1 100 44 https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka/files/original/3cc0937eaee51fa25e5836f1922ebcfa.jpg b32b976f86265d6b9d6aff134c7a5930 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title Florida-France Soldier Stories Project Collection Alternative Title Florida-France Soldier Stories Project Subject Cemeteries--Europe Veterans--Florida World War II, 1939-1945 Army Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">RICHES</a>. <a href="https://projects.cah.ucf.edu/fl-francesoldierstories/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Florida-France Soldier Stories Project</a>. Language eng Type Collection Coverage Epinal American Cemetery and Memorial, Dinozé, France Contributing Project Florida-France Soldier Stories Project Curator Barnes, Mark Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">RICHES MI</a> External Reference "<a href="http://history.wisc.edu/epinal_project.htm" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">The Epinal Project- by Students of History 357: The Second World War</a>." University of Wisconsin-Madison. http://history.wisc.edu/epinal_project.htm (accessed January 3, 2015). Description The Florida-France Soldier Storiesproject seeks to tell the stories of the Florida soldiers buried in the American Battle Monuments Commission cemeteries in France. Our goal is to honor and commemorate the brave individuals who gave their lives supporting the Allied forces, liberating France, and defeating Germany in the Second World War. Simultaneously, our goal is to teach the students who participate in this research project about the history of France and Florida during World War II, about the history of individual servicemen, and about how to implement historical research methods in their work. Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title Fourteenth Census of the United States, Population for Titusville, Florida, 1920 Alternative Title Census, 1920 Subject Population--United States Census--United States Description The Fourteenth United States Census records for Titusville, Florida, in 1920. Individuals are identified by name, titles and terms, gender, age, marital status, race, relationship to head of household, birthplace, birth year, the last place of residence, and occupation. A notable resident listed in this record is William Harris Jr. (1909–1944). <a href="https://projects.cah.ucf.edu/fl-francesoldierstories/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">The Florida-France Soldiers Stories Project</a> seeks to tell the stories of the Florida soldiers buried in the American Battle Monuments Commission cemeteries in France. Our goal is to honor and commemorate the brave individuals who gave their lives supporting the Allied forces, liberating France, and defeating Germany in the Second World War. Simultaneously, our goal is to teach the students who participate in this research project about the history of France and Florida during World War II, about the history of individual servicemen, and about how to implement historical research methods in their work. Creator <a href="https://www.census.gov/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">United States Census Bureau</a> Source Digital reproduction of original handwritten census record by a Census Enumerator, 1920. Publisher <a href="https://www.census.gov/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">United States Census Bureau</a> Date Created 1920-01-23 Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/172" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Florida-France Soldier Stories Project Collection</a>, RICHES. Format Image/jpg Extent 1.28 MB Medium 1 handwritten census record Language eng Type Text Coverage Titusville, Florida Accrual Method Donation Mediator History Teacher Provenance Originally created by a Census Enumerator and published by the <a href="https://www.census.gov/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"> United States Census Bureau</a>. Rights Holder This resource is not subject to copyright in the United States and there are no copyright restrictions on reproduction, derivative works, distribution, performance, or display of the work. Anyone may, without restriction under U.S. copyright laws: • reproduce the work in print or digital form • create derivative works • perform the work publicly • display the work • distribute copies or digitally transfer the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. This resource is provided here by <a href="https://riches.cah.ucf.edu/">RICHES</a> for educational purposes only. For more information on copyright, please refer to <a href="https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#105">Section 5</a> of <a href="https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html">Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code</a>. Curator Taylor, Cole Digital Collection <a href="https://projects.cah.ucf.edu/fl-francesoldierstories/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">The Florida-France Soldiers Stories Project</a> <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">RICHES MI</a> <a href="https://www.familysearch.org/en/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">FamilySearch</a> Source Repository National Archives and Records Administration External Reference Anderson, Margo J. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/931708638" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">The American Census: A Social History</a>. New Haven [u.a.]: Yale Univ. Press, 2015. Garcia, Sebastian. "Episode 28: The Florida-France Soldier Stories Project." Knights Historycast Podcast, 2022, [https://stars.library.ucf.edu/knightshistorycast/28]. "Florida-France Solider Stories Memorializes Veteran Experiences." CAH News, June 21, 2023. <a href="https://news.cah.ucf.edu/news/florida-france-soldier-stories-memorializes-veteran-experiences/">https://news.cah.ucf.edu/news/florida-france-soldier-stories-memorializes-veteran-experiences/</a> 1920 United States Census ABMC American Battle Monuments Commission Army Brevard County census Census Bureau Florida Florida-France Soldier Stories Project France memorials military history military service population Titusville veterans William Harris Jr. World War II WWII https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka/files/original/2907f2517885b469349bac4a1efc2632.jpg 3ba556a367a4da4fe7aea1381d103a4f Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title Florida-France Soldier Stories Project Collection Alternative Title Florida-France Soldier Stories Project Subject Cemeteries--Europe Veterans--Florida World War II, 1939-1945 Army Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">RICHES</a>. <a href="https://projects.cah.ucf.edu/fl-francesoldierstories/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Florida-France Soldier Stories Project</a>. Language eng Type Collection Coverage Epinal American Cemetery and Memorial, Dinozé, France Contributing Project Florida-France Soldier Stories Project Curator Barnes, Mark Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">RICHES MI</a> External Reference "<a href="http://history.wisc.edu/epinal_project.htm" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">The Epinal Project- by Students of History 357: The Second World War</a>." University of Wisconsin-Madison. http://history.wisc.edu/epinal_project.htm (accessed January 3, 2015). Description The Florida-France Soldier Storiesproject seeks to tell the stories of the Florida soldiers buried in the American Battle Monuments Commission cemeteries in France. Our goal is to honor and commemorate the brave individuals who gave their lives supporting the Allied forces, liberating France, and defeating Germany in the Second World War. Simultaneously, our goal is to teach the students who participate in this research project about the history of France and Florida during World War II, about the history of individual servicemen, and about how to implement historical research methods in their work. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title World War II Honor List of Dead and Missing Military Personnel from Alachua, Baker, Bay, Bradford, and Brevard Counties Alternative Title World War II Honor List of Dead and Missing Subject World War II, 1939-1945 Veterans--Florida Army Description A list of U.S. Army servicemen reporter either killed or missing during World War II. This particular page shows servicemen from Alachua, Baker, Bay, Bradford and Brevard Counties, Florida. A notable soldier listed in this record is Private Van Buren Porcher (d. 1944), who was born in Alachua County, Florida. Porcher was married twice in Gainesville: first to Taresa May Aldridge in 1933 and then to Hattie Smith in 1939. After enlistment, Pvt. Porcher was assigned to the U.S. Army's 448th Quartermaster Troop Transport Company on May 28, 1943. While serving in World War II, Pvt. Porcher was Killed in Action (KIA) on September, 2, 1944. He is currently buried at Epinal American Cemetery and Memorial in Dinozé, France. Type Text Source Digital reproduction of <a href="https://www.archives.gov/research/military/ww2/army-casualties/florida.html" target="_blank">original record</a>, 1946: National Archives Identifier 305285, Record Group 407, Modern Military Records LICON, <a href="https://www.archives.gov/research/order/textual-records-dc.html" target="_blank">Textual Archives Services Division</a>, National Archives at College Park, College Park, Maryland. Is Part Of Record Group 407, Modern Military Records LICON, <a href="https://www.archives.gov/research/order/textual-records-dc.html" target="_blank">Textual Archives Services Division</a>, National Archives at College Park, College Park, Maryland. <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/172" target="_blank">Epinal American Cemetery Collection</a>, RICHES of Central Florida. Coverage Alachua County, Florida Baker County, Florida Bay County, Florida Bradford County, Florida Brevard County Florida Date Created 1946 Format image/jpg Extent Medium 1 record Language eng Audience Mediator History Teacher Civics/Government Teacher Rights Holder This resource is not subject to copyright in the United States and there are no copyright restrictions on reproduction, derivative works, distribution, performance, or display of the work. Anyone may, without restriction under U.S. copyright laws:<ul class="one_column_bullet"><li>reproduce the work in print or digital form</li><li>create derivative works</li><li>perform the work publicly</li><li>display the work</li><li>distribute copies or digitally transfer the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.</li></ul>This resource is provided here by <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> for educational purposes only. For more information on copyright, please refer to <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#105" target="_blank">Section 5</a> of <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html" target="_blank">Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code</a>. Accrual Method Donation Contributing Project Epinal American Cemetery and Memorial Project Curator Dones, Abraham, Jr. Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="http://www.archives.gov/" target="_blank">National Archives &amp Records Administration</a> <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Source Repository "<a href="https://www.archives.gov/dc-metro/college-park" target="_blank">National Archives at College Park</a> External Reference "<a href="http://findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&amp GRid=56374900" target="_blank">Pvt Van B Porcher</a>." Find A Grave. http://findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&amp GRid=56374900. "<a href="https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:VRZ9-JLY" target="_blank">Van Buren Porcher</a>." FamilySearch. https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:VRZ9-JLY. "<a href="https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:VRZ6-879" target="_blank">Van Buren Porcher</a>." FamilySearch. https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:VRZ6-879. A. J. Williams Alachua County Albert D. Broswell Alfonso E. Franklin Alta P. Ashurst, Jr. Alton D. Clark Andrew Richardson Aquilla A. Calhoun, Jr. Archibald S. Mills, Jr. Artis Dugger Baker County Basil Harvey Baswell D. Maloy Bay County Benjamin F. Cotton Benjamin W. Kimmel Bradford County Bradley C. Oliver Brevard County Byron E. Sparks Call M. Norwood Carl L. Latour Carl Williams Carll B. MacDowell Cecil D. Corbin Charles A. Zinkil, Jr. Charles K. Seawright Charles M. Priest Charles O. Allan, Jr. Charles W. Pettis Charles W. Ross Charlie G. Tison Charlie W. Pinholster Christopher A. Morris Christopher C. Pompey Claire V. Willett Clyde L. Green D. L. Blackburn, Jr. Dallas L. Comeaux Daniel A. Morris Delbert R. Ecker Delva I. Smith Derell W. Peacock Derrol J. Jones Earl B. Futch Edwin W. Pulliam Ellis Byrd Ellis J. Sweat Elmo R. Struth Emory C. Wooten Ernest B. Lay Ernest DeSue Ernest W. Bell Floyd A. Pitts Frederick D. Hinton George B. Clarke George Q. Halbook Gordon W. Bishop Grover W. McCall, Jr. H. J. Horsley Hans A. E. Wenzel Harold K. Roberson Harold T. Shave Harvey H. Nichols Harvey J. Ross, Jr. J. D. Knight Jack E. Sullivan Jackson C. Richardson James A. Barefield James E. Hagler James E. Smith James L. Golightly James N. Ray James P. Banks James P. Prevatt, Jr. James R. Robinson James W. DeGraff James W. Forte, Jr. Jasper E. Duncan Jesse H. Keith Jesse W. Dixon Joe L. Deadwyler, Jr. Joe R. Avant John A. Davis, Jr. John D. Clark John D. Davis John F. Mellor John G. Chappell John H. Quick John L. Barton John L. Cameron John S. Chapman John S. Sharp II John W. Cullen, Jr. John W. Rich, Jr. Johnnie E. Lott Johnnie Jenkins Joseph C. Foster Joseph P. Thompson Joseph W. Cantrell Joseph W. Mathers, Jr. Julian C. Cannon L. C. Fuller Lamar L. Brooks Leo D. Ramos Leo F. Starling Leonard J. Riley Leroy DeBose Leroy S. Hunt Limus Duhart Lonnie A. Hood Lorin A. Green Louis A. Towson Louis T. Carr Lucian B. Gray Madison P. Carter Marvin H. Booth Mell C. Jones Mort J. Potter Mosby G. Taylor, Jr. Norris H. Weeks Omer W. Page Oscar L. Grainer Paul M. Stults R. E. L. McDonald Ralph E. Thomas Randall R. Gwaltney Rex M. Gibson Richard W. Wells Richard Z. McDermott Robert A. Layne Robert C. Bowers, Jr. Robert E. Kennedy Robert E. Prahl Robert F. Cox, Jr. Robert H. Colgan Robert J. Phillips Robert T. Benton Robert W. Bloxham Roy Kite Rudolph A. Shuman Samuel A. Eggers, Jr. Samuel F. Baxter Seeber Crawford Stephen L. Boyles T. H. Beville, Jr. Thomas C. Kennington Thomas L. Markham Thomas N. Baker Thomas V. Johnson Van Buren Porcher Vernon K. Straum veterans Virginius C. Murphree Wallace Jones, Jr. Walter G. Dymond Wesley J. Watts Wesley Leavins Wilbur Beil Wiley W. Tillis Willard W. Barnes William A. Smith William A. Snowden William D. Ballou William F. Bennafield William Harris, Jr. William J. Mowat William S. Davis William T. Kent Willie McCray, Jr. Wilmer M. Knight World War II WWII https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka/files/original/9697452002c0afa7abef3add7278c68d.pdf 18a659428997e9f761e6050afb9f267c Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title General Collection Description Collection of digital images, documents, and other records depicting the history of Florida. Series descriptions are based on special topics, the majority of which students focused their metadata entries around. Florida was first inhabited by Paleo-Indians as early as 14,000 years ago. By the 16th century, several distinct Native American tribes inhabited present-day Florida, primarily the Apalachee of the Panhandle, the Timucua of North and Central Florida), the Ais of the Central Atlantic Coast, the Tocobaga of the Tampa Bay area, the Calusa of Southwest Florida, and the Tequesta of the Southeast Florida. In 1513, Juan Ponce de León of Spain became the earliest known European explorer to arrive in Florida. During the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, Spanish, French, and English pioneers settled various parts of the states, though not all settlement were successful. Most of the region was owned by Spain, until it was ceded to the United States via the Adams–Onís Treaty of 1819. On March 3, 1845, Florida earned statehood. Florida was marred by nearly constant warfare with the Native Americans in the region, particularly with the Seminoles during the Seminole Wars. On January 10, 1861, Florida seceded from the Union and joined the Confederate States of American on January 20th. The state's participation in the Civil War revolved mostly around the transportation of goods via ships. On June 25, 1868, Florida regained its representation in Congress. During the Reconstruction period, Florida drafted a new state constitution, which included statues that effectively disenfranchised its African-American citizens, as well as many poor white citizens. Through much of its early history, Florida's economy relied heavily upon agriculture, especially citrus, cattle, sugarcane, tomatoes, and strawberries. Florida's tourism industry developed greatly with the economic prosperity of the 1920s. However, this was halted by devastating hurricanes in the second half of the decade, the Wall Street Crash of 1929, and the Great Depression. The economy would not fully recover until manufacturing was stimulated by World War II. As of 2014, Florida was the third most populous state in the country. Contributor Humphrey, Daphne F. Alternative Title General Collection Subject Florida Eatonville (Fla.) Orlando (Fla.) Winter Park (Fla.) Sanford (Fla.) Daytona Beach (Fla.) New Smyrna Beach (Fla.) Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a>. Language eng Type Collection Coverage Eatonville, Florida Orlando, Florida Winter Park, Florida Sanford , Florida Daytona Beach, Florida New Smyrna Beach, Florida Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> External Reference "<a href="http://dos.myflorida.com/florida-facts/florida-history/" target="_blank">Florida History</a>." Florida Department of State. http://dos.myflorida.com/florida-facts/florida-history/. Knotts, Bob. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/49672975" target="_blank">Florida History</a>. Chicago: Heinemann Library, 2003. Still Image A static visual representation. Examples of still images are: paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type "text" to images of textual materials. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title Map of Florida Showing the Land Grant of the Florida South Railway Alternative Title Florida South Railway Map Subject Railroads--Florida Agriculture--Florida Fishing--Florida Description A map of Florida showing the Florida South Railway's land grant, published in 1888. The map includes information about towns along the railway, facts about Florida, and hints for potential immigrants. The Florida Southern Railway was established in 1891 when it took over the Gainesville, Ocala and Charlotte Harbor Railroad. Facing foreclosure, the line was acquired by Henry B. Plant (1819-1899) as part of his Plant System in 1892 and reorganized as the Florida Southern Railroad, which stretched from Gainesville to Ocala and then to Punta Gorda. In 1903, the Florida Southern was acquired by the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad (ACL). The ACL merged with the Seaboard Air Line Railroad (SAL) in 1967 to form the Seaboard Coast Line Railroad (SCL). Much of the original ACL lines are now part of the CSX Transportation line, which operates the SCL. Type Still Image Source Original 24-page map, 1888: Matthews, Northrup and Company. Map of Florida Showing the Land Grant of the Florida South Railway. Map. Buffalo, NY: Art-Printing Works, 1888: <a href="http://www.maitlandpubliclibrary.org/" target="_blank">Maitland Public Library</a>, Maitland, Florida. Requires <a href="http://www.adobe.com/products/reader.html" target="_blank">Adobe Acrobat Reader</a> Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka/collections/show/36" target="_blank">General Collection</a>, RICHES of Central Florida. Is Format Of Digital reproduction of original 24-page map, 1888: Matthews, Northrup and Company. Map of Florida Showing the Land Grant of the Florida South Railway. Map. Buffalo, NY: Art-Printing Works, 1888. Coverage Palatka, Florida Francis, Florida Francis, Florida Hollister, Florida Mannville, Florida Interlachen, Florida Keuka, Florida McKeein, Florida Hawthorne, Florida Grove Park, Florida Rochelle, Florida Gainesville, Florida Micanopy, Florida Evinston, Florida Boardman, Florida McIntosh, Florida Citra, Florida Reddick, Florida Martin, Florida Mount Tabor, Florida Kendrick, Florida Ocala, Florida Candler, Florida Ocklawaha, Florida East Lake Weir, Florida South Lake Weir, Florida Conant, Florida Lady Lake, Florida Fruitland Park, Florida Leesburg, Florida Astor, Florida Eustis, Florida Tavares, Florida Lane Park, Florida Okahumpka, Florida Centre Hill, Florida Webster, Florida Pemberton Ferry, Florida Brooksville, Florida Bartow, Florida Homeland, Florida Fort Meade, Florida Bowling Green, Florida Wauchula, Florida Zolfo Springs, Florida Charlie Creek, Florida Brownville, Florida Arcadia, Florida Nocatee, Florida Fort Ogden, Florida Cleveland, Florida Punta Gorda, Florida Creator Matthews, Northrup and Company Publisher Art-Printing Works Date Created 1888 Format application/pdf Extent 98.9 MB Medium 24-page map Language eng Mediator History Teacher Civics/Government Teacher Economics Teacher Geography Teacher Provenance Originally created by Matthews, Northrup and Company and published by Art-Printing Works. Rights Holder Copyright to this resource is held by <a href="http://www.maitlandpubliclibrary.org/" target="_blank">Maitland Public Library</a> and is provided here by <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> for educational purposes only. Accrual Method Donation Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Source Repository <a href="http://www.maitlandpubliclibrary.org/" target="_blank">Maitland Public Library</a> External Reference "<a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/audio/Ep25-RailwaysOfCentralFL.mp3" target="_blank">Episode 25: The Railways of Central Florida</a>." RICHES of Central Florida. http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/audio/Ep25-RailwaysOfCentralFL.mp3. Mulligan, Michael. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/225874809" target="_blank">Railroad Depots of Central Florida</a>. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Pub, 2008. Murdock, R. Ken. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/38291666" target="_blank">Outline History of Central Florida Railroads</a>. Winter Garden, Fla: Central Florida Chapter, National Railway Historical Society, 1997. Turner, Gregg M. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/184906141" target="_blank">A Journey into Florida Railroad History</a>. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2008. "<a href="http://www.csx.com/index.cfm/about-csx/our-evolution-and-history/interactive-timeline/" target="_blank">Our Evolution and History: CSX</a>." CSX. http://www.csx.com/index.cfm/about-csx/our-evolution-and-history/interactive-timeline/. Alachua County Altoona Arcadia arrowroot Art-Printing Works Astor Baker County bananas Bartow Boardman Bowling Green Bradford County Brevard County Brooksville Brownville Caloosahatchee River Candler cassava castorbeans cattle Centre Hill Charlie Apopka Charlie Creek Charlotte Harbor Chinese sand pears Citra citrus Clay County Cleveland climates coconuts Columbia County comtie Conant corn cotton DeSoto County Dragem Junction Duval County East Lake Weir Eustis Evinston field crops fish fisheries fishery fishing Florida Commissioner of Land and Immigration Florida Southern Railway Company Fort Mason Fort Meade Fort Ogden Francis Fruitland Park fruits Ft. Meade Ft. Ogden Gainesville Glendale Grove Park groves guava hammocks Hawthorne hemp Hernando County hogs Hollister Homeland immigrants immigration indigo Interlachen Irish potato Irish potatoes Jacksonville Japanese persimmon Japanese plums John W. Candler John W. Weeks John Welsh Johnson jute Kendrick Keuka L.O. Garrett Lady Lake Lake County Lake Eustis Lake Harris Lake Weir Lane Park LeConte pears Lee County Leesburg lemons Levy County limes Lochbie Manatee County Mannville Marion County Martin Matthews, Northrup and Company McIntosh McKeein Micanopy Monroe County Mount Tabor Nassau County Nocatee nuts Oak-Lawn Ocala Ocklawaha Okahumpka Orange Belt Railway orange county Orange Lake oranges Osceola County Palatka Peace River peach peaches pecans Pemberton Ferry pineapple pines Polk County population Punta Gorda Putnam County railroads railways rain ramie Ravenswood Reddick rice Rochelle Sherman Conant South Lake Weir St. Johns River Stanton strawberries strawberry sugarcane Sulphur Springs Summit Sumter County swamps sweet potato sweet potatoes Tavares timber tobacco Umatilla vegetables Volusia County Wait's Crossing Wauchula Webster Welshton Zolfo Springs https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka/files/original/cd74f6d4f021c278f1ade750cb885974.pdf bdd511db4f3e441d5ee27c985c92705a Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title General Collection Description Collection of digital images, documents, and other records depicting the history of Florida. Series descriptions are based on special topics, the majority of which students focused their metadata entries around. Florida was first inhabited by Paleo-Indians as early as 14,000 years ago. By the 16th century, several distinct Native American tribes inhabited present-day Florida, primarily the Apalachee of the Panhandle, the Timucua of North and Central Florida), the Ais of the Central Atlantic Coast, the Tocobaga of the Tampa Bay area, the Calusa of Southwest Florida, and the Tequesta of the Southeast Florida. In 1513, Juan Ponce de León of Spain became the earliest known European explorer to arrive in Florida. During the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, Spanish, French, and English pioneers settled various parts of the states, though not all settlement were successful. Most of the region was owned by Spain, until it was ceded to the United States via the Adams–Onís Treaty of 1819. On March 3, 1845, Florida earned statehood. Florida was marred by nearly constant warfare with the Native Americans in the region, particularly with the Seminoles during the Seminole Wars. On January 10, 1861, Florida seceded from the Union and joined the Confederate States of American on January 20th. The state's participation in the Civil War revolved mostly around the transportation of goods via ships. On June 25, 1868, Florida regained its representation in Congress. During the Reconstruction period, Florida drafted a new state constitution, which included statues that effectively disenfranchised its African-American citizens, as well as many poor white citizens. Through much of its early history, Florida's economy relied heavily upon agriculture, especially citrus, cattle, sugarcane, tomatoes, and strawberries. Florida's tourism industry developed greatly with the economic prosperity of the 1920s. However, this was halted by devastating hurricanes in the second half of the decade, the Wall Street Crash of 1929, and the Great Depression. The economy would not fully recover until manufacturing was stimulated by World War II. As of 2014, Florida was the third most populous state in the country. Contributor Humphrey, Daphne F. Alternative Title General Collection Subject Florida Eatonville (Fla.) Orlando (Fla.) Winter Park (Fla.) Sanford (Fla.) Daytona Beach (Fla.) New Smyrna Beach (Fla.) Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a>. Language eng Type Collection Coverage Eatonville, Florida Orlando, Florida Winter Park, Florida Sanford , Florida Daytona Beach, Florida New Smyrna Beach, Florida Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> External Reference "<a href="http://dos.myflorida.com/florida-facts/florida-history/" target="_blank">Florida History</a>." Florida Department of State. http://dos.myflorida.com/florida-facts/florida-history/. Knotts, Bob. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/49672975" target="_blank">Florida History</a>. Chicago: Heinemann Library, 2003. Oral History A resource containing historical information obtained in interviews with persons having firsthand knowledge. Interviewer Lester, Connie L. Clark, James C. Interviewee Hitt, John C. Berridge, Randolph E. Panousis, Peter T. Holsenbeck, Dan Martine, Carrie Pynn, Roger Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title Oral History of the Florida High-Tech Corridor Council Alternative Title Oral History of the Florida High-Tech Corridor Council Subject High technology--United States Colleges Universities Orlando (Fla.) Tampa (Fla.) Gainesville (Fla.) Description An oral history interview of John C. Hitt, Randolph E. Berridge, Dr. Peter T. Panousis, Dan Holsenbeck, Carrie Martine, and Roger Pynn regarding the Florida High Tech Corridor Council. This interview conducted by Dr. Connie L. Lester and James C. Clark at the Board Room in the Office of University of Central Florida President John C. Hitt on December 3rd, 2012. The Florida High Tech Corridor Council (FHTCC) is an economic development initiative whose mission is to foster the high technology industry in Florida's High Tech Corridor, which spans 23 counties with rich industries in aerospace engineering, modeling and simulation, optics and photonics, digital media, and medical technologies. The council consists of the University of Central Florida (UCF) in Orlando, the University of South Florida (USF) in Tampa, and the University of Florida (UF) in Gainesville. In 1996, the Florida Legislature passed an act founding the FHTCC to support the 21-county service areas of UCF and USF. Its original mission was to expand research and educational partnerships in order to retain the Cirent Semiconductor water fabrication facility located in Orlando, Florida. In 1997, the development of all technology industries across Central Florida was added to the FHTCC's mission. UF joined the partnership in 2005. Interview topics include: how the High Tech Corridor Council began, the Dallas-Fort Worth Corridor in Texas, Charlie Reed, reinvesting the original funding, expanding partnerships, Silicon Valley, Lynda Weatherman and economic development in Brevard County, the “Core Team” and the “Pajama Hotline,” the Florida Virtual Entrepreneur Center, serving as a model for other regions, the role of venture capitalism, workforce development, the expansion of the corridor, the impact of the business community on approval of university projects, and future challenges. Table Of Contents 0:00:01 Introduction 0:00:53 How the Florida High Tech Corridor Council began 0:07:24 Taking the plan to the Florida State Legislature 0:13:37 The Dallas-Fort Worth Corridor and project conception 0:20:11 Intellectual property 0:25:47 Charlie Reed 0:28:43 Reinvesting the original funding 0:31:10 Expanding partnerships and funding 0:35:57 Silicon Valley 0:40:02 Role of partnership in the success of the Corridor 0:48:18 Lynda Weatherman and Economic Development in Brevard County 0:51:01 “Core Team” and the “Pajama Hotline” 0:54:40 Florida Virtual Entrepreneur Center 0:58:46 A model for other regions 1:02:10 Growing and retaining versus buying jobs 1:13:27 Role of venture capitalism 1:20:35 Workforce development 1:27:52 Expansion of the Corridor 1:39:08 Impact of business community on approval of university projects 1:42:28 Future challenges Abstract Oral history interview of John C. Hitt, Randolph E. Berridge, Dr. Peter T. Panousis, Dan Holsenbeck, Carrie Martine, and Roger Pynn. Interview conducted by Dr. Connie L. Lester and James C. Clark. Type Moving Image Source Original 1-hour, 59-minute, and 19-second oral history: Hitt, John C., Randolph E. Berridge, Dr. Peter T. Panousis, Dan Holsenbeck, Carrie Martine, and Roger Pynn. Interviewed by Dr. Connie L. Lester and James C. Clark. December 3, 2012. Audio/video record available. <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a>, Orlando, Florida. Requires <a href="http://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/" target="_blank"> Adobe Flash Player</a> <a href="http://java.com/en/download/index.jsp" target="_blank"> Java</a> Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka/collections/show/36" target="_blank">General Collection</a>, RICHES of Central Florida. Has Format 50-paged typed digital transcript of original 1-hour, 59-minute, and 19-second oral history: Hitt, John C., Randolph E. Berridge, Dr. Peter T. Panousis, Dan Holsenbeck, Carrie Martine, and Roger Pynn. Interviewed by Dr. Connie L. Lester and James C. Clark. December 3, 2012. Audio/video record available. <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a>, Orlando, Florida. Coverage University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida AT&T Semiconductor Plant, Orlando, Florida Gray-Robinson Law Firm, Orlando, Florida Advanced Materials Processing and Analysis Center, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida Silicon Valley, Sunnyvale, California Lake Nona Medical City, Orlando, Florida Florida Polytechnic University, Lakeland, Florida Economic Development Commission of Florida's Space Coast, Rockledge, Florida National Academy of Inventors, Tampa, Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, Tallahassee, Florida Florida High Tech Corridor Council, Heathrow, Florida Harrah's Cherokee Casino, Cherokee, North Carolina GrowFl: Florida Economic Gardening Institute, Orlando, Florida Metro Orlando Economic Development Commission, Orlando, Florida Florida Power & Light Company, Winter Park, Florida Central Florida Research Park, Orlando, Florida Creator Lester, Connie L. Hitt, John C. Berridge, Randolph E. Panousis, Peter T. Holsenbeck, Dan Clark, James C. Martine, Carrie Pynn, Roger Publisher <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> Contributor Dickens, Bethany Date Created 2012-12-03 Date Modified 2015-01-26 Date Copyrighted 2012-12-03 Format video/mp4 application/pdf Extent 298 MB 383 KB Medium 1-hour, 59-minute, and 19-second audio/video recording 50-page typed digital transcript Language eng Mediator History Teacher Civics/Government Teacher Economics Teacher Science Teacher Provenance Originally created by Dr. Connie L. Lester, James C. Clark, John C. Hitt, Randolph E. Berridge, Dr. Peter T. Panousis, Dan Holsenbeck, Carrie Martine, and Roger Pynn and published by <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a>. Rights Holder <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> Accrual Method Item Creation Contributing Project <a href="http://www.floridahightech.com/%20target=">Florida High Tech Corridor Council</a> Curator Cravero, Geoffrey Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Source Repository <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> External Reference "<a href="http://www.floridahightech.com/about/" target="_blank">ABOUT</a>." Florida High Tech Corridor. http://www.floridahightech.com/about/. Burnett, Richard. "<a href="http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-09-19/business/os-cfb-tech-corridor-092010-20100919_1_grant-program-florida-high-tech-corridor-council-advocacy-group" target="_blank">Technology: Local council's grant program wins award</a>." The Orlando Sentinel, September 19, 2010. http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-09-19/business/os-cfb-tech-corridor-092010-20100919_1_grant-program-florida-high-tech-corridor-council-advocacy-group. Florida High Tech Corridor Council. "<a href="http://www.floridahightech.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Press-Kit-florida.HIGH_.TECH-2014.pdf%20target=">florida.HIGH.TECH 2014: The Guide to Florida's High Tech Corridor</a>." Florida High Tech Corridor Council. http://www.floridahightech.