Cbe litirarp of tt)r Division of I^ealti) affairs anitiec0itp of Jl^otttj Carolina WA AN8 1945" FEBRUARY. I94S PROGRESS REPORT NO. RS.4 '\ MEDICAL CARE SERVICES In NORTH CAROLINA A STATISTICAL AND GRAPHIC SUMMARY PREPARED FOR THE North Carolina Commission on Hospital and Medical Care BY THE J Department of Rural Sociology NORTH CAROLINA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION L. D. BAVER, Director State College Station RALEIGH MEMBERS OF THE NORTH CAROLINA HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CARE COMMISSION APPOINTED BY GOVERNOR J. MELVILLE BROUGHTON, FEBRUARY, 1944: D. HiDEN Ramsay JosEPHUs Daniels James A. Gray Charles A. Cannon C. C. Spaulding Alexander Webb R. G. Deyton J. B. Slack H. B. Caldwell R. Flake Shaw J. G. K. McClure M. G. Mann Charles Fink I. G. Greer John W. Umstead S. H. HoBBS, Jr. E. L. Sandefur Reuben Robertson W. G. Clark N. C. Newbold S. J. Ervin Paul Bissette C. Horace Hamilton Thomas J. Pearsall Mrs. Julius Cone Mrs. W. T. Bost Mrs. Jane S. McKimmon Miss Flora Wakefield Mrs. Richard J. Reynolds Dr. Frances Hill Fox Dr. James W. Vernon Dr. p. p. McCain Dr. W. M. Coppridge Dr. Paul Whitaker Dr. Donnell Cobb Dr. E. E. Blackman Dr. H. B. Haywood Dr. W. R. Berryhill Dr. C. C. Carpenter Dr. W. C. Davison Dr. G. M. Cooper Dr. B. E. Washburn Dr. J. B. Sidbury Dr. Clyde Donnell Dr. R. E. Wimberly Dr. Roscoe D. McMillan Bishop Clare Purcell Clarence Poe, Chairman Dr. Carl V. Reynolds, Secretary Library, L'niv. w> I.EDICAL CAR'i; SERVICES III NOHTH CAROLINA Contents Factual Summary i Surmary of Recoiiiinendations of the Governor's Commission . . iii Foreword ..... 2 United States Data Hospital Facilities and Utilization . 4 Doctors, Dentists, and Nurses 8 Selective Service Rejections 12 A Births and Conditions of Birth , . 14 liatcrnal Mortality 24 Infant Mortality and Stillbirths 26 Adjusted Death Rate 2 8 Average Value of Dv/ellings 30 State Government Expenditures 32 North Carolina Drta Hospital Facilities 34 Doctors - Total and Negro 38 Births and Conditions of Birth 42 Death Rate by Cause: U.S. and N.C 50 Infant Death Rates: U.S. and H. C 52 Maternal Death Rates: U.S. and N.C. ........... . 56 Death Rates by Counties * 58 Selective Senrico Rojcctions 60 Population by Color and Rosidonco 62 Full-time Public ?!oalth Expondituros 64 Medical Care and Hospitcilization Expenditures 68 Source of Hospital Income and Extent of Prco Hospital Care 70 Rural-farm Lovol of Living Index 72 Trend in Distribution of Doctors 74 Ago of Physicians and Gpocialization 76 Net Cash Income por Farm "'orkor 78 Summary Tabic on Row North Carolina Ranks 80 Additional copies of this report nay bo obtained from: Dr. C. Horace Hejnilton, Chairman . Department of Eurr.l Sociology *J , \P^ Korbh Oc.roiin:. St-.tj Collc^^o '^O^ Raleigh, ilorth Carolina Page i JEDICAL CAIffi SERVICES IN N^RTH CAROLIM FACTUAL SUJ.rARY Shortage of Doctors North Carolina has normally 2,300 acti-76 doctors, but 1,300 additior^l doctors ere needed to provide at least one doctor for each 1,000 people. All of the 1,300 additional doctors are needed in rriral areas. Only 31 per cent of our doctors li^ix) in rural areas, but 73 per cent of our population is rural. Cities above 10,000 in population with only one-fifth of the state's population have one-half of our doctors, (see pages 8 and 38) There are only 144 Negro doctors in the state to serve a million Negro people. Assuming that Negro doctors should serve Negro people, we need about 850 addi- tional Negro doctors, (see pages 12 and 40) The number of rural doctors is declining. In 1914, there vrero 1,125 doctors living' in rural areas if the state^ but by 1940 we had only 719 inaral doctors. The number of rural people per physician vrent up from 1,678 in 1914 to 3,613 in 1940. (see page 76) The number of doctors above 55 years of age , in the state as a whole, has gone up from 15.6 per cent in 1914 to 32.0 per cent in 1940. In rural areas the per cent of doctors above 55 years of age vront up from 14.6 in 1914 to 37,5 in 1940. (see page 74) In number of doctors per 100, 000 p opulation. North Carolina ranlcs 45th in the nation. The three states having relatively fower doctors are Alabsima, South Carolina, and Mississippi, (see page 8) Inadequate Hospital Ricilities The modern doctor requires hospital facilities and the young doctors are setting up practice in the larger centers v/laere adequate hospital facilities are available. North Carolina has 128 general hospitals, containing 8,475 beds. In order to bring the state average up to 4 beds per 1,000 population, 6,000 additional hospital beds aro needed, (see page 34) In 1940, North Carolina ranked 42nd among the states in hospital beds per 1,000 population, (see page 4T~ Of the 8,475 general hospital bods, 41.7 per cent were located in the six largest urban counties of the state, (see page 34} 34 oounties have no hospital beds 31 counties have less than tivo beds per 1,000 population 31 counties have from two to four beds per 1,000 population 4 counties have more than four beds per 1,000 population At least 20 of the 34 oounties vrithout hospitals are largo enough to require a 50 bed hospital and all of the others are large enough for health clinics having from 10 to 25 beds, (see pages 34 and 62) Sojne hospital expansion is needed in at least 62 additional counties vrhich already have some facilities. Thus, 82 counties need either hospital expansion or ne\7 ■ii~^2^.ij^ ••' ' ;4^ •*■.'. •^■ ,JD ^#L;f -.=j •'•^,ii: Pa^o ii hospital facilitiosj and 14 small counties ncad .-^mall health clinics. Public health centers aro noodod in many other counties. Negro hospital facilities are seriously inadequate. Vn'c have now 1, ^G5 general hospital beds for Negroes and at least 2,450 more arc needed to supply the roccmmcndcd minimiin of 4 beds per 1,000. {See page 3 7) Poor F.o'alth Conditions The result i f inadequate facilities and pcrsonnol arc pc or medical care and poor health, as shown by the following facts : Only 36.1 per cent of our babies aro dclivorod in hosp itals; 4S.0 per cnet of the vjhito and only 13.6 per cent of the 'icgro. In this respect, the state ranks 40-th. Only 17.1 per cent of all rural infants arc delivered in hospitals. (Se3 pages 16,18,<:4) Six per cent cf our vjhate babi es and 54 p,r cent oT our l^o f;ro babies do not have a doctor attc'idant at birth. In this resnoct, the state ranks 40th. Tvronty- fivo per cent of our rural babies have no doctor attending at birth, (See -oages 20,22,46) Five out of every 1,000 mothers die at child birth and the state" ranks 41st on this score. The ma.ternal mortality rate for rural mothers in 1940 was 4.9 and for Negroes 7.6 per 1,000 live births. Fbrtunately, v;e have a public health program vAiich is helping to push this rate steadily dovmv^rd. (J^7~pap-cs 24 56) Our infant mort a lity rate is also declining, but Ncrth Carolina still ranks 38th in this respect. The number of infant deaths plus stillbirths per 1,000 births is 89 per 1,000: 74 f:r the-whi'.to and 120 for tho Fegro, 7,404 infant deaths and stillbirths occurred in North Carolina in 1£40. Good medical care could have prevented a substantial percentage of these. In some states and countries the infant ncrtalitj/- rate is less than l\alf tho.t cf North Carolina. (See pares 26,52) North Carolina, in 1943, led the -.ation in percentage of regist rants rc.ioctcd for mili tary sorvjcc. T^ic percentage cf rejections, from February through August of 1943, irru-S'. 56.. 8 % of all registrants 49,2 % of v-hito registrants 71,5 % of Negro registrants These data a^c net conclusive because if all registrants examined through Llarch 31j 1944 are included the rejection rate for North Carolina is about 8 per cent lovrer. nowever, in spite of the tentative character of the data, the facts do re/;-.al many serious physical defioxences, many of v.lnich oould have been prevented if thorough phy&ical exaiiii nations and needed corrections and treatments had been carried out at an or.riy age- ■ (See pr.ges 12 A, 12 h, GO) Eeono"?.c and Social Rx-r,i.ri North Carolina has inadequate mcdlaal services because it is a_ pqor_and_ an ag ricultural stat e. Net income per capita in lb40 v/r.s only $ 517 as com- pared vdth si; 573 for the nation as a v-hole. In this resnoct. North Carolina ranks 44th.' (see page 82) The pop ulation side of the problem is correspondingly serious. Our birth rate is high; being 90 per 1,000 vromcn 15-44 years of age' as compared vdth 73.7 for Pago iii the nation. Vfe have more people per occupied dwelling as well as more farm people per square mile of farm land than any other state in the nation.(soo 8],88) The ago distribution of our population is heavily vreightcd v;ith children and old people. >Vo have 585 children (under 15) and old persons (over 65) per 1,000 people 16-65 years of age. In this rospoct, wo rank 43rd in the nation; the national average being 486 per 1,000. (see page 81) In all indexes of level of living, North Carolina is also quite deficient: 42nd in value of dvrallings, 3 8th in homos with electricity, 41st in homos with radios and running water, and 42nd in per cent of adults with less than a fifth grade education, (see page 02) In proportion to their ability to pay, and in proportion to the size of the medical care problem, the people of North Carolina working as individuals have gone about as far as they can go in helping themselves. Therefore, if the situation is to be improved to any great degree, group effort and public action on a state and national level will be necessary. The medical care problem of the state is not a simple one. There are many deficiencies, and many reasons ivhy these deficiencies exist. It is to a large degree a rural problem and a Hegro problem. The medical care problem as a whole has three aspects, all of v/hich results in poor iredical care. These aspects are: (1) Lack of medical care facilities and personnel (2) Lack of appreciation for the need of good medical care (3) The inability of rural people to pay for modern medical care These are the three sides of the triangle: Facilities , educatio n, economics . No one phase of the problem can be considered v/ithout the other. The problem of rural medical care cannot be solved by only building hospitals, or by only educating the people to know the value of good facilities, or by only providing more convenient methods of payment. All throe aspects of the problem must be worked on at once. More rural physicians must be trained; more rural hospitals must be built; moro educational and preventive work must be carried on; and more cdnvoniont methods of paying for nodical oaro must be devised. The rooommondations of the Governor's Coiiff^iission on Hospital and Isdical Care summarized belov/ arc designed to help meet those needs. SUM/ARY OF RECOfS/ENDATIOUS r)F THE COMinSSIOII y Meeting on October 11, 1944, the State Hospital and Medical Care Commission, after giving careful consideration to the reports of the various subcommittees and to the facts summarized in this report, made a series of recommendations which may be summarized as follows: Ifcdical School . That the two year medical school at the University of North Carolina be expanded into a four year school with a central hospital of 600 bods. l/ The full report of the Commission Report, as well as other subcomiTiittee reports, ~ may be obtained by writing Dr. Clarence Pee, Chairman, Raleigh, North Carolina. 