of the states with relatively 

few teen pregnancies - such as 

Nevada, New Mexico, and Wyoming 

(each of which had fewer than 10,000 

pregnancies to teens that year) - had 

some of the highest pregnancy rates in 

1981 (Table 4.3). 

• Again, there is wide variation 

between the estimated teen pregnancy 

rates. Compared with the national average 

in 1981 of 111 pregnancies per 

1,00015- to 19-year-old girls, the state 

teen pregnancy rates ranged from the 

70s in Iowa, North Dakota, Minnesota, 

Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, to 

about twice as high in Wyoming, New 

Mexico, Maryland, Texas, Florida, California, 

and Nevada (Table 4.3). 

• In 1981, 13 states had estimated 

teen pregnancy rates that were more 

than six points higher, or worse, than 

the national average. As with the adoles- 

ADVOCATE'S GUIDE TO TIlE NUMBERS 37

Figure 4.3 

Percent of AD Adolescent (15-19) Pregnancies Ending in Live Birth, 1980 

r:"""I Less than SO percent of 

IliiJI pregnancies ending in 

birth 

• 

More than SO percent of 

pregnancies ending in 

birth 

SOl'RCE.'i: Birth data lium the Nation,d Center t()r U",dth Statistics, pregnal1

cautiously, particularly for states with 

smaller populations. Table 4.4 

• Between 1980 and 1985, the esti- Number of Females Ages 15 to 19 and the Number ofBlrths to that Age 

mated number of adolescent women Group in 1980, and the Percent Change Between 1980 and 1985, by State 

(ages 15 to 19) in the United States Number of Percent Change Percent 

declined by about 12 percent. With the Number of Births to in Estimated Change in 

exception of Alaska, all states experi- Female Teens Teens # of Teens # of Teen 

(15-19) in 1980 (15-19) in 1980 (15-19) 1980-85 Births 1980-85 

enced a decline in the number of adolescent 

females between 1980 and 1985. * UNITED SfATES 10,412,715 552,161 -12.36% -15.34% 

The size of this decrease ranged from AlABAMA 186,614 12,741 -12.83% -18.34% 

an estimated 23 percent in South Dakota ·ALASKA 17,335 1,117 10.35% -1.61% 

to 4 percent in Arizona (Table 4.4). ARIZONA 123,734 8,101 -4.36% -0.77% 

• Nationally the number of births to ARKANSAS 105,681 7,877 -13.59% -16.49% 

teenagers fell by more than 15 percent CAI1FORNIA 1,038,781 55,365 -10.38% -8.97% 

between 1980 and 1985. This was due COLORADO 130,979 6,535 -10.65% -13.76% 

both to the previously mentioned decline 

CONNECTICUT 142,108 4,338 -11.57% -8.99% 

'"DElAWARE 30,176 1,545 -16.42% -16.96% 

in the size of the adolescent female 

FLORIDA 399,882 23,409 -5.34% -5.45% 

population and to the decline in the GEORGIA 258,027 18,559 -6.74% -12.61% 

adolescent birth rate. The decline in the ·HAWAII 40,773 2,068 -8.61% -13.54% 

number of births to teens was found in • IDAHO 43,982 2,615 -9.95% -30.17% 

all states. Because the extent of the IWNOIS 523,270 29,189 -14.50% -24.42% 

change in the number of teens and the INDIANA 262,939 15,114 -17.56% -25.65% 

teen birth rate varied across states, how- IOWA 137,445 5,909 -19.81% -35.98% 

ever, the decline in the number of births KANSAS 106,237 6,031 -18.24% -26.23% 

to teens varied from less than 1 percent KENTIJCKY 170,546 12,338 -15.08% -26.17% 

in Arizona to more than one-third in 

LOmSIANA 212,383 16,139 -12.00% -15.03% 

·MAlNE 52,671 2,499 -1l.01% -21.49% 

Wyoming and Iowa (Table 4.4). 

MARYlAND 199,767 8,674 -1l.85% -753% 

• Between 1980 and 1985, 36 states MASSACHUSETIS 273,380 7,694 -17.31% -10.87% 

saw declines in teen birth rates of one MICHIGAN 446,066 20,070 -15.45% -18.88% 

percentage point or more, 9 states were MINNESOTA 197,564 7,003 -17.96% -28.17% 

stable (changing less than one percent- MISSISSIPPI 127,888 10,701 -13.25% -18.81% 

age point), and in five stateS-Maryland, MISSOURI 226,466 13,093 -16.89% -22.26% 

New York, Massachusetts, Arizona, and • MONTANA 36,054 1,748 -16.91% -24.26% 

Rhode Island-the rates increased ·NEBRASKA 72,812 3,281 -19.92% -29.93% 

between two and four percentage points. '"NEVADA 34,295 2,007 -9.41% -9.12% 

There were no consistent regional pat- 

*NEW HAMPSHIRE 43,559 1,463 -9.18% -13.47% 

terns in the size or direction of these 

NEW JERSEY 329,512 11,613 -8.58% -13.24% 

·NEWMEXICO 65,337 4,692 -1051% -9.80% 

changes. The states experiencing the NEW YORK 794,932 27,697 -13.40% -7.96% 

declines generally were not the same as NORTH CAROUNA 275,182 15,823 -10.48% -11.59% 

those whose birth rates were substan- ·NORTH DAKOTA 31,057 1,294 -16.74% -29.98% 

tially higherthan average. Of the 19 OHIO 499,689 26,213 -15.35% -20.16% 

states whose 1980 teen birth rates were OKlAHOMA 134,860 10,060 -11.11% -17.82% 

more than five points above the national OREGON 111,123 5,660 -12.78% -26.80% 

average, only eight had signifkant PENNSYLVANIA 535,400 21,703 -15.23% -16.30% 

declines (more than five points) in their *RHODE ISlAND 45,002 1,484 -16.46% -6.20% 

birth rates between 1980 and 1985 

sourn CAROUNA 154,126 9,987 -12.68% -14.59% 

·sourn DAKOTA 34,025 1,789 -22.79% -32.20% 

(Table 4.5). 

TENNESSEE 210,756 13,500 -13.07% -17.61% 

• Between 1980 and 1985, four states TEXAS 661,321 49,126 -4.61% -6.47% 

had declines of 10 percentage points or ·UI'AH 69,882 4,558 -6.41% -27.60% 

more in the estimated proportion of -vERMONT 25,735 1,016 -1854% -23.23% 

adolescents who gave birth: Idaho, Utah, VIRGINIA 246,545 11,906 -7.80% -13.91% 

West Virginia, and Wyoming. Each of WASHINGTON 179,691 8,389 -10.03% -15.20% 

these states had birth rates above the WESf VIRGINIA 86,030 5,831 -11.43% -30.48% 

national average in 1980, and several WISCONSIN 230,876 9,126 -17.86% -19.20% 

*WYOMING 20,560 1,619 -10.75% -33.72% 

• LCnlike the other states in this categol", Ah~ka did not 

experience a substantial decline in the number ofbinhs 

to teenagers. The main reason that Ahlska's birth rate is 

estimated to have fallen is because the state was projected 

to ha\'e an incre,l')e in the the size ohhe adolescent 

population-which mayor may not be accurate. 

NOTE: 111e [)istrk't of Columhia is not included in the table, because of the inaccur:J(:Y ofdty·lewl popuknion 

estimates. The births to teens there ate, howewr, included in the l'.S. totals. 