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Press-Kit-florida.HIGH_.TECH-2014.pdf. Manning, Margie. "<a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/tampabay/print-edition/2011/09/30/high-tech-corridor-matching-grants.html?page=all" target="_blank">High Tech Corridor matching grants create billion-dollar economic engine</a>." Tampa Bay Business Journal, September 30, 2010. http://www.bizjournals.com/tampabay/print-edition/2011/09/30/high-tech-corridor-matching-grants.html?page=all. Click to View (Movie, Podcast, or Website) <a href="https://youtu.be/W3_zduqV0s8" target="_blank">Oral History of the Florida High-Tech Corridor Council</a> Transcript Clark Can you tighten up? Panousis Oh. Pynn Come on over Peter. Just from a standpoint of getting—we want to get pictures and video for the archives. Lester And can I do one thing before we start? Pynn Oh, no. Panousis Should I get this out of the way? Lester Best practices says that we need to get a—a release so that we can use this. So I am going to send this around. Pynn Doing exactly what you’re supposed to do. Lester Yes [laughs]. Pynn And so while you guys are—are signing those, I mean, I just—I—I shared some of these questions with you earlier today but, [Dr.] Connie [L. Lester] is—is leading this effort in the—in the [University of Central Florida] History Department, and Jim Clark has been working very closely with her, and Bethany [Dickens] is—you’re a graduate student, right? Dickens Mmhmm. Yes, sir. Pynn And we’ve been on a—some months’ quest to review everything that we have in our archives about the [Florida High Tech] Corridor and—and how it evolved, but in a meeting that we had—I guess a couple of months back—both Connie and Jim said, “You know, it would really be helpful to have the anecdotal background. The opportunity to sit and—and talk with this team.” Because we had described how it all began and how you four worked together to make it happen, and so I volunteered that I—no. The first idea was that I was going to take everybody out to lunch. We didn’t get there [laughs], but it—it really would be helpful if you all could just think back a little bit before we get into any questions or any specifics. Think back to how this all began. Randy,<a title="">[1]</a> I think you probably picked up the ball and Kerry it from [Dr.] Pete[r T. Panousis]’s office to John [C. Hitt] and started the conversation, and maybe you—maybe you want to, Dan… Berridge We had… Pynn First, I can’t remember. Berridge We had a council of some 25 division heads of AT&T [Inc.] representing about 6,000 employees. I had the smallest division, and I was the oldest and the dumbest, so I got to chair the thing [laughs], and tried for 12 years to pass that gavel on to someone else—unsuccessfully. In [19]95, Peter and Peter’s associate, Bob Cook, had shared that there was a major expansion that was going to happen to their semi-conductor manufacturing operation, then located on the south side of Orlando[, Florida], and it had the potential of being up to 1.4 billion and 1,500 jobs. Normally, that kind of operation gets most people’s attention, but the concern was that the expansion, at the time, looked like it was going to happen offshore, based on incentives that were ladled to the tune of $90 million. Payable in two years, and what we had in Florida at the time—thanks to some research that Charlie Gray, founder of the Gray-Robinson Law Firm—and—and I had the pleasure of helping with—was that Florida had about 6 million [dollars] payable over seven years, and so, with Charlie’s help, we negotiated another 6 million, also payable over seven years. So those of you who are really good at net present value calculations: if you had 90 million incentives payable over 2 versus 12 payable over seven, I think I am pretty sure which—which one you would pick. We had several things going for us. We had a great management team that didn’t necessarily—didn’t want to move to Madrid[, Spain]. We had a facility that was built three times larger in the early 80s than needed at that time that we could readily expand into, but more importantly, we had a research capability provided by UCF [University of Central Florida] and USF [University of South Florida] that was not available offshore. And so one day on the golf course—Roger [Prynn], you were there—we shared with John that we are fighting a potentially losing battle regarding this facility and, John, you said, “Well what—what do you need? What do you—what do you have the potential of having here that you don’t have offshore?” And we replied, “A research commitment that UCF and its professors and USF and its—have been providing for quite some time.” So John, you checked with Betty Castor, then-president of USF and came back with a commitment of $20 million, payable over 10 years—1 million per year, per school—of real asset. Not something where we would try to figure out what it was, but a real asset and that made the difference. Peter, why don’t you… Panousis Let me add a little bit to the first part. The—the opportunity to move to Spain—the Spanish government providing the—the extra money—may have been appealing to some people, but it wasn’t to me [laughs], and it also wasn’t to a group of 100 engineers we had moved from New Jersey and Pennsylvania to Florida just six months before that, and so we really, really wanted to find some way to stay in Florida. We liked the facility, we liked living here, and we certainly didn’t want to move again, and we weren’t quite also all that sure about what would happen if we moved to Spain, just because I could feel the boat rocking, and so, when the opportunity to—came up to find alternatives, we jumped at those opportunities, because they were important to us, as I believe they would have been to the State of Florida, and so we’re—we are in the right mood for that kind of operation. And the thing that made a difference is—I think Randy talked about the money. You looked at the money that was on the table, and if—if it was just money, you go to Spain. You wouldn’t—you wouldn’t come here, but what was being offered and what we worked out after a while with the—with the universities was an opportunity to couple in to two universities—two large universities—and—and connect to the research base in a way that we could never have been able do in Spain, and we really were a very high-tech company. We were leading edge in the semi-conductor field. So having that kind of support was worth a lot of money, and so it became—it became an easier sell when we could go back to the board of directors and say, “Look what we can do here,” compared to “what we can do there,” and—and it worked. Pynn So what was the—what was the process, Dan, that took it to the [Florida State] Legislature? Took it to the next step and actually resulted in the creation of the entity? Holsenbeck Well, as the mathematics, that Randy explained, boil down to a million dollars a year for each of the institutions to offset the million dollars a year worth of research. Whether that was in-kind or actually whatever it might have been, it had a value of about a million dollars, and so, our charge by the president was to try to find, you know, additional cash from the Legislature to make that happen. So my colleague, who has since retired at USF, Kathy Betancourt and I started to work together on a strategy to simply to get a million dollar earmark. We didn’t think we could get a million apiece, but we thought we could get a million total. So our first visit was to [Antoinette] “Toni” Jennings, who was President of the [Florida] Senate and—from here, and we proposed to her a million dollars, and she said, “A million is too much. Seven figures is difficult for the Legislature to absorb right now. I don’t think we’d even talk about it. Anything less than that for a major project …” But anyway, she said, “Why don’t you settle on something a little bit lower? How about 850 [thousand]?” And of course, Kathy and I said, “Yes, ma’am. 850 is fine,” and actually, Toni was not president of the Senate at that time… Hitt She was Chairman of the [Committee on] Rules… Holsenbeck She was Chairman of the Rules, exactly. About to be President of the Senate, and so she sent us down to—to see the Chairman of [Committee on] Appropriations at that point, who was the infamous Senator Tilders. I don’t make a personality judgment by saying “infamous,” but he was famous in some ways and not so famous in others probably, but Kathy and I went to visit with him and he said, “Did Senator Jennings approve of this and ask for this?” And we both said, “Yes, sir,” and his response, which I’ll never forget, was, “Whatever that young lady wants, I’ll give her.” Berridge [laughs] Young lady… HolsenbeckSo the Senate was going to put $850,000 in the budget. The second part of that—and the president was a witness to it—I probably ought to let a witness tell a truth rather than me embellish the story. Hitt Oh, I’m eager to hear it. Holsenbeck All right, but… Pynn Y’all have already heard some revisionist history so far [laughs]. Holsenbeck But our next step was to go to the [Florida] House [of Representatives] because we had a commitment from the powers in the Senate, and there are lots of other commitments too in the Senate. [John Hugh] “Buddy” Dyer, for example. I mean, Buddy was, at the time, one of the leading Democratic [Party] Senators. I think he was later majority—I mean minority leader, but we had his full support from the very beginning. So Senator Jennings knew that she—with her support and with the minority leader’s support—because you were in Buddy Dyer’s district at the time—that was pretty good. But we had to cultivate the House, and that’s the way those things do, you have to go back and forth. So Representative Alzo [J.] Reddick happened to be Chairman in a Democratically-controlled House of the Committee on Transportation and Economic Development Funding at the time. So the president and I went to visit him and talk through the project and so forth, and ask him for a million dollars, and he said, “I’ll do it,” and then he calls his staff director in from around the corner—I forget what his name was—and the staff director comes in and Alzo says, “I want a million dollars in the budget for this project,” and he says, “Well, what is it and what will—will he do?” And that’s the source of the tale that whatever it is I had in my pocket. Hitt It was an envelope, as I recall. Holsenbeck Yeah. I just wrote down, “Million dollars for UCF, USF, and AT&T to grow, retain, and attract high technology industry to the I[nterstate]-4 High Technology Corridor,” and we handed that to the staff director, and that’s how it came out in the bill, and that’s what the source is of that original language. Now you got a million dollars in the House, and 850 in the Senate. Guess what happens when you go to [U.S.] Congress? Randy gets $925,000, and that’s where the original appropriation came from, and it was also funded through Enterprise Florida—which a lot of people forget—which created some interesting situations later on. Pynn Had we created Enterprise at that point? I didn’t realize that. Holsenbeck Mmhmm. Berridge About the same time. Panousis Let me—let me add a little to that, because there’s a piece that I think you might find interesting. I still remember the very first meeting we had. I met John and Betty Castor and the airport and we went to see Charlie [Bass] Reed, and I didn’t know any of them at the time. We all met for the first time and Charlie Reed was the [State University System of Florida] Chancellor of Education at the time, and—and basically I wanted to—all I was there for was to get some money out of the—out of the universities. I wanted $10 million. He—after he stopped laughing, said, “No. don’t you understand? Companies give us your money. We don’t give them money.” [laughs] And we had a discussion about that, but after—after we were done and John—that’s where John showed, at least for me, the very first picture of High-Tech Corridor —the lights along the two coasts… Berridge It’s there. Right there. Pynn That middle thing there. Panousis I remember him showing that, and