031--'. Page iv Loan Fund for Hedical Students . That a loan fund bo established by the state legislature, particularly for promising youth who v/ish to become physicians in North Carolina, with extra inducements for those who mil ap;ree to practice medicine at least four years in rural ai-eas. Medical Training for Negro Yout h. That North Carolina consider the advisability of establishing, in cooperation with neighboring states, a regional nodical school for Negroes. Hev; Hospitals and Hdalth Centers . That the state legislature set up a $ 5,000,000 fund to aid communities and covmties to build nevr hospitals and health centers emd to expand present facilities where needed. It is estimated that $ 10,000,000 additional funds vrould be provided by other sources. Rural hospitals and health centers arc emphasized. Health Insurance and Prepayment Plans. That the state encourage in every practical way the development of group medical care plans; and that the Blue Cross plan be expanded to include the services of general practicionere and drugs. Hospital Aid for Low Income Groups. That the state appropriate $ 1 per day to help pay the hospital expense: of each indigent person treated, the remainder of the hospital cost to be paid by philanthropic agencies, such as the Duke Endovmient, and by the counties and rnvraioipalities vrtiercin the p-xtients reside. It is estimated that this viill cost the state about $ 500,000 each year. Public Health Program. . Endorsed the proposal for a gencrr.l examination of school children to discover remediable physical defects, such defects to be remedied at public expense in cases ivhere parents are not financially able to pay for such treatment. Appropriations for public health -.vork should be increased until the state has entirely adequate Jprogram for the prevention of disease, thus reducing needed hospital and medical oare to the lowest practicable minimum. State Hospital and Iv.cdical Cn.re Council. That a State Hospital and i'-K3dical Care Council composed of qualified persons be set up to adirdnistcr the proposed program, so that high standards of service, efficiency, economy, and professional excellence might be maintained, ^'.dministrativc control of hospitals aided would, however, remain in the hands of properly constituted local boards or governmontal units. In concluding its rcpoi't, the Commission took pains to point out that no claim was made that the proposed program was complete or perfect, Jvluch rci.air.s to be done, but a substantial bogirjiing has been mado toward the ultimate goal set forth by Governor Broughton, ". that no person in Ilorth Carolina shall luck adequate hospital care or medical treatment by reason of poverty or lovr income." Pa, re 2 MTIDICAL CARE REHAaCES IN NC?th CA^OLI-A Foreviord In February 1944, Governor J. Melville Broughton appointed a State Hospital and Medical Care Commission to survey the hospital and nodical care needs of our state and to recommend a program to the people and to the Icrislaturo of North Carolina, Dr. Clarence Poo v/as appointed Chairman of the Conmlssion and Dr. Carl V. Reynolds, Secretary. Several sub-coirunittees were appointed. The sub-committoe on Statistical Data and Publications, which v;as rospcnsiblo for preparing this report, was composod of the following persons: C. Horace Hamilton, Head, Department of Rural Sociology, North Carolina State College, Chairman; S. H. Hobbs, Professor, Rural Social Economics, University of North Carolina; R. T. Stimson, M. D., Director, Division of Vital Statistics, North Carolina State Board of Health. Dr. lY. S. Rankin of the Duke Endov/ncnt could not serve as a member of the committee, but rendered great service in making available the Duke Hosoital statistics. Arrangement of Data These data arc arranged first, to shev; how North Carolina stands in the nation; and second, how the counties stand in the state with regard to hospital and medical care services, health conditions, and social and economic factors affecting health and medical care. Practically ovci*y table is illustrated v;ith a chart: the table being on tlic left side facing the chart. This arrangement facilitates study of both the charts and the statistical data. V/herover av->.ilablo, the data shovr '.7hite and nonwhato, rural and urban comparisons, Most of the data apply to 1940 except "ni-iorc othcn/ise stated. Ackno'jlo dcomcnt s The committee acknowledges witli much appreciation the assistance of the following members of the North Carolina Department of Rural Sociology, v^o v/orkod f^-dth- fully and carofu.lly in assembling the data and in making the :Tiaps and charts: Dr. Selz C. Hayo, I'iss Ivlargaret Cole, Mrs. Rosemary Vaughan, and Martin R. Chambers . s < l-J c o a« ■ u 3 ■o u O e > « •W4 u 1 CO u D 1-1 ti < 4J H E k a< a K ^ CO 2 !2 Q ■D u C S x: CD X! J in "D RONIC HRONI Q « a O" u urioN 6 HOME g IS UJ o T 1— 1 a to o III STIT )RSIN Q z X £ z tf ■ rf <2 < O O o a.:».<* Page 4 GENERAL HOSPITAL fACIL ITU'S 'I'D AM.nS.SIONS, 1940 Beds rser 10,000 nopulat ion Admissions per 1 ,000 population Rank and State Ratio N'oniber Rank and State ' Ratio NuiTiber * 26 UNITED STATES 35 462,360 24 UiyiTED STATES 70 9,219,496 1 Nevada 62 680 1 Montana 105 58,803 2 Montana 56 3,108 2 Nevada 98 10,797 3 California 53 30,851 3 Arizona 9S 46,297 4 Mas saclm setts 52 2L,4G5 4 Washington 90 155,952 4 Wyoming 52 1,297 5 LOUISIAM 89 210,672 G Colorado 51 5,591 5 Minnesota 89 249,669 7 Arizona 49 2,441 7 California 88 605,429 8 Hew Kamp shire 46 2,255 8 Massachusetts 87 373,896 9 Neiv York 45 60,314 8 IJev; York 87 1,169,530 10 Few liexico 44 2,351 8 Oregon 87 95,157 11 Washington 43 7,488 11 I'Jorth Dakota 86 54,969 12 Delavare 42 1,119 11 Vermont 86 30,993 12 Maryland 42 7,690 13 Connecticut 85 145,955 12 Michigan 42 22,089 13 Hev<- Hampshire 55 41,883 12 Rhode Island 42 J-;,96G 15 Wyomin;^ 84 21,171 12 VeiTOont 42 1,513 15 Colorado 84 93,521 17 Minnesota 40 11,103 17 Illinois 82 648,914 17 Worth Dakota 40 ?,546 18 Wisconsin 81 254,^4^ 19 South Dakota 39 .^,515 19 Utah 79 43,323 20 Orepon 38 ■1,091 20 Do lawu re 78 20.534 20 V/isconsin 38 12,000 21 South Dakota 76 49,031 22 Conn'3cticut 57 6,362 22 liiclJsan 73 384,949 22 LOUISIANA 37 8^658 23 Maryland 71 128,923 24 Illinois 36 28,469 24 New Jersey 70 289, -320 24 Kansas 36 6,501 25 Ida'.io 69 36,283 26 iT.-ir.e 55 2,931 26 ilainc 68 57', 743 26 '.'■.)bi'i;..-5l':a 35 4.602 2 6 Forji £y Ivan.i a 68 669,031 26 .'■'ere oy?.Jsuia Z5 35,086 28 West Viigiv.ia 67 126,552 26 UtcL 36 1,915 29 FLORIDA 65 123,297 30 YiQvi Jersey r'4 1-1,150 29 Iowa 65 164,521 31 FLOHIM 33 3,277 31 ICan-as G4 116,078 32 Ma's sou "i ZZ 11,957 31 Ohio G4 442,868 33 VIKGiriA ?i I3,2d3 33 Nobr^sicR 63 82,723 34 Idaho 30 1.550 34 Now I.IJI>lI/. 51 164,480 35 Ohio 28 19, 6? 5 56 riis'souri 60 228,056 35 Vfost Virginia 28 5,2r2 37 Iii.diana 58 198,036 38 Indiana 25 8,501 57 Texas 58 371, GIO 38 Okl'Ahoma 15 5,882 39 ijCR'il^ G2R0LIJ-W * * 56 119,250 40 at;lb;jl'- 24 6, 384 40 GEORGIA 52 165,543 40 Texas 1 15,1-45 40 miodo Island 52 36,760 42 KORTH C/>ROLrftA * * 23 8,372 42 SOUTH CiJ^OLriA 51 97.615 42 SCUTL' CAROLINA 23 4,365 43 Okla}'0..-ia 50 11G,218 44 TEH!^TESSEE 1-2 G,278 44 TEN;JESoES 47 13G,62G 45 CEORGLX 21 6,437 45 ALABAJAv 42 117,816 46 lOilWTUCFCY 19 5,361 46 KENTUC!Of 40 114,984 47 ARKANSAS 18 3,451 47 IIISSISSIPPI 37 81,136 48 »i[S3ISSIPPI 15 3,3 63 48 ARK\>;S;.S 31 50,-l^i Eoui'ce: ^'unericiin iiledical Assoc i at ion (0 o V z c CD u E < ^ o ^^ o a .J (n o H^ ** u c o •1 f/1 b u u U < a X X r> U K ^^ a u. »« o 3 ** w4 H T Z U W •«H z u H < < U Pu U z Q UTILIZATION OF GENERAL HOSPITAL FACILITIES, 1940 Percent bel3 occupied Rank and State Percent 3edG 00 jupied ner dav Days hospitalization per 100 population Rank- and State Ratio Number .days 17 u::rr::i' states 70.3 325,160 20 UITITED STATES 90 118,683,400 1 New York 78.3 47,219 1 I'evuda 152 167,900 2 UOUISIAITA 76.1 6,592 2 California 139 9,577,600 3 Rhode Island 75,3 2,243 3 Massachusetts 156 5,864,090 4 Connecticut 74.9 4,768 4 Montana 131 733,285 5 Illinois 74.3 21,148 5 New York 128 17,234,935 6 IJiryland 73.9 5,685 6 Colorado 119 1,339,185 7 fz-aine 7o,4 2,167 7 Arizona 115 573,415 8 Ohio 73.2 14,372 7 PJiode Island 115 820,520 9 Missouri 72.2 8,546 t'laryland 114 2,075,025 10 Oregon 71.9 2,941 10 Michir^an 110 5,771,015 11 Kicliif^an 71,6 15,311 11 Vermont 105 376,515 12 Massachusetts 71.5 16,066 12 Minnesota 104 2,891,165 13 Pennsylvania 71.4 25,054 12 Now Hampsliire 104 512,095 14 Ilinnesota 71.3 7,921 12 TiVasliington 104 1,804,560 15 California 71.2 26,240 15 LOUISIANA 102 2,406,080 16 New Jersey 70.7 10,007 16 Connecticut 100 1,707,470 17 SOUT?I CAROL aiA 70.0 3,056 16 Illinois 100 7,719,020 18 TEHNESSEE 69.1 4,33 6 16 Oregon 100 1,073,465 19 VIRGEIIA 68,7 5,674 19 Wisconsin 94 2,951,300 20 Indiana 68.4 5,818 20 Maine 93 790,955 21 Vermont 68.1 1,031 20 Wyoming 95 232,870 22 ALACAil/i 67.8 4,668 22 Pennsylvania 92 9,144,710 23 Nevada 67,6 460 23 Delaware 90 240,535 24 Wisconsin 67.4 8,066 23 Hew Mexico 90 480,340 25 Utah 67.3 1,288 25 North Dakota 39 572,685 26 GEORGIA 67.1 4,302 26 New Jersey 88 3,652,555 27 Idaho 66.0 1,023 27 Utah 85 470,120 27 Vfesliington 6G.0 4,944 28 Kansas 84 1,507,450 29 MISSISSIPPI 65.5 2,202 29 ilisGouri 83 3,155,790 30 Io\m 65.0 4,632 29 South Dakota 83 533,995 31 i'ontana 64.6 2,009 31 Nebraska 77 1,012,510 32 Colorado 64.5 3,669 31 VIi^INIA 77 2,071,010 33 Arizona 64.4 1,571 53 Ohio 76 5,245,780 34 West Virginia 63.6 3,364 34 FIX) R IDA 75 1,427,515 35 Kansas 63.5 4,i?;o 35 Idaho 71 373,395 66 Nevf Hampshire 62,8 1,405 56 Iowa 67 1,690,680 37 ARiu.HSAS 62.6 2,161 37 West Virginia 65 1,227,860 38 FLORIDA 62.3 3,911 38 Indiana 62 2,123,570 39 North Da'cota 61.6 1,563 39 AUB-IU. 60 7 9 1,703,820 40 NORTH CAROLEiA * * 60.8 5,093 40 SOUTH CAROL B!A 59 1,115,440 41 Nebraska 60.3 2,774 41 Oklahoma 54 1,258,520 42 i-.EUTUC/Y 60.2 3,229 41 te;:i!essee 54 1,582,640 43 Texas 59.4 9,179 43 NORTH CAROLINA * * 52 1,858,945 44 De lav/a re 58,9 G59 43 Texas 52 3,350,335 45 Oklahoma 58.6 3,448 45 GEOHGI/l 50 1,576,800 46 South Dakota 53.2 1,463 46 KSNTUCkT 41 1,178,585 47 Nev; iioxico 56.0 1,316 • r-i :jjk.jis:.s 40 788,765 48 V/yominp; 49.2 638 48 MISSISSIPPI 37 803,730 Sourcci ;jnorican Iicdical jicsociution. OOV * lO OOi oo >o c 1-^ 1 u o OlO in t) T3 ooo o 73 il i-< c (A 3 a 3 O u 3 n Ui D 03 TOTAL DENTISTS, HiYblCL'JIS AiID SUffiEOiTS, i.ND liURSES PER 100,000 TOTAL POPUL'.TICW, 19-10. DontistE ! Physio ians and 6ur[;oons Rank and St?.te IG UIHTED STATES Ratio Rank and State 58 Ratio 16 UNHED STATES '125 Trained ITurses and Student Nurses Pank and State 20 UNIT 3D STATES Ratio 270 1 California 78 1 New York 193 1 Massachusetts 488 2 V.ovt York 76 2 Massachusetts 164 2 Connecticut 443 2 Oregon 76 3 Maryland 161 3 New Hampshire 403 4 Illinois 75 4 California 158 4 New York 598 5 Minnesota 74 . 5 Colorado 146 5 California 395 6 V/ashington 72 5 Illinois 146 6 Maryland 350 7 Nebraska 70 7 Connecticut 145 6 Vermont 350 8 "Ti scons in 67 8 Nev; Jersey 141 8 Minnesota 341 9 Massachusetts 65 9 Missouri 132 9 Delav/are 339 10 Iowa 64 10 Nevada 130 9 New Jersey 339 10 Nev; Jersey 64 10 Ohio lEO 11 Colorado 333 12 Connecticut 63 10 Pennsylvania 150 12 Washington 329 13 Missouri 60 10 Hliode Island 130 13 Oregon 327 13 Pennsylvania 60 14 Oregon 128 14 Rhode Island 313 15 Colorado 59 14 7ei*raont 128 15 Haine 302 16 Kansas 56 16 ■Dclav.-aro 125 16 Arizona 298 16 Utah 56 17 Minnesota 122 17 Montana 29S 18 Ohio 54 18 Nebraska 120 18 Illinois 289 19 Indiana 53 18 Washington 120 19 Pennsylvania 284 19 Rhode Island 53 20 Michigan 117 20 Ohio 267 21 Michigan 50 21 Iowa 115 21 llichigan 263 21 Montana 50 21 Kansas 115 22 ViTi scon sin 256 23 ^•ovada 4S 25 New Ha:np shire 114 25 Nevada 251 23 V,'ycn ing 49 24 Indiana 113 24 FLO Rial 250 25 I!ai"yland 48 25 Arizona 112 25 ITtah 242 26 South Dakota 47 26 FLO RIM 103 26 North Dakota 236 27 FiOvr Kor.pshire 46 26 V/isconsin 108 27 Kansas 219 28 Maine 44 28 liainc 105 28 lOT/a 216 29 Ve rmont 42 29 Utah 100 28 Missouri 216 30 Idaho 41 30 Louisi;aTA 99 28 Nebraska 216 30 north Dakota 41 31 VIRG EILV 98 31 South Dal:ota 213 32 Delaware ■ 39 32 Texas 97 32 VIRGINn 210 33 FLORIDi". 38 33 Oklahoma 96 33 Indiana 209 34 DDTJISL'JL'v 33 34 Montana 94 34 I daho 203 35 Oklahoma 32 34 TEK^SSEE 94 35 Wyoming 202 35 VIRGIIIL- 32 36 West Virginia 91 36 LC'UISL'JTA 161 37 Arizona 31 37 IVyoming 90 37 Texas 176 37 Texas 31 33 KENTUCKY 89 38 NORTH CAROLINA * 175 37 "■/est Virginia 31 39 ;.RL"J^Si.S 86 39 Vfest Virginia 161 40 TEiniFSSEE 29 40 GEORGi:. 82 40 SOOTH CAROLUTA 160 41 KENTUCKY 28 41 Nov/ Mexico 80 41 TZiri'ESSES 159 42 GEORGL'l 26 41 North Dakota 80 42 NcT»- Mexico 152 43 NORTH Ci.ROLniA * 22 43 Idaho 70 43 GEORGIA 145 44 .t.lMiBlki'l^L 21 43 South Dak-ota 78 44 Oklahoma 154 44 Nov; Mexico 21 45 NORTH CAROLINA * 72 46 ffiNTUCIvY 131 46 ark.;ns..s 20 46 AL'.BAJ'i. 66 46 jiLiiBi'u.iA 118 47 MIScilSSIPPI 19 46 SOUTH CAROL EL. 66 47 ARKAi:SAS 96 17 SOUTH CAROLINA 19 48 MISSISSIPPI 61 48 MISSISSIPPI 92 Source: United States Census, 1940. c u ■e 3 3 a 3 a ■WHITE DENTISTS, PHYSICIANS AMD SURGEONS, ."iJTD NIjHSES PER 100,000 TOIITE POPULATION, 1940 Trained Nurses Dentists p ;;ysicians and Sui'geons and Student Nurses Rank and State Rate Rank and State Rate Rank and State Rate 13 WIITED STATES 58 13 UNITED STATES 136 21 UNITED STATES 295 1 California 80 1 New York 200 1 Mas sachus ett s 494 2 New York 78 2 Maryland 186 2 Connecticut 452 3 Illinois 77 3 Llassachusetts 165 3 i.iaryland 412 3 Oreson 77 4 California 162 4 California 410 5 Minneoota. 75 5 Illinois 150 5 New York 404 6 Washington 75 6 LOUISLINA 149 6 New Ha:iipshire 403 7 Nebraska 70 7 Colorado 147 7 Delaware 388 8 IJGW Jersey 67 7 Connecticut 147 3 Nev; Jersey 356 8 Wisoonsin 67 9 New Jersey 146 9 Vermont 350 10 Massachusetts 65 10 FLORIDA 142 10 Minnesota 343 11 Connecticut 64 11 MISSISSIPPI 141 11 Colorado 357 11 Io;va 64 12 Dolaxmre 140 12 Washington 335 13 Missouri 63 13 Nevada 13 6 13 Arizona 535 14 Pennsylvania 61 14 Missouri 135 14 Oregon. 