·111e.~ states ha\'e estimated 15· to 19-year·old populations of less than ~5,OOO. 111e estimating pr

Table 4.5 

State 

UNITED STATES 

*WYOMING 

*UfAH 

WEST VIRGINIA 

*IDAHO 

KENTIJCKY 

IOWA 

OREGON 

*AlASKA 

*NORTII DAKOTA 

ILUNOIS 

*SOUTII DAKOTA 

INDIANA 

OKLAHOMA 

*NEBRASKA 

* MAINE 

KANSAS 

MISSISSIPPI 

GEORGIA 

MINNESOTA 

ALABAMA 

* MONfANA 

MISSOURI 

TENNESSEE 

VIRGINIA 

OHIO 

*IIAWAII 

WASHINGTON 

LOUISIANA 

ARKANSAS 

*VERMONf 

MICHIGAN 

NEW JERSEY 

COLORADO 

*NEW HAMPSHIRE 

TEXAS 

SOUTII CAROUNA 

NORm CAROUNA 

WISCONSIN 

PENNSYLVANIA 

* DElAWARE 

FLORIDA 

*NEVADA 

*NEWMEXICO 

CALIFORNIA 

CONNECTICUf 

MARYLAND 

NEW YORK 

MASSACHUSETTS 

ARIZONA 

*RHODE ISlAND 

Comparison of Adolescent (15 to 19) Birth Rates in 1980 and 1985, by State 

(Ranked by Size of Change Between 1980 and 1985) 

Difference 1985 

1980 Between State Estimated 

Birth Rate & National Birth Rate 

per 1,000 Birth Rate per 1,000 

Girls 15-19 in 1980 Girls 15-19 

53.03 0.0 51.23 

78.75 25.7 58.48 

65.22 12.2 50.46 

67.78 14.8 53.20 

59.46 6.4 46.11 

72.34 19.3 62.89 

42.99 -10.0 34.32 

50.93 -2.1 42.75 

64.44 11.4 57.45 

41.67 -11.4 35.04 

55.78 2.8 49.31 

5258 -0.4 46.17 

57.48 45 51.84 

74.60 21.6 68.96 

45.06 -8.0 39.43 

47.45 -5.6 41.86 

56.77 3.7 51.22 

83.67 30.6 78.31 

71.93 18.9 67.40 

35.45 -17.6 31.03 

68.27 15.2 63.95 

48.48 -45 44.20 

57.81 4.8 54.08 

64.06 11.0 60.71 

48.29 -4.7 45.09 

52.46 -0.6 49.48 

50.72 -2.3 47.99 

46.69 -6.3 44.01 

75.99 23.0 73.38 

74.54 21.5 72.03 

39.48 -135 37.20 

44.99 -8.0 43.17 

35.24 -17.8 33.45 

49.89 -3.1 48.16 

3359 -19.4 32.00 

74.28 21.3 72.84 

64.80 11.8 63.38 

57.50 45 56.78 

39.53 -135 38.88 

40.54 -125 40.02 

51.20 -1.8 50.87 

5854 55 58.47 

5852 55 58.71 

71.81 18.8 72.38 

53.30 0.3 54.14 

3053 -225 31.42 

43.42 -9.6 45.55 

34.84 -18.2 37.03 

28.14 -24.9 30.34 

65.47 12.4 67.93 

32.98 -20.1 37.02 

Percentage 

Point 

Change 

1980-1985 

-1.8 

NOTE: 111

had birth rates substantially above the 

national average in that year (Table 4.5). 

• Of the 25 states with adolescent 

Table 4.6 

Percent ofBirtbs to Women of all Ages That Were to Women Younger 

birth rates that were lower ( or better) Than Age 20 (Ranked in Descending Order By State for 1985), 

than the national average in 1980, 17 Compared with Estimated Teen Birth Rates and Ranking in 1985 

experienced a decline of at least one Percent of Estimated 

percentage point between 1980 and 1985, Rank on all Births Teen Birth Rank on 

Teen to Women Under Rate per 1,000 Teen Birth 

with six experiencing a decline of at 

Birth Ratio State Age 20,1985 Teens (15-19) 1985 Rate 

least five percentage points (Table 4.5). 

1 MISSISSIPPI 20.8% 78.31 1 

2 ARKAN~ 19.2% 72.03 5 

Percent of Births to All Women 3 ALABAMA 17.9% 63.95 9 

in 1985 that Were to Teens: 

4 KENTIJCKY 17.6% 62.89 11 

5 GEORGIA 17.3% 67.40 8 

50 States and 108 Largest Cities 6 LOUISIANA 17.3% 73.38 2 

Teen birth rates give the most accurate 7 TENNESSEE 17.1% 60.71 12 

and understandable picture of the early 8 WEST VIRGINIA 17.1% 53.20 20 

childbearing problem. But the accuracy 9 SOUfH CAROUNA 17.0% 63.38 10 

of state-level birth rates for non-Census 10 NORTH CAROUNA 16.0% 56.78 17 

years depends on how accurately the 11 OKlAHOMA 15.8% 68.% 6 

size of the female teenage population is 

12 -NEW MEXICO 15.5% 72.38 4 

estimated. 

13 TEXAS 15.3% 72.84 3 

14 INDIANA 14.1% 51.84 21 

The teen birth ratio (or the percent of 

15 FLORIDA 13.9% 58.47 15 

births to women of all ages that were to 16 ARIZONA 13.7% 67.93 7 

teenage women) is an alternate measure 17 -DElAWARE 13.7% 50.87 23 

of the early childbearing problem. Nation- 18 MISSOURI 13.5% 54.08 19 

ally, about 12.7 percent of the births to 19 OHIO 13.3% 49.48 25 

women of all ages in 1985 were to UNITED STATES TOTAL 12.7% 51.23 

women younger than 20. As this meas- 

20 IUlNOIS 12.5% 49.31 26 

ure is based solely on the reported 21 VIRGINIA 12.2% 45.09 32 

number of births (which is collected 22 MARYLAND 12.1% 45.55 31 

every year from birth certificates), it can 23 -NEVADA 12.1% 58.71 13 

be calculated annually for states and 24 MICHIGAN 12.1% 43.17 35 

localities as well as for specific racial and 25 -MAINE 11.7% 41.86 37 

ethnic groups. While it is not as precise a 26 *WYOMING 11.6% 58.48 14 

measure as the teen birth rate (since, for 27 PENNSYLVANIA 11.5% 40.02 38 

example, the proportion of births to 28 KAN~ 11.4% 51.22 22 

women of all ages that are to teens can 

29 CALIFORNIA 10.9% 54.14 18 

30 ·RHODE ISlAND 10.8% 37.02 43 

be low in a particular area either because 

31 OREGON 10.6% 42.75 36 

teenage women are having relatively few 

32 -IDAHO 10.5% 46.11 30 

babies or because there are relatively 33 COLORADO 10.4% 48.16 27 

few teenage women), the ease of calcu- 34 WASHINGTON 10.3% 44.01 34 

lation makes it a vety useful if imperfect 35 WISCONSIN 10.2% 38.88 40 

tool for gauging the extent of the teen 36 -SOUfH DAKOTA 10.2% 46.17 29 

pregnancy problem in states and cities. 37 NEW YORK 10.0% 37.03 42 

It is important, however, to understand 38 -MONTANA 9.9% 44.20 33 

that the teen birth rate and the teen birth 39 -HAWAII 9.8% 47.99 28 

ratio are not interchangeable measures- 

40 NEWJERSEY 9.8% 33.45 46 

41 -VERMONT 9.8% 37.20 41 

ranking high on one measure does not 

42 IOWA 9.3% 34.32 45 

mean that a state automatically ranks 

43 CONNECTlCUf 9.2% 31.42 48 

high on the other. 44 ·NEBRASKA 9.1% 39.43 39 

45 -UfAH 8.9% 50.46 24 

46 ·AlASKA 8.7% 57.45 16 

Teen Birth Ratios by State 

47 MASSACHUSE'ITS 8.5% 30.34 50 

• In 1985, 12.7 percent of the births to 48 -NEW HAMPSHIRE 8.3% 32.00 47 

all women were to women younger than 49 -NORTH DAKOTA 7.8% 35.04 44 

20. Across the states, this proportion 50 MINNESOTA 7.5% 31.03 49 

ranges from a low of about 7 percent in 

NOTE: Int(mnation on the DiSlric't of Columbia can be lilUnd in Table '1.7. 