describing the way—at that time it was—it was Dallas[, Texas] and… Hitt Dallas and Fort Worth[, Texas]. Panousis And Fort Worth. Growing together and—that’s the picture he had, and—and in that discussion, I think Charlie Reed sort of bought into it pretty—pretty well. Hitt Yeah. Panousis And as—at the end of the meeting he said, “Look. I don’t know how to do this.” But—but we shook hands and he said, “I’ll find a way,” and I think what you described was the way. Pynn The way. Berridge I think you need to share—since you shared it with the board of governors and your fellow presidents—the idea—the corridor coming to you… Hitt Oh, yeah. Berridge In the shower, you know? Pynn It drives Dan [Holsenbeck] crazy to hear this story. Thanks Randy [laughs]. Hitt Well, Dan will get over it [laughs]. Pynn We all take showers, Dan. Holsenbeck I—I know. I know. Berridge Your historians are wondering what’s coming. Hitt I know. Well, early in my time here, I had driven pretty much coast to coast to the center part of the state, and, you could see along I-4 infill of population, and I’d watched that process take place in my native state of Texas, between Dallas and Fort Worth. When I was a boy, you could see, you know, area between them was ranch land, there were a lot of cattle grazing along the side of the highway. You know, it was really a rural environment. Well, by the time I left Texas in—in ‘77, they had pretty well grown together, and if you’re—if you’ve driven along it in—in the last 20 years or so, you know, it’s—it’s one big, continuous metropolitan area now, but, you know, it occurred to me pretty strongly there—there are thousands and thousands and thousands of people who are moving in, and a lot of them settle right along that corridor, that, you know, essentially goes from the Tampa Bay area to—to the—the Daytona [Beach] area. But, you know, it sort of spills down towards the Space Coast as well, and the question in my mind is what kind of jobs are they going to have? Now, we’ve got a great hospitality industry here in—in Central Florida and, you know, it—it is the backbone of our economy in this—in—in this part of our state. Really for our whole state, but if you think about the—the distribution of pay for the jobs that they’ve got, it’s biased towards lower in—income employment. Now all jobs are good jobs. You think about it, there’s—if the alternative is unemployment, just about any job’s a good job, but, it—it just occurred to me that, if we really are going to have the kind of jobs we want our kids and grandkids to have, it would be really helpful if you could find a way to bring in more high tech industry, and it seemed to me that we had a good chance with two large state institutions, each of which had a strong engineering program, a strong business program, the—the natural laboratory sciences to support research and development. We really could have a—a guiding effect, if you will, on the development of the economy, and I had proposed to—to Betty Castor, before Peter came on the—on the scene, that we try and put together a cooperative endeavor and get some state funding for it, and—and Betty just had too many other things on her plate at that time, you know. She didn’t really respond all that favorably, you know, and I—you know, I didn’t take that as a bad thing. I figured, Well, we’ve got time—time. We’ll win her over soon or later on this. It’s a good idea, and we just went on. Well then, Pete’s opportunity challenge presented itself, and I think what you saw was the value of a good organizing concept. It—it—there’s nothing all that overpowering about the idea. It’s just—it’s—it’s just sort of an observation. Gee, Dallas and Fort Worth grew together, I think I see the same kind of process beginning here in—in Central Florida. Isn’t that interesting? Well, then you think about two universities, and well, Maybe we could have an influence on what kind of jobs get developed, maybe we could raise the—the prospects for high tech industry, and then, guess what? We get a really high tech industry who is wanting our help, and we were able to get enough people excited about the possibility to really do something, and—I—I’ve said repeatedly, with—without the opportunity to work with Peter, all we’ve got’s kind of an interesting idea. You know, better than no idea at all, but it probably would have come to very little if we hadn’t had a—large-scale employer in a high tech business who really wanted and needed our help. You know, I think wanted more than needed. You would have gone somewhere, you know. You would have gone to Spain or somewhere else without us, but, you know, you wanted our help, and sometimes wanting something is every bit an important or more than needing. So we were able to put together an idea, and Dan’s memory is just as mine—we had it, you know—it was the focus right then when we were at Alzo’s outer office—was retention. We had the foresight to put—attract, grow, and retain in that bill, and that is indeed what let us go from this one instance to a general operation that recruits, grows and, we hope, retains high tech industry. It—it’s been a very interesting thing to watch—and you know—and without—without Peter, you don’t have much. Without Dan’s skills in the Legislature we don’t have much and without Randy’s determined leadership—and excellent leadership over the years—we probably wouldn’t have nearly what we have. Berridge That’s very kind. Hitt So it pays to take showers, you know? [laughs]. Panousis It was—it was—a very unique partnership. I had—I had a lot of years at AT&T and we had lots of partnerships with companies in the universities, but generally they were—they were designed for very specific application, and generally they were tense, because the other companies are competitors and the universities really did what Charlie Reed said, “Give me the money and I’ll give it back, with 200, half the time,” and what was happening in this relationship is—is right from the beginning. in fact, the legislation you put together called out that this was a partnership, that there were certain rights that the company—AT&T had—to the intellectual property, which was truly unique. Hitt Mmhmm. Panousis And—and it made a big difference, because now we could get research support from two universities and we didn’t have to give up the intellectual property that was generated in the process of doing them, and that was really, a big—and big deal, and I—I still remember telling other people about that and they wouldn’t believe it. They said, “It couldn’t be, couldn’t be, couldn’t be.” In fact, some other universities said it was illegal, even though it was in the legislation [laughs]. Hitt Yeah, well, one university very distinctly [laughs]. Pynn Pete, I can remember you saying back then that you had—we were sitting together at the plant one day—you’d never had relationships with universities like this. This is unheard of. Hitt Well, a prevailing model at universities was that the industrial partner ought to throw money over a transom and come back in several years to hear what the university had done with it. Pynn Well, let’s not preclude that. Hitt And feel suitably proud, you know? Guess what, you know? When money is not terribly plentiful, the enthusiasm for that gets pretty darn scarce and the other—the other side is the intellectual property side. The university still does well out of this—and when you get to these partnerships, you know, my sense is that most universities want to control 100 percent and they end up with something about this big, and they think that’s better than having 20 percent of something this big, and I’ve never quite seen that point of view get you anywhere. Panousis And it’s interesting. In all the time we worked together, I can’t think of any single case where we had a serious disagreement about intellectual property. It just wasn’t that big of a deal. The people—people are paranoid about it. Hitt Yeah, it’s a principle, you know? Panousis It’s a principle. It’s a principle. Berridge I’ve had the pleasure of approving 12—more than 1,200 research projects. Dan, more than half of those with UCF. My—my case with UCF, USF, and UF. I can count on the digits—less than the digits on one hand—the projects we did not get to because of an issue over intellectual property, and when you—when you share that with an audience that—that has this perception that there’s going to be an issue, and you share well—wait a minute. We’ve done 1,200 of them with 400 companies, where we’ve put up over 56 million [dollars] to fund those projects—from Carter funds at UCF, USF, and UF, and we have more than 160 million [dollars] in corporate cash and in-kind at the time we do the project and more than a billion on top of that in downstream return to the university—to the companies, and yet in—in—in going on—about to finish 16 years, we have had really not had an issue on intellectual property, because the companies see it—that—well, this is unique. Our hometown university wants to help us. They’re not asking for the money back. Where is the value? And the value is the partnership with the company that creates more jobs, creates more intellectual value, and by the way—we’ve got an outside, investigator/researcher that’s showed there’s more than a billion returned to our local economy from—from this program. Holsenbeck Yeah, let me—let me just say that Randy had an awful lot to do with those languages and that we were able to translate into legislation, and the actual legislation that you’re talking about Peter, where that language about the IP was? Was part of the matching tax exception—matching grant program? And I always thought that pulling that off as a collective effort —taking advantage of really the goodwill of the company—the essence of that bill said that the Legislature would put aside another package of incentive moneys—not just the money that we were operating the Carter on the doing research with—but they put aside another pot of money that if Cirent[?] would take the tax-exemption that they were given under the incentive laws. That if they would take the taxes, they would have paid and send it over to the university, the State would match it out of that fund. So all of a sudden, both institutions were able to do really big things at once like our materials lab. Hitt Yeah. Holsenbeck That’s where out materials lab—to this day, seems one of the best in the southeast, maybe in the country—comes from. Pynn AMPAC [Advanced Materials Processing and Analysis Center]. Holsenbeck That’s right. That’s where… Berridge AMPAC. Holsenbeck That’s where USF’s—what’s it called? Center of Metrology? Pynn Center for… Berridge Center for Materials Research. Sam R., I think. Center for Materials Research. Holsenbeck So that was another, part of that whole deal—the tax-exempt matching grants that’s kind of gone away, because they don’t have any money to match it with anymore, but I always thought that was a—one year—in one of the later years, the Legislature decided to sweep together everything that they were funding for the High-Tech Corridor, because they all wanted to take credit for a big deal. So when they pulled together all the operational funds and showed the tax-exempt matching, there’s a line—and I forget what year in the budget—that shows something like 25-26 billion dollars. Charlie’s in California. So I cut that out, sent it to him, and said, “Charlie, if you’ve ever seen a bigger turkey in Florida, I want you to let me know.” [laughs] And he wrote me back and he said, “Nope. That’s got to be it.” It was a $25 million line-item in the budget that pulled all that stuff together one year. Berridge Help with the name—is it The Chronicle of Higher Education? Holsenbeck Yeah. Berridge Is that the right term? I believe both of you about the same time shared with me an article that our friend Charlie Reed crafted that appeared in there, where he took credit for the Corridor and—and explained his version of what it’s all about, and it’s—that’s pretty special, knowing where it came from. Holsenbeck Can