350 15 Colorado 59 15 Ohio 134 15 FLORIDA 524 16 Kansas 58 15 P'jnnsylvania 134 16 Rhode Island 518 17 Ohio 56 17 Rhode Island 131 17 Montana 306 17 Utah 56 13 Arizona 129 18 Maine 305 19 Maryland 55 18 Oregon 120 19 Illinois 301 20 Indiana 54 20 Vcnuont 128 20 Pennsylvania 296 21 Rliode Island 53 21 Tiinnesota 123 21 Ohio 279 22 rdchigan 52 22 VJRC-miA 122 22 LCHTISL\NA 275 22 Nevada 52 22 ''.Vashington 122 23 Michigan 272 24 JTontana 51 24 Nebraska 120 24 Nevada 263 25 LOUISIANA 50 25 I/Iichigan lis 25 VIRGDTIA 259 25 Wyoming 50 26 GEORGM 118 26 ViTisoonsin 258 27 FLORIDA 49 27 Kansas 117 27 SOUTH CAROLINA 256 27 South Dalcota 49 28 Iowa 116 28 Utah 244 29 Nev>' Hampshire 46 29 Indiana 115 29 North Dakota 239 50 Maine 45 30 New Hampshire 114 30 Ko.nsas 226 31 De lav/are 43 31 Texas 111 30 NORTH CAROLINA * 226 31 1IS3ISSIPPI 43 32 SOUTH CAROL DIA 110 32 Missouri 219 33 Vermont 42 35 ;.r::;^is;-3 109 32 Nebraska 219 34 Idaho 41 33 V«'iscor.£in 109 32 South Dakota 219 34 North Dakota . 41 35 lAaine 105 35 Iowa 217 3r. Vlir. INIYi 39 36 TENNESSEE 104 3d Indiana 216 37 CEORGK 38 37 Oklahoma 102 37 MISSISSIPPI 209 38 Arizona 35 38 Utali 101 38 Vifyoming 206 38 Texas 35 39 t.iontana 98 39 I dull 205 40 Oklahoma 34 40 AU3Ic.'A 95 40 Texas 201 41 TENraSSEE 32 41 NORTH. CAROLINA * 94 41 GEORGLl 195 41 Vfest Virginia 32 41 Vfest Virginia 94 42 TENiffiSSEE 182 43 ALi'i.3A'ui. 50 43 ICNTUCKY^ 93 43 West Virginia 169 45 SOUTH CAROLEIA 30 44 TiVyoming 92 44 AL"J3AIrI/'L 159 45 KEITUCKY 29 45 Nevr Mexico 86 44 Nev/ Mexico 159 46 NORTH CAROLINA * 28 46 North Dakota 81 46 Oklahoma 144 47 AEK..NSAS 24 46 South Dakota 81 47 FSNTUCKY 138 48 Nev/ I'exico 23 .1 48 Idaho ■ 79 . ,J 48 ark.;nsas 124 Source: United States Census, 1940. c o (I 3 ■ « m a c >l 2 " o ■ •-' - o u e < V. a M u 3 < < rage 12 NONT/VHITE DENTISTS, PHYSICIANS, AI'D ?!TJRSES PER 100,000 NO^IffrflTE POPUIATIOIJ, 1940. Dentists Physic iariE and Surp^eons Trained nurses and Student nurses Rank and State Rate i Rank and State Rate Rank and State Rate 27 O'lITED STATES 12 Wyoming 241 Idaho 179 Massachusetts 56 Montana 53 Connecticut 50 Coloi-ado 47 Oreron 43 PJiode Island 43 California 42 Washington 42 Illinois 30 Pennaylvemia 28 Indiana 27 Nebraska 27 Mew Jersay 25 Nev/ York 24 Ohio 24 Wisconsin 24 lov/a 25 V.ost Virginia 22 Minnesota 21 Kansas 20 Missouri 20 Iviichi;!;an 18 TEIIIIESSEE 15 Delaware 14 KEIiTUCKY 14 Utali 14 l^aryland 10 VIRGIi'^IA 10 Texas 9 FLORIDA . 8 Oklahoma 8 ARK/a>ISAS 6 UORTH CARDLIIIA * 6 GEORGIA 5 south carolina 5 alab;v:-.i/i 4 K)UISL'>NA 4 Arizona 3 MISSISSIPPI 3 llovi Mexico 3 Maine Nevada Now Hampshire North Dakota South Dakota Vorrf^ont 2C UNITED STATES 1 2 3 4 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 22 24 25 26 27 27 29 30 30 30 33 34 34 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 43 43 43 43 43 Missouri Itossachusetts Illinois Oregon Colorado California Michigan Ne\7 "Jersey Kansas lovi'a Nebraska New York Indiana Connecticut Pennsylvania Ohio TE!.!JI3SSICE Kil-JTUCKY West Virginia Minnesota Maine Marylaad Ckla'-.oma Washington V/i scons in Utah Delaware VIRGIiTIA Texas FLORIDA NORTH CiiRCLINA * Rhode Island Nevada ARK/iNSAS GEORGIA Arizona LOUIS i;a>iA ALtiB^ili'IA SOUTH CAI^LDIA 1/iISSISSIPPI South Dakota Not-: I.ioxico Idaho Montana Kevf Hampshire North Dakota Vormont V'.'yoming 82 76 72 71 71 61 60 59 59 58 55 54 51 50 48 47 44 43 40 39 37 36 35 34 32 27 25 25 13 17 17 17 16 15 15 12 11 1(D 9 5 4 3 19 UtIITED STATES 54 1 Montana 316 2 New York 278 3 Vermont 235 4 Idaho 179 5 Missouri 172 6 Oregon 122 7 Utah 108 8 Massachusetts 96 9 Arizona 92 10 California 88 11 North Dakota 76 12 Colorado 65 13 Illinois 63 13 New Mexico 63 15 VIRGBIIA 60 16 South Dakota 59 17 '.''aEhin-^ton 58 18 Kansas 56 19 FLORIDA 52 IS TElUffiSSEE 52 21 GEORGIA 51 21 Michigan 51 23 Nevada 48 25 'Vic cons in 48 25 HOIffH CAROLINA * 4G 26 Oklahoma 44 27 Now Jersey 43 23 KENTUCr/ 42 2 8 Maryland 42 30 ALABMIA 41 31 Ponnsylvania 40 32 Maine 37 32 Wost Virginia 37 34 Ohio 32 35 SOUTH CAROLINA 51 3 6 Connecticut 30 3 6 Indiana 30 58 Minnesota 26 38 Rhode Island 26 58 Texas 26 41 Delav/are 25 42 LOUIS LU'IA 14 43 ARfc'.NSAS IS 44 Iowa 12 44 MISSISSIPPI 12 46 Nebraska 11 47 Nev.' Hampshire 47 'Tvominp: Source: United States Census, 1940 3 e o 3 ■ « ia 3 o M D • ■ •a c >< f) •«4 o ■ ^ 4^ o M HI u r o 42 55.0-O9.9 70.0-8M.9 65.0 and uo N.C. Ajricul tursl Experiment St. lion DEPARTMENT OF RURAL SOCIOLOGY • No Negro tirths BASED ON DATA FROM THE U.S. BUREAU Of THE CENSUS ?a.Ke 18 PERCENTAGE OF BIRTHS OCCURRING E' HOSPITALS, BY RESIDENCE, 1940. Urban Place o v;ith 10,000 population and over Rural Places ivith less thanl0,00Q population Rank and State Percent Rank and State Percent 21 UIHTED STATES 80.; 1 Nevada 2 Oregon 3 Montana 4 Washington 5 Ilev: York 6 Connecticut 7 Liinnesota 8 Gclifomia Delav.-are 10 ITorth Dakota 11 rev; Jersey 12 Utah 13 Illinois i-l '.■Wyoming 15 I daho 16 J'asGachusstts 17 South Dakota IS liissouri 19 Wisconsin 20 lovra. 21 Nebraska 21 VovT Hampshire 23 Ohio 24 Rhode Islrjid 25 Colorr.do 26 DDUISIANA 27 Pennsylvania 28 Vemont 29 Llicliijan 50 Arizona 31 i.Iarj'-land 32 f'iainc 35 FWRIDA 34 Kansas 35 Oklahoma 56 GEOI«}IA 57 Indiana 38 Via}KIA 39 TEi'TMESSEE 40 Texas 41 KEHTUCICY 42 nRIC'JTSAS 43 Vfcst Virginia 44 NCRTE CAROLINA * * AL'iBAIvuv •rCi Nov;- Mexico 47 J:IS3IS3I?PI 48 COUTH CAROLIl'I/'. 33 Ul-'ITED STATES 96.9 1 Connecticut 96.7 2 California 95.9 3 Washington 95.1 4 Massachusetts 92.0 5 0re5on 91.9 6 Nev; Jersey 91. S 7 Nevada 90.0 8 I.Iontana 8S.5 9 PJiode Island 87.9 10 New York 87.5 11 Nev; liojnpshire 87.4 12 Vfyoning 87.1 13 Arizona 8^.0 13 Idaho 86.2 15 Forth Dakota 86.0 16 Utah 83.0 17 Minnesota 32.3 IP Delaware 81.4 19 Vemont 31.2 20 South Dakota 80.4 21 Illinois 80.4 22 V/iscousin 79.0 23 Colorado 78.2 24 Maryland 77.9 25 loiTO. 77.3 26 Michigan 77.0 27 Pennsylvania 76.4 28 Kansas 75. S 29 Maine 75.6 oO Nebraska 73.2 31 Ohio 72.4 32 Indiana 70.6 33 LCiUISIANA 70.5 34 Texas 69.3 35 FLORIDA 63.6 3 6 Nov; Mexico 67.9 37 Missouri 67,0 38 VIRCPTIA 6u,8 39 NORTH CAROLINA * * i)o.6 . 40 GEORGL'i 54.3 41 TENNESSEE 61.6 42 SOUTH CAROLINA 61.2 45 ALiB/Ji'i. 55.9 44 V«cst Virginia 54.6 45 ar!o;ns;.s 52.3 46 MISSISSIPPI 52.3 47 Oklahoma 51.0 48 ffiNTUC'Q- o . O 88.9 80.7 80.1 79.5 79.0 77.6 77.2 76.0 70.5 70.4 68.4 63.8 56.4 56.4 55.9 55.8 55.2 55.0 52.9 51.6 51.2 51.1 49.0 43.7 48.6 47.4 45.4 44.3 43.4 41.3 40.3- 37.6 29.9 28.9 28.5 24.3 22.9 19.3 17.1 13.8 13.7 12 . 4 11.5 11.4 10.1 Soui'cc: United States Vital Statistics, 1940. PERCENTAGE OF BIRTHS OCCURRING IN HOSPITALS. BY RES I DENCE. I 9U0 i5?'7.-r-.^. — _ United States N. C. Agr icul tu ra 1 Experiment Station DEPARTMENT OF RURAL SOCIOLOGY BASED ON DATA PTICM THE U.S. BUREAU OF THE CENSUS Pap-Q 20 PERCENTAGE OF LRTS UIRTFG NOT ATTENDED BY A HiYSKKN, 1942 Total Rank and Stato Percent 36 UNITED STATES 7.4 vniite Rank o.nd St^ite I Percent 33 inilTED STATES 2.5 1 Jlevj- Hanpshiro 0.0 1 I.Iassachusotts 0.0 1 Ohio 0.0 1 New Kai.ipshire 0.0 1 Vormont 0.0 1 Ohio 0.0 4 Iowa 0,1 1 Ve mont 0.0 4 Kansas 0,1 5 Connecticut 0.1 4 ^iassachusetts 0,1 5 Indiana 0.1 4 Nebraska 0.1 5 leva 0.1 4 Pennsylvania 0.1 5 Kansas 0.1 9 Connecticut 0.2 5 ITcbraska ■ 0.1 9 Illinois 0,2 5 Oregon 0.1 9 Indiana 0.2 5 Pennsylvania 0.1 9 lYashinjton 0.2 5 Washington 0.1 'Yi scon Gin 0,2 5 Vri scons in 0,1 14 Idaho 0,5 14 Illinois 0,2 14 Jviichigan 0,5 14 Michigan 0,2 14 Oregon 0,3 14 Nevada 0.2 17 Rhode Island 0,4 14 Wyoming 0,2 1? ■'.Vyomijag; 0.4 13 Idaho "" 0,3 19 California 0,6 18 South Dakota 0,5 19 Minnesota 0,6 20 Rhode Island 0.4 19 New York 0,6 21 California 0.5 19 Utah 0,6 21 Iviinnosota 0.5 23 Maine 0,7 21 I'ontana 0.5 24 I.Iontana 1,2 21 Now York 0,5 24 l.'cvada 1.2 25 Utah 0.6 26 Hew Jersey 1.4 26 Maine 0.7 27 South Dakota 1.6 27 Ncvr Jersey 1.4 28 Colorado 1.7 23 Dclav/r.ro 1.5 29 Ilorth Dakota 2.1 28 Oklahoma 1.5 30 Missouri 0,4 30 Colorado 1.7 31 Oklahoma 3.0 31 North Dakota 1,9 32 West Virsinia 4,0 32 I.Iaryland 2,2 33 Maryland 5.7 33 Missouri 2.7 34 Dolav/aro 6,6 34 VfcGt Vir;;inia 4.G 35 T'lr.TDSf^EE 7,2 35 nMTESSEE 4,7 o6 Arizona .8,5 36 FIjORIDA 5.1 37 Texas 14,3 36 MISSISSIPPI 5.1 38 KE^nUGKY 14,4 38 SOUTH CAROLINA 5.4 39 VIIK-IIDA 18.8 39 ARKANSx^S 6.0 40 NORTH CAROLBIA * 20.7 40 NORTH CAROLEIA * 6.1 41 ARK/J'JSAS 22.0 41 Ariz one. 6.2 42 FLO R I a". 22,2 42 G30uGIA 6.8 43 LOUISL-JIA 26.4 42 VIRGINL\ 6.8 44 Hev; Tlexico 27.5 44 ALABMIA 7.0 45 ALAB/J.IA 27.9 45 DJ"ISIANA 7.7 46 GEORGIA 30,2 46 Texas 10.2 47 COUTH CAROL niA 39.2 47 K31'TUCKY 14.8 48 I.aSSISSIPPI 46.2 43 New ilexicc 26.5 Nerro Rar^k auJ State Percent 40 mUTED STATES 46.8 1 Idaho 0.0 1 '.iaine 0,0 1 Nebraska 0.0 1 Nevada 0.0 1 New Ha:Tip shire 0.0 1 I'orth Dakota 0,0 1 Oregon 0.0 1 South Dakota 0.0 1 Utah 0.0 1 VeiTiont 0.0 1 IVashington CO 1 VfisconKin 0.0 1 Wyoming 0.0 14 Ohio 0.1 15 Kansas 0.2 15 liassachusetts 0.2 17 Pennsylvania 0,3 18 Illinois 0.4 18 lov-f. 0.4 20 California 0.5 21 Michigan 0.7 22 Colorado 0.8 23 Cor.'.necticut 1.0 24 New Jersey 1.1 25 Indiana 1.2 26 Rhode Island 1.5 27 Llixmosota 1.7 28 Now York 2.1 28 West Virginia 2.1 30 :Z:.TUCLT 7.5 31 Ariaona 8,5 32 Mis:JOuri IS. 2 33 Montana 16.7 34 Nov/ iicxico 19.2 35 TENNESSEE 20.7 36 Maryland 20.8 37 Oklahoma 33.2 58 Delaware 55,7 39 Texas 43.6 40 NORTH CAROLIM 54.0 41 VlffilNIA 54.5 42 LOUISIANA 54,9 43 AL\B.Uii"i 64,4 44 FLORIDA 66,7 45 GEORGIA 69,6 46 ARi 90.3 41 MISSISSIPPI 110.2 42 SOUTH CAROLINA 94.3 42 ilontana 90.7 42 Wisconsin 117,0 43 KTNTU'Jia 97,6 43 VJest Virginia 95,4 43 Minnesota 142.9 44 Arizona 98.5 44 Arizona 97.8 44 South Dakota 151.0 45 MISGIoSIPPI 99.0 45 Idaho 100.5 45 Nevada 151.2 46 Idaho 100.4 46 ffiNTUCICf 100.9 46 lYyoming Ibl.l 47 Utah 104.3 47 Utah 104.4 47 Montana 180.0 48 New Mexico 119.8 43 New Mexico 124.0 48 Ncrtii Dakota 1P8.1 Source J United States Vital Statistics, 1940. 3 n *> 3 X " *- C «i e o o u c •I > o ■o o> u • T) tfl 'T C « ov a 03 o o in u% oc o> c o >« o 4^ o ce >J *j o 5inia 33.3 48 T-E-TUCIT 27.'1 r;egro Rank State Percent 36 Ul'^ITED STATES 1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 IG 18 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 51 32 33 34 35 3G 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 ** Idaj-io Oregon Nevada Vfeshington Utah Now York Connecticut Minnesota Rliode Island Now Har.pshii"e California Wyoming Massachusetts Maine New Jersey JoT/a l\'i3consin i.Iontana North Daloata Nebraska Illinois Pemisylvaria I.Tichi?;an Arizona Ohio Missouri Colorado South Dakota Dola-.Taro Maryland Hev; Mexico Kansas Indiana LOUISIANA TEKHESSEE Texas KEIITUCKY FLORIDA VIRGINIA Oklahoma GEORGIA West Virginia NORTH CAROLINA AL'iB/dVl/i. SOUTH CAROLINA ARK.'.MSAS MISSISSIPPI Vermont 100.0 100.0 93.3 91.4 90.9 89,8 88.5 06.7 83,6 33.3 81.1 60.0 79.2 78.6 77.7 76.5 76,5 75,0 75,0 73,3 73.2 72.1 69.2 66.5 63.8 80,6 GO. 5 60,0 46.2 43,9 42.3 42,0 41,5 34,8 29,9 26,8 25.2 17,5 16.3 15,9 15.5 13.8 K 13,6 11.5 7.2 4.9 3.9 Source: United States Vital Statistics, 1942. * * Ho V.e\c,vo births. PERCENTAGE OF LIVt BIRTHS OCCURRING IN HOSPI TALS, I0H2 ftBr- _. UnileO States N.C. Ajricultursl Experiment Station DEPARTMENT OF RURAL SOCIOLOGY Under MO.O 40.0-54.9 55.0-09.9 70.0-84.9 65.0 and ur • No Negro bi rths BASED ON DATA FSOH THE U.S. BUREAU Or THE CEWSUS Page 18 PERCENTAGE OF BIRTRS OCCURRING L' HDSPITALS, BY RESIDENCE^ 1940. Urban Place G vrith. 10,000 population and over Rural Places v/ith less than 10, 000 population Rank and State Percent Rank and State Percent 21 UlUTED SPATES 80.! 33 UI'ITED STATijS 1 Nevada 96.9 1 Connecticut 2 Oregon 96,7 2 California 3 Montana 95.9 3 Washington 4 Washington 95.1 4 Massachusetts 5 Uevf York 92.0 5 Oregon 6 Connecticut 91.9 6 Nev; Jersey 7 I-'innesota 91.6 7 Nevada 8 California 90.0 8 Montana 9 Delavrare 88.5 9 PJiode Island 10 North Dakota 87.9 10 New York 11 llevr Jersey- 87.5 11 iTev; Hampshire IE l>tah 87.4 12 Vvyoming 13 Illinois 37.1 13 Arizona 14 Wyoming 87.0 13 Idaho 15 Idaho 86.2 15 North Dakota 16 Massachusetts 8G.0 16 Utah 17 South Dakota 83,0 17 Minnesota 18 Missouri 82.3 18 Delav.'aro 19 y.'i scons in 01.4 19 Vermont 20 lov/a 31.2 20 South Dakota 21 Nebraska 80.4 21 Illinois 21 Nev7 Hampshire 80.4 22 Wisconsin 23 Ohio 79. 23 Colorado 24 Rhode Island 78.2 24 Maryland 25 Colorr^do 77.0 25 loi.va 26 LOUISIANA 77.3 26 Michiran 27 Pennsylvania 77.0 27 Pennsylvania 28 Vermont 76.4 28 Kansas 29 Hiciii^an 75,6 29 I.iaino 50 Arizona 75,6 30 Nebraska 31 I.larj'-land 73.2 31 Ohio 32 1,'Iainc 72.4 32 Indiana 35 FLORIDA 70.6 33 LOUISIANA 34 Kansas 70.5 34 Texas 35 Oklahoina 69.3 55 FLORIDA 56 GEOiGIA 63.6 36 Nov,' Mexico 57 Indiana 67,9 37 Missouri 38 VIRGINIA 67,0 38 VIRGIillA 39 TEHNESSEE 66,8 39 NORTH CAROL niA * * 40 Texas 66,6 ■ 40 GEOI-r-Ui 41 KENT UC ICY 64.3 41 TENNESSEE 42 ARJC'JISAS 61.6 42 SOUTH CAROLKA 43 West Virginia 61.2 43 AL. •-Bj J'.Li 44 NORTH CAROLDIA * * 55,9 ^ ,1 Vfcst Virginia 45 AL-JJAI'/'uv 54.6 45 ARKi-JTS;.S 46 New Mexico 52.3 46 MISSISSIPPI 47 riSSISSIPPI 52.3 47 Oklahoma 48 SOUTH CAROLINA 51,3 1 1 48 ?E::TUCia' 36,5 33.9 80.7 80.1 79,5 79.0 77.6 77,2 76.0 70.5 70.4 68.4 63.8 56.4 56.4 55.9 55.8 55.2 55,0 52.9 51.6 51.2 51.1 49^0 43.7 48.6 47.4 45.4 44.3 43.4 41.3 40.3. 37,6 29,9 28,9 28,5 24.3 22.9 19,3 17.1 13.8 13.7 13.2 12.4 11.5 11.4 10.1 9.3 CO Source; United States Vital Statistics, 1940. PERCENTAGE OF BIRTHS OCCURRING IN HOSPITALS. BY RES I DENCE. 