Minnesota and North Dakota to a high of 

19 to 21 percent in Arkansas and Missis- result in binh rates that are sel'er.ll percentage poinL~ otl 

sippi. Thirty-one states were lower 

than the national average (teen births 

• These state hal'e estimated lemale 1 S· to 19·year·old IX~)ulati()ns of less than 75,000. The estimating pr(X'ess could 

SOl,RCE: Data tinm the National Center tilf He-.llth Statistic's. Calculations by the Children's Delense Fund. 

ADVOCATE'S GUIDE TO TIfE NUMBERS 41

Table 4.7 

Number of Births to Women Under Age 20 and Percent of Births to All Women 

that Were Born to Women Younger than 20 Years Old, 1985 (in 108 Large U.S. Cities) 

Percent of Rank of Number of Births Percent of Rank of Number of Births 

All Births Percent to Women All Births Percent to Women 

to Women of Births Younger to Women of Births Younger 

City, State Under 20 toreens than 20 City, State Under 20 to Teens than 20 

U.S. AVERAGE 12.70 477,705 LOUISVILLE, KY 19.34 12 825 

AKRON,OH 16.48 36 598 LUBBOCK, TX 16.23 40 577 

ALBUQUERQUE, NM 13.12 71 952 MADISON, WI 5.05 108 134 

AMARILLO, TX 17.25 27 534 MEMPHIS, TN 18.65 16 2,174 

ANAHEIM, CA 10.33 92 521 MESA,AZ 11.57 86 569 

ANCHORAGE, AK 8.01 101 432 MIAMI, FL 14.70 59 2,173 

ARLINGTON, TX 9.25 99 409 MILWAUKEE, WI 18.03 25 2,210 

ATLANTA, GA 20.42 8 1,658 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 10.84 90 717 

AURORA, CO 6.96 106 321 MOBILE,AL 16.70 33 570 

AUSTIN, TX 13.03 73 1,190 MONTGOMERY, AL 15.38 49 478 

BALTIMORE, MD 22.70 3 2,972 NASlMLLE-DAVIDSON, TN 15.23 53 1,163 

BATON ROUGE, LA 14.56 60 770 NEW ORLEANS, LA 18.10 23 1,910 

BIRMINGHAM, AL 18.35 19 869 NEW YORK, NY 11.59 85 13,220 

BOSTON, MA 13.34 69 1,192 NEWARK,NJ 26.32 1 1,484 

BUFFALO, NY 17.11 30 993 

NORFOLK, VA 17.17 29 956 

CHARLOTTE,NC 15.08 56 792 OAKLAND,CA 13.19 70 902 

CHATTANOOGA, TN 20.16 10 532 

OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 15.27 51 1,245 

CHICAGO,IL 18.49 18 10,026 OMAHA, NE 12.73 76 731 

CINCINNATI,OH 18.06 24 1,335 

PHILADELPHIA, PA 18.15 22 4,853 

CLEVELAND,OH 20.09 11 2,042 PHOENIX,AZ 15.11 55 2,569 

COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 11.45 87 625 PITTSBURGH, PA 1451 61 806 

COLUMBUS, GA 19.17 14 543 

PORTLAND, OR 10.51 91 625 

COLUMBUS, OH 14.74 58 1,588 PROVIDENCE, RI 16.32 37 441 

CORPUS CHRISTI, TX 15.55 46 761 RALEIGH, NC 9.55 97 228 

DALIAS,TX 19.34 13 3,922 RICHMOND, VA 18.18 20 633 

DAYfON,OH 20.58 6 740 RIVERSIDE, CA 12.41 80 600 

DENVER, CO 13.73 66 1,229 ROCHESTER,NY 15.94 41 861 

DES MOINES, IA 12.68 77 475 SACRAMENTO, CA 13.09 72 1,311 

DETROIT, MI 20.32 9 3,617 SALT lAKE CITY, UT 11.17 89 404 

ELPASO, TX 14.03 64 1,477 SAN ANTONIO, TX 18.16 21 3,111 

FliNT, MI 20.44 7 656 SAN DIEGO, CA 9.57 96 1,567 

FORT WAYNE, IN 14.07 63 480 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 7.45 104 726 

FORT WORTH, TX 18.68 15 1,772 SANJOSE,CA 10.16 94 1,518 

FRESNO, CA 15.25 52 1,149 SANTA ANA, CA 12.76 74 926 

FT. LAUDERDALE, FL 15.56 45 702 SEAmE,WA 8.02 100 550 

GARlAND, TX 11.32 88 406 SHREVEPORT, LA 20.91 4 892 

GARY, IN 22.86 2 523 SPOKANE, WA 11.85 84 360 

GRAND RAPIDS, MI 15.21 54 615 SPRINGFIELD, IL 15.91 42 417 

GREENSBORO, NC 12.68 78 301 STLOUIS, MO 20.71 5 1,737 

HONOLULU, HI 7.53 103 438 STPAUL,MN 10.04 95 516 

HOUSTON, TX 15.50 47 5,770 ST PETERSBURG, FL 15.74 44 552 

HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 5.59 107 143 STOCIITON, CA 14.94 57 759 

INDIANAPOLIS, IN 16.70 34 2,189 SYRACUSE, NY 16.62 35 508 

JACKSON, MS 17.25 28 625 TACOMA, WA 13.95 65 445 

JACKSONVILLE, FL 16.27 38 1,778 TAMPA, FL 15.39 48 863 

JERSEY CITY, NJ 16.73 32 660 TOLEDO,OH 16.76 31 1,028 

KANSAS CITY, MO 15.85 43 550 TUCSON,AZ 13.54 67 997 

KANSAS CITY, KS 18.57 17 1,272 TULSA,OK 14.09 62 903 

KNOXVILLE, TN 16.25 39 373 VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 7.89 102 481 