I tell you one more quick[sic] story about Charlie? The first year was 950,000 and then it jumped a little bit and—we were looking for—in one of the years, we were looking for—I think it was another million and a half for each of us, and we wound up getting 1.7 million and USF got 1.5. So we’re down in the committee room where they are about to vote on it and make the decision. By the way, the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, making this happen, under Speaker Dan[iel Allan] Webster, is Orange County School Superintendent—no. School Board Chairman Bill Sublette—he’s the Chairman of that committee. Pynn That’s right. I forgot that. Hitt That’s right. Yeah. Holsenbeck So Charlie comes up to us, with Kathy and me with his entourage—which is not unusual for Charlie—comes blustering and says, “I just took care of it. We’ve taken care of everything. You’re going to get a million and a half,” and Kathy and I looked at each other and said, “Charlie, you mean—million and a half each?” And he said, “Oh, no, no, no. just a million and a half.” I said, “Charlie, the bill’s about to come out. It’s a million and a half each,” and there was a five million appropriation for research, so we were going to get basically two-thirds of that money or—or close to it, and Charlie did not speak to Kathy and me for a couple of weeks after that [laughs]. Pynn It’s not nice to tell the Chancellor he’s wrong. Berridge By the way, the original funding—9—925—the original funding, UCF got 300 for corridor funds—corridor projects. USF got 300 and AT&T got 325. Ask him if he ever took the money. Lester Did you? Panousis Nope. Berridge No recurrent funding invested back in the corridor. Panousis We—we… Pynn Used it to run this Corridor center. Berridge Sixteen—privacy of this room—for 16 years, we’ve invested that money back into the corridor to help market the region as a high-tech region. That’s pretty special. Panousis The thing we—we needed from universities was the research. Hitt Mmhmm. Panousis We didn’t need the money. I mean, the money’s nice. We would have taken it, but if you, you know—if you think of the numbers just over the whole period time, we spent a little over a billion dollars. We were exempted, most of that time, for the 6 percent sales tax. That’s 60 million dollars. By giving up fairly significant piece of that—almost all of that—to the university that was doubled by the State to close to 120 million dollars that was shared between the two universities. That’s a lot of money. I still remember the time we were sitting there thinking about how to spend it [laughs]. That was tough to do. Berridge The results of that effort—not only the great research projects and the marketing comes to us by the way of Roger Pynn and Kerry Martine. It’s interesting when an organization outside of our state shares nationally the top technology regions in the country based on information from January of 2012 to August 2012, and I know if I were a better teacher or instructor, I’d have a better show and tell graph. I gave a speech this morning out at its—its—and I did the same thing to the audience, it—even the first row couldn’t see it, but what it portrays is… Pynn Randy, we prepare you better than that. Don’t you ever do that again [laughs]. Berridge What is portrays is the top regions in the country, and we’re number four, ahead of the Research Triangle and ahead of—of Austin[, Texas], and—and the major one is the number of high-tech job openings. A positive statement that our region —we’d like to have top talent come here as well as graduate from here. So it says Florida High-Tech Corridor. Hitt That’s neat. Holsenbeck That’s certainly a manifestation of grow, retain, and attract. Pynn And Dan—when—when you were going through that review of the expansion of the state funding, since it’s a history project—I’m not sure, Connie, that we have been able to—and if we have, Kerry [Martine] can take credit for it—accurately give you a timeline of the progression of the funding. I think it would be very helpful to have. Maybe we can work with someone. Holsenbeck We have it. We—it’s—we had to go through digging it out, But yeah. We can show you the bills and the amount of money each time. Pynn So you see, it wasn’t just a one-time thing. We—if it had just been for the initial bill, that provided people that the research they needed, we’d have been a one-hit wonder and this would—none of us would be here today, but this was about the evolution of partnerships, and—and—and John realized very quickly afterward, we had something here. Once he pulled it off with AT&T, he says, “Hey, you know, we’ve got a good deal here. We can help other people,” and that led to the MGRP. The idea that we can create research projects on an ongoing basis. Bringing companies on campus to do it, and—and having them kick the tires of young students—as their graduate students, as their research partners. Just to—just to… Berridge Give M. J. Soileau some credit for helping devise the program. Pynn True. Berridge And working with the folks at USF in making sure the programs mirrored each other. Hitt Yeah, it’s been interesting watching all that, you know, even with M. J. The first response is, “How do I get part of that money?” [laughs]. “How do I—how do I get my share—my fair share of the money?” And then it evolves. You see people start to understand, “Oh, there is no share—fair share. It’s all money that’s there for a purpose.” “How do I get to be part of the purpose?” is really the—the question to ask, and if you—if you—I think if you conceive of it properly, it’s money that attracts business leaders to the campus and incents faculty members to work with them. The big complaint you still hear today is, “How do I get the faculty to work with industry?” Or “How do I get industry to work with faculty?” Well, you put some money on the table to do good things and you—you—you get a little entrepreneurial interest. Which is what we’ve done, and Pete, you’re, you know—you—without you in all of this, I don’t think we’re celebrating anything today, but that’s basically, you know, between the Legislature and Dan’s good influence there, and the leadership we’ve had from Peter and Randy. We—we’ve created a self-perpetuating cycle at this point. Virtuous cycle. Berridge This is a small world we live in. What are the odds that we’d have this conversation today, and the new VP[Vice President] of Engagement<a title="">[2]</a> at FIU [Florida International University] wanted to set a meeting and the only time we could do it was before this meeting, and her predecessor was promoted to Provost in Virginia, and so Mark [B.] Rosenberg lost his focal point of cloning our corridor in his end of the state. Hitt Mmhmm. Berridge So the new person is on board, and the only time we can meet is right before this meeting, and she said, “I apologize. I know you’ve been through this. I know you’ve come down here to meet, but we’re basically starting over would you”—Roger’s about to die—“would you mind sharing with me again all about the corridor? How you got started? How you’ve done? What you’ve done?” And I said “Well, thank you. You’re getting me—getting me warmed up for a meeting with President Hitt, Peter Panousis, and the rest of the team.” I said that it’s going to take more than a half an hour to explain the length and breadth of what we’ve—what we’ve done. So honored by the compliment again from Mark Rosenberg that he still wants to figure out how to make it happen. Hitt Yeah. Pynn And that’s one of the questions that Connie’s had is, “Can this be exported to this equation?” Hitt Yes, it can be, but you need to have a good understanding of the model and you gotta have to have a… Pynn Peter. You’ve got to have a Peter. Hitt A business leader. Yeah. Otherwise, you—you can write it all up and everything… Berridge We’ve suggested to Mark, you know, a couple of companies down there that could be—could be the patron that—that Dr. Panousis and Sarah McGeer was to us. Panousis You know what’s curious is in Silicon Valley, the normal sense of business is that they deal with universities. That’s just what you do, particularly with Stanford [University] and other universities. It might not be… Hitt Guess why? It works. Fred Turner. Panousis It works. Yeah, that’s right. That’s right. Hitt Fred—as a young man I was vice-president of the TCU [Texas Christian University] research foundation and he served on our advisory council, and I got to sit and listen to Fred talk about how—he didn’t phrase it this way—but he started Silicon Valley. He came back after World War II, he had seen [Massachusetts State] Route 128 outside Boston[, Massachusetts], he—he knew what had happened there, and he said, “We could do that here,” and he proceeded to do it. He was then Dean of Engineering at Stanford, became Provost and—and really, I think it is—I think if you had to pick some sort of high-tech industrial heroes, Fred would be right up at the head of the pack. Panousis So there must be some in South Florida. Hitt Yeah. Panousis You know, there have to be. Man, they just need to be found [laughs]. Lester Can I ask a question a question about that? Do you see the High-Tech Corridor as being more similar to Silicon Valley? Or what—what has it added to the—to the growth of the high tech industry that’s different from Silicon Valley? Hitt That’s a good question. I don’t know the inside of Silicon Valley well enough probably to answer —to answer—to answer in a well-informed way. Pete, what—do you? Panousis I think that—and I don’t know if I have an answer, but—but I think what happened there is they got to a critical mass that we never quite have gotten to. Hitt Yeah, yeah. Panousis And there were so many companies doing the same kind of work that people were just spilling out of each, setting up additional companies, and every new idea was a new company, and it just got to a level where it was just running by itself. Now we’ve got to that point. Or haven’t gotten to that point. Hitt We may have more self-conscious direction at the university level. It may have become just auto-catalytic at Stanford, because of that process you’re talking about. We’ve taken a view that really says that the university is the agency that will help this happen in—in—in the region, and maybe I’m not expressing it well, but I think we—we have tried to see the university—the—the—the metropolitan research university as the equivalent of the land-grant university—the 21st century equivalent of the land grant. Where we combine the generation transmission application of knowledge, and it’s a social agency, if you will, that—that helps companies. Berridge John, your leadership—UCF’s leaderships and its partners—Medical City is going to be, in my humble opinion, the catalyst that’s going to give us—give us that next boost in terms of comparing our corridor—our region—to Silicon Valley. If you reference the facts that we shook our heads when we said, right after World War II—after World War II—having been there, like a couple of people in this room, but very young—look at the time span, and yet, UCF is now celebrating its 50th, we’re celebrating our 16th as a—as a corridor. We have a lot of room to grow, and despite all the issues in terms of Florida Poly[technic University]—when they call us—Rob Goddell and team called and asked for help in terms of focus, as you and I discussed—to—to give them some ideas in terms of what they are going to focus on in terms of a curriculum. That’s pretty special, but it’s part of this continuum of our region catching up with—maybe even surpassing—Silicon Valley. The university is still—if you notice, the university is still centering to that happening. Holsenbeck The—it seems to me that one of the—well, I think it’s—there are two very strong forces at work here that you’ve got to—have to—even think about duplicating anywhere, and we all travel and we all have got our canned speeches on the High-Tech Corridor, and what it means, and, you know, the advantages of it, but there are two things that the High-Tech