1640 Un I ted States .(5?!-»?:-r.-.-r..>. N.C. Ae r i cul t ur a 1 Experiment Station DEPARTMENT OF RURAL SOCIOLOGY BASED ON DATA ncW THE V.S.WJKtAV OF THE CENSUS Pan-e 20 PPJHCENTAGE OF LI'/E B1-R':HC -iCy A.T'^E. -^DSD BY -A PHYSICIAN, 1942 Total Rank and State Percent 36 UiHTED STATES 1 New Hampshire 1 Ohio 1 Vermont 4 Iowa 4 Kansas 4 Massachusetts 4 ITabraska 4 Pennsylvania 9 Connecticut 5 Illinois 9 Indiana 9 Washington 9 Wisconsin 14 Idaho 14 Michigan 14 Orcgcn 17 Rhode Island 17 Wyoming 19 California 19 Minnesota 19 New York 19 Utah 23 Maine 24 Montana 24 Ilcvada 26 I'ow Jersey 27 South Dakota 28 Colorado 29 ilorth Dakota 30 Missouri 31 OklrJioma 32 V/cst Virj^ipia 33 Mc.ryland 54 Dola-'.Tiro 35 "";.:t]SSi:3 36 Arizona 37 Texas 38 KEFI'UCKY 39 VI3C-TTTT/, 40 NORTH CAROLBIA * 41 ARIv.VKS:>S 42 FLORIDA 43 LOUISLalA 44 Nev; Mexico 45 ALABAl.lA 46 GEOHGIi'. 47 SOUTH CAROLINA 48 rassissippi 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0,2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 O.S 0.3 0.4 0.4 0,6 0,6 0.6 0,6 0.7 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.7 2.1 0,4 3.0 4.5 5.7 6.6 7.2 • 8.5 14.3 14,4 18.8 20.7 22.0 22,2 26.4 27.3 27.9 30.2 39.2 46.2 irhifce RauK and State 1 Percent 33 LTITED STATES 2.5 1 Massachu.sotts 0,0 1 Now Hampshire 0,0 1 Ohio 0,0 1 Veraont 0,0 5 Connecticut 0,1 5 Indiana 0.1 5 I ov^a 0, 1 5 Kans?>s 0,1 5 iTcbr^-ska- 0,1 5 Oroo:on 0,1 O 5 Pennsylvcaiia 0.1 5 YiTashington 0,1 5 'Jisconsin 0,1 14 Illinoio 0,2 14 Michifcan 0,2 14 Nevada 0,2 14 Viyoming; 0,2 18 Idaho 0,3 18 South Dakota 0,3 20 Rliode Island 0,4 21 California 0.5 21 Iviinnusota 0.5 21 Montana 0,5 21 Nov.- York 0.5 25 Ubah 0.6 26 Maine 0,7 27 New Jersey 1,4 23 Dalav^r.ro 1.5 28 Oklahoma 1,5 30 Colorado 1,7 31 North Dakota 1,9 32 Maryland 2,2 33 Missouri 2,7 34 VfoGt Virginia 4,6 35 TEliNESSEE 4.7 36 PIXiRIDA 5.1 36 MISSISSIPPI 5,1 38 SGHTH CAROLINA 5.4 39 ARKANSAS 6.0 40 NORTH CAROLE'iA * 6.1 41 Arizona 6.2' 42 GEOIXJLA. 6,8 42 VIRGIN L\ 6.8 44 AL\BMiA 7.0 45 LOUISIANA 7.7 46 Texas 10,2 47 KENTUCKY 14,8 48 New Mexico 26,3 Nerro Rank and State Percent 40 UlTITED STATES 46.8 1 Idaho 0,0 1 Maine 0.0 1 Nebraska 0,0 1 Nevada 0,0 1 Nev;- Hampshire 0,0 1 North Dakota 0,0 1 Oregon 0,0 1 South Dakota 0,0 1 Utah 0,0 1 Vermont 0,0 1 IrVashingtcn 0,0 1 Vfi scons in 0.0 1 IVyom-iiig 0.0 14 Ohio 0,1 15 Kansas 0.2 15 Massachusetts 0.2 17 Peiinsylvaniu 0,3 18 Illinois 0,4 18 lov/a 0,4 20 California 0,5 21 Michigoji 0.7 22 Colorado 0.8 23 Connect icut 1.0 24 NovT Jersey 1.1 25 Indiana 1.2 26 Rhouc Island 1.5 27 Minnesota 1.7 28 Not/ York 2,1 28 ITcst Virginia 2,1 30 IZ;..TUCirY 7,5 ol Arizona 8,5 32 Missouri 15,2 53 Montana 16,-7 34 N0-.7 Mexico 19,2 35 TEilMESSEE 20,7 36 Mar-/land 20,8 57 Oklahoma 33.2 S8 Delaware 53.7 59 Texas 43.6 40 NORTI^ CAROLINA 54.0 41 VIRGINIA 54.5 42 LOUIS UvNA 54*9 43 ALAB^UL'l 64.4 44 FLORIDA 66.7 45 GEORGK 69.6 46 ARKANSAS 74.2 47 SOUTH CAROLINA 77.3 48 MISSISSIPPI 80.2 Source: United States Vital Gtatistics, PERCENTAGE OF NEGRO LIVE BIRTHS WITH NO MEDICAL ATTEN DANT UNITED STATES AND EACH OF THE 29 STATES WITH 500 OR MORE NEGRO LIVE BIRTHS, 1940 United States Mississippi South Carolina Arkansas Georgia Florido Alabonna North Carolina Virginia Louisiana Texas Delaware Oklahonria Tennessee Moryland Missouri Kentucky Massachusetts West Virginia New York M ichigan New Jersey California I liinois Connecticut Pennsylvania Kansas Indiana Ohio I I I I I I I I 10 20 30 Percent of live births 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 District of Columbia' U.S. Deportment of Labor CHILDREN'S BUREAI) Chort No B40-9 Based on doto from U. S. Bureouof the Census Page c2 PERCENTAGE OF LITS BIRTHS «0T ..TTSITDED BY PHYSIC LUiS, 1942 Total Urban Rural Rank and St-J.t.e Percent Rank and State Percent Rank and State 1 Percent 36 UUTBD STATES 7.4 35 imn^ED STATES 2.6 57 ISITED STATES 14.2 1 ilov/ Hampshire 0.0 1 Iowa 0.0 1 Connecticut 0.0 1 Ohio 0.0 1 Ifcino 0.0 2 Iowa 0.1 1 Vennont 0.0 1 Nebraska 0.0 2 Ivias sac hu setts 0.1 4 lov/a. 0.1 1 New Hampshire 0.0 2 Nebraska 0.1 4 Kansas 0.1 1 Ohio 0.0 rv Now Hampshire 0.1 4 Massachusetts 0.1 1 Vermont 0.0 n Cj Ohio 0.1 4 Nebraska 0.1 1 Washington 0.0 2 VerriLont 0.1 4 Pemsylvania 0.1 1 Wisconsin 0.0 8 Illinois 0.2 9 Connecticut 0.2 'J Idaho 0.1 8 Indiana 0.2 9 Illinois 0.2 9 Kansas 0.1 8 Kansas 0.2 9 Indiana 0.2 9 Licssachusetts 0.1 8 PGiinsylvania 0.2 9 Washington 0.2 9 Michigan 0.1 8 Wisconsin 0.2 9 Wisconsin 0.2 9 North Dakota 0.1 13 IdaliO 0.3 14 Idr..ho 0.3 9 South Dakota 0.1 13 New York 0.3 14 I.*ichigan 0.3 15 Connecticut 0.2 15 Rhode Island 0.4 14 Oregon 0.3 15 Illinois 0.2 15 V/ashinrton 0.4 17 Rhode Island 0.4 15 Indiana 0.2 15 Wyoming 0.4 17 Wyoming 0.4 15 I'innesota 0.2 18 Oregon 0.5 19 California 0.6 15 Montana 0.2 19 California 0.6 19 Minnesota 0.6 15 Nevada 0.2 19 Michigan 0,6 19 Nov.- York 0.6 15 Oregon 0.2 21 New Jersey 0.7 19 Utah o.c 15 Peniif.ylvania 0.2 22 l*/!innesota 1.0 25 Maine 0.7 15 Utah 0.2 23 Llaiue 1.1 24 Montana 1.2 15 Wyominp; 0.2 24 Utah 1.2 24 Nevada 1.2 25 r.hode isl'-md 0.4 25 Nevada 2.0 26 Nevj^ Jersey 1.4 25 West Virginia 0.4 26 L'ontana 2.2 27 South Dakota 1.6 27 California 0.5 27 South Dakota 2.3 28 Colorado 1.7 20 Now York 0.7 28 L'orth Dakota 2.8 29 North Dakota 2.1 29 Colorrido 0.8 29 Colorado 3.1 30 Iviissouri 3.4 30 KENTUCIO: 1.0 30 Oklahoma 5.4 51 Oklahoma 3.9 ol Missouri 1.2 31 Missouri 6.1 32 West Virginia 4.5 32 Hew Jersey 1.6 51 West Virginia 6.1 33 Maryland 5.7 33 TENlIESoEE 1.9 33 I.'iaryland 9.3 34 Dolav/aro o»6 34 Okla}\oma 2.1 34 Delaware 10.3 35 TENNEtiSEE .7.2 35 Maryland 3.0 55 TEirrffiSSEE 10.4 3G Arizona 0.5 36 Delaware 3.5 36 Arizona 11.1 37 Texas 14.3 37 Ari.3ona G.2 57 Texas 19.7 38 ISNTUCKY 14.4 58 VIRGINIA .3.6 38 KEilTUGKY 20.9 39 VIRGElIA 18.8 59 ;JRK.-INSAS 9.5 39 NORTH CAROLINA * 24.7 40 HORTTI CAROLINA * 20,7 40 NORTH CAROLINA * 10.0 40 VIRGINIA 24.8 41 ARK/J^SAS 22.0 41 Texas • 10.3 41 A: CO 1- O a. CO o ^ ?3 >J :^a o o ►H . o o o « H ro . . . -0 < ro . . . o Ci " O J r t, o 3 -C 6 ^ o - k. ■■ a o 3 CO ■V • c " o -^ ' c > o O u o I/) .- -J u < 0- 3 W ^ _ h. a O u w 2° HOSpfrAL BEDS FOR WHITE PERSCIIS PER 1,00C VvITlTE KPULATION, NORTH C;-R0LIIW.,1943 • County Rank Ratio ..nr.-.ocr beds Cou:ity Rr.nk Ratio Nuubor beds NORTH CAROLINA 29 2.6 6,810 I Alamance Alexander Allcghcjiy Anson Ashe Avjry Beaufort Portie B laden Brunsv/ick Bunconbo Burke Cabarrus Caidvroll Caiden Ga -terot Ca^vrall Caoawba Ohathain Chsrokcc Chov/an C]ay Cjovcland Coliunbus C raven Gunberland Currituck Djtc Da-yidson Davie Duplin Du Cham Edi^^oconbc Pc- i-sj-ish F'.-anklin G-..-ibon Graham G-.-'anvillc Groono Gvilford Halifax Karnctt HiyvTOod Hcndorson Hertford Hoke Hyde I re do 11 Jackson 64 .8 37 ! Johnston No hospital beds Jone s No hospital beds Leo 47 1.7 24 Lonoir 61 1.1 25 Lincoln 3 6.4 35 i McDowell 26 2.8 65 i Macon No hospital bods ' Madison No ho:;pital beds 1 Fart in 20 3.2 36 Kocklenburg 10 4.2 386 Mitchell 16 3,4 122 Mortgomery 38 2.1 106 Moore 49 1.6 53 Nash No hospital bods Nov/ 'lanovcr 26 kl • 8 43 Norbhampton No hospital bed;- Cnslor; 29 2.6 119 Orc-.ngo 62 1.0 17 Pai.il ico 62 1.0 1.'3 Pasquotank No hospital beds Pond or No hosnibal bear. Po rqu lEians 49 1,6 71 Person 44 1.9 50 Pitt 33 2.1 36 Polk 12 4.0 156 Randolph No hospital bods Richmond Ho hospital beds Robeson 55 1.3 61 liocki'igham Ho hospitj.l beds Ro.yan No hospital beds Rutherford 1 15. 674 Sampson 42 2.0 4!''. Scotland A 6.2 526 Stanly No hosnibal bods Stokes 49 l'.6 113 SuiTy No hospital beds Svjain Ho hospital ocas T raiisylvania 3o 2.5 . 33 Tyrrell Ho hospital bo do Union 23 3^.0 363 Vance 21 3.1 77 Wake 35 2.2 70 !Varron 38 2.1 70 V'ashiai^ton 10 4.2 100 Watauga No hospital beds Y/ayno No hospital bods "vilkcs No liospital bods Wilson 5 5.5 226 Yadkin 58 1.2 25 Yancey 65 .6 30 No hospital beds 21 3.1 41 14 3.9 91 12 4.0 84 47 1.7 37 7 5.4 04 No hospital bods 29 2.6 55 5 5.5 594 Ho hospital beds Ho hoEoit'il bods 25 2.9 G2 7 5.4 175 2 6.7 208 No hospital beds 23 3.0 39 No hospital beds Ho hospital bods 32 2.5 30 No hospital beds No hospital bods 49 1.6 25 55 l.S 42 33 2.3 24 49 1.6 Go 49 1.6 40 29 2,6 151 38 2.1 96 45 1.8 99 58 1.2 47 66 .3 9 35 2.2 26 18 3.3 96 No ho f^ pit a 1 bpf's 26 2.8 110 No hospital bods 45 l.G • 21 9 4.3 17 55 1.3 40 18 3.3 53 16 5.4 248 No hospital bnds No hospital bods 42 2,0 35 35 2.2 73 58 1,2 47 15 3.7 107 No hospital bods No hospital bods Scurce: Duke Endovmicnt hospital Statistics. .* Cased on 1940 population. o h- Q_ O Q_ o o o (T) • a- — 05 cc LU ^ Q_ 03 cr CD ■— -z. — O o 0-) I— en (0 LU C3 Q_ o CO Q 00 Q_ o w I- • O O O M <'0 . . . X C*^ rsl ^ ftj Oi ^ • I • X t, » M ^ 6 (N -4 d z o X E o ■o c w «> .X 3 Q E o O o o 1—4 o o {A < a; w K o < < ■,--••..•' L>-s^ in a UJ (0 o> <0 o Q Ui (S O) 1 o D u (D O O a. UI > o o o 04 f / \ / < z _l o < u X 1- cr O z • • i ♦ . o o ■■ o o • • -s — 8 Page 38 PHYSICIANS PER 100,000 POPUIATION, NORTH CAROLINA, 1940 County 1940 Number County 1940 Number Rank Ratio 1940 1944 Rank Ratio 1940 1944 NORTH CAROLINA 28 64 2 ,298 1,688 Alamanoe 25 66 38 30 Johnston 68 46 29 19 Alexcndor 83 37 5 4 Jones 83 37 4 3 Alleghany 17 72 6 4 Leo 28 64 12 10 Anson 80 39 11 11 Lenoir 10 78 32 20 Ashe 77 40 9 5 Lincoln 56 50 12 13 Avery 71 44 6 6 McDov/ell 31 61 14 11 Beaufort 30 63 23 13 Macon 71 44 7 5 Bertie 74 42 11 8 Madison 96 27 6 6 Bladen 97 26 7 6 Martin 74 42 11 5 Birunswick 94 29 5 2 Mecklenburg 4 102 155 120 Buncombe 1 128 139 80 Mitchell 56 50 8 4 Burke 34 60 23 16 i^iontgomery 83 37 6 5 Cabarrus 19 69 41 ■Zo Moore 13 74 23 22 Caldvrell 62 48 17 12 Nash 31 61 34 26 Camden 45 55 3 Wow Hanover 7 94 45 40 Carteret 11 77 14 9 Northampton 74 42 12 11 Caswell 99 20 4 3 Onslow 69 45 8 6 Catawba 38 58 30 17 range 31 61 14 11 Chatham 86 36 9 7 Paialico 50 52 5 2 Cherokee 19 69 13 6 Pasquotank 16 73 15 15 Choivan 50 52 6 5 Ponder 95 28 5 5 Clay 91 31 2 2 Perquimans 55 51 5 3 Cleveland 41 57 33 17 Person 86 36 9 10 Columbus 56 50 23 18 Pitt 28 64 39 21 Cravon 18 70 22 19 Polk 26 67 8 4 Cumberland 60 49 29 17 Randolph 50 52 23 13 Currituck 92 SO 2 3 Rickiond 49 54 20 18 Dare 9 83 5 1 Robeson 37 59 45 31 Davidson 38 58 31 21 Rockingham 45 55 32 21 Davie 77 40 6 4 Rowan 38 58 40 31 EHaplin 69 45 18 10 Rutherford 62 48 22 15 Durham 2 115 92 73 Sampson 82 38 18 15 Edr;ecombe 19 69 34 24 Scotland 66 47 11 8 Forsyth 8 85 107 90 Stanlj' 26 67 22 13 Prankl in 44 . 56 17 10 Stokes 71 44 10 4 Gaston 45 55 48 47 Sui-ry 19 69 29 23 Gates 92 30 3 3 Swa in 13 74 9 3 Graham 66 47 3 1 T ransylvaij. . 41 57 7 4 Granville 50 52 15 8 Tyrreil 100 18 1 1 Greene 82 38 7 G Union 60 49 19 14 Guilford • 6 ;96 148 100. Vance 56 50 15 8 Halifax 62 48 27 25 Wake 5 97 106 83 Harnett 50 52 23 15 ■VVarren 80 39 9 7 Hayivood 19 69 24 15 Washington 41 57 7 5 Henderson 3 104 27 17 V'^atauga 45 55 10 4 Hertford 86 3G 7 7 Wayne 19 69 40 37 Hoke 13 74 11 11 yJilkes 90 33 14 10 rIyde 12 76 6 ./I. ;mson 34 60 30 28 Iredell 34 60 50 22 Yadkin 62 48 10 5 Jackson CO 3C. i-f 7 Y'anc ey 93 2o "-^ 4 Sources Americar I Lledical Association Direc tory and Dr. Hubert Haywood, Raleigh , N. C •z. o Q^ O O :d- a. OJ o ■k o 10 o c • •^ o — o o «^ u (0 oc o UJ a. .c ■M C/) I— z o •< z •■M o m >- zc Q- ' ! • i II > o < C V OS a r- »/> lo m i/i r* ^o lA ^ o O U O I, OS a 3 X OS UJ _ Ifc Robeson 38 7.8 2 Davidson 8 33.9 2 Rockingham 24 16.6 2 Davie . _ - - Rovrem 27 15.4 2 Duplin . - - - Rutherford - - - - Durham 12 24.5 7 Sfimpson 47 6,1 1 Edgecombe 40 7.5 2 Scotland 36 8.6 1 Forcyt-h 4 36.5 15 Stanly - - - - Frankl in 39 7.7 1 Stokes - - - - Gaston 13 23.8 3 Su rry - _ _ - Gates - - - - Swain - _ _ - G rah am - - - - Transylvania - - - - Granville 31 13.4 2 Tyrrell - - - «• Gre:?ne - - - - Union 15 21.8 2 Guilford 1 40.4 13 Vance 17 21.5 3 Halifax 46 6.2 2 IVake 16 21.7 8 Harnett 37 8.4 1 Warren 45 6.6 1 Haywood - - - - ■ ■ Yfesliington 21 18.3 1 Henderson - - - - V/a'cauga - - - - Hertford ~ _ _ - |,/ayne 26 15,8 4 Hoke 32 11.6 1 Vlilkes 5 35.4 1 Hyde - - - - V/ilson 29 14.2 3 Iredell 35 10.4 1 Yadkin - - - - Jackson - - - - Yancey - _ _ - Source J Clyde Donnell, M. D., Secretary-Treasurer, Old Forth State Medical, Dental and Pliamiaccutical Society, Inc. , Durham, North Carolina. Includes 15 physicians not in active practice. PYHSICIANS PER 100.000 POPULATION North Carol ina, I 940 WHITE ^s^-^ ^ C _/ y ^-^ / 1 y«V.-.-.V...-.-.. .V^ ^ <:aj> , .. \ \-? NEGRO COUNTIES HAVING LESS THAN 1.000 NEGRO POPULATION N. C. Aer i cu 1 t ura 1 Experiment Station DEPARTMENT OF RURAL SOCIOLOGY BASED ON DATA FROM THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION DIRECTORY Page 42 LP/E 3 1 RTFS PER 1,000 FBI ALES 15-44 -r-EARS OF AGE EY RESIDEFCB, WORT!! CAR0LIi.IA,1940, (Exclusive of stillbirths) County Rail!: ! I Fon- Total iWliitel -(.rMf.c County- Rank I Total! Vi/hito Non- white IICRTH CAHOLKA Alamance Aluxander Allejliany Anson Ashe Arei'y Beaufort Bertie ^ la den Brunswick Buncombe Burke Cabarrus Caldwell Camden Carteret Caswell Catawba Chatham Cherokee Chovfan Clay Cleveland Columbus Craven Cumberland Currituck Daro Davidson Davie Duplin Durham Edgecombe Forsyth Franklin Gastcn Gates G rah am Granville Greene Guilford Halifax Harnett Haywood Henderson Hertford Hoke I!yde Iredell Jackson 34 90.0 S5.4 101.6 17 81.6 76.7 104.5 Johnston 53 101.5 100.2 106.3 79 111,1 106.0 174.1 Jones 63 103 . 