LAS VEGAS, NY 13.51 68 772 WARREN, MI 9.45 98 183 

LEXINGTON-FAYETTE,KY 12.15 83 386 WASHINGTON, DC 17.84 26 1,761 

LINCOLN, NE 7.18 105 203 WICHITA, KS 12.75 75 784 

LITTLE ROCK, AR 15.33 50 447 WORCESTER, MA 12.21 82 316 

LONG BEACH, CA 12.55 79 1,073 YONKERS, NY 10.19 93 254 

LOS ANGELES, CA 12.28 81 8,439 


Table 4.8 

Number ofBirtbs and Percent of All Births to Women Younger than 20, 

For the 25 Cities With the Largest Number of Teen Births in 1985 

Percent of All Births 

to Women Younger Than 

Births to Teens (1985) Age 20 

Total Percent Rank out of 

Births ofU.S. Under Ages 108 Large 

City, Slate Under 20 Total Age 15 15·19 Percent U.S. Cities 

UNITED srATES 477,705 10,220 467,485 12.70 

NEW YORK, NY 13,220 2.77 288 

CHICAGO,IL 10,026 2.10 3'7 'L 

WS ANGELES, CA 8,439 1.77 180 

HOUsrON, TX 5,770 1.21 166 

PHILADELPHIA, PA 4,853 1.02 160 

DALIAS,TX 3,922 0.82 120 

DETROIT, MI 3,617 0.76 140 

SAN ANTONIO, TX 3,111 0.65 82 

BALTIMORE, MD 2,972 0.62 134 

PHOENIX,AZ 2,569 0.54 47 

MILWAUKEE, WI 2,210 0.46 72 

INDIANAPOUS, IN 2,189 0.46 52 

MEMPHIS, TN 2,174 0.46 94 

MIAMI, FL 2,173 0.45 80 

CLEVELAND,OH 2,042 0.43 94 

NEW ORLEANS, LA 1,910 0.40 49 

JACKSONVILLE, FL 1,778 0.37 52 

FORTWOR1ll, TX 1,772 0.37 58 

WASHINGTON, DC 1,761 0.37 64 

srWUIS, MO 1,737 0.36 58 

ATLANfA, GA 1,658 0.35 75 

COLUMBUS, OH 1,588 0.33 47 

SAN DIEGO, CA 1,567 0.33 29 

SANJOSE,CA 1,518 0.32 24 

NEWARK,Nj 1,484 0.31 47 

SOl'RCE: l'npublished uat:1 hum th~ National C~I1l~r for I k:dth Statistics, prO\·iu~'t.I by Child Tr~nds, Inc. 

12,932 11.59 85 

9,679 18.49 18 

8,259 12.28 81 

5,604 15.50 47 

4,693 18.15 22 

3,802 19.34 13 

3,477 20.32 9 

3,029 18.16 21 

2,838 22.70 3 

2,522 15.11 55 

2,138 18.03 25 

2,137 16.70 34 

2,080 18.65 16 

2,093 14.70 59 

1,948 20.09 11 

1,861 18.10 23 

1,726 16.27 38 

1,714 18.68 15 

1,697 17.84 26 

1,679 20.71 5 

1,583 20.42 8 

1,541 14.74 58 

1,538 9.57 96 

1,494 10.16 94 

1,437 26.32 1 

accounted for less than 12.7 percent of 

all births); 19 states were higher than the 

national average (Table 4.6, Figure 4.4). 

• As with teen birth rates, the southern 

states present the worst picture on 

teen birth ratios. With the exception of 

Maryland and Virginia, which just slip 

under the national average with percentsofl2.1 

and 12.2, all of the southern 

states (South Atlantic and South Central) 

have rates higher than the national average. 

The 10 states with the highest rates 

are all east of the Mississippi River and 

south ofthe Mason-Dixon line (Table 

4.6, Figure 4.4). 

• While there is a general tendency for 

the states with high teen birth rates to 

account for a higher than average percentage 

of aLi teen births, tlle relationship 

between the two measures is far from 

perfect. Utah and Delaware had almost 

identical teen birth rates in 1985 (50.5 

per 1,000 and 50.9 per 1,000, just below 

the n

Table 5.1 

Number of Births to Women Younger Than Age 20 and Percent 

Distribution, by Race and Ethnicity, by State, 1985 a/ 

Race 

Ethnicity 

White Black Other Hispanic bl 

Percent Percent Percent Percent 

Number of State Number of State Number of State Number of State 

Total bl of Binhs Total ofBinhs Total ofBinhs Total of Binbs Total 

UNITED SfATES 477,705 322,826 67.6% 140,130 29.3% 14,749 3.1% 61,512 12.9% 

AlABAMA 10,702 5,638 52.7% 5,038 47.1% 26* 0.2% NA NA 

AlASKA 1,112 612 55.0% 61 5.5% 439 39.5% NA NA 

ARIZONA 8,156 6,472 79.4% 532 6.5% 1,152 14.1% 2,649 32.5% 

ARKANSAS 6,756 4,275 63.3% 2,426 35.9% 55 0.8% 34 0.5% 

CAliFORNIA 51,290 39,540 77.1% 8,344 16.3% 3,406 6.6% 22,514 43.9% 

COWRADO 5,726 5,011 87.5% 493 8.6% 222 3.9% 1,666 29.1% 

CONNECI1Cur 4,050 2,750 67.9% 1,265 31.2% 35 0.9% NA NA 

DELAWARE 1,316 710 54.0% 603 45.8% 3* 0.2% NA NA 

FWRIDA 22,774 13,116 57.6% 9,530 41.8% 128 0.6% 1,917 8.4% 

GEORGIA 16,686 8,560 51.3% 8,066 48.3% 60 0.4% 82 0.5% 

HAWAll 1,796 300 16.7% 60 3.3% 1,436 80.0% 309 17.2% 

IDAHO 1,844 1,742 94.5% 7* 0.4% 95 5.2% NA NA 

ILLINOIS 22,646 12,326 54.4% 10,192 45.0% 128 0.6% 2,488 11.0% 

INDIANA 11,416 9,057 79.3% 2,301 20.2% 58 0.5% 197 1.7% 

IOWA 3,837 3,537 92.2% 239 6.2% 61 1.6% NA NA 

KANSAS 4,522 3,693 81.7% 697 15.4% 132 2.9% 232 5.1% 

KENTI.JCKY 9,298 8,133 87.5% 1,147 12.3% 18* 0.2% NA NA 

WUISIANA 14,090 6,363 45.2% 7,574 53.8% 153 1.1% NA NA 

MAINE 1,980 1,936 97.8% 9* 0.5% 35 1.8% 24* 1.2% 

MARYLAND 8,253 3,868 46.9% 4,298 52.1% 87 1.1% NA NA 

MASSACHUSETIS 6,971 5,736 82.3% 1,127 16.2% 108 1.5% NA NA 

MICHIGAN 16,632 11,058 66.5% 5,386 32.4% 188 1.1% NA NA 

MINNESOTA 5,086 4,167 81.9% 430 8.5% 489 9.6% NA NA 

MISSISSIPPI 9,039 3,317 36.7% 5,657 62.6% 65 0.7% 11* 0.1% 

MISSOURI 10,388 7,275 70.0% 3,047 29.3% 66 0.6% NA NA 

MONTANA 1,335 998 74.8% 8* 0.6% 329 24.6% NA NA 

NEBRASKA 2,322 1,891 81.4% 319 13.7% 112 4.8% 91 3.9% 

well above the national average with births in their racial or ethnic groups example, looking at differences by race 

more than one in every six babies born than white teens do among all whites. only, the number of births to white 

to a teen mother (18.5 percent). But Do these differences hold up in the teens in 1985 ranged from 300 births in 

New York and Los Angeles were below states How much variation is there be- Hawaii to about 39,500 in California, 

the national average (Table 4.8). tween states in their racial or ethnic while those to black teens ranged from 

composition Are there states with pre- one birth in Vermont to about 10,200 in 

dominantly white populations that have 

both Illinois and New York. Similarly, the 

very high birth rates or teen birth ratios whi te teen birth rate in 1980 (th e last 

GEOGRAPHIC 

Are there states with large minority pop- year for which racial teen birth rates are 

