A Future with Guarantee: Latino Youthful Conceptive Wellbeing.


93 views
Uploaded on:
Category: Sales / Marketing
Description
A Future with Guarantee: Latino Immature Conceptive Wellbeing A Future with Guarantee: A Chartbook on Latino Juvenile Regenerative Wellbeing Anne Driscoll, DrPH Claire Brindis, DrPh M. Antonia Biggs, PhD L. Teresa Valderrama, MPH Community for Regenerative Wellbeing Examination and Arrangement,
Transcripts
Slide 1

A Future with Promise: Latino Adolescent Reproductive Health

Slide 2

A Future with Promise: A Chartbook on Latino Adolescent Reproductive Health Anne Driscoll, DrPH Claire Brindis, DrPh M. Antonia Biggs, PhD L. Teresa Valderrama, MPH Center for Reproductive Health Research and Policy, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, and the Institute for Health Policy Studies University of California, San Francisco http://crhrp.ucsf.edu

Slide 3

Chapter 1: Population

Slide 4

Figure 1.1: Projected US Population by Race/Ethnicity, 2000-2025 Source: US Census, 2000

Slide 5

Figure 1.1: Projected US Population by Race/Ethnicity, 2000-2025 In 2000, the US populace was: 12.5% Latino 12.2% African American 71.4% white By 2025, the US populace is anticipated to be: 18.2% Latino 12.9% African American 62.0% white Source: US Census, 2000

Slide 6

Figure 1.2: Age Distribution by Race/Ethnicity, 2000 Source: US Census, 2000

Slide 7

Figure 1.2: Age Distribution by Race/Ethnicity, 2000 The Latino populace in the US is youthful: 39% of Latinos are less than 20 years old, while 34% of African Americans and 26% of whites are 6% of Latinos, 8% of African Americans and 15% of whites are over age 64 Source: US Census, 2000

Slide 8

Figure 1.3: Projected US Youth Population (ages 10-19) by Race/Ethnicity, 2000-2025 Source: US Census, 2000

Slide 9

Figure 1.3: Projected US Youth Population (ages 10-19) by Race/Ethnicity, 2000-2025 In 2000, 14% of the US youth populace was Latino – this will develop to 24% by 2025 The African American youth populace will stay moderately consistent between 2000 & 2025 (15% to 14%) The adolescent\'s rate populace that is white will diminish from 66% to 54% amid this same period Source: US Census 2001

Slide 10

Figure 1.4: Latino Population by National Origin, 2000 Source: Therrien & Ramirez, 2001

Slide 11

Figure 1.4: Latino Population by National Origin, 2000 A larger part (66%) of US Latinos are of Mexican drop 15% are of Central/South American plummet 9% are of Puerto Rican plunge 4% are of Cuban plunge Source: Therrien & Ramirez, 2001

Slide 12

Figure 1.5: Percent Increase in Latino Population, 1990-2000

Slide 13

Figure 1.5: Percent Increase in Latino Population by State, 1990-2000 From 1990 to 2000: North Carolina encountered the best rate increment by state (394%) 337% in Arkansas 300% in Georgia 278% in Tennessee Source: Guzman, 2001 8B

Slide 14

Figure 1.6: Latino Population, 1990

Slide 15

Figure 1.7: Latino Population by State, 2000

Slide 16

Figures 1.6 and 1.7: Latino Population by State, 1990-2000 In 1990, 31 states had 100,000 Latinos or less; in 2000, 30 states did The quantity of states with somewhere around 250,000 and 500,000 Latinos ascended from 2 to 10 expresses The quantity of states with more than 1 million Latinos ascended from 5 to 7 states Source: Guzman, 2001

Slide 17

Figure 1.8: Latina Teen Birth Rates (ages 15-19)*, 2000

Slide 18

Figure 1.8: Latina Teen Birth Rates (ages 15-19) by State, 2000 In 2000: The US Latina teenager conception rate was 89 for each 1,000 youngsters North Carolina had the most astounding rate (150/1,000) West Virginia had the least rate (9/1,000) Sources: Papillo et al., 2002; US Census Bureau, 2000 8B

Slide 19

Figure 1.9: Percentage of Youth (ages 0-18) in Two-Parent Families by Race/Ethnicity, 1980-2002 Source: Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 2003 *Data not accessible for all years

Slide 20

Figure 1.9: Percentage of Youth (ages 0-18) in Two-Parent Families by Race/Ethnicity, 1980-2002 The extent of youth living with both folks diminished crosswise over gatherings: From 75% to 65% among Latinos From 42% to 38% among African Americans From 81% to 77% among whites (1990-2002)* Source: Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 2003 *Data not accessible for all years

Slide 21

Figure 1.10: Percentage of Youth (ages 0-18) in Poverty by Race/Ethnicity, 1980-2001 Source: Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 2003 *Data not accessible for all years

Slide 22

Figure 1.10: Percentage of Youth (ages 0-18) in Poverty by Race/Ethnicity, 1980-2001 Youth of shading will probably be poor than whites. Yet, the extent of youth living in destitution diminished crosswise over gatherings: From 33% to 27% among Latinos From 42% to 30% among African Americans From 12% to 9% among whites (1990-2001)* Source: Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 2003 *Data not accessible for all years

Slide 23

Figure 1.12: Percentage of Babies Born at Low Birthweight by Race/Ethnicity and National Origin of Mother, 2001

