Thursday, June 25, 2009

Ancestry.com Quirk - 1930 Census Index

One of the most frustrating (for me) Ancestry.com quirks is the indexing in the 1930 U.S. census. Fewer fields were indexed for the 1930 U.S. census than were indexed in the 1920 U.S. census. For example, here is a list of the indexed and searchable fields in the 1920 and 1930 U.S. census records on Ancestry.com (differences in red):

* First Name - indexed in 1920 and 1930
* Last Name - indexed in 1920 and 1930
* Residence - indexed in 1920 and 1930 (state, county, city or town)
* Age - indexed in 1920 and 1930
* Estimated birth year - indexed in 1920 and 1930

* Birthplace - indexed in 1920 and 1930 (but not for minor children in 1930)
* Relation to head-of-house - indexed in 1920 and 1930
* Father's birthplace - indexed in 1920, not in 1930
* Mother's birthplace - indexed in 1920, not in 1930
* Marital status - indexed in 1920, not in 1930

* Race - indexed in 1920 and 1930
* Sex - indexed in 1920, not in 1930
* Year of immigration - indexed in 1920, not in 1930
* Able to read - indexed in 1920, not in 1930
* Able to write - indexed in 1920, not in 1930

There are several other fields in each census that were not indexed, such as occupation, military service, home ownership, etc.

The one that always trip me up is the birthplace for minor children. For example: If I put a last name = "Smith," residence state = "California," birth place of "California" and birth year = "1925 +/- 5 years" in the 1930 census database, I get only 240 matches. The 240 matches are listed as students, boarders, lodgers, inmates, etc. in the relationship column, but there are some entries with son, daughter, grandson, etc. If I take out the birth place - "California," I get 7,619 matches, including the 240 noted above. Granted that not all of the 7,619 were born in California, but it's probable that almost all of them were. Wouldn't it have been an easier indexing job just to put the birth place entry in the index field? What time or money could be saved by omitting the birthplace?

Is the problem that I am spoiled by the indexes for the 1920 and earlier census records? Perhaps, because I do feel spoiled by the Ancestry.com indexes. I think that my expectation for the 1930 census, when it was added to Ancestry.com, was that the indexing would be as comprehensive as the indexing of the 1920 census. Ancestry.com said some time ago that they would spend some funds and time to correct poor indexes - I hope they improve the 1930 U.S. census, if only to add the birthplace for minor children.

What about the 1940 U.S. census to be released in 2012? It's not too early to express the expectation that the indexing for that census will include all of the useful fields, including birthplace, father and mother's birthplace, immigration year, citizenship status, occupation, etc.

2 comments:

Sharon said...

Randy,

It's not just minor children who do not have birthplace indexed, it's anyone except head of household. It says that on the search form. Though actually, if there are people in the household with a different last name (stepchildren, lodgers, etc.), the first one of these has their birthplace indexed.
Although the form does not say so, race is for head of household only. If you put in race for anyone else, they are not included in the results.
~Sharon

Geolover said...

I believe what appears on ancestry.com's version of the 1930 US Federal Census index is the original index done on new-fangled punched-tape by the Census Bureau.