DIFFERENCES BY ulations that fall below the national aver- available on tlle state level) ranged from 

ages on tllese measures When we look a low of 23.4 births per 1,000 teens in 

RACE AND ETHNICIlY 

N 

across the states, how much variation is New Jersey to a high of76.7 births per 

there in these measures within racial 1,000 teens in Wyoming, while the black 

,"onally, as discussed e",lie

Race 

Ethnicity 

White Black Other Hispanic bl 

Percent Percent Percent Percent 

Number of State Number of State Number of State Number of State 

Total bl of Births Total of Births Total of Births Total of Births Total 

NEVADA 1,858 1,338 72.0% 366 19.7% 154 8.3% 191 10.3% 

NEW HAMPSHIRE 1,277 1,263 98.9% 7* 0.5% 7* 0.5% NA NA 

NEW JERSEY 10,323 5,283 51.2% 4,938 47.8% 102 1.0% 1,910 18.5% 

NEW MEXICO 4,295 3,461 80.6% 140 3.3% 694 16.2% 2,239 52.1% 

NEW YORK 25,993 15,432 59.4% 10,232 39.4% 329 1.3% 5,843 22.5% 

NORTH CAROUNA 14,322 7,938 55.4% 6,003 41.9% 381 2.7% NA NA 

NORTH DAKOTA 914 716 78.3% 10* 1.1% 188 20.6% 15* 1.6% 

OHIO 21,372 15,616 73.1% 5,620 26.3% 136 0.6% 344 1.6% 

OKlAHOMA 8,417 5,921 70.3% 1,269 15.1% 1,227 14.6% NA NA 

OREGON 4,185 3,794 90.7% 181 4.3% 210 5.0% NA NA 

PENNSYLVANIA 18,525 12,905 69.7% 5,516 29.8% 104 0.6% NA NA 

RHODE ISLAND 1,414 1,143 80.8% 213 15.1% 58 4.1% NA NA 

SOUTH CAROUNA 8,809 4,018 45.6% 4,756 54.0% 35 0.4% NA NA 

SOUTH DAKOTA 1,232 807 65.5% 12* 1.0% 413 33.5% NA NA 

TENNESSEE 11,417 7,592 66.5% 3,793 33.2% 32 0.3% 27* 0.2% 

TEXAS 47,029 36,971 78.6% 9,737 20.7% 321 0.7% 18,265 38.8% 

UfAH 3,326 3,096 93.1% 48 1.4% 182 5.5% 291 8.7% 

YERMONI' 785 780 99.4% 1* 0.1% 4* 0.5% NA NA 

VIRGINIA 10,506 6,070 57.8% 4,351 41.4% 85 0.8% NA NA 

WASHINGTON 7,223 6,040 83.6% 551 7.6% 632 8.7% NA NA 

WESf VIRGINIA 4,117 3,907 94.9% 205 5.0% 5* 0.1% NA NA 

WISCONSIN 7,497 5,503 73.4% 1,661 22.2% 333 4.4% NA NA 

WYOMING 1,083 991 91.5% 23* 2.1% 69 6.4% 103 9.5% 

'Starwd stales atc those that haw fewcr than 30 hirths to adolescents in a particular subgroup. Subsequent tables wiu not include the radal cthnic teen birth ratios, or the tcen 

hirth rdtes for those particular subgroups. given the smaU size of the population in\"Olved. 

a Although the l '.S. totals include hirths to women in the District of Columbia, they are not includl'

Table 5.2 

Birth Rates per 1,000 Adolescent Women (15-19), by 

Race and State, 1980 

Total 

State All Races a/ White 

UNITED STATES 53.0 44.7 

ALABAMA 68.3 52.5 

ALASKA 64.4 48.2 

ARIZONA 65.5 59.6 

ARKANSAS 74.5 62.9 

CALIFORNIA 53.3 51.0 

COLORADO 49.9 47.6 

CONNECflCUf 30.5 24.4 

DElAWARE 51.2 36.9 

FLORIDA 58.5 42.5 

GEORGIA 71.9 53.7 

HAWAII 50.7 30.6 

IDAHO 59.5 58.9 

ILUNOIS 55.8 41.4 

INDIANA 57.5 52.2 

IOWA 43.0 41.3 

KANSAS 56.8 51.2 

KENTUCKY 72.3 69.3 

LOUISIANA 76.0 57.8 

MAINE 47.4 46.8 

MARYlAND 43.4 31.4 

MASSACHUSETfS 28.1 25.7 

MICHIGAN 45.0 37.2 

MINNESOTA 35.4 32.7 

MISSISSIPPI 83.7 56.2 

MISSOURI 57.8 49.6 

MONTANA 48.5 42.0 

NEBRASKA 45.1 41.2 

NEVADA 58.5 50.3 

NEW HAMPSHIRE 33.6 33.4 

NEW JERSEY 35.2 23.4 

NEW MEXICO 71.8 66.3 

NEW YORK 34.8 26.2 

NORTH CAROUNA 57.5 44.8 

NORTH DAKOTA 41.7 36.2 

OHIO 52.5 46.1 

OKlAHOMA 74.6 64.4 

OREGON 50.9 49.0 

PENNSYLVANIA 40.5 34.5 

RHODE ISlAND 33.0 29.8 

SOUTH CAROUNA 64.8 48.7 

SOUTH DAKOTA 52.6 43.2 

TENNESSEE 64.1 55.0 

TEXAS 74.3 68.3 

UfAH 65.2 64.9 

VERMONT 39.5 39.5 

VIRGINIA 48.3 38.2 

WASHINGTON 46.7 43.9 

WESf VIRGINIA 67.8 67.4 

WISCONSIN 39.5 34.6 

WYOMING 78.7 76.7 

·Swrred states are those that have very few binhs to b~ll'k teens. 

a Total column indudes rJces other than white and black. 

SOURCES, National Center t()r I k,~th Statistics and Congressional Research Sef\kc. 

Race 

Black 

100.0 

102.9 

122.9 

124.3 

118.2 

89.1 

90.8 

89.6 

110.4 

125.7 

109.9 

142.5 

'" 

122.0 

111.7 

125.9 

125.4 

107.3 

109.7 

'" 

75.9 

73.9 

92.0 

126.3 

120.3 

114.9 

... 

116.8 

128.0 

'" 

97.0 

106.8 

74.2 

87.7 

"' 

100.2 

126.3 

113.5 

90.7 

95.5 

91.9 

'" 

100.4 

112.0 

97.1 

"' 

82.2 

96.9 

80.0 

127.8 

'" 

order: New York, Illinois, Texas, Florida, 

California, Georgia, Louisiana, and North 

Carolina. Ten states had fewer than 100 

black teen births in 1985, and eight 

states had fewer than 30 such births 

Idallo, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, 

North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, 

and Wyoming (Table 5.1). 

• Hispanic teen births are concentrated 

in a few states. In 1985 California 

and Texas alone accounted for twothirds 

ofthe reported 61,500 births to 

Hispanic teenagers. These two states 

and seven others (Arizona, Colorado, 

Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New Mexico, 

and New York) accounted for 97 

percent of the repolted births to Hispanic 

teens (Table 5.1)' 

• States vaty widely in the extent to 

which they have births to teenagers that 

are from the "other" racial categorynonwhite 

and non-black racial groups 

such as Native Americans, Asians, and 

Alaskan Natives. The state with the largest 

proportion of births to teens from 

the "other" racial categOlY is Hawaii, 

where fully 80 percent of the births to 

teenagers are to nonwhite and nonblack 

teens. Other states in which births 

to nonwhite and non-black teens are a 

significant proportion of all births to 

teens (more than 10 percent) are Alaska, 

Arizona, Montana, New Mexico, North 

Dakota, Oklahoma, and South Dakota 

(Table 5.1). 