7 100.3 108.1 30 88.2 91.0 15.2 Lee 58 102,7 100.0 109.2 76 110.7 100.6 121.0 Lenoir 25 80.1 76.2 99 . 1 56 102.3 102.0 120.5 Lincoln 28 87.3 85.5 98.6 100 138,2 138.2 133.3 McDowell 50 99.3 100.2 88.5 45 95.0 86,2 109.3 Macon 77 111,0 113.6 28.8 98 129.2 90,3 161,8 Hadison 61 103.2 102.7 145.3 96 126.1 115.4 141.2 Liartin 72 100,8 90,4 129.0 88 117.3 101.4 148.7 I'.'ecklenburs 7 68.9 69.1 68.6 o 71.4 76.5 46.4 Mitchell 90 118.6 118.4 150.0 20 84.3 35.4 71.4 ivionttiomery 26 86.4 79.2 110.8 11 74.3 75,2 70.2 lioore 19 83.6 81.8 87.8 39 118.2 121.2 G2,3 Nash 69 107.4 90.4 131.6 18 82,8 64.5 111.3 New Hanover 13 76.9 73.1 83.4 34 90,5 90.6 89. G Northampton 71 103.6 64.2 138.0 81 113.2 90.5 140.5 Onslow 92 121.0 106.6 162.3 38 91,6 92.4 84.9 Grange 24 85.6 70.6 118.7 26 86,4 69.7 123.0 Pamlico 34 115.2 93,9 147.7 87 116.6 114.6 260.0 Pasquotank 3 66.7 54,1 . 84.6 54 102.1 90.1 116.7 Pander 85 116.0 98.6 135.6 64 104,4 105.5 41.7 Perquimans 31 83.5 72.3 106.8 33 89.0 85.2 102 . 7 Person 61 103.2 92,2 123.1 94 123.2 116.0 137.8 Pitt 47 95,6 83,5 108.6 29 87.4 81.1 9b. Z Polk 44 94.5 90.8 117.3 32 88.6 91.2 34.1 Randolph 23 85.3 85,3 104,4 1 58.7 58.0 60.1 RichjTiond 43 94.5 95.4 92.2 8 70.7 72.0 56.9 Robeson 93 122.0 100.4 139.8 22 8-1.7 64.9 83.7 Rockinjjhar.i 12 75,6 75.3 76.4 45 96.0 86.8 148.3 Ro-i.van 6 68.3 67.7 70.7 66 105.7 102.6 111.5 Rutherford 40 92.6 90.2 106.3 2 65.2 61.0 72.2 Sa;apson 74 109.4 105.7 116.0 47 95,6 77.0 111.8 Scotland 37 91.4 86.4 96.8 4 65,9 69.4 62.4 Stanly 14 77.5 80.6 56.9 35 91.3 70.8 120.3 Stokes 68 106.2 105.1 117.2 15 78.6 81.4 62.8 Surry 52 101.4 102.0 91.4 77 111,0 72.1 156,8 Sv;a in 99 130.4 114.4 237,4 91 118.6 119,8 38,9 Transylvania 67 106.1 111.2 37,0 51 99. 4 80.9 118,4 Tyrrell 55 102.2 84.5 134.4 85 116.0 104,8 131,0 Union 73 108.9 101.3 133.1 5 67.1 69.4 59,0 Vance 41 93.3 7o.4 113.5 79 111.1 76.7 141.6 Yi"a ke 10 73.6 65.1 90.6 65 104.6 99.2 lis-. 5 Vvarren 94 123.2 ■78.4 149.3 49 99.0 100.0 66.7 Washington 75 110.4 84,8 145.9 42 93,5 94.7 81.1 lYatauga 60 105.0 103.9 50.0 56 102,3 71.8 125.1 V.ayne 21 84.6 83.0 86.5 59 102.8 75.3 120.8 17 i Ikes 83 115.0 115.4 110.1 70 107.8 84.5 143.7 Vv'ilson 39 92.4 80.2 109.2 16 78.3 75.9 38.4 Yadkin 35 91.3 92.4 70,2 82 113.9 119.2 4 7.9 Yancey 97 128.6 129.5 58.8 Source; United States Vital Statistics, 1940. Page 44 NUI.iB'&R MD PERCENT CF LI/E BIRTHS CCGURRBIG W iiOSPITALS, NORTH CAROLINA, 1940. County- Rank Percent Clumber County- Rank percent Number NORTH CAROLINA Alai-ance Alexander Alleghany Anson Ashe Avery Beaufort Bertie Bladen Bruns^-^ick Buncombe Burke Cabarrus Caldwell Camden Carteret Casvrell Catav/ba Chatham Cherokee Chowan Clay Cleveland Columbus Craven Cumberland Currituck Dare Davidson Davie Duplin , Durham Edgecombe Forsyth Franklin Gaston Gat OS Graham Granville Greene Guilford Halifax Harnet b Haywood Henderson Hertford Hoke Hyde Iredell Jackson 25 24.2 19,434 10 36.7 461 Johns-h;on 77 5.9 20 Jones 93 3.2 5 Lee 62 10.1 75 I.ancir 85 4,5 23 Lincoln 17 30.4 125 McDowell 28 23.2 19 6 I-.iacon 48 14.6 113 Hadison 79 5.1 39 J.'artin 41 18.0 81 Mecklenburg 8 40.4 837 I lite he 11 5 47,6 398 Montgomery 6 44.3 527 I.'oore 25 24.3 242 Nash 67 8.1 8 Nev; Hanover 12 35.3 138 Iforthanpbon 71 6.7 34 Onslow 11 35.9 4S7 Grange 61 10,4 50 Pamlico 49 14.4 71 Pasquotank 99 2.2 6 Pender 96 2.8 4 Perquirians 20 28.4 3o4 Person 33 20.9 2G9 Pitt 51 14.1 94 Polk 29 23.1 289 Randolph 56 11,5 10 Richmond 52 13,0 13 Robeson 42 17.6 201 Rockingha:a 42 17.6 56 Ro-wan 73 6,5 64 Rutherford 2 65.4 1,020 Sampson 44 17.1 205 Scotlai-id 4 60,0 1,470 Stanly 78 5,3 36 Stokes . 37 . 19.3 349 Surrj' 85 4.5 11 Svrain 00 1,2 2 Transylvania 71 6,7 46 Tyrrell 80 5.0 25 Union 7 43.0 1,253 '/anoe 36 19,5 291' Wake 54 12.4 137 Warren 15 33,0 270 Washington 23 26,1 152 Watauga 95 3.0 14 'iYayiie 97 2,5 9 Y.'ilkos 73 6,5 12 Wilson 14 7 -I r- 325 Yadkin 92 3.5 17 Yancey -68 7,9 123 58 11.1 29 34 20.8 97 24 26.0 249 18 29.1 144 13 33.9 184 68 7.9 30 85 4,5 23 75 6.3 41 3 62^0 1,867 89 4.2 18 75 6,3 20 27 24,0 149 31 21.7 318 1 89,5 904 70 7.2 50 83 4.6 22 21 27,7 132 97 2.5 6 47 14*9 51 60 10.6 47 90 . 4.1 8 50 14.3 88 64 9.6 141 30 22.1 58 25 24.3 230 59 10.9 95 46 16,1 358 35 19.7 221 19 28,4 346 88 4.4 45 80 5.0 60 65 8.7 16 32,6 213 82 4,9 27 53 12,6 129 39 19,0 68 38 19,2 56 63 9.9 13 66 8.5 84 40 18,6 130 9 38,0 838 93 3,2 20 91 3,6 11 22 26,9 110 56 11.5 144 55 12.3 137 32 21.2 252 45 16.8 72 83 4.6 22 Source: United States Vital Statistics, 11?40. CO < Q- o «l z o — :* q: 05 cc -^ Z3 ^ O < o ^ o — _l 00 O 3= q: (— <£ a: O CO 31 I— LLl OC > o C3 a n c « « X o • u b 3 n oi 9 E o n O O - o in U o ►J < — u. « o f H — Z. 3 W '^ S < < • c Page 46 PERCENTAGE OF LTJE BIRTHS NOT ATTEi^lDSD BY FHYSICIAJIS, NORTH CAPJDLWA, 1940. County Rank Percent Number County Rank Poroent Number NORTH CAROLINA 43 24,9 20,063 Alamance 5 3.3 42 Johnston 42 22,9 355 Alexander 23 11.3 38 Jones 70 40,6 106 Alleghany 10 4.5 7 Lee 40 22.5 105 Anson 89 55.5 414 Lenoir 74 42.1 403 Ashe 75 42.5 215 Lincoln 23 11.3 56 Avery 69 40,5 164 McDowell 9 4,4 24 Beaufort 67 39,9 337 r.lacon 52 29,6 112 Bertie 98 64.6 501 Madison 85 45,2 232 Bladen 87 49.9 385 Mart in 84 47.5 311 Brunswick 96 61.2 276 Mecklenburg 3 2.6 78 Buncombe 20 10.5 213 Mitchell 64 36.9 157 Burke 28 13.4 112 Mont^^onery 50 28.8 92 Cabarrus 27 12.1 144 Moore 52 29.6 184 Gal dive 11 13 7.1 71 Nash 58 3- ^ Q_ >- CO Q IxJ Q 2: LJ ::r \— O) \— — . < ^ < h- z: -z. 1 oo cc IE <£ 1— CE m t— cc LU o .; ^r & // '■: 1- z :~ Ui z U W -3. — OS X ... . W c Oi cr c u CU « ^ 'O CN « 4l 1 1 1 1 T 00000 = Ift McDowell 35 5.4 3.8 25,0 Beaufort 83 11.7 2.1 23.9 Llacon 8 2.8 2,8 «ft M Bertie 68 9.7 2.4 13 a Kadison 20 4.0 4.0 _ _ Bladen 62 8.8 3.5 15.1 Martin 80 11.5 2.1 18,8 Brunswick 91 12,6 3,9 25.3 Mecklenburg 67 9.3 1.8 26,5 Buncombe 27 4.8 2.7 20. C Mitchell 4 2,4 2.4 - . Burke 19 3.9 3.1 . 13. S Montgomery 74 10.4 3.1 28,0 Cabarrus 41 6.1 3.3 20.5 Mooro G2 6.8 1,6 23,4 Caldwell 11 3.0 2.7 8.S Nash 90 12.4 3,9 20,9 Candon 75 Ll.O 3,8 17.9 I'low Hanover 84 11.8 1,9 25,8 Carteret 36 5.6 2.5 " ^l.^ Norbhampton G3 12.3 1.8 15.7 Caswell 68 9.7 1.7 16.1 Onslow 87 12.1 1.9 31.4 Catawba 25 4.7 3.7 14.3 Orange 42 6,4 1,5 12.7 Chatham 78 11. 3 5. C 18.5 PaiiJico 59 8.4 3,0 15.4 Cherokee 16 3.5 3.4 6.7 Pasquotank 48 7.0 1.8 11.5 ChoT/an 99 . Lo.O 2.2 ' 2&.'Z Pondor 76 11.1 1.4 19.3 Clay 6 2.6 2.G - . Perqui2n;.;ns 81 11, S 9 -i, 18.8 Cleveland 42 5.4 2.1 ir.o Per sun 34 5.3 2.5 8.9 Columbus 49 7.1 2.0 ic.o Pitt 88 12.3 2.2 20.7 Craven 97 1-1.5 4.0 25.9 Polk 71 10.0 6,8 25.0 Cumberland 55 7.6 1.9 18.1 Randolph 23 4,6 3.1 15.9 Currituck 22 4.2 - - 11.1 Ricimiond 73 10.1 1.9 26.2 Dure 2 2.1 1.1 lt,.7 Robeson 7G 11.1 3,6 15.6 Davidson 30 4.9 2.6 23.1 Rockingham 31 5,1 1,9 17.1 Davie 14 3.4 1.9 9.^; Rov;an 46 6,0 2.G 22.9 Duplin • 42 6.4 1.1 10 . .; Rutherford 47 6.7 3,4 Durham 94 . 13. 2 2.8 27." Sampt-on 53 7.5 1.8 17,4 Edgecombe 100 . L8.8 2.7 28. e Scotland 85 11.9 2.6 19.1 Forsyth 86 12.0 2.3 30,3 Stfmly 16 3.5 1,8 19,0 FVanklin 42 6.4 1.7 10.3 ^ Stokos 1 1.6 1.2 6,9 Gaston 32 •5,2 3.0 21. D Surry 4 2.4 1,9 11.9 Gates 51 7.3 - - 11. o SiT^in 25 4.7 4.5 5,9 Graham 3 2.3 2.4 . - Transylvania .14 3.4 3.1 14,3 Granville 57 8.1 1.0 12.: Tyrrell 36 5.6 - .. 11.8 Grecno 60 8.6 1.8 1G.3 Union 57 8.1 2,8 20,9 Guilford 50 7.2 3.2 22. G Vance 52 7.4 2.2 11,4 Halifax 78 : LI. 3 2.8 15.^- Wake 61 8.7 1.7 18.7 Harnett 27 4.8 2.0 12.0 V'Jai-ren 53 7.5 2.6 9,1 Haywood 23 4.6 4.4 1C.8 Vfash Jngton 96 13.3 2,2 (dtj • t? Henderson 39 5.8 3.9 28.9 V'/atauf^a 10 2.9 2.7 2o.O Hertford 62 8.8 0.7 12.3 Wayne 31 11.6 2.8 21.7 Hok© 98 15.5 1.9 20.9 Wi Ike s 6 2.6 1,7 14.7 Hyde 71 10.0 4.4 15.2 Wilson 92 12,9 1.6 24.3 Iredell 56 8,0 2.8 26.0 Yadkin 8 2.3 2.3 15.0 Jackson 18 5.G 3.1 17. G Yancey 13 3.2 3.0 33.3 aouroet United States Vital Statistics. PERCENTAGE OF ILLEGiriHArE LIVE BIRTHS NORTH CAROLINA, 1940 /.•.■.•■;>.'...-;Cv.- .-" '^■.i- T-- — - ;v:vv:vXv:v:-::v> <^n v, ^ i L-.-.v.v.v.iv.-.-.-.-.-.v /i••.■.•.1_^.•.•^ \ , \./.-.-.'v.-.-.-.?r.r:'.-!x- .. ^••■■•■••••.■.•.•.•.•.•.■.yC.v.V-) NONJH ITE • INFORMATION NOT AVAILABLE N. C. Ae r icu I turs I Experiment Station DEPARTMENT OF RIRAL SOCIOLOGY \J DASED OH DATA FROM THE U.S.BUREAU OF THE CENSUS pas© 50 DEATHS PER 100^000 PORIL/ITION BY PRB-TCIPAL CAUSE, UillTED STAT3S, 1940 Princioal cause of death TOTAL DEATHS Rate Total Nonifhite '^atic of Nonvrhite to Y/hite iE, l;OnTH CAROLINA, 1940. PrinciDal cause of death ^atc Total Nonwhite !\abio oi" fion'.v?iite to ""lite Rate Rate Pural [Rati-., of iRural to I Ur ban I I'.ate TOTAL DEATHS Typhoidjparatyp;:oid fever Cerebrospinal meningitis Sca.rlet fever Whooping cough Diphtheria ^ Tube rculo e is , pulmonary Tube re uloo is, other forms Malaria Syphilis Poliomye lit is, polioencephalitis Cancer & other inali5n<".nt tunors Acute rhdumatio fever Diabetes mellitus Exophtfialic goiter Pellagra( except alcoholic) Intercranial lesions of vasculu Diseases of ear, nose, throat Chronic rheumatic I cart disoasij Disease of boronary ai-teileCjang Diseases of heart, other forus Influenza, pneumonia-all forms Ulcer of stomach or duodenum Diarrhea, onto ri+ is ApDcndicitis Kerriia, intestinal obstruction Cerrhosis of the liver Di.-:eases of the gall bladder Nephritis Puerperftl". septic. ?V'iir. Other puerper"al causes Congenital malformation Premature birth Suicide Ho:iicide Mobotr vehicle accidents Other accidents Deaths from all other causes 893.26 l,lu0.07 147 044. Oo 82 1.06 1.49 166 .89 58 .62 1.00 213 .69 168 .28 .30 111 .19 37 2.52 5.08 334 2.75 140 3.00 2.89 95 3.27 145 41.77 93.83 438 35.80 62 3.25 8.17 619 2.69 57 1.63 2.69 209 2.00 244 12.38 32.67 736 10.09 55 .45 .60 154 .42 82 53.57 52.49 86 51.74 67 1.88 3.09 221 2.08 156 I'L.OS 12.75 37 12.09 62 1.13 1.20 103 l.CO 61 4.63 4.18 86 5.24 165 r 88.59 111.56 140 83 . to 82 '-.83 8.37 134 6.93 105 s 14.70 18.53 138 15.09 111 ina 57.60 20.32 46 29.95 51 llo.90 126.30 116 107.07 81 75.15 108.67 175 74 . 68 99 3.56 3.39 94 3.04 62 13.72 i^o • ol 234 15.09 150 6.27 6.18 98 5.43 64 5.77 7.97 162 5.20 71 4.31 3.49 75 3.20 44 2.69 1.00 30 2.04 46 96.12 127.79 153 91.13 83 5.70 6.57 256 3.73 104 7.84 12.95 222 7.r2 99 <7 • O O 7.77 76 9.G2 110 37.21 48.11 146 36.58 02 8.15 2.59 25 G.95 Gl lOiSG 23.39 708 7.P2 41 28.36 27,09 94 26.03 75 36.93 43.83 128 3G.15 93 134.00 193.93 175 135.90 105 Source: United States Vital Sbatistics, 1940. Pace 52 INFANT DEATIiS PER 1,000 LVm BIRTI-IS BY COLDR, UNITED STATES M'.T) NORTH CkX)LW.A*, 1915-1942. Year 1942 1^41 1940 1939 1938 1937 1936 1955 1934 1933 1932 1931 1930 1929 1928 1927 1926 1925 1924 1923 1922 1921 1920 1919 1918 1917 1916 1915 Total U. S. 40.4 45.3 47.0 48.0 51,0 54.4 57.1 55.7 60.1 58.1 57.6 61.6 64. G 67.6 68.7 64.6 73.3 71.7 70.8 77.1 76.2 75.6 85.8 86.6 100.9 93.8 101.0 99.9 N. C. 48.3 59.7 57.6 59.1 68.6 65.5 68.9 68.8 77.9 66.0 66.5 72.9 78.6 79.1 85. 7 79.1 82.3 78.8 82.3 El.O 79.5 75.0 84.9 84.3 101.8 99.6 Y.hite Nonwhite U. S. I N. C, 37.0 41.4 41.2 49.9 43.2 49.8 44.3 51.2 47.1 59.9 50.3 56.5 52.9 59.9 51.9 59.6 54.5 67.2 52.8 55.0 53.3 57.2 57.4 60.0 60.1 67.1 63.2 66.6 64.0 75.3 60.6 65.8 70.0 71.1 68.3 67.0 G6.8 69.9 73.5 69.8 73.2 69.6 72.5 66.2 82.1 73.1 83.0 73.9 97.4 84.8 90.5 84.8 99.0 - - 90.6 - - u. s. N. C. 64 . 6 65.7 74.8 80.5 73.8 73.8 74.2 75.5 79.1 87.4 83.2 84.6 87.6 88.6 83.2 83,5 94.4 101.1 91.3 89.8 86.2 87.2 93.1 102,2 99.9 105,1 102-. 2 IOC, 9 10G.2 100,8 100.1 108,9 111.8 107.2 110.8 104.9 112.9 109,9 117.4 105.7 110.0 101.5 108.5 94.8 131.7 112,6 130.5 108.8 161.2 139.5 150.7 133.1 184.9 - - 181.; INFANT DEATHS PER 1,000 LIVE BIRTHS BY RESIDENCE**AND COLOR, WIITED STATES /u^D NORTH CARCLE-'A, 1240. Tot: .1 V.Tiite Uonwhite Residence U. S. N. C. n. S. II. C. U. S. N, C. TCTAL 47.0 57.6 43.2 49.8 73.8 73.8 RUliAL 50.1 57.7 45.9 51.6 75.4 70.1 URBAN 44.4 57.2 41.1 44.4 74.4 86.2 2,500 - 9,099 53,4 54.5 50.2 46.2 90.0 81.4 10,000 - 24,999 48.4 63.3 - - 54.6 - - 83.8 25,000 - 99,990 45.1 58.1 - - 41.0 - - 88.5 100,000 and over 39.3 45.7 36.1 26.1 64.0 91.2 * Place of OGcurance, 1915-38; place of residence, 1-39-42 , ** Place of residence. Source: United State's Vital Statistics. 150 ^ I2C' E 100 _• 60 50 o .a ^) INFANT MORTALITY RATES 3-vear moving averaae North Carol ina, 191 8-I9U3 V \ ^^^ —" "^ ^ ^ s. ^ White -^ ^^ >• ^ ^. 1918 1922 I02e 1930 1934 1938 I9U2 150 i20 )(X) (fl 8(^ h- aJ 01 > bU ^ SO O o ^~ 140 l- (U o. U1 30 -•-» (0 ^ 20 15 MATERNAL MORTALITY RATES 3-Vear moving average Nortt. Carol ina, 1918- 1943 V _y \_ ^ ^ NC NWHIl t V \^ WHI Fl < • 1 \ ^ s. \ \ ^ ■-\ \ \. 