Corridor has proven, and both of those are related to one word, and that’s “partnership.” First of all, it’s just a spirit of partnership. It’s mutually beneficial. We’re willing to put on the table and sacrifice a little bit—or “comprise” maybe is a better word. You do the same thing and we’re both just going to just flourish after that, and then the second part of it is—to reinforce what we’ve said—is that I don’t think you can just be given some money. Other places in the state have tried to get an appropriation. They’ve said they couldn’t do it, okay? What they’ve got to have though, again, is this, again, spirit of partnership from a very large organization, or at least relatively large, so you can have an anchor and tie. Let me—let me do one more. I can’t help the opportunity for these political—but taking the word “partnership,” okay? The High-Tech Corridor created something in the Legislature that has never, ever happened. Not before and definitely not—not since, according to what I’ve been told. The second year of the funding, the money was eliminated at some point during the process, and we have to earmark it out of the budget. So we asked two people to sponsor the amendment to add it back on the floor during the final debates of the bills, okay? Way over here on the left side, one of the most loyal Democrats of all time, is Rep[resentative] Alzo Reddick, and way over here on the right side—so far right that he told me one day that Dan introduces me on the right side of the stage, I’m so far right he thinks I’ll fall off—that person was [Thomas] “Tom” [Charles] Feeney [III], who was going to be Speaker of the House. So in front of the entire legislative body, outspoken Democrat, outspoken conservative Republican, stand together and offer an amendment to do this. There was not a single negative vote that I recall, and it was the spirit of partnership that has permeated this project all the way through, which I think has made it successful. Hitt Yeah, support for the university, for the community. Holsenbeck Yeah. Hitt An effort to—to work together to build something. Holsenbeck And until the medical school came along, and probably now—I’ve always used in my conversations that, you know, the High-Tech Corridor is the perfect example of what John Hitt means about being America’s leading partnership university. Lester Did the fact that the Corridor existed and had been so successful—was that instrumental in helping to bring high tech industry, or laying the foundations for… Hitt I don’t know. Certainly the successful experience lent credibility to the university and our administration. I don’t know that people drew—the people who were making the decisions—I don’t know that they drew lessons from the corridor operation, but the fact that we had done it and it was successful probably helped. Holsenbeck Well, I—he—he’s being modest, because I know in some of the conversations we had on the medical school in the Legislature that I had—and I can name three or four of them—very powerful members—to say—if John Hitt says that this is good and it’s going to work and it’s a partnership, then that’s all I need, and that’s the truth. One of them had two children to graduate from here, so I’m not making those names up, but I think it did have maybe more then you want to give it credit for is this spirit of partnership that we’re known for. Pynn It was certainly a track record by that time. Holsenbeck Oh, yeah. Pynn And I don’t think there’s been a person in the [Florida] Governor’s Mansion since this happened who hasn’t wanted to point to the Corridor in some way or another at the start of every year. Holsenbeck Mmhmm. Hitt Mmhmm. The disappointment that I think we all share to some extent is that is hasn’t been replicated elsewhere yet. There have been attempts. Pynn Right. It’s good to hear they’re still committed to it, Randy, and we need to offer to—to give them what help we can. Hitt Yeah, but, you know, part of the problem is you’ve really got to have industry. You’ve got—and you’ve got to be able to attract industry into it. So, you know, people will say the “I-4 Corridor.” Well, why don’t we have an “I-10 Corridor” or whatever, you know. Well, if all you’ve got’s a highway, you know, you’re not really—you’re not going to do this, and—and it’s still the case that some people think if they can just got an appropriation, they can have something. Well, they’d have the money, but that alone would not give them what they’re looking for if they’re trying to replicate the corridor. You’ve got to have—you’ve got to have that employer who’s really committed, and you do have to have a critical mass of administration and faculty who understand partnership. And, you know, I think there’s still too many people in universities who just want to be given money to go do what they want to do. That’s nice, and, you know, we’ll all take that, but it’s—it’s not going to give you—an organization like the corridor. Panousis You know, the partnership between the universities was also important—now three in the partnership. Yeah. I still remember a meeting—I was trying to recall what the background for it was—but Governor Lawton [Mainor] Chiles[, Jr.] was at the meeting so it must have been ’90… Berridge ’96? Panousis ’96-’97, and we had just come from one of our customers, making the PalmPilot at the time, and we did something for them special, and we invited him to come to the meeting. He did, and I remember in his presentation, he made a comment that I thought was really interesting. He says he’s never seen two universities actually work together like the two—those two—UCF and USF. Pynn There’s no question. Panousis And it was really interesting, because he—he was amazed that it could happen. I didn’t know any better, so I assumed it could happen [laughs]. Berridge An example of the partnership—and I’ll share with you—Kerry Martine provided that. Gentleman pictured there—in ’99, we partnered with—very small company. He now has a billion-dollar drug. He now also is the new VP of Research [& Innovation]<a title="">[3]</a> at USF, and in the first meeting with him, he said, “If we have an incubator company that wants to locate in Orlando, is there any reason we couldn’t figure out how to locate them in M. J. Soileau and Tom O’Neal’s incubator at UCF?” And I’m sitting there going, “Ah.” [laughs] What a burden has been lifted in terms of—this is a prime example of partnership that he would reach out. Hitt Mmhmm. Berridge And I said, “Not that I’m aware of,” and he said, “You think they would agree that, if they have a company in—in their incubator that would want to move to Tampa, that it would be okay if we housed ’em?” And I said, “I think we can make that happen.” Pynn Now, what son of a Mississippian says… Berridge Yeah, son of a Mississippian. So there’s—Dr. Paul Sanberg, and thanks to Kerry Martine, who’s going to give that to me by email, I’m going to send that to Paul and say, “There’s a picture of you from the late ‘90s you might like to have for your file.” A good partnership. Pynn They had been doing anything they could to prevent them to leave, and so would we 20 years ago. You know, we hadn’t quite gotten to that point. I think the—the mantra of leader: leave your ego at the door. The idea that whatever can benefit Tampa, can benefit Orlando, and vice versa, has been such a powerful philosophy. People have gone out of their way—you like to tell the story of Lynda—thinking over in Brevard County… Holsenbeck Weatherman. Berridge Weatherman. Pynn The Economic Development Director over there, risking probably, at the time, her—her job to put was it 500 or 5,000 dollars into a sponsorship of an event that was going to take place in Tampa? Berridge 5,000. Pynn 5,000. People were thinking, Was she crazy? Berridge We indicated we would help her with something downstream. That was understood, but yeah, that she was willing to do that. Pynn She understood that she might benefit down the road from it. We… Hitt Yeah, that whole notion that a win anywhere in the corridor in a win for everybody is hard to… Berridge We called Dr. Paul Sanberg, who’s a very respected scientist—founder of the National Academy of Inventors, and we have a project we’re working on that is very large in scope—almost as large as one of Peter’s projects—and we needed some initial funds to put on the table to get the company’s attention. So I called Paul and I said, “I know that our team is over about a week before this phone call to show support for a major project in the Tampa area, and so we have one, by coincidence, a small world. We have one a week late, as big as that one. If we can merge our matching funds at UCF and USF, we can make a better case,” and he said, “Make it happen. What are you putting on the table?” I said, “We’re going to make a commitment of 250,000 a year for five years, because of the size and scope and potential of this project.” He said, “You want to do the same thing from USF?” I said, “Yes, sir.” He said, “You know, it doesn’t matter where the graduates work, as long as they’re working here. So the fact that you’re going to give an opportunity for some of our USF students to partner with—you know, professors to partner with UCF on a project for a company that happens to be located in the eastern end of the Corridor, our students are going to be benefited, so make it happen.” That’s partnership in its, you know, 15-16 years in the making. Holsenbeck You know, there is another activity that a lot of folks don’t participate in or know much about—and I’ve always thought this was one of Randy’s brilliant creations—and that is what he called the “Core Team” and the Tuesday morning telephone calls. Every Tuesday morning, I’d say there are 25-35 people throughout the corridor who talk about what is going on in the corridor and by the end of that conversation—what reminded me was Lynda Weatherman—you have got Brevard County willing to go over to Tampa to participate with a Tampa Bay partnership. You have got 4-5 groups agreeing to come together to put money on the table to do a booth talking about the photonics industry and sending it to the west coast. You’re doing things that the state as a whole has not been able to get communities and EDCs [Economic Development Commissions] and workforce boards and all those things to do. Pynn We are doing things every Tuesday morning on that little pajama hotline that the state has never been able to do. It’s amazing to see the number… Holsenbeck Yeah. Berridge This is a 16-year document… Lester Yes, I have the whole box. Yes. Pynn She has—she has a box. She has Steve Burly’s collection of every single one of those. Berridge It’s an old AT&T thing. Peter and I learned years ago what is bolded in here, including the names of the people, as well as what is in there is what was covered the previous weeks. You know, who attended and what was discussed and it becomes the agenda for the next meeting so you can continue. Lester And I can tell you that is very helpful to a historian who is reading through this. Pynn You know, we need to get you in touch with Burly by the end of this, because the fact that he is collecting means he has got a lot of knowledge. The—what I can remember as an example of that is we achieved corridor-wide participation in the [International] Paris Air Show<a title="">[4]</a> on the telephone on a Tuesday morning. Had never happened. Berridge Because Lynda Weatherman wanted to do it. Pynn That is right. Payback. Berridge In Brevard—and so we got Tampa Bay saying, “Yeah. We will do that with you. We will be there with you, in terms of presence and money.” Pynn She helped those people earn over 5,000, and now we have an annual basis, participation to market this area’s aerospace. Hitt What a silver-tongued devil she is [laughs]. Berridge She is. She chaired the Federal Reserve Board in Florida in Jacksonville—amongst her many talents. Also nationally, she’s a pretty sharp lady—chaired our workforce committee. What is unique is we start with this in ‘96-‘97—something like that—and we couldn’t