Teen Birth Rates by Race and 

Ethnicity 

Teen birth rates for black teens are more 

than twice those of whites. In 1980, the 

last year for which state data on teen 

birth rates at-e available by race, nationally 

there were 44.7 births per 1,000 

white teenagers (ages 15 through 19), 

compat-ed with 100 births per 1,000 

black teens. (Because of the difficulty of 

estimating the size of the female teen 

population by race for individual states, 

birth rates by race are available only for 

1980. Birth rates are not available for 

Hispanic teens.) 

• Among the states, however, there is 

enormous variation in the birth rates of 

both black and white teens. The white 

birth rate ranged from a low of 23.4 in 

New Jersey to a high of76.7 in Wyoming 

in 1980 (Table 5.2). 

• Black teen birth rates in 1980 ranged 

from a low of73.9 in Massachusetts to a 

high of 127.8 in Wisconsin. Of the 43 


states that had enough births to black 

teens to calculate reliable rates, 16 had Table 5.3 

black teen birth rates lower than the 

Percent of Births to All Women That Were to Women Younger 

national average (Table 5.2). Than Age 20, by Race and Ethnicity, by State in 1985 a/ 

Race 

Teen Birth Ratios by Race 

and Ethnicity -- 

Ethnicity 

State Total b/ 'Mlite Black Hispanic 

UNITED STATES 12.7% 10.8% 23.0% 16.5% 

Nationally, the teen birth ratio, or the 

percent of births to all women that were AIABAMA 17.9% 14.4% 24.9% NA 

to women younger than 20, was 12.7 AlASKA 8.7% 6.7% 10.4% NA 

percent in 1985. The black teen birth 

ARIZONA 13.7% 13.0% 20.6% 19.7% 

ratio, however, was roughly twice that of 

ARKANSAS 19.2% 16.1% 29.4% 19.5% 

CAllFORNIA 10.9% 10.7% 18.0% 15.1% 

whites-23 percent compared with 10.8 

COLORADO 10.4% 9.9% 17.4% 22.3% 

percent, respectively (Table 5.3). CONNEcnCUf 9.2% 7.3% 23.6% NA 

• There was substantial variation DElAWARE 13.7% 9.7% 27.8% NA 

among states in the teen birth ratios for FLORIDA 13.9% 10.7% 24.1% 11.2% 

the different racial groups. The white GEORGIA 17.3% 13.8% 24.3% 9.8% 

teen birth ratio reached a high of 17 HAWAII 9.8% 6.5% 6.7% 18.3% 

percent in Kentucky and West Virginia IDAHO 10.5% 10.3% 

... NA 

and a low of 6.5 percent in New Jersey ILliNOIS 12.5% 8.9% 26.3% 14.8% 

and Hawaii. The black teen birth ratio INDIANA 14.1% 12.6% 27.0% 15.3% 

ranged from a low of 6.7 percent in 

IOWA 9.3% 8.9% 22.5% NA 

KANSAS 11.4% 10.5% 21.3% 17.9% 

Hawaii and 10.4 percent inAJaska to a 

KENTIJCKY 17.6% 17.0% 24.0% NA 

high of29.3 in Wisconsin and 29.4 in 

LOUISIANA 17.3% 13.1% 24.1% NA 

Arkansas (Table 5.3). MAINE 11.7% 11.7% ... ... 

• There was also variation in the His- MARYlAND 12.1% 8.5% 21.1% NA 

panic teen birth ratio, which ranged MASSACHUSETIS 8.5% 7.8% 18.6% NA 

from a low of 9.8 percent in Georgia to a MICHIGAN 12.1% 9.8% 23.8% NA 

high of22.3 percent in Colorado. On the MINNESOTA 7.5% 6.7% 21.5% NA 

national level, 16.5 percent of all Hispanic MISSISSIPPI 20.8% 14.5% 28.2% ... 

births were to teens (Table 5.3). The MISSOURI 13.5% 11.4% 25.5% NA 

MONTANA 9.9% 8.4% 

... 

state·to·state variation is at least partially 

NA 

NEBRASKA 9.1% 8.0% 23.5% 16.2% 

accounted for by differences in the com- 

NEVADA 12.1% 10.6% 23.7% 14.2% 

position of the Hispanic population in NEW HAMPSHIRE 8.3% 8.3% 

... NA 

different states. As shown previously for NEW JERSEY 9.8% 6.5% 24.0% 16.1% 

the national Hispanic population, differ· NEW MEXICO 15.5% 15.1% 20.2% 19.9% 

ent Hispanic subgroups have different NEW YORK 10.0% 8.0% 17.8% 15.1% 

early childbearing behaviors - for exam- NORTH CAROliNA 16.0% 12.9% 23.8% NA 

pie, the teen birth ratio is higher for NORTH DAKOTA 7.8% 6.7% ... ... 

Hispanic women of Puerto Rican descent OHIO 13.3% 11.5% 24.4% 17.6% 

than for Hispanic women of Mexican or OKlAHOMA 15.8% 14.1% 23.9% NA 

Central American descent. 

OREGON 10.6% 10.4% 18.5% NA 

PENNSYLVANIA 11.5% 9.5% 24.7% NA 

• Only three states had black teen 

RHODE ISlAND 10.8% 9.8% 22.8% NA 

birth ratios that were lower than the SOUTII CAROUNA 17.0% 12.7% 23.9% NA 

highest white teen birth ratio (which SOUTIIDAKOTA 10.2% 8.0% 

... 

NA 

was 17 percent). Teen birth ratios for TENNESSEE 17.1% 14.9% 25.0% 

... 

Hispanics fell between those of whites TEXAS 15.3% 14.2% 23.4% 19.2% 

and blacks (Table 5.3). UTAH 8.9% 8.7% 16.1% 19.2% 

VERMONT 9.8% 9.8% ... NA 

Is There a Relationsh!K VIRGINIA 12.2% 9.6% 21.4% NA 

Between the Total Bir Rate WASHINGTON 10.3% 9.8% 17.0% NA 

and Race or Ethnicity WEST VIRGINIA 17.1% 17.0% 21.2% NA 

In 1980 the lowest black teen birth rate 

WISCONSIN 10.2% 8.3% 29.3% NA 

WYOMING 11.6% 11.2% 

... 

19.7% 

in a state (73.9 births per 1,000 teens) 

"Racial and ethnic teen hirth rati(~~ are nO( given when the numherofbirths to teens in a sVe

overall teen birth rates, or that in states 

Table 5.4 

with high birth rates a large proportion 

1980 Adolescent Birth Rate by State, and Racial and Ethnic Composition of the births to teens would be to minor 

ity teens. Surprisingly, this is not always 

of State in 1980, Ranked by 1980 Adolescent Birth Rate a/ 

the case. 

Birth Rate 

Race Ethnicity • In general, the states that had the 

per 1,000 

Teens (15·19) Percent Percent Percent Percent lowest adolescent birth rates are states 

State 1980 White Black Other Hispanic with predominantly white populations. 