1918 1922 1926 1930 1934 1938 1942 N. C. Ag r i cu I t lira I Experiment Station DEPARTMENT OF RURAL SOCIOLOGY Bated on data frooi the U.S.Bureau of the Oentut • Preliminary Paq;e 54 INFANT DCATHS PER 1,000 LIVE BIRT'IS, IIORTH CAROLBIA, 1940 County Total Ran,k Rate tVhito Kcce Nonwhito Pate !!ORTH CAROLINA 53 57.6 49,8 73.8 County- Total Rank Rr.te White Rate Ilonwhite Alai'iiamoe 3 29.5 27.9 34.8 Johnston 19 45.2 33,2 59.4 Alexander 2 2L..7 30.2 - - clone s 74 69.0 69,0 69. AZ.lo^hany 93 32.8 76.9 1,000.0 Lee 29 49.3 31.4 37.2 Anson 39 od,c 40.9 61,9 Lonoir G7 64.7 60.5 68.9 .^sno 89 79,1 73.6 ]00.0 Lincoln 60 60.6 62.1 5L.3 Avni-y 71 66,7 67.3 _ _ McDo>-;ell 32 49.3 47.4 85,3 'tp^.lfOi't 94 32.9 67. 5 102.7 Macon 53 53.0 53.5 - - BcrtD.e 84 75.5 36.4 90.7 Madison 36 50.7 51.4 - - Bladen 75 70.0 79.7 58.5 Mar b ui 56 59.5 59.6 5^?. 5 Bru-,iv/ick 73 G8.7 54.1 83.5 IvIecJ^l^jaburi;; 23 49.0 31.5 80.6 BuncoiT.be 25 47.7 46.1 60o3 iMiitohell 13 42.3 42.6 - - Dur'rp 4 31,1 30.7 ry /^ r-r OUtO ;'.'onti_-,oniory 1 21.9 17.6 32.3 Cr.burrus 69 65.6 112.2 Moore 21 46.6 23.4 85.0 Calu7.ell 22 47.3 47,9 37.0 Hash 55 53.7 47.0 70.2 Cc-irJ.cn 9'J 101.0 05.1 115,4 IJcv,- > 'Hanover 45 54.5 43.4 70.6 C art rot 75 69.1 Ut't 1 52,0 i|orth£unnton 5 34.7 12.3 41,6 Casv/-e]l 25 47.4 40.7 52. G Onslo^v 97 95.8 86.3 llo.S Cat.?.i7ba 40 52.5 51.7 60.3 ran,^e 35 50.4 59.3 38.8 Oh a b ham 11 41.8 41.4 42.3 Pamlico 64 62.0 79 . 7 38,5 Cherokee 17 44.7 46.0 » - Pasquotank 81 73.1 61.3 85.8 Choivan 7G 71,9 07.2 73.4 Pender CO 56.4 30.0 7:.i.2 Clay 95 83.5 83.9 - - pc irqi'l'aans 63 61.9 35.3 82.6 Cleveland 43 53, i oC.5 ■ 37.3 Person 8 37.3 25.4 53.3 Colurabus 79 72.3 70.5 75.3 Pitt 85 74.1 52.5 \J Ci 9 ^ C rvxvn 47 55.3 43.7 67.5 Polk 30 41.5 87.0 Curr.bcrlr nd 31 ■:9 . 5 50.6 47. 5 Randolph 6 35.9 33.5 54.1 Currituck 91 30,5 39.3 64.5 RicJunond 65 63.1 67.0 55.2 Dai'c 10 'I'O.O 32.5 142 „C Robeson 72 67.9 66.5 63.7 Dcvjdson 54 5r.6 57.1 70.9 Rockinf^ham 57 59.7 54.7 77,9 Dfjvr.e 51 56.6 43.7 106.1 Rov.-aii 37 51.8 33.9 10^^.2 D".piin 46 54.8 60.8 45.2 Rutherford 26 47.9 46.5 55.2 D".rhCan 42 52.6 37.8 72.8 Sampson 49 56.3 51.0 64.8 R:.;?jcTibe 80 72.0 67.4 75- e Scotland 96 39.1 105.3 7C.4 Forcybh 86 76.8 52.0 126,7 Stanly 38 52.1 54.2 31.7 Franklin 81 •72.1 66.7 73.4 Stokes ■ 92 81.4 84,5 53.6 C'^sLon 20 45.4 40.9 78.0 Surry 52 56.8 55.8 72.7 Gates 98 98.0 69.8 113.2 Swain 17 44.7 47.6 35.3 G raham 7 36.4 31.1 250. C Transylvania 68 65.1 66.7 _ - Granville IG 43.5 42.1 44.4 Tyrrell 9 38.2 42.9 32.8 Gre?ne 11 41.8 38.5 45.5 Union 40 52.5 47.1 65.7 Guilford 27 48,1 45.0 60.3 Vane e 33 50.1 52.3 64.3 Halifax 57 59.7 26.9 75.5 Wake 48 55.8 45.9 72.8 Harnet b 62 61.6 50.2 86.5 Warren 100 111.3 82.8 120.0 HayiA^ood 33 50.1 48.6 125,0 Washington 88 78.2 73.0 82.4 Henderson 14 42.9 39.0 88.9 V'Jatauga 83 73.3 73.9 - - Hertford 87 77.8 50.4 89.5 Vifayne 89 79.1 72,3 87.3 Hoku 24 47,5 38.5 51.2 , Wilkes 15 43.1 39.3 98,6 Hyde 44 54.1 22.7 82.5 1 Wilson 70 66.4 50.3 32,5 Iredell 77 71.8 59.1 116.8 ; Yadkin 61 60.7 60.3 58.3 Jeukcon 66 64,6 53.8 400.0 I Yancey 59 60.2 60.4 - - Source: United States Vital Stati sties, lb 40. Pag© 56 MATEH^TAL DCi.THS PER 1,0C0 LP/E BIRTHS BY COLOR, m'lTHID ?TATH,S AND MCRT': C.-.KOLIMA * 1922-1942.' Total Wi ite :ioiv. /hi bo Yoar U. S. N. C. u. c^ . 1 d. C . ■J. s. i:. c. 1942 2.6 3.4: 2.2 5.4 1941 ^3.2 4.0 2.7 _ _ 6,8 _ „ 1940 3.8 5.1 3.2 4.0 7,7 7.6 1939 4.0 4.7 3.5 3.7 7.6 6.8 1938 4.4 5.3 3.8 4.0 8,5 8.0 1957 4.9 5.4 4.4 4.2 8.6 7.9 1936 5.7 e.6 5.1 5.6 9,7 8.8 1935 5,8 G.5 5.3 5.3 9.5 ■3.9 1934 5.9 7.1 5.4 6.2 9.0 9.1 1933 6.2 6.3 5.6 b.8 9.7 9.0 1952 6.3 6. u 5.3 5.4 9.3 9.8 1931 6.6 8.0 6.0 6.4 11,1 11.6 1930 6.7 O.o 6.1 6.7 11.7 12.1 1929 7.0 6.4 6.5 7.2 12.0 11,2 1928 6,9 7.8 6.3 L.7 12.1 10.5 1927 6.5 6.5 5.9 5.1 11.3 9.9 1926 6.U 8.3 6.2 7.1 10.7 12.5 1925 6.5 8.7 6.0 6.3 11.6 12.8 - 1924 6.6 7.7 C.l C.6 11.8 10.4 1923 6.7 0.0 6.3 6.7 10.9 10,7 1922 6,o 8.0 6.3 7.0 10.7 9.9 IL'.TEPrAL i:0RTALI?Y R;.TES**LY COLOR MW POPULiJ IGN-SJ2E GROUPS*** UNITED ST..TES ;j'D I'fORTH CaROLIIIA, 1940. Total Vfliito Houwhite Population-size group U. 3. N. C. U, S. ?k C. U. S. 1 l]. C. TOTAL 3.8 5.1 5.2 4.0 7.7 7.6 Cities of 10,000 and cvor copulation: ■ Total 3.1 5.2 3.0 4.3 7.3 7.1 100,000 and over 3.1 4.6 2.8 3.4 6,2 8.0 25,000 - 99,999 5.7 5.4 3.1 3.8 9,3 3,2 10,000 - 24,999 •i.O 5.2 5.5 5.4 10.1 4.7 Citios under 10,000 and rurul: Total 4.0 5.1 3.4 3.9 8.0 7.7 2,500 - 9,999 4.3 7.1 5.8 .3.6 10,2 13.5 Rural 4.0 4.9 7.7 ?.C Source: United states Vital 3tatiscics. * Place of occurance ** Rates are the number of deaths of mothers in a specified group per 1,000 live births in that group. **♦ Place of residence. Psa-ie 58 DEATHS PER 1,000 POPULATION, NORTH CAROLINA, 1940 County- Rank Total Rate Total ;Vb.ite Nonvrhite County- Rank Total Rate Total White Non-white NORTH CAROLMA 52 8.9 7,9 11.6 Alainanoe 14 7.2 6.7 9.1 Johnston 27 7,7 7.4 8,9 Alexander 1 6.2 6.1 8.5 Jones 52 8.9 8.8 9,0 Alleghany 27 7.7 7.6 9.7 Lee 78 10.0 7.8 15,5 Anson 75 9,8 9,2 10.3 Lenoir 83 10.6 9,7 11,8 Ashe 65 9.4 9.2 14.7 Lincoln 21 7.5 7,2 9.4 Avery 10 7.0 ?.0 7.7 Mc Do-well 58 9.1 8.5 16.4 Beaufort 97 12.4 10.3 16,0 Macon • 10 7.0 6.9 8.5 Bertie 01 10.4 9.5 11.1 Madison 14 7.2 7.2 9,0 Bladen 60 9.2 8.7 9.9 Martin 41 8,5 9,6 7.5 Bruns-wlck 89 10.9 9.7 13.1 Mecklenburg. 52 8,9 7.1 13,5 Buncombe 51 8.8 8.1 13.2 Mitchell 20 7,4 7.5 Burke • 88 10.8 11.0 8.8 liortgomery 31 7,9 7,6 8.8 Cabarrus 24 7.6 6,7 12.0 Moore 21 7.5 6,7 9.5 Caldwell 32 8,0 7,7 11.6 Nash 78 10.0 3.7 11.6 Camden 96 12.3 11,6 13.4 Ne-w Kanover 99 12.9 9,8 18.5 Carteret 83 10.6 9,6 16.6 Northair.pton o c 6,3 7,0 5.9 Casvrell 14 7.2 7.1 7.5 Onslo-w 87 10,7 9.3 14.4 Catav/ba 14 7.2 6.8 10.3 Orant^o 65 9,4 8,8 10,8 Chatham 63 9.3 9.1 9.6 Pamlico 71 9,6 9,8 9,2 Cherokee 24 7.6 7.5 14.2 Pasquotank 92 11.5 10,4 12,9 Cho^Aran 83 10.6 9.3 12.1 Pendor 83 10, b 8,5 13,0 Clay 10 7.0 (3.6 28.0 Perquimans 45 8.8 8,9 8.2 Cleveland 7 6,8 7.1 5.8 Person 30 7.8 7.6 8.2 Colii^nbus 63 9.3 8.3 11.2 Pitt 52 8.9 7.8 10.2 Craven 95 12.1 8.7 16,2 Polk 7 6.8 6.5 9.1 Cuii^bo rland 56 9.0 7.8 11.4 Randolph 24 7.6 7.3 10,6 Currituck 92 11.5 10.8 12.8 Richmond 68' 9.5 8.8 10.8 Dare 76 9.0 9.5 14.9 Robeson 60 9.2 8.6 9.7 Davidson 32 8.0 7.6 11.4 Rockinghairi 34 8.1 7.2 11,4 Davie 73 9.7 8.7 15.1 RovTin 21 7.5 6.2 115.1 Duplin 46 8.7 8.4 9.2 Rutherford 14 7.2 7.1 7.7 Durham • 60 9.2 7.6 12.1 Sampson •46 8.7 8.1 9,7 Edgecombe 68 9.5 8.9 10.0 Scotland 68 9,5 9.4 9,6 Forsythe 71 9.6 7.6 13.8 Stanly 37 8,3 8.2 9.2 Franklin 37 8.3 8.5 8.1 Stokes 46 8.7 8.7 7.9 Gaston 7 ■ 6.8 6.2 9.9 Surry 43 8,6 8.5 10.7 Gates 98 12.6 13.0 12.3 S-i/.-ain 3 6.5 5.6 12.3 G rahar.1 3 6.5 6.9 28.7 Transylvania 40 8.4 8.5 7.1 Granville 56 9,0 8.2 9.8 Tyrrell 27 7.7 7.9 7.5 Greene 5 6.7 6.5 6.9 Union 43 8.6 7.2 1..1 Guilford 41 8.5 7.4 12.3 Vance 52 8.9 8.5 9.3 Halifax 46 8.7 6.9 10.1 Wake 90 11.0 9.5 14.0 Harnett 46 8.7 7.9 10.8 Warren 92 11.6 10.1 12.2 Haywood 14 7.2 7.0 13.4 Washington 91 11.4 9.0 14.5 Henderson 78 10.0 9.3 18,3 Watauga 34 • 8.1 8.2 2.7 Hertford 82 10.5 9.2 11.4 Wajme 100 14.4 8.0 22.4 Hoke 58 9.1 9.0 9.1 Wilkes 13 7.1 6.9 9.9 Hyde 73 9.7 10.4 8.6 Wilson 76 9.9 7.3 13.5 Iredell 65 9.4 8.1 15,2 Yadkin 36 8.2 C.2 8.5 Jackson 37 8.3 7.8 14,3 i Yancey 5 6.7 6.7 S.3 Source: United States Vital St.-ti;>t-icr;, 1940. WHITE ^r5^■:■:•:■;^:;j^'>^ L NON WHITE N. C. Ag ri cu 1 t urB 1 Experiment Statinn DEPAFTVENT OF RLRAL SOCIOLOGY TASFn ON r,AT* FROV I'.S PI'RFAl' OF THF CFNSi ■"■"S^ PERCEOTAGE SEIECTIVE SERVICE REGISTRAJITS REJECTED FOR MILITARY SERVICE BY COLOR OP REGISTRANT, THROUGH MARffi 31, 1943, NORTH CAROLIM County Rank Percentage rejected County Rank Percentage rejected _ Total White Nomvhite Total ''friitej Nonvrtiite NORTH CAROLINA 48 48,1 40,9 60.6 Alamance 27 40.4 32.5 57.5 Johnston 86 59.0 55,4 66,0 Alexander 3 17.8 15.8 * Jones 58 50.5 40,4 62,0 Alleghany 32 41.9 40.3 * Lee 44 46.8 46.0 60.5 Anson 71 55.3 51.7 58.4 Lenoir 72 55.6 43.7 64.4 Ashe 5 25.3 25.6 * Lincoln 37 44,7 41.1 68.9 Avery 23 39.1 39,7 * Macon 9 31,0 30.8 * Beaufort 91 G1.3 53.8 68.8 Madison 31 41.8 41.2 * Bertie 87 59.2 51,8 63.2 Martin 60 51.0 51.0 * Bladen 89 60.4 51.9 67.6 McDowell 88 60.3 46,7 69.4 Brunswick 97 65.5 67.6 63.7 Mecklenburg 16 35.8 25.0 56.2 Buncombe 50 48.7 43.7 68.8 Mitchell 51 48.9 48.9 * Burke 19 36.8 36.2 41,9 Montgomery 4 22,7 19.3 32.0 Cabarrus 11 33.7 30.1 47,3 Moore 84 58.7 48.4 72.2 Caldwell 29 41,6 38.0 70.0 Nash 79 57.5 47.6 64.9 Camden 90 61.0 * * New Hanover 80 58.0 51,9 64.7 Carte ret 82 58.5 58.2 59.3 Northampton 99 65.8 63,7 66.7 Caswell 35 42,7 33.1 53,0 Onslovr 64 52,4 65,4 31.3 Catawba 41 46.3 40.7 78.9 Orange 47 47,8 43.4 53.2 Chatham 46 47.3 42.4 55.9 Pamlico 68 54,4 51.6 57.4 Cherokee 14 35.6 35.0 * Pasquotank 83 58,6 55.6 60.2 Chowan 75 56. 48.7 62.5 Pender 34 42.6 50.0 34,6 Clay 6 27.4 27.4 * Perquimans 94 63,4 53.1 68,9 Cleveland 42 46.4 38.6 64.5 Person 43 46.5 35.8 55.0 Columbus 96 64.7 59.3 69.7 Pitt 73 55,9 44.6 64.7 Craven 57 50.0 51.9 48.6 Polk 52 41.9 38.4 56,7 Cumberland 66 53.4 45.8 61.4 Randolph 36 44.6 42,0 58,3 Currituck 93 62.9 * * Richmond 52 49.0 44.1 56,7 Dare 85 58.8 53,3 * Robeson 77 56.2 50,8 62,9 Davidson 21 37.6 32.6 68.9 Rockingham 99 65,8 62,7 * Davie 48 48.3 42.9 64.7 Rovra.n 8 29,0 26.6 46,3 Duplin 65 52,5 42,0 60.2 Rutherford 39 45.2 41.6 70.1 Durham 73 55.9 52.5 60,4 Seunpson 63 51.7 47.8 56,8 Edgecombe 78 56.7 47,4 62,1 Scotland 76 56.1 50.5 63.6 Fbrsyth 14 35.6 25.0 48.3 Stanly 45 46,9 35,3 65.3 Frcinklin 52 49,0 50,0 48.4 Stokes 13 34,7 34.1 * Gaston 24 .39.2 34.5 63.7 Surry 25 39.8 39,1 48.6 Gates * * * * Swain 37 44,7 44,3 * Graham 2 4.9 4,9 * Transylvania 20 37,0 38,2 * Grajiville 58 50.5 46,4 53,2 Tyrrell 70 55,0 50,0 59.5 Greene 29 41.6 25.7 55.7 Union 56 49,6 42.4 70.9 Guilford 18 36.2 29,3 57.0 Vance 53 49,1 45.0 52.2 Halifax 81 58,3 52.5 62.4 Wake 40 45.7 42,2 49,7 Harnett 61 51,2 52.7 48.5 Warren 97 65.5 65,3 65.6 Haywood 22 38.7 38.7 * Washington 54 49.1 45,7 51.5 Henderson 28 40.5 37.9 60.5 Watauga 26 39.9 39,7 * Hertford 67 53.6 42.2 58.0 Wayne 95 63.8 55,3 68.9 Hoke 92 62.3 48.6 71,6 Wilkes 7 28.3 28,7 * Hyde 61 51.2 43,5 60,0 Wilson 69 54.9 45,8 61,0 Iredell 12 34.4 31,0 48,6 Yadkin 49 48.6 46,2 68,0 Jackson 10 52,4 32.0 * i Yancey 17 36,1 36.1 * * Less than 25 case Sourcot North Caro a svstcmat s in sample, lina Selective ic sample of re Service Hoadquartersj cords and not upon the calculations based upon entire number examined. PERCENTAGE SELECTIVE SERVICE REGISTRANTS RUECTEU FOR MILITARY SERVICE THROUGH MARCH 31. I9U3. NORTH CAROLINA TOTAL A i::ivia_ 1, v>^ 4A. (■'^'""^l??WF;^;7-,'Pr;r-.'r.i Ji&- ^HITC N. C. Aet i cul t ur H I Experiment Station DEPARTMENT OF RURAL SOCIOLOGY BASED ON DATA FROM NORTH CAROLINA SELECTIVE SERVICE HEADOIAJTTERS P&fB be; POPUL/.TION BY COLOR Al-'D RESID^v^CE, NORTH CAROLH^iA, 1940 County Total Pop- ulation Percent All rTon- white All Rural All Rural- fa nil County Total I Pop- ulation Percent STATS 3,571,623 28.1 72.7 46.4 •• Alamance 57,427 18.4 81,2 28,9 Jolinston 63,798 21.1 94.2 71.3 Alexander 13,454 7.0 100.0 75,2 Jones 10,926 43,9 100.0 79,3 Alleghany 3,341 3,7 100.0 8i*0 Lse 13,743 £8,5 73.5 51.4 Anson 23,443 49.0 82,4 65,9 Lencir 41,211 43,2 62. S 50,8 Ashe 22,664 2,1 100,0 88.5 Lincoln 24,187 13,6 81.3 56,8 Avery lo, 561 1.9 100.0 60,9 UcDowell 22,996 8,0 37.4 29,6 Beaufort 36,431 37,9 76,5 53,0 Macon 15,880 2,9 100.0 70.0 Bertie 26,201 56.8 100.0 74.4 Madison 22,622 1.0 100.0 83,9 Bl-^.den 27,156 41.2 100,0 74.3 Martin 26,111 48,6 34.8 6G.7 Brunsv/ick 17,125 33.8 100,0 56.6 Mecl^lenburg 151,826 28,5 33.5 14,7 Buncombe 108,755 14.8 52,8 24.8 Hitchell 15,980 0,4 100.0 70,3 Burke 38,615 8,2 75.4 34.2 I.'ontgoi.iery 16,280 23.0 100.0 49,4 Cabarrus 59,393 16.5 75.8 24.7 J to ore ■ 30,969 30.1 89,6 45.2 Caldvrell 35,795 7.5 78.3 43.6 Hash 55,608 42.0 75.6 59.4 Camden 5,440 41.3 100.0 62.4 Hew Hanover 47,935 35.6 30.3 ■ 5.6 Carteret 18,284 14.8 61.9 22.2 Northampton 28,299 62.0 100.0 73.1 Caswell 20,032 45.5 100.0 87.3 Onslcvf 17,939 27.1 100.0 75.8 Catpwba 51,653 10.0 65.9 35.9 Grange 25,072 31,0 34,2 49.2 Chatham 24,726 32.0 100.0 69 . 1 Poralico 9,706 34,8 100,0 41.1 Cherokee 18,813 1.1 100.0 53.0 Pasquotank 20,568 42.6 43.2 27.5 Chowan 11,572 46.9 33.1 64.9 Pendor 17,710 40. 4 100.0 65.0 Clay 6,405 1.2 100.0 84.5 Perquimans 9,773 43.4 100.0 67.7 Cleveland 58,056 22.1 64.5 50.5 Person 25,029 36,4 81.5 69.0 Columbus 45,663 32 • 2 93.4 70.9 Pitt 61,244 47.5 74.4 60.4 Craven 51,298 44.3 62.2 30.1 Polk 11,874 13.6 100.0 59.3 Cumberland 59,320 34.5 70.6 33.5 Randolph 44,654 9,7 84.3 49.9 Currituck 6,709 34.8 100.0 60.0 Ricliiiionu 56,810 33.3 76. 2 34.2 Dare 6,041 7.8 100,0 3,8 Robeson 76,360 54.9 92.4 56. 6 Davidson 53,377 11.0 59.5 35.0 Rockin,];haiTi 57,898 20.9 82.1 37.5 Davie 14,909 14.6 100.0 63.1 Rowan 69,206 18.8 68.1 26. 9 Duplin 39,739 35.6 100.0 76.3 Rutherford 45^577 13.5 80,3 48.8 Di\ rham 80,244 35.6 25.0 11.0 Sampson 47,440 35.8 no c 79.6 Edgecombe 49,162 54.2 61.1 52.0 Scotland 23,232 53 . 