| From
many perspectives genealogy research seems better than ever,
with the future bright and shining. More of us are seeking
our ancestors, aided by a torrent of new books telling us
how, what and where to research. We look around and see
all kinds of files recreated on CD-ROMs, many with indexes.
Searching PERSI on CD-ROMs will be a joy after wrestling
with two dozen thick volumes. The Internet has a multitude
of sites devoted to genealogy, growing every day, with the
promise of rewarding on-line research. LDS members continue
to microfilm new records throughout the world, and the Family
History Library continues to add to its magnificent collection.
Dozens of software programs, written exclusively for genealogists,
await our call to be compiled on cheaper, ever faster computers.
So prospects for 21st century
genealogy look great, don't they? Well, maybe. Maybe not.
In 1996 the National Genealogical
Society and the Federation of Genealogical Societies joined
together in establishing a Records Preservation and Access
Committee. Still in its formative stage, the Committee will
be composed of a liaison person from each state. Chair Jack
Brissee has expressed some of the concerns with which the
Committee will deal:
Historical records and
our access to them are of vital importance to genealogists
and historians. Few of us would get very far in our research
without them.
Concerns about preservation
and access are therefore always with us and, indeed, increasing.
The growth in sheer volume of paper records, the changing
nature of how records are created and stored, concern
over misuse of records, and the growing realization of
the importance of non-governmental records, all of which
are complicated by resource limitations, generate significant
challenges related to preservation and access.1
As a contribution to the
Committee's efforts, future issues of the New Mexico Genealogist
will describe and analyze some of the problems facing 21st
century genealogists. The problems include the apparent
trend toward the closing of certain public records, the
seemingly diminishing number of private record sources,
the impact of electronic record-keeping on governmental
records at all levels, the preservation of and access to
Social Security records, and the strategic role of the National
Archives at the federal level.2
The series begins in this issue with a look at the federal
censuses 1930-2000 from a genealogical perspective.3
The 1930 census, available
to us in the year 2002, will look familiar because the basic
question categories have changed in only minor respects
from 1920. The absence of plans for developing a complete
Soundex is the most alarming problem connected with the
1930 census. Perhaps we could take a lesson from the 1930s,
when the 1880, 1900, 1920 and some 1930 Soundex files were
created by the Works Progress Administration under the direction
of the Bureau of the Census. Could not the Bureau today
initiate a bidding competition by which a private company
would generate an electronic data base of the 1930 records?
Terms of the contract might include a provision for employing
and training persons leaving the welfare rolls.
Although little noted at
the time, the 1940 census was significant because of the
use for the first time of statistical techniques such as
probability sampling. The Bureau of the Census found that
utilizing such techniques provided several advantages:
Sampling in the 1940
census allowed the addition of a number of questions for
just 5 percent of the persons enumerated without unduly
increasing the overall burden on respondents and on data
processing, and also made it possible to publish preliminary
returns 8 months ahead of the complete tabulations. The
Bureau was able to increase the number of detailed tables
published and, also by sampling, to review the quality
of the data processing with more efficiency. 4
For genealogists, however,
probability sampling translates into data devastation. In
1940 only five per cent of the populace was asked questions
about the place of birth of father and mother; mother tongue
(or native language); whether a veteran or wife, widow,
or child of a veteran; whether social security deductions
were made; usual occupation; whether a woman had been married
more than once and number of children born.5
The 1950 census continued
probability sampling, with one in five answering questions
about place of residence a year ago; country where father
and mother born (one country assumed for both); highest
school grade attended; income of head of household as well
as relatives living in the house; and service in the Armed
Forces.6 In 1960 one in
four was asked questions about birthplace; birthplace of
father and mother; residence; and highest school grade attended.
Detailed questions about work, occupation and income were
answered by 25 per cent of the population.7
The 1970 sampling questions
were comparable in most respects to the 1960 census. Differences
included additional questions about language spoken in person's
home when a child (Spanish is the first check mark), completion
of vocational training, and duration of a disability.8
In 1980 sample questions were asked of 50 percent of the
populace in places with fewer than 2,500 inhabitants and
of 17 percent of the populace elsewhere.9
In 1990 households were sampled on a 50 percent basis for
places with fewer than 1,500 persons and on a 1-in-6 or
1-in-8 basis elsewhere.10
The sample questions for both 1980 and 1990 generally reflected
those asked in previous years.
As genealogists we may
conclude that our chances are becoming increasingly dismal
of finding detailed personal information in the censuses
from 1940 through 1990. The only questions asked on a 100-percent
basis in the six censuses are name and address, household
relationships, sex, age, color or race, and marital status.
Color and race vary from decade to decade in the kinds of
questions asked. In 1980 and 1990 the questions include
Spanish/Hispanic origin.
But when the census for
the year 2000 becomes available in 2072, we, or rather,
our descendants, will experience the biggest change of all.
The Census Bureau plans to enumerate only the first 90 percent
by actual count, then estimate the remaining ten percent.
The Bureau justifies this decision because of the enormous
additional expense of enumerating the last ten percent and
because of its confidence in the sampling techniques.
In Living Within
Limits, Garrett Hardin states that "the cost
of the 1990 census was over $2 billion, or slightly more
than $8 dollars per person. A scientific sampling method
could yield equally reliable results at a cost of perhaps
$50 million."12 In
other words, the scientific sampling method has the potential
to eliminate census enumeration entirely at a vastly lower
cost.
In fact, the Netherlands
government abandoned traditional census taking in 1971.
They rely on birth, death, emigration and immigration numbers
for population statistics while using sampling for all other
questions. Hardin concludes that "the population of
the Netherlands is probably known more accurately without
a census than is the population of the United States with
one."13 Whether the
United States will adopt procedures similar to the Netherlands
we cannot know, but it seems certain that the census beyond
2000 will continue to decline as a major genealogical source.
The United States census began in 1790 because of political
considerations in apportioning the House of Representatives.
Through the years the census has developed into a vital
tool for planning and research purposes by business, government
and academia.
This may be a good time
for we genealogists to remind ourselves that the records
we refer to as genealogical records were not created with
us in mind. For example, the creation of vital records is
sanctioned by government for legal purposes as well as in
the past by churches for religious purposes.
Does this mean that genealogists
can only hope for whatever crumbs are swept from the banquet
table by the major consumers? On the contrary, genealogists
must actively monitor the creation and preservation of,
as well as access to, all records with a genealogical content,
and take appropriate measures to ensure record viability.
That is the mission of the Records Preservation and Access
Committee, but it should also become the mission of all
genealogists.
The problems involving
21st century records are complex, and the New Mexico Genealogist
plans to keep you informed. In the next issue we will explore
the question of whether there is a trend toward closing
public records. |
v