UNITED STATES 53.03 83.1 11.7 5.2 6.4% There are, however, a number of except· 

ions- for example, in 1980 New York 

MISSISSIPPI 83.67 64.1 35.2 0.7 1.0% and Maryland had overall teen birth rates 

WYOMING 78.75 95.1 0.7 4.2 5.1% that were well below the national aver· 

LOUISIANA 75.99 69.2 29.4 1.4 2.4% 

OKlAHOMA 74.60 85.9 6.8 

age, yet both states had Significant 

7.3 1.9% 

ARKANSAS 74.54 82.7 16.3 1.0 0.8% (roughly 25 percent) minority popula· 

TEXAS 74.28 78.7 12.0 9.3 21.0% tions (Table 5.4). 

KENITlCKY 72.34 92.3 7.1 0.6 0.7% • Similarly, while many of tl1e states 

GEORGIA 71.93 72.3 26.8 0.9 1.1% with high teen birth rates are states with 

NEW MEXICO 71.81 75.0 1.8 23.2 36.6% large minority populations, there are a 

AlABAMA 68.27 73.8 25.6 0.6 0.8% n umber of exceptions. Of the 17 states 

WEST VIRGINIA 67.78 96.2 3.3 0.5 0.7% with the highest teen birth rates in 1980 

ARIZONA 65.47 82.4 2.8 14.8 16.2% (or the top third of all states), five states 

UfAH 65.22 94.6 0.6 4.8 4.1% had populations that were more than 90 

sourn CAROLINA 64.80 68.8 30.4 0.8 1.1% 

percent white. These states were Idaho, 

ALASKA 64.44 77.1 3.4 19.5 2.5% 

TENNESSEE 64.06 83.5 15.8 0.7 0.7% Kentucky, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyo· 

IDAHO 59.46 95.5 0.3 4.2 3.9% mingo None of these states had sizable 

FLORIDA 58.54 84.0 13.8 2.2 8.8% Hispanic populations (Table 5.4). 

NEVADA 58.52 87.5 6.4 6.1 6.8% • Among the ten states with the low· 

MISSOURI 57.81 88.4 10.5 1.1 1.1% est overall teen birth rates in 1985 (tl1e 

NORTH CAROLINA 57.50 75.8 22.4 1.8 1.0% first block of states in Figure 5.1), there 

INDIANA 57.48 91.2 7.6 1.2 1.6% were three states in which 90 percent or 

KANSAS 56.77 91.7 5.3 3.0 2.7% more of the teen births were to white 

ILLINOIS 55.78 80.8 14.7 4.5 5.6% teens (Iowa, New Hampshire, and Ver· 

CALIFORNIA 53.30 76.2 7.7 16.1 19.2% 

sourn DAKOTA 52.58 92.6 0.3 7.1 0.6% 

mont) and two states (New York and 

OHIO 52.46 88.9 10.0 1.1 1.1% New Jersey) in which 40 percent or 

DElAWARE 51.20 82.1 16.1 1.8 1.7% more of the teen births were to non· 

OREGON 50.93 94.6 1.4 4.0 2.5% white teens. 

HAWAII 50.72 33.0 1.8 65.2 7.4% • Within each of the first four ten· state 

COLORADO 49.89 89.0 3.5 7.5 11.8% groupings shown in Figure 5.1, there are 

MONTANA 48.48 94.1 0.2 5.7 1.3% states in which more than 90 percent of 

VIRGINIA 48.29 79.1 18.9 2.0 1.5% the teen births in 1985 were to white 

MAINE 47.45 98.7 0.3 1.0 0.4% teens and states in which only 50 to 55 

WASHINGTON 46.69 91.5 2.6 5.9 2.9% 

percent of the teen births were to white 

NEBRASKA 45.06 94.9 3.1 2.0 1.8% 

MICHIGAN 44.99 85.0 12.9 2.1 1.7% 

teens. Only in the final grouping - the 

MARYlAND 43.42 74.9 22.7 2.4 1.5% ten states with tl1e highest, or worst, 

IOWA 42.99 97.4 1.4 1.2 0.9% teen birth rates in 1985 - are there no 

NORTH DAKOTA 41.67 95.8 0.4 3.8 0.6% states in which 90 percent of the teen 

PENNSYLVANIA 40.54 89.8 8.8 1.4 1.3% births were to white teens. 

WISCONSIN 39.53 94.4 3.9 1.7 l.3% 

VERMONT 39.48 99.1 0.2 0.7 0.6% 

MINNESOTA 35.45 96.6 1.3 2.1 0.8% 

NEW JERSEY 35.24 83.2 12.6 4.2 6.7% APPENDIX: FINDING AND 

NEW YORK 34.84 79.5 13.7 6.8 9.4% 

NEW HAMPSHIRE 33.59 98.9 0.4 0.7 0.7% USING THE DATA 

RHODE ISlAND 32.98 94.7 2.9 2.4 2.1% 

B 

CONNECflCUf 30.53 90.1 7.0 2.9 4.0% Births and Marriages 

MASSACHUSETIS 28.14 93.5 3.9 2.6 2.5% 

irth and marriage data (available 

a Hispanics are an ethnic group. nor a race, and there!

Figure 5.1 

100 

Percent of Teen Births in Each State That Were to White Teens Grouped 

by Overall Total Teen Birth Rates, 1985 

95 

90 

85 

'" c:: 

v 

Massachusetts 

Minnesota 

~ 80 

v 

lUlode I$larid 

... North~ 

West Virginia 

WyPmlflg 

Colorado 

Kentucky 

New Mexko 

Arizona 

~ 75 Montana 

... 0 WisconSin 

Texas 

Ohio 

Nevada 

~ 

70 Missouri Oklahoma 

~ 

P~a 

~ Tennessee 

t5 65 

~ 

Arkansas 

60 

~ i

State data on teen births are available 

from the states' Vital Statistics Registrars, 

which collect birth certificate data and 

can provide data on the numbers of 

births to teens within a state, and in 

some cases may provide data for local 

areas within a state. Most states publish 

birth data annually. These data are sim· 

pie counts of number of births to teens. 

Birth Rates 

Computing teen birth rates (available 

annually for the United States; state· level 

estimates only, not by racial or ethnic 

subgroups during non-Census years) for 

a state requires a count of both the 

number of births to 15- to 19-year-old 

females and the total number.offemales 

in this age group within the state. There 

is no way to actually count that population 

in a state in a given year. Counts are 

done for states and localities only during 

Census years. The Bureau of the Census 

estimates the size of the population for 

states and localities for non-Census years 

(rounded to the nearest thousand), but 

it provides only limited population breakdowns. 

Estimates are available by age, 

race, or sex but not by all three variables 

at once. Thus it is possible to obtain 

estimates of the number of women, the 

number of teens, or the number of 

Hispanics, but not of the number of 

Hispanic teenage women or even the 

number of teenage women. Detailed 

population breakdowns from the 1980 

Census can be used to estimate the size 

of specitk sub-ponulations, but each 

estimation increases the chance of error. 

The population estimates used to calculate 

the 1985 state-level birth rates presented 

in this report were calculated 

using the 1980 state data on the percent 

of female teens. Cautions are placed next 

to the estimated birth rates for those 

states with small (fewer than 75,000) 

populations of adolescents. Sub-state 

estimates (for cities and counties) of 

birth rates or state-level estimates of birth 

rates for specitk racial or ethnic groups 

are not advised. 

Sexual Activity and 

Contraception 

Information on sexual activity and contraceptive 

use ( estimates available for 

entire nation only) come from national 

surveys of adolescents (or young adults 

reporting on behavior during their teen 

years). The number of people interviewed 

is not large enough to allow for 

state-by-state analyses. 