6 75,5 57.6 Forsyth 126,475 32.5 36.9 14.6 Stanly 32,834 11.9 87.6 39.6 Franklin 30,382 42.9 100.0 74.1 Stokes 22,656 10.1 100.0 88.0 Gaston 87,531 14,4 62.9 16.5 Surry 41,783 6.1 78.4 52.9 Gates 10,060 49.4 100.0 77.6 Svrain 12,177 12.7 100.0 71,1 Graham 6,418 3,1 100,0 64,6 Ti-ansylvania 12,241 6,9 75,0 52,7 Granville 29,344 51,0 86,4 68.9 Tyrrell 5,556 36,2 100,0 65.6 Greene 18,548 43 , 6 100.0 88.9 Union 59,097 23.5 83.4 69.8 Guilford 153,916 20.9 36,4 17.0 ■ Vance 29,9 61 46.5 74.5 47,4 Halifax 56,512 56.7 80,6 54.2 V%ke 109,544 33.7 57.2 31.9 Harnett 44,239 27.7 88.1 64.1 Warron 23,145 65,3 100.0 71.4 Haywood 34,804 2,5 77.1 44.3 Washington 12,323 44,4 100.0 50,2 Henderson 26,049 8,2 79.3 44.2 Vlatauga 18,114 2,0 100.0 76,5 Hertford 19,352 59.1 100.0 65.0 Vfeyne 58,328 43.4 65.4 49,6 Hoke 14,937 61.5 100.0 79.6 IVilkes 45,003 6,6 89.6 71.7 Hyde 7,860 41.2 100.0 63.8 nil son 50,219 41.9 61.7 51.6 Iredell 50,424 19.0 64.1 45.1 Yadkin 20,657 5.7 100.0 75,5 Jackson 19,366 7.2 100. 71.6 . . 1.. Yancey 17,202 0.9 100.0 85.7 POPULATION BY COLOR AND RESIDENCE North Carol Ina, I9U0 NONWHITE &«low 10 10-19 20-29 30-39 M0-U9 50 and up RURAL FARM PERCENTAGE Eelow 20 20-39 <^<^ 110-59 tO-79 80 and over m N.C.ABricultursI Experiment Station DEPARTMENT OF RURAL SOCIOLOGY Bai«d on data f roa Ih* US. Bureau of th« Ctniua Page 64 EXPEiIDITURES FOR FULL-TIIIE FJBLIC liSALTil SERVICES, ITORTH CARCLIrlA, 1943-14. County, City Total budget % distribution by Raiik source of funds per or District Psr Amount „l„.w.„ capita State Local ^*^-rs: TOTAL STATE FIVE CITIES: TOTAL AshoTille Charlotte C-roKncboro Hip a Point Rocky Mount GOUITTES AlTD DISTRICTS: TOTAL Alanance Allprhany, Ashe, Watauga Anson, Montgomery Av-.'ry, Yancey Beaufort le-'cie, Chowan, Gates Blviden Buncombe, except Asheville Burke, Caldwell Cabarrus Carteret Catawba, Lincoln Cherolcee, Clay, Grahsu.i C.l'-;veland Colunbus Cra-'-en Cumberland Currituck, Dare Darn ds on Lurjlin Durham Eagecombe, Halifax, except Rockry !!ount Forcyth, Sto'xs, Yadkin, Davie, except ".Yincton-Salem ** Franklin Gar^ton Gronville Groene Guilford, except Greensboro and High Po Harnett Haywood, Jackson, i.acon, Swain, and Transylvania Hyde, Tyrrell, Washington Iradell Johnston Lenoir Mart in Mecklenburg, oxcent Charlotte Moore, Hoke Kash, except Rocky Liount Kew Hanover 2,1-4,051 .649 7.0 57.6 35.3 36 S20,63.'5 1.163 _ _ 74.5 or r: „^ &5,S92 1.676 - - 73.9 26.1 -- 90,061 .892 - - 78.4 21.6 -- 68,343 1.152 - . 70.7 29.3 — 39,061 1.015 ~ »~ 71.9 28.1 -- 37,170 1.454 - - 76.0 24.0 — 1,313,418 .601 8.3 54.7 37.1 ^^ 24,114 .419 7.5 52.2 40.3 73 19,004 .387 22.7 34.6 42.6 76 27,533 .616 13.1 49.6 37.3 40 14,895 .484 ia.3 21.3 60.4 55 15,i;l3 .429 11.5 50.6 37.9 69 28,053 .5e7 18.2 38.2 43.6 43 14,930 .550 9.6 40.8 49.6 49 18,415 .320 9.6 82.1 8.1 35 22,715 .305 15.8 52.2 32.0 87 17,414 .798 3.8 61.7 34.5 23 17,433 .953 10.3 53.6 36.1 9 31,874 .420 11.? 53.7 35.0 71 25,381 .802 13.0 35.4 51.6 25 25,391 .437 7.1 50.5 42.4 67 17,C05 .586 8.2 53.5 38.3 79 28,308 .905 6.4 50.3 43.3 15 51,626 .370 3.5 55.0 41.5 17 16,049 1.259 22.4 36.8 40.8 3 19,574 .367 8.£. 67.4 24,3 81 17,120 .431 8.4 48.8 42,8 68 123 , 383 1.544 1.5 71.1 27,4 2 58,752 .630 6.1 57.6 3G,3 38 101,854 .971 5.3 58.5 36.1 5 10,088 .332 14.5 50.0 35.7 84 39,272 .449 4.6 68,9 25.5 65 23,980 .817 7.5 56.7 35.8 24 16,329 .880 9.9 37.8 52.3 16 int 20,120 .359 8.9 82.7 8.3 82 21,622 .489 8.3 68.6 23.0 53 • 45,131 • .478 19,9 40.0 40.1 57 23,696 .921 21.9 41.3 36.7 10 18,595 .369 9.7 57.0 35.3 80 16,253 .255 11.1 52,6 36.3 89 29,3-20 .711 5.5 54,2 40.2 32 16,794 . 643 10.7 54,6 54.7 56 20,040 .393 9.0 80.5 10.5 74 30,860 .072 9.9 41.5 48.6 34 22,520 .538 7.9 52,9 59.2 50 75,941 1.584 2.- 74.5 23.2 1 tXPENDITURES FOR FULL-TIME PUBLIC H EALTH SERVICES North Carol Ina, 1943-UU* Per Capita Expenditures Percentage Contributed By Counties N.C. Agricul tur»l Ejcprrimffit St»tion DEPARTMENT OF RURAL SOCIOLOGY EXCLUDING ASHEV I LLE. CHARLOTTE. GREENSBORO. HIGH POINT. ROCIY MOUNT. AND WINSTON-SALIM BASED ON DATA EROM THE N C.ST ATE BOARD OF HEALTH EXPEND nURES FOR RILL-TEJE PJBLIC PIFALTH SERVICES, COTITINllED VORTH CAROLEIA, 1943-44. County, City, or District Total hud.cct Amount canita % distrToution byf Rank source of funds j Dor ) I ' ■ ■ ■ ' I ■ State I Local Other [°^P" f j ; ita Continued Northampton, FIcrtford OnElow, Pender Orange, Person, Chatl'om Pasquotank, Perquimans, Camden Pitt Randolph Richmond Robeson Roo?:ingham Rowan Rutherford, Polk Sampson Scotland Stanly Surry Union Vance Wake Wayne Wilkes Wilson There was no full-time public health scr^ico in the follor/ing counties during the fiscal year 1S43-1944: 43,862 .920 7.8 34.1 5S.1 13 27,551 .773 15.2 50.5 ■ j. « (C 29 63,227 .868 . 9.5 27.1 v;0 %^x 18 30,338 .848 16.4 *xO» "a. 35.2 21 29,086 .475 6.2 55.7 58.1 62 18,739 .421 7.7 57.2 35.1 70 19,393 .527 8.4 51.4 40.2 51 27,477 .557 6.6 50.0 43.4 83 22,488 .338 8.0 59.7 Oc ,0 75 32,480 .469 5.5 66.4 28.1 63 32,305 .562 11.1 34.4 54.4 47 22,059 .465 7.3 45.2 47,5 65 14,699 . 635 12.2 50,2 37.6 37 18,476 • 563 9.7 66.4 33.8 46 21,280 .509 7 . 6 50.0 / /• 52 25,363 .597 7.7 46.7 45.6 ,1 o 14,574 .486 9.1 49.8 41.2 54 73,704 .673 2.4 71.0 2G.5 53 43,034 .738 4.2 57.9 37.9 31 13,389 .311 10.8 45.0 1 / '■/ 86 23,487 .467 S.9 62 • 3 30.8 64 Alexander Brunswick Caswell Henderson Jonos Leo HcDovroll Madison Mitchell Pamlico Vferron * Other agencies include: Reynolds Funds- Special from Smith Reynolds Foundation Federal Venereal Disease Control Funds Title VI (Federal) Children's Bureau (Federal) ** Winston-Salom. uses no Sto.tc or Federal Funds Patje 66A ALL PUBLIC HEALTH EXPSITDITURES BY PUIIBS AIID TYPE OF SERVICE, FISCAL YEAR 1943-44, HORTIi CAROLINA l/ Type of service Source of fiands Total State-wide health cervices ci Pull-tin-ie county, district, and ty health services Total 1 5,400,295 $ 1, 266,244 $ 2,134,051 Coxmty govornncnts 1,230,046 1,230,046 State govenimont 528,689 378,689 150,000 Federal govommcnt and other 2/ 1,641,560 887,555 754,005 Percentage ) distribution Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 County governments 36.2 - - 57. G State government 15.5 29.9 7.0 Federal government and other 48.3 70.1 35.3 Per capita distribution Total 1-033 ,385 .648 County governments .374 .574 State government .161 .115 .046 Federal government and other .499 ,270 .229 Source: State Board of Health. l/ Excluding Vlinston-Salem wJiich finances its 07^ health work and hence makes no report to the State Board of Health. 2/ Other includes the Reynolds' Fund. Federal funds include those used in the following programs: Voneral disease Crippled children Maternal and Child Y/clfaro General public health work cc o UJ lO I Lu :t T. ^ — a> t- — I < (0 o o o o o z z o INI o *< h O T. X o o m a a a K >• o o o l-t u o .J < -< Z 3 U < < U w PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES FOR liEDIOAL CARE AND HOSPITALI^ITION FOR THE INDIGENT NORTH CAROLINA FISCAL YEAR JULY 1, 1943-JUNE 30, 1944 Rank Total Rank Total (Per Capita) County expenditures (Per Capita) County expenditures 41 NORTH C;JlOLIi^"\ $ 263,025.70 41 Alamanco 4,530»66 13 Johnston 7,933.16 loo Alexander _ _ _ 87 Jones 33.65 85 Alleghany 50.26 79 Leo 247.86 39 Anson 2,093.06 73 Lenoir 901.04 100 J kshQ - - . 76 Lincoln 437.20 63 fi.vory 482,20 86 IifeLCon 79.80 56 ] 3caufort 1,629.27 100 1-Iadison - - - 51 ] Bortio 1,586.44 2 Martin 3,824.06 21 ] 3 laden 2,894.51 28 McDowell 2,339.01 67 ] Brunsvfick 536.00 61 Mecklenburg 6,594.24 3 ] Buncombo 21,144.06 100 Mitchell - _ - 35 1 Jurko 3,122.12 38 Montgomery 1,294.12 61 Dabarrus 2,709.17 57 Moore 1,445.87 44 Caldvrcll 2,533.94 35 Nash 4,364.47 16 Camden 649.47 100 Now Hanover ... 59 Carteret 821.78 16 Northampton 3,465.26 49 Caswell 1,239.01 47 Ons low 2,045.35 28 Catav/ba 4,653.70 21 Orange 2,581.39 84 Chatham 170.34 78 Pamlico 158.50 53 Chorokoo 947.62 12 Pasquotank 3,323.61 49 Choivan 750,45 100 Ponder ... 100 Clay ... 4 Porquimans 1,895.31 71 Cleveland 1,369.07 33 Person 2,104.55 52 Columbus 2,689,81 8 Pitt 9,274.60 37 Craven 3,052.81 88 Polk 25.00 34 Cumberland 5,868.24 68 Randolph 1,194.11 1 Currituck 2,081.27 19 Richmond 4,387.87 73 ] Daro 103.00 10 Robeson 11,268.85 39 Davidson 4,128.08 45 Rockingham 4,038.80 27 Davie 1,286,97 20 Rowan 6,884.95 31 ] )uplin 3,468,80 72 Rutherford 983.63 88 Durham 137.66 48 Sampson 3,089.04 9 Sdgc combo 6,922.45 100 Scotland ... 79 Forsyth 1,528.13 54 Stanly 1,696,90 66 Franklin 1,002.81 24 Stokes 2,040,16 55 Jaston 4,889*09 26 Surry 4,218,80 81 Sates 112.50 65 Sv/ain 466,30 100 ( J rah am ... 76 Trojisylvania 244.27 41 jranville 2,105.40 41 Tyrrell 367.83 45 ( jrecno 1,216.49 31 Union 3,601.93 13 ( 3uilford 21,540.73 25 Vanco 2,905.73 11 Halifax 7,634.96 83 Wake 988.82 15 Harnett 5,713.08 7 Warren 3,562.79 18 ] iayv/ood 3,853.45 70 Washington 307.80 100 ] iendorson ... 75 Watauga 345.26 28 Hertford 1,675.28 64 Wayne 2,418.85 > 5 Hoko 2,811.05 23 Yfilkos 4,170.53 81 Hydo 81.25 6 Wilson 8,138.25 60 Iredell 2,095.63 57 Yadkin 861.51 100 Jackson <■■■«■ 69 • Yancey 357.60 Source: North Carolina State Board of C haritios and Public Welfare. ■< M — <£ —1 ■z. < — 1— —J — O a. CC oo < o o 3C 3: O 1— z q: < O 2: MJ * ce T o 1 CD ^ =f ■< O) o — Q CC UJ - cc o _1 u. <£ 00 C/1 LU — cc U- =D •, 1 — \— — ■z. Q LU ■z. ej UJ — Q- Q X z ■< O Cd LU □_ c •c o m u o c > a ^ - -mHIXW - J xKtS^H ^S c U K 3 c o» 0* « (/3 -U . . . ifi I. 1- c o* f a D 2 " - - ♦. H (. ► f I «; 4, — Z ~ "D C tJ • . . . c m in 3 2 3 w I. H M K < < 2 a Pap-e 70 SOURCE OF GCi.T.a/.L :j::spit..l i;:coie avd extp;tit of r^e iioS-Ital care NORTH C-.R0LDL1, 1934-1342. Source of income Year 1934 1S36 1938 1940 1942 ITunber of hospitals 75 81 85 90 89 Income in $ 1,000 's Total income r, n ,(i61 % 4,761 % 5,729 % 7,039 % 9,292 Patients ■ 2 ,441 3,559 4,215 5,242 7,787 Federal government - - - - 2 17 28 State govemnent - - 12 52 49 52 County govcmiT'ents 195 245 324 364 333 Citjr governinents 100 139 147 127 144 Religious organizat ions 51 61 65 76 89 Du.ke Endovffiient 527 566 529 571 420 Other organizations and individuals 269 274 314 477 307 Investments 52 73 81 95 94 Konhospital 26 32 - - 21 38 . 1 PorcGiitago of free days of hosnital care Total VVhitc I'e^ro 53,2 46,2 33,5 35.1 22.5 4G.6 '1-0,0 31.6 27.7 15.3 77.4 70.6 66.2 66,0 53,5 Source t Duke Endowment Hospital Statistics. Those data rolate only to those hospitals that "VTcre assisted by thc> Duke Endov/i.icnt, SOURCE OF GE'JERAL HOSPITAL IIIC01.1E NORTH CAROLINA, 1942 \ \ \ . \ Patients llonhospital Invostments *»^;l"I Other orranizations Duke ^^ TJndov.-rient Religious groups City Gov, [County Gov, State Gov. 'ifederal Gov. / \ >' ..ija— i* Based on drta frorri Duke Sndovnr.cnt Statistics DFPARTIZNT OF RURAL SOr-JOIDGY N. 3. Agricultural Exreri-ment Station RURAL-FARM lEVEL OF LIVING INDEX, NORTH CAROLINA, 1940 County Rank Index County Rank Index NORTH CliROLIW^ 39 84 Alamanco 7 98 Johnston 53 80 Alexander 39 84 Jones 69 75 Alleghany 8 95 Loo 35 85 Anson 96 64 Lenoir 43 83 Ashe 47 82 Lincoln 14 91 Ave ry 51 80 McDovroll 26 87 Beaufort 79 73 Macon 53 80 Bertie 95 65 Madison 53 80 Bladen 86 70 TTartin 69 75 Brunswick 91 68 Mecklenburg 14 91 Buncombe 8 95 Mitchell 31 86 Burke 26 87 Montgomery 86 70 Cabarrus 16 90 Moore 64 78 Cald\Tell 31 86 Nash 68 77 Camden 53 80 New Hanover 4 101 Carteret 47 82 Northampton 98 62 Caswell 61 79 Ons low 95 65 Catawba 11 94 Orange 8 95 Chatham 61 79 Pamlico 39 84 Chorokeo 86 70 Pasquotank 39 84 Chowan 53 80 Ponder 79 73 Clay 49 81 Pcrquimand 82 72 Cleveland 22 88 Person 64 78 Columbus 73 74 Pitt 73 74 Craven 49 81 Polk 35 85 Cumberland 91 68 Randolph 31 86 Currituck 39 84 Richmond 90 69 Dare 1 108 Robeson 82 72 Davidson 5 • 99 Rockingham 22 88 Davio 31 86 Rowan 5 99 Duplin 84 71 Rutherford 20 89 Durham 16 90 Sampson 73 74 Edgecombe 86 70 Scotland 100 58 Forsyth 2 102 Stanly 26 87 FVanklin • 73 74 Stokes 26 87 Gaston 13 92 Surry 26 87 Gates 53 80 Swain 49 81 Graham 61 79 T ransylvania 16 90 G ranvillo 64 78 Tyrrell 69 75 Greene 43 83 Union 35 85 Guilford 2 102 Vonco 69 75 Halifwc 91 68 ITake 22 88 Harnett 43 83 Vfarrcn 94 67 Haywood 16 90 TTashington 79 73 Henderson 11 94 Watauga 35 35 Hertford 84 71 ITayno 49 81 Hoko 99 61 Vaikes 64 73 Hyde 73 74 Vfilson 53 80 Iredell 22 88 Yadkin 20 89 Jackson 73 74 Yancey 43 83 Source: Calculations based on 15 U. S. C onsus items related to both cash and noncash aspects of family living • X UJ Q z o > o> — H —I * O M -J O UJ CC > <: UJ o 1 2: EH < o cc: cc T3 > O '-^ a — >. 