Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am not sure how helpful that would be even if one looks at the descriptions because streets can be very long in big cities and if you don't know the street number you are still looking at multiple enumeration districts (like in NYC) which takes a long time and a lot of patience.
I too noticed some "not at home" entries which I hadn't seen in prior censuses. I definitely understand people not wanting to be included in the census but neighbors can't really give accurate information especially in large cities (where people don't always know their neighbors). As for returning to an address for a second time, it doesn't always mean the census would find someone home at another time and perhaps people simply didn't answer door if they want to be included in the census.
The National Archives site said about 4.1% of the population wasn't counted.
Absolutely. Some did not want to be in the census.
One thing I've noticed about the 1950. The census takers write "not at home" which means that lots of people aren't recorded. In past censuses, they would ask the neighbors to give info, or supposedly return to the address when someone was there. It's odd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010
They did return. The people they found will be on a different page from the not at home page.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRM20
One location I looked at had a number of "Not at Home" lines. They all showed up on page 71, on a return visit.
On the Santa Monica records I was looking at, when this particular census taker, who, I'd love to know who it was because i'm headed out there, and if they remained in the area.. I'd love to leave some flowers on their grave.. They actually wrote out to the right when they revisited what page and lines the people were on.
But, yes, if you have a not at home, go to the last page and start working back until you see addresses that.. Are back in order. That should help you find the 'not at home' people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chava61
I too noticed some "not at home" entries which I hadn't seen in prior censuses. I definitely understand people not wanting to be included in the census but neighbors can't really give accurate information especially in large cities (where people don't always know their neighbors). As for returning to an address for a second time, it doesn't always mean the census would find someone home at another time and perhaps people simply didn't answer door if they want to be included in the census.
Remember that this census represents something of a shift in the nature of the US. In the previous census.. The 1940 census.. There was almost always someone at home. In 1950, women were much more apt, especially in cities, to be in the workforce.
Now, another shift happens probably with the 1980 census, where you had both parents working, many more single parents, and lots of latchkey kids.
Between 1930 and 1940, the percent of women working went up by about 2%
Between 1940 and 1950, it went up 5%, and basically continues with that 5% each 10 years to current day. But 1950 is where you really see that graph start to arc up and it hasn't stopped. We're post-war, so many women who got jobs during wartime.. Remained in the workforce.
Remember also that Korea is happening.. Though.. The census was in April, so.. In theory, no large scale troops were there.
Again.. The census starting in 1990/2000.. Those people who are alive then.. In 2062 and 2072.. They're going to have it so damn easy. Everything, or most everything, will be typed out because most people do the census on the internet. the door-to-door census taker is kinda.. A thing of the past. At least, so far as the numbers that it used to be.
I too noticed some "not at home" entries which I hadn't seen in prior censuses. I definitely understand people not wanting to be included in the census but neighbors can't really give accurate information especially in large cities (where people don't always know their neighbors). As for returning to an address for a second time, it doesn't always mean the census would find someone home at another time and perhaps people simply didn't answer door if they want to be included in the census.
When neighbors were asked for info in previous censuses they gave what they knew. Most people today would know the names, at least, of their next door neighbors. Of course, birth places, ages, etc might be suspect and inaccurate.
Census records of any era are not to be considered 100% correct or inclusive.
However, "not at home" means that person(s) never gets counted-- ever. It's not good.
Again.. The census starting in 1990/2000.. Those people who are alive then.. In 2062 and 2072.. They're going to have it so damn easy. Everything, or most everything, will be typed out because most people do the census on the internet. the door-to-door census taker is kinda.. A thing of the past. At least, so far as the numbers that it used to be.
Your points about women working outside of the home more frequently are well taken. Very hard to predict what censuses from 2072 would look like. The last census asked for very little information and it will be relatively useless for future genealogists.
As we know, the internet is so useful for fraudsters. An all online census will probably be full of disinformation.
Just look at what happened in the states when the last unemployment during covid was declared. Fraudulent claims were rampant and the states are still trying to figure it out.
No answers here, but the gov't should give it a lot more thought when the next one comes up.
Your points about women working outside of the home more frequently are well taken. Very hard to predict what censuses from 2072 would look like. The last census asked for very little information and it will be relatively useless for future genealogists.
As we know, the internet is so useful for fraudsters. An all online census will probably be full of disinformation.
Just look at what happened in the states when the last unemployment during covid was declared. Fraudulent claims were rampant and the states are still trying to figure it out.
No answers here, but the gov't should give it a lot more thought when the next one comes up.
What? You think Seymour Butts, Nick O'Teen and Al Queda got counted on the latest census?
Your points about women working outside of the home more frequently are well taken. Very hard to predict what censuses from 2072 would look like. The last census asked for very little information and it will be relatively useless for future genealogists.
People are so well documented in other ways these days that it's been proposed the census isn't even needed anymore.
Quote:
As we know, the internet is so useful for fraudsters. An all online census will probably be full of disinformation.
The internet doesn't make anyone more likely to lie on the census. People who have reason to lie on the census did so even in the past. But the census isn't taken for identification purposes, so there is less reason to lie on it in any time period.
Quote:
Just look at what happened in the states when the last unemployment during covid was declared. Fraudulent claims were rampant and the states are still trying to figure it out.
Of course there's fraud where money is involved. There's no money to gain from the census, it's not comparable.
When neighbors were asked for info in previous censuses they gave what they knew. Most people today would know the names, at least, of their next door neighbors. Of course, birth places, ages, etc might be suspect and inaccurate.
Census records of any era are not to be considered 100% correct or inclusive.
However, "not at home" means that person(s) never gets counted-- ever. It's not good.
That's not true in the 1950 census. The census takers went back another time. One town I looked at had a total population of 156. 20 of them are on the last page, where the census taker went back. The first visits say "Not at Home". The last page has the house numbers that match the Not at Home lines.
Location: Chapel Hill, NC, formerly NoVA and Phila
9,779 posts, read 15,790,796 times
Reputation: 10886
It's a little clunky, but so far I have found my paternal great-grandfather and great-grandmother living with two of my grandmother's sisters. And I found my grandmother's brother with his family, all living in Brooklyn. I haven't found my maternal family easily and am not in the mood to wade through hundreds of Rosens in Manhattan, as I have a lot of other genealogical tasks on my plate right now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