Data on the sexual experience of teens 

during the 1970s are available tram the 

National Surveys of Young Women and 

Men. These three surveys (conducted by 

John F. Kantner and Melvin Zelnick of 

Johns Hopkins University in 1971, 1976, 

and 1979) collected data on sexual activity, 

contraceptive use, pregnancy and 

pregnancy intention, and sex education 

background. All three surveys included 

15- to 19-year-old women, and the 1979 

survey included 17- to 21 -year-old men. 

More recent sexuality data are available 

from the National Survey of Family 

Growth (NSFG). Conducted by the National 

Center for Health Statistics, Cycle 

III of the survey includes data on teens 

(ages 15 to 19) collected in 1982. Data 

including fertility, family planning, prenatal 

care, and pregnancy outcome are 

reported by age of mother in Single 

years and five-year age groups, and by 

race. Surveys prior to 1982 do not include 

unmarried teens. NSFG results are 

available on data tapes from the National 

Technical Information Service. Results 

also are published periodically (12 installments) 

in Series 23 of Vital and 

Health Statistics. 

Abortion and Pregnancy 

Abortion data (United States and statelevel 

estimates available) are estimates 

derived from three different sources. 

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) 

documents the-numb~rs and characteristics 

of women obtaining abortions 

through its Abortion Surveillance Program. 

Based on data voluntarily reported 

by health agencies, hospitals, and other 

medical facilities, CDC calculates the 

numbers, rates, and ratios of abortions 

by state of occurrence, age, race, marital 

status, number of previous abortions, 

length of gestation, method of abortion, 

and similar factors. Results are published 

in "Abortion Surveillance-Annual Summary," 

a special supplement to the Morbidity 

and Mortality Weekly Report series, 

with the most recent summary containing 

data from 1982-1983. 

The Abortion Provider Survey, conducted 

by the Alan Guttmacher Institute 

(AGI), provides data on abortion services 

in the United States. AGI computes 

abortions by state of residence and estimates 

the numbers of women obtaining 

abortions by characteristics such as age, 

race, marital status, and length of gestation 

based on distributions compiled by 

CDC and applied to the numbers of 

abortions reported to AGI. The most 

recent data available are for 1983 and are 

published in the report "Abortion Services 

in the U.S., Each State and Metropolitan 

Area," and in issues oftheAGI 

journal, Family Planning Perspectives. 

The National Center for Health Statistics 

reports abortion ratios by age, race, 

marital status, and educational attainment 

for selected states. Final data are 

published in "Induced Terminations of 

Pregnancy: Reporting States," in the 

Monthly Vital Statistics Report. The most 

recent publication contains 1982-1983 

data for 13 states. 

Caution must be exercised in using 

abortion data. Some states do not report 

abortion data at all; some don't collect 

abortion data by age or race; some states 

collect data by state of occurrence and 

some by state of residence, causing overor 

underreporting. All of these caveats 

make it difficult to make comparisons 

between states or even among counties 

within a state. 

Pregnancy Rates 

CDC and AGI report rates of teen pregnancy 

(U.S. estimates and state-level 

estimates only). The most recent CDC 

summatyon teen pregnancy reports data 

for 1970, 1974, and 1980, and is available 

as a supplement to the Morbidity and 

Mortality Weekly Report series. The most 

recentAGI data are from 1981; unpublished 

tabulations for more recent years 

are available from AGI. 

Estimates of teen pregnancy rates depend 

on data from a vari ety of sources. 

Annual counts of births, abortions, stillbirths, 

and miscarriages among 15- to 

19-year-old females as well as the total 

population of 15- to 19-year-old females 

must be known. The difficulty in estimating 

teen pregnancy rates is compounded 

by the difficulties mentioned 

with abortion and birth data, with the 

additional difficulty of collecting data on 

miscarriages. Estimates of state-level pregnancy 

rates should be used with caution; 

local-level pregnancy rates should not be 

estimated. 


Data On Other Characteristics 

of Teens 

Reliable and detailed information on 

teens is available every 10 years from the 

Decennial Census. It provides information 

on the personal, socia!, and 

economic characteristics of teenagers, 

including data on number of births, 

number of premarital births, and number 

of premarital conceptions. The 

special value of the census data are that 

they can be used to make accurate estimates 

for small geographic divisions and 

subpopulations. 

The u.s. Bureau of the Census also 

provides information on the labor force 

through the Current Population Suroey. 

This survey is the principal means of 

obtaining intercensal data on the social 

and economic characteristics of the population. 

The addition to the core survey 

of demographic information and questions 

on household composition, marital 

status, and educational attainment 

produces supplements on such topics as 

fertility, school enrollment, child support, 

and immunization. The survey is 

conducted monthly. Published tabulations 

are available in Current Population 

Reports (at a three- to six-month lag). 

Of special interest are Series P-20 (population 

characteristics), P-23 (special 

studies), P-25 (population estimates and 

projections), and p-60 (consumer 

income). 

Specific information on the labor 

market experiences of young people 

over time can be obtained from the 

Department of Labor-initiated National 

Longitudinal Survey of the Labor Market 

Experience of Youth. Data are collected 

on income, employment, unemployment, 

training, formal education, marriage and 

fertility events, attitudes, aspirations, child 

care, family planning, and maternal and 

child health. The most recent data are 

for 1985 and are available on public use 

data tapes. 

SUBSCRIBE TODAY! 

DON'T MISS ANOmER IMPORTANT ISSUE. 

Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention 

Clearinghouse 

COF's Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention Clearinghouse 

publishes six valuable reports a year, each offering an in-depth 

examination of a single aspect of America's teen pregnancy crisis 

and its solutions. 

Monitor the latest developments in the national effort to prevent 

children having children, with the facts and action steps you need to 

prevent teen pregnancy in your community. 

Recent issues include: 

Preventing Adolescent Pregnancy: What Schools Can Do 

(September 1986) 

Welfare and Teen Pregnancy: What Do We Know, What Do We 

Do (November 1986) 

Adolescent Pregnancy: An Anatomy of a Social Problem in Search 

of Comprehensive Solutions Qanuary 1987) 

Child Care: An Essential Service for Teen Parents (March 1987) 

Declining Earnings of Young Men: Their Relation to Poverty, Teen 

Pregnancy, and Family Formation (May 1987) 

Opportunities for Prevention: Building After-School and Summer 

Programs for Young Adolescents Q uly 1987) 

Teens in Foster Care: Preventing Pregnancy and Building Self 

Sufficiency (September 1987) 

Child Support and Teen Parents (November 1987) 

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

ORDER FORM 

DYes! 1 want to subscribe to COF's 

Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention 

Clearinghouse. I'll receive six issues in one 

year for just $23.95 

o Send me these single issues ($4 each) 

NAME 

ADDRESS 

CIlY STATE ZIP 

To Order: Ple'l,e tlll in this form , detach, and mail with payment to: 

CDFPublications, 122 CSt. NW, W,t5hington, D.C. 20001.

$5.95 

EX llBRIS 

LANGSTON HUGHES 

LIBRARY 

iN ••,.,. .. 

CHILDREN'S DEFENSE FUND 

122 C Street, N.W. 

Suite 400 

\v.lshington, D.C. 20001 

FlRSTCLASS 

u.s. postage 

PAID 

Permit #333 

Washington, D.C.

TEENAGE PREGNANCY: AN ADVOCATE'S GUIDE TO

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?