11 — " k- --4 E (A CO E «- X O TO O c >• u - c " J Z 71 - u 4- c c/) J J 1. < f X X = X "p; Jx w ^ {<; ^ -^ 1 1 u - Z 3 W C 0> Oi CT> (J S n • • • to - H aco to a> £> i ^ ;3 00 00 > < < U . C 1 1 1 1 a> u u o> ■* to -H 00 00 00 t> 13 Page 74 TREND IN THE NUlvIBER AlTD DISTRIBUTION OF ACTIVE PHYSICIANS IN NORTH CAROLINA, 1914 TO 1940 Year All active phy- sicians In urban areas Total r 2,500-1 10,000-: Over urban | 10^000 25,0 00 I 25,000 In rural areas Total rural Under 1,000 OF NORTH CAROLINA, l'Jl4 TO 1944 1,000- 2,500 Number of physici ans 1944 1,688 1,186 324 260 584 502 276 226 1940 2,298 1,579 451 381 747 719 407 312 1934 2,164 1,403 445 290 668 761 455 306 1925 2,110 1,176 453 385 338 934 635 299 1914 1,936 811 420 261 130 1,125 836 289 Percent! \gc distribution 1944 100.0 70.3 20.3 15.4 34.6 29.7 16.3 15.4 1940 100.0 68.7 19.6 16,6 32.5 31.3 17.7 13.6 i.954 100.0 64.9 20.6 13.4 30,9 35.1 21,0 14.1 1925 100.0 65.7 21.4 18.3 16.0 44. & 30.1 14,2 1914 100.0 41.9 2X..7 15.5 6.t 58-1 43,2 14,9 NUIBER OF PEOPLE FE R ACTIVE PK\1SICI.AI': IN URBAN AND RUR.VL AREAS Year Population People ; per pay si .cian Population C-ns-\s A.II.A. Directory State i Urban Rm'al , State Urban Rural 1940 1944 3,571,623 974,175 2,59 7,448 2,116 821 5,174 1940 1940 5,571,623 074,175 2,597,448 1,554 617 3,613 1930 1954 3,170,276 809,847 2,360,429 1,465 577 3,102 1920 1925 2,659,123 490,370 2,068,753 1,213 417 2,215 1910 1914 2,206,287 318,474 1,387,813 1,140 392 1,678 Source: American Medical Directory and North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station. ACTIVE PHYSIC I.M'S IN URBAJT AMD RURAL AREAS, NORTH CAROLINil Hiysicians per 1,000 people 1944 Urban Rural 1940 1934 1925 1914 Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural 1 1 1 I 1 1 MINir.TO.! NEEDED 1 doctor per 1,C people -■';:■-:■i;H^;■::5^f:^,^ ^^^^^ ; ■ 1 I'll :- ' ■■':■' '-['Z::f. ^;•o^^v'y•»;^.?^f■ ;'^^jl;y/^^;v;;^^;v^ l"' \<- •.'.-' •! .■'.' J t m \ • :\IVv^' S \ Based on data from the Junerican Wedical Directory and I'.C. Agricultural DRR^RTI'EilT OP TCTRIJ^ SOCICLCGY Experiraent Station. N.C. Agricultural Experiment Station Par^e 76 PERCENTAGE OF ACTIVE PHYSICIAllS OVER 55 YEARS OF AGE BY YEARS IN URBAl^ AND RURAL AREaS, NORTH CAROLINA, 1914-44. Year Humbe r of physici li.ns Percentage over 55 State Urban Rural State Urban Rural 1944 1,688 1,186 502 42.5 40.1 48.2 1940 2,298 1,579 719 32.0 29,4 37,5 1934 2,164 1,403 761 28.6 24.5 3G.8 1925 2,110 1,176 934 22.9 20,4 26,2 1914 1,936 811 1,125 15.6 16.4 14,6 DISTRIBUTION OP ACTP/E PHYSICIANS BY AGE /JID RESIDENCE SHOVrEWG DEGREE OF 3PECIALIZATI0K,N0RTK CAROLINA, 1914-1944 State Urban places Pxxral areas Year Total Under 45 and Total Under 45 and Total Under 45 and • 45 f over 45 1 over 45 over Nuiribe ir of phj) 'sicians 1944 1,686 510 1,176 1,184 373 811 502 137 365 1940 2,266 1,008 1,258 1,569 741 828 697 267 430 1934 2,095 889 1,206 1,374 630 744 721 259 462 1925 1,912 984 928 1,094 587 507 818 397 421 1914 1,456 754 702 624 319 305 832 435 397 I 23.3 ^ercentag* 3 of ph^, 'sicians classed ac full. •tine cpecialist£ ) 1944 23,9 23,0 32,4 28,7 31,8 5,4 10.9 3,3 1940 22,7 23,9 21,7 51,0 31.0 31,0 3,9 4.1 ^.7 1934 18,7 21,9 16,5 2G,9 29,2 24,9 3.1 4.2 2,3 1925 12,7 14.3 10,9 20,3 22,0 13,3 2.4 3.0 1.9 1914 4.0 5,8 2,0 8.8 13.5 3,9 .4 .2 .5 _L Source: American Medical Directory and North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station. PERCi:i!TAGE OF i.CT^,^I; PiY£ICL'u-IS OYER 55 YliL'JitJ GP AHE BY TSJAS IN URBAN iU'ID RUR.\L .\REAS,nORTH CA.IOLIIiA, 1914-44. 10 Perceiitaje over 56 20 30 40 50 Urban ^ ■ n • 1 r IS 44 Rural |\ X'^OWX^^A -^^ V ' V ^> \^ C^ *^\^^ '^^ \\'^^^\ 1940 Urban Rural 1934 Urban Rural m ^^^ms^^m mmMi Urban 1925 'a, -I i - 'drti»> ■ "I '-■ III - ■ ■ t *■ ^ \- ■.- A. — -L-..* . ■.. ..^^ 1 1914 Urban Rural ^M5Si Based on data fron the .'unericau Viedical Direc-bory and the N.::.At;ricultural Exoeri;ient Station DEPART?"E'rTT OF RUR.\L SOCIOLOGY l'.C.A;^ricultural Experiment Station Paq;e 78 IffiT IFG0L3 PER FARM '"roREER, NCRf H C.'VROLIM, 1939. County Rank (cash income )Total Incoiiie Cash County Raiik (cash 5.ncom9 Income Total Cash ilORTIT CAROLINA Alamance Alexander Allep:hany Anson Ac ho Avery Beaufort 3ertie Bladen Brunswick Buncombe B jrke Cabarrus Caldwell Caiiiden Carteret C a swell Catawba Che tham Cherokee Chovran Clay Cleveland Coluiabus Craven Ciiir.be r land C-irrituck "'are Dr.vidson Buvio Duplin Durhajii Edi?,eooinbe Fors;/th Franklin Gaston Gates Graham Granville Greene Guilford Halifax Harnett Haywood Hondorson Hertford Hoke Hydo Iredell Jackson 43 66 68 78 75 61 88 6 23 41 63 84 94 68 £1 30 20 28 75 72 100 15 98 51 31 11 47 43 54 62 70 27 51 19 1 31 58 47 99 -.2 Z 35 44 5 78 88 14 33 57 59 97 515 486 410 432 304 46C 410 ej2 54i 495 401 51C 343 416 416 502 F3C 555 418 3 92 325 58e 543 4ol 527 610 44? 441 776 514 395 537 505 542 9G2 534 4'Jl 455 45 C; 51C 770 631 460 GUI 500 552 G14 4ol 386 436 360 357 236 226 184 186 269 105 541 452 3GS 244 166 6S 226 8^ 403 457 412 1R5 213 13 436 33 314 402 513 330 358 280 264 221 420 314 437 73 8 402 278 330 29 3G2 653 5i7 134 105 50? 400 280 277 40 Johnston Jones Lee Lenoir Lincoln McDovvell Macon ■!adison iiiart in Mecklenburg Kitchell Mont2omery vioore ':Iash New ^'a.iovor Korthampton Onslow Orange Pamlico Pasquotank Pendor Porqviimans Per sun Pitt Polk Randolph Richmond Robeson Rcckinsham Ro^van Rutherford Sampson Scotland Stanly Stokes Surry Swain Transylvania Tyrrell Union Vance Wake ■.Yarrcn Tfashington V/atauga Wixyne YiTilkes YiTilson Yadkin Yancey 6 606 541 15 620 486 37 549 378 9 62 G 528 64 434 243 87 45 7 125 92 458 80 80 3 94 179 3 760 627 67 383 229 i^5 453 66 74 372 188 53 489 292 23 563 447 47 O ^'O 330 45 433 341 45 441 341 50 605 327 18 575 472 10 636 526 73 •230 193 38 ^I'Z 376 24 5G6 434 4 643 566 86 410 129 82 381 176 60 398 275 25 521 432 34 557 395 54 511 286 75 404 186 26 OOU 428 56 343 284 83 3S8 167 39 575 372 40 572 36G 93 736 77 86 456 137 13 ,6:4 505 65 368 240 28 589 412 21 609 453 71 349 213 17 637 ••.79 80 373 179 IS 612 511 96 258 51 8 643 539 36 530 382 8« 405 105 Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census, 1940. en o CC 00 < CD LU Z Q_ — I LU O o •< o o CO o < z o ;/V/? ^ rrr- . • . • > '-^- .1 o 3 n (I X I >• - o <- c -D H o> o> o> o c a u. "■^ tN n t <- O 3 •c o o o o o c o o o o o " H 3 ,« „-^ 1 ^ i^<^:.arci to nany sub^pcts covered in this roport. In Splanatior u 11 "Jt" T - obviou. but in other cases this is not 'so. This explanation uiU, xt is hoped, clear up any confusion .vhich my huve crison. In general, the most disadvantar^ed state ic o-iven a r-ir k of "4R" b^h +' i ^ disadvantaged stato a ranr of "V" K.rZ -Z " ^ ^^ ^'"^ ^^"^^ Pbr instance, the birth rate of North Carolina is hisher thar the avora-o for hl^S Mrth"ra?:f ' ^'^'^''"^ ?'''' '''^' ^"■'^^^^^"^ ^^^^^ ^^-^ are 13 sJatos dth "^tZ ^'^*^/^J^ = - ^<^"« P°°rlo may foel that a high birth rate is a "bad" or disadvantaging" condition, as i::doed it may be if one is thinking cf i^fon- nicrtality or possibly the size of our child :.culth problem. Stcr thcrt are yany reasons for holding that a high birth r.te is a "good" thi^ partic ulariy because a dccroasing birth ro.to is nov; considered ai a thrc'^'to'^tio^l survival. Be that as it rr.y, the o.dor of ra-ing is norc or Ics" obvioul! ' In the case of "farm people per square mile" tho rank order «ould just as v.ell have been reversed, because the more densely settled an area is, the more economically can medical care services be nrovidod. Yet the fact that "ovor- Sd^^i^i^ :^^':^r'''''-^ ^--^'^^ ^° p-^ --^^- ^-ti^os the ra:;^ It may be said in conclusion that any rarJc ord;;r system must bo used vath !:'!?H n^^,: states might bo vory similar, say v-lthin two or three per cont of ...ch other, a2id yet tho range of ranlcs r.-ould still bo from "1" to "48". ;iso a state m.ight improve itsolf a great deal in some respect and yet Vooo the sai;^ rank order because some or all of the other states may also be^m.rovin" tho^ Mn ^r; ^^^^^°^- i^ i^ suggested that the r.ador, in add.^tion to obs^i^rin^'" North Carolina's rani:, note also tho avorarps or porcentaros for both :;^th Carolina and the Ifiiitod States. -^-^ ^ — HOVri'CRTH CAROLIi';. R.'J]KS I" ,!EALTH :^ Hamilton, C, Horace. ELEI.EOTS OP A STATE lEDICAL CARE PL'.N, Raleigh, N. Ct North Carolina Stato College of Agriculture and Enginoerinc, 1944. P. 7. Kimeo* graphed. Outlines a state plan for public health insurance, showing need for federal aid. Halbert, Blanche, HOSPITALS FOR RORi'.L CO:iTJNITIES. U.S.D.A. Earners Bulletin No, 1792, P,41, V.'ashington, D.C. November, 1937. This bulletin "gives information on hospital needs, size, cost, financing, and plans, based on t^e exporioncos of many localities," Hellman, Richard, "THE PARliERS TRY GROUP lEDICIME" Harpers Ilagazine , Pp.1-8. December, I940» Experience of the F^rm Security Administration in providing for the health of rural people, Hollingsworth, Helen and I.iargarot C. Klem. lEDICAL CARE AHD COSTS IN REL-.TION TO FAMILY INCOJE. V/ashington, D. C« Bureau of Resoaroh and Statistics, i.iarch, 1943. P, 219. Statistical source book including data on medical care expenditures and prevalence, incidence, severity, duration, and frequency of illness. Johnson, Victor, John Peters, and Louis "iTirth. "SHOULD m ADC-FT GOVERiCENT HE^'iLTH INSUR.\NCE?" The University of Chicago Round Table, No. 354. Pp. 1-25. December 31, 1944. Radio discussion broadcast from the University of Chicago, Supplemented by several notes and charts. Julius Rosemrald Pbnd. HOSPITAL P'-CILITIES IN RUPAL /JlEi'^S. Chicago. 1935. P,23. Reprints of articles from Bulletin of the ronorican i.<;dical Association , The Commonwealth Rmd, and The Ilodern Hospital, Concerned v;ith need for liospitals in rural areas, principles to be considered in meeting needs, and plans for building small rural hospitals, Kleinschnidt, L.S. "HOW CAN BETTER RURAL HEALTH BE DEVELOPED?" Rural Sociology , Vol, 9, No,l. Pp, 21-27, !&rch, 1944. Discusses pres-'ent healtli conditions in rural areas and the need for improvements. Lists questions to be ans'.vered in studies of the problem. Klem, Ivlargaret C. PREPAY1.ENT I.EDICAL CARE ORGANIZATIONS. 7/ashington, D.Cs Bureau of Research and Statistics, June, 1944. Pp. x f 130, Digest of prepay- ment plans now in use in tho United States and Canada, Statistical summary showing number of persons eligible for care under existing plans and personnel associated with these organizations. Also more detailed information showing specific services received. Data given by census region, state, and type of organization. Liebeler, Virginia M. "HOV: THE BLUE CROSS c:JE TO RUPu.L /a-ERICA." The Modern Hospital, February, 1944. Story of the erj-ollment in the Blue Cross plan of rural people in liinnesota. Difficulties involved in enlisting farmers in the plan and how they are being overcome. H. C. Commission on Hospitals and Medical Care. I.EDICAL CARE .diT) HOSPITAL FACILITIES FDR RUR^VL PEOPLE IN NORTH CAROLINA. Raleigh, N. C: October, 1944. P. 10. Ivlimeographed, Report of the Cor-iittoo on Hospitals and Medical Care for Rural People. Summarizes needs of rural people in North Carolina and makes recommendations as to how those needs can be mot. Other reports of the Commission are also available. Physicians Forum, HOW'S YOUR HKILTH? New York: 1944. P. 8. A popular leaflet showing arguments for and giving enthusiastic endorsement to the plan for national prepaid health insurance, as is proposed in the 'Vagnor-Iiurray-Dingoll Bill, The Physicians Fbrum is an organized group of liberal doctors, headed by Ernst P. Boas, M.D. of Columbia University. . f^..3'& ; Porter, /uny. "DO \'(E VfANT NATIOIIAL HEALTH INSU^U'CE?" Collier':: , pp. 20-21, C5-66. January 27, 1945, Arsumonts for and against the Vra^nor-Kurray-Dinr^ell Bill. Article recognizes need of some form of health insurance and is favorable tcmrd compulsory national health legislation. Rankin, W.S. et. al. THE SIL'.LL GE':ER\L PIOSPITAL. The ]>ake Endovment Bulletin No. 3, P. 125. Charlotte, North Carolina. January, 1932. General principles of hospital planning. Also contains"more detailed inforr.'.ation and designs adopted to the special interest and needs of building committees and tocl-mical groups, physicians, hospital consultants, and architects, vrtio arc mere directly cone ::rnod with the planning, dGsir;ning, and building of hospitals." Includes designs for three ideal small type hospitals as v;ell as descriptions, photographs, and docigns of ten hospitals recently built in North and South Carolina -.vith the holp of The Duke Endovment. Ratcliff, J.D. "CO-OP HOSPITAL". Collier's. Pp. 24-26. July 31, 1943. Story of a successful cooperative CQminuni'..y hospital in Elk City, Oklahoma. Sarvis, Levds J. and Graham L, Davis.. "SOUTH ?IAFjJ1J HOSPIT'-L: IT 13 EFFICIjJIT AIID EXPA!ID/iBLE." Hospitals., coptombor. 19lE. Nov; York: The Cooperative League of the U.S.A. 1942. P. 42, Suggestions for setting up a cooperative health association in a co;nmunity« Iliustrstions of such associations already in ex- istence. Discussion of cooperative nedicino as opposed to state medicine, stress- ing the advantages of t}>Q cooperative system. Sample set of by-lav/s, rules, and agreement vn.th doctors* ^ This book circulates for a 2-week period and is due on the last date stamped below. It must be brought to the Ubrary to be renewed. SEP 1 2 2008 \RMtt' II nil I II H00003949 P