Slide 24

Figure 1.12: Percentage of Babies Born at Low Birthweight by Race/Ethnicity and National Origin of Mother, 2001 The extent of low birthweight children is lower among Latinos (6%) than among whites (7%) or African Americans (13%) Puerto Rican moms will probably have low birthweight babies (9%) than Central and South American, Cuban or Mexican moms (6% for all gatherings) Source: Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 2003

Slide 25

Figure 1.13: Infant Mortality Rates by Race/Ethnicity, 1983-2000

Slide 26

Figure 1.13: Infant Mortality Rates* by Race/Ethnicity, 1983-2000 African Americans have the most noteworthy baby death rates, yet rates have diminished over all gatherings from: 9.5 to 5.6 among Latinos 9.2 to 5.7 among whites 19.1 to 13.6 among African Americans Source: Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 2003 *Number of passings for each 1,000 live births

Slide 27

Figure 1.14: Adolescent (ages 15-19) Death Rates by Race/Ethnicity and Sex, 2000

Slide 28

Figure 1.14: Adolescent (ages 15-19) Death Rates by Race/Ethnicity and Sex, 2000 Among young people, guys and African Americans are at the most serious danger of biting the dust. In 2000, there were: 90 male and 29 female passings for every 1,000 Latino teenagers 130 male and 44 female passings for each 1,000 African American youngsters 86 male and 41 female passings for every 1,000 white high schoolers Source: Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 2003

Slide 29

Figure 1.15: Causes of Deaths among Adolescent (ages 15-19) Males by Race/Ethnicity, 2000

Slide 30

Figure 1.15: Causes of Death among Adolescent (ages 15-19) Males by Race/Ethnicity, 2000 Latino guys are well on the way to bite the dust from engine vehicle mischances (MVA, 29%), trailed by guns (28%), other harm (19%) and non-damage (15%) African American guys are destined to kick the bucket from guns (62%), trailed by non-harm (27%), MVA (22%) and other damage (19%) White guys are well on the way to bite the dust from MVA (21%), trailed by other harm (20%), non-harm (17%), and guns (12%) Source: Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 2003

Slide 31

Figure 1.16: Causes of Death among Adolescent (ages 15-19) Females by Race/Ethnicity, 2000

Slide 32

Figure 1.16: Causes of Death among Adolescent (ages 15-19) Females by Race/Ethnicity, 2000 Latina females are well on the way to bite the dust from engine vehicle mishaps (MVA, 11%), trailed by non-harm (10%), other harm (5%), and guns (3%) African American females are well on the way to bite the dust from non-harm (21%), trailed by MVA (10%), other harm (7%) and guns (6%) White females are well on the way to bite the dust from MVA (21%), trailed by non-damage (12%), other damage (6%), and guns (2%) Source: Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 2003

Slide 33

Chapter 2: Immigration

Slide 34

Figure 2.1: Latino Population by Generation, 1999 Source: Jamieson, Curry and Martinez, 2001

Slide 35

Figure 2.1: Latino Population by Generation, 1999 For all Latinos: 39% are migrants 28% are US-conceived posterity of a foreigner guardian 32% are US-conceived offspring of US-conceived folks For Latino understudies: 18% are workers 48% are US-conceived posterity of a settler guardian 34% are US-conceived offspring of US-conceived folks Source: Jamieson, Curry and Martinez, 2001

Slide 36

Figure 2.2: Latino Population by National Origin, 2000

Slide 37

Figure 2.2: Latino Population by National Origin, 2000 Most Latinos living in the US are of Mexican inception: 66% are Mexican 15% are Central and South American 9% are Puerto Rican 6% are Other 4% are Cuban Source: Therrien & Ramirez, 2001

Slide 38

Figure 2.3: Mean Family Income of Latino Students (grades 7-12) by Generation, 1988 Source: Kao,1999

Slide 39

Figure 2.3: Mean Family Income of Latino Students (grades 7-12) by Generation, 1988 The family unit pay of Latino understudies increments marginally with every era, never drawing nearer that of white understudies: $22 thousand among 1 st era Latinos $28 thousand among second era Latinos $29 thousand among third era Latinos $46 thousand among third era whites Source: Kao,1999

Slide 40

Figure 2.4: Poverty Rates of Latino Students (grades 7-12) by Generation and Region of Origin, 1988 Source: Kao,1999

Slide 41

Figure 2.4: Poverty Rates of Latino Students (grades 7-12) by Generation and Region of Origin, 1988 Mexican-starting point understudies are destined to be poor. At the point when 1 st and 2 nd era understudies are contrasted with 3 rd era understudies: 42% versus 34% of Mexicans are poor 27% versus 24% of Central Americans are poor 24% versus 28% of Caribbeans are poor 14% versus 15% of South Americans are poor Source: Kao,1999

Slide 42

Figure 2.5: Changes in Language among Youth (ages 5-17) by Generation, 1990 Source: Hernandez and Charney, 1998

Slide 43

Figure 2.5: Changes in Language among Youth (ages 5-17) by Generation, 1990 When youth who live in an etymologically separated family unit are contrasted with youth who communicate in English extremely well: 44% versus 55% are 1 st era 31% versus 29% are second era 9% versus 0% are third era Source: Hernandez and Charney, 1998

Slide 44

Figure 2.6: Percentage of 16-24 Year Olds

Recommended
View more...