get folks to attend, mainly our economic development partners, for a 4 o’clock call. So, once a decade, I am going, Why don’t I have it at 7:45 in the morning? They can’t claim they are out working, selling deals, and entertaining prospects as 7:45 on the morning. So half of the folks on there are on their drive time. We ask them to be on mute and make sure they drive carefully, but every Tuesday morning, unless it’s a holiday week—and Dan, you are on every one of them—7:45-8:15, and it is over at 8:15—and it’s over at 8:15, because everyone on there has a full-time job doing something else. Pynn A lot of spouses across this corridor who wonder what is going on a Tuesday morning, if you don’t have a call, what is happening? You are just sitting here drinking your coffee, reading the newspaper. You are supposed to be on the telephone. Holsenbeck You know, I still think Roger and you and I have talked about this, but just for the purposes of conversation—that is one example of a critical activity to the corridor that’s not as glamorous sounding as the matching research. There another one—there is a tech path program that is done with… Berridge Dr. Jeff Mendell? One of Peter’s top scientists? Holsenbeck Jeff Mendell, one of Peter’s guys who is now in our physics departments that does this, and now going all over the place trying to get the other institutions and school boards and schools to learn about what it is to be in high technology, and another one—the Florida Virtual Entrepreneur Center. I mean, people don’t—Roger, I just don’t think the average person or even the average politician realizes how those three parts of what we do—the core team and the partnerships, the tech path and the entrepreneurial center—what a key element they are, and there is nothing—nothing anywhere in the state comparable to those three activities. Berridge Hunt[ing F.] Deutsch is the head of the [Florida] Department of Economic Opportunity, and I am honored to have known him from the mid-80s, when my daughter worked for him in the trust department, when he had the trust affirmative for SunTrust [Bank]. They were going to have a business portal they were going to launch. They didn’t know what they were going to do but they were going to launch it—a bit reckless, and I said, well, “Howard, we already have one. It is called the Florida Virtual Entrepreneur Center.” “What does it do?” I explained to him what it does, and he said, “Why do we want to launch one of our own? Why don’t we just use yours and you will have a link and we will call it a state program?” And I said, “It is called a ‘Florida Virtual Entrepreneurial Center’ on purpose. It’s all 67 counties are up and running.” Hitt They didn’t know it. Berridge They didn’t know it, but they do now. They had a webinar earlier this week—explained the program, so if you are entrepreneur and want to start or grow a business that won’t cost you anything to use it, and every county is there. You just punch in a county. Roger showed them too. He’s better at show and tell than I am. Pynn This morning we got the monthly—a monthly report on the activity. Berridge Fourteen thousand. Pynn Last month, 13,629 visits for all 67 counties, and even though it was a holiday month, that is 3.6 percent—6.5—3.65 percent increase month over month, and out of state, 2,700 from out of state were checking in on that, and out of country, more than 500 people visited to find out what’s available, what’s going on in Florida, “How can I do business here?” It’s an amazing thing.it continues to grow. Kerry, what’s the month to month on that? It’s just amazing numbers. Martine Yeah, they have continued to grow since. Probably about 4,700. Berridge The addition of the other counties. Give Kerry Martine the credit, if you would, because when you see it that is her creativity. Hitt She is the walking history. Pynn Okay. Berridge Alright, and the other piece is—though its corridor funded. Doesn’t cost the entrepreneur to use it. Doesn’t cost—like Gray and Robinson, our attorneys—they can post that they are available help entrepreneurs and it doesn’t cost them anything to post. Now, if you would like a little better listing, thanks to Roger Prynn and Kerry Martine—or if you want to sponsor a section you can certainly do that. So when you think of Miami coming up with 10—excuse me—with $7,500, you think of Jacksonville, Duvall County, coming up with $7,500. So we raised about $85,000 last year, before we added all the other counties to offset the cost of what we’ve been putting in—in terms of the cost of people work it in on a daily basis. One of whom is a UCF graduate student named Michael Zaharris, who is an OPS [Other Personnel Services] employee reporting to Tom O’Neal. So again, it is a stateside program housed at UCF. Thank you, Dan. Lester I have to say that I think that kind of retaining and growing of businesses is perhaps one of the most important parts of this. I am a Southern historian and I look at the economy across the South, and most of what I see is buying jobs, not retaining them in the long run. I have been interviewed a couple of times by the Federal Reserve [Bank] in Atlanta[, Georgia], about some things I have written about that, and I always say that the South is missing the boat when they keep buying jobs. Berridge Your pride is our pride and getting a call from the economic development organization for Atlanta—the greater Atlanta area—looking to make a corridor from Atlanta and Athens[, Georgia], and they call and say, “How did you do it? What can we do? Can you clone it? Do you mind if we clone it?” And I said… Pynn And that is just one of them—one of many. We have had a lot of calls from around the country, from out of the country. I’ve heard Randy talking to people from Thailand. Berridge From Puerto Rico; the lead attorney for the [Colorado] House [of Representatives] and [Colorado] Senate from the State of Colorado; a co-ed from [Harvard University John F.] Kennedy School of Government wanting to start a high-tech region around Syracuse [University]; Yankton, South Dakota. Are you familiar with Yankton, South Dakota? Lester I am not [laughs]. Berridge Well, I get this call from Charlie Gross—the then-mayor of Yankton. “We would like to start a high-tech corridor between South Dakota State [University] and University of South Dakota.” He said, “Roughly the same geography, two universities you had two to start. How did you do it? And what do you do?” Pynn A lot more cows than people. Berridge Yeah, and I spent three calls—total of six hours—keeping track of these things with Charlie Gross. I get a call from the Head of Economic Development for the Cherokee Nation—they wanted to—my boss is looking at me. Does he look at you like this? Holsenbeck All the time. Berridge All the time. He wanted to diversify their gambling establishment in this Cherokee, North Carolina. Okay? God bless him, and I said, great, and I said “Where do you live, by chance?” Because I know where the gambling establishment is—I never been there—but I know where it is, and he said, “Well I—you probably don’t know it—but I live south of [U.S. Route] 74 on [North Carolina State Road] 28,” and said, “Where?” And he told me, and I said, “Well, if you come about 6 miles further south and turn onto Trailing [Oak] Trail, that’d be where we have a place.” “No kidding?” So I struck up a friendship with a Head of Economic Development at the Cherokee… Pynn So Randy’s now a player at the Cherokee Casino. Holsenbeck Isn’t that a hoot? Berridge Yeah. Pynn Yeah, sure. Sure. Hitt Do you remember the old TV program Get Smart? Yeah, but do you remember the episode where they had the Indians who were—they had a nuclear-tipped arrow—coming out of a teepee? Berridge Out of a teepee? Hitt Yeah, yeah, and the woman, Smart, says “That is the third-biggest arrow I have ever seen.” [laughs]. Berridge Too much. Pynn You know, you talk about—Connie, you talked about the path here versus buying jobs, and I know that one of the questions you said you were interested in exploring was the role played in the GrowFL[: The Economic Gardening Institute] program, the economic partnership program, and I think—Dan, that goes then along with the others you mentioned as—while there were folks that knew we were behind the kind of a catalyst to get that moving, they don’t realize just what it has done. There are a lot of companies out there that are really benefiting from the kind of counsel and advice they are getting to help them get to the next stage. Berridge That is the creativity of this university and Tom O’Neal, and convincing as he is to get Roger Pynn and yours truly, and Ray Galley and Amy Evancho to go to Cassopolis, Michigan. Pynn Cassopolis. Berridge In November, and then he doesn’t get to go. He is still here in the middle of November—to… Pynn He was the lucky one, as far as I was concerned Berridge Smarter guy. Well, he has a doctorate from here and an MBA [Master of Business Administration], what do you expect? Mrs. Lowe has this wonderful facility—of 2,600 acres that housed 14 farms, knob them together, we get all the farmhouses—she was staying in a nicely redone farmhouse—to you can stay in their center, and what they share is economic gardening in Littleton, Colorado. The experience that community has of losing a 10,000-employee Lockheed Martin plant, and they decided that never again would they be dependent on one facility for their livelihood. So they started by building their own, and so the orchestration of that is the platform for this GrowFL program. You need to ask how did Mr. Lowe made his millions? Kitty litter. Oh, oh, I should have let her answer. You know she has 2,600 acres around Arcadia, Florida? Special. Lester Yes. Pynn She is a cool lady. Very devoted to what we started. Berridge So the idea that we could bootstrap our own companies—and one of our own council members, George Gordon, went through it. Said after—in fact, we’ve used him—as you know, Dan—thanks to your leadership in the House and Senate to give testimony. He said, “Randy, not since my days at Annapolis[, Maryland] have I been grilled, and even there, as much as I was grilled by people who knew more about my business than I did.” As a way of taking another look at how you might be a better business person and make your company more profitable. Pynn You know, I went through the CEO round-table portion, and I was amazed to see folks who had very sophisticated companies. Particularly one of them has a company fella—has a company called Alinea. They are an Internet services commission. Brilliant guy, and he was eyes wide open in that process, sharing around the table the program is facilitating, and one day, he stopped in the middle of it, got up and left, because he had gotten the answer he needed. We didn’t see him for two months, until he had finished implementing it. Berridge It’s amazing when you can see what happens in our state. When our Governor,<a title="">[5]</a> who had received some poor advice last year, vetoed the program that we were told by his staff he was going to approve, and then, within two weeks of the veto in The Villages, was out in the state espousing the virtues of supporting small states, two companies. We need to do more of that, and so we had some folks whisper to his team to whisper in his ear, “You just vetoed the least expensive program in the state that has created the most jobs for the least amount of money,” and so we think that impetus, as well as some excellent work on Dan’s part and the team—two million? Two million in refunding this year. Corridor funded it, and then we get a call from Jennifer Thompson, who’d been told by [Orange County] Mayor [Teresa] Jacobs that they found some extra money in Orange County, and Jennifer didn’t want to invest in sidewalks. She wanted to invest in companies. I heard about this GrowFL program, and I’d like to learn more about it. Tom O’Neal took a meeting with her, made a friendship—$50,000. For a while, that $50,000 was happening. We, of course, went to the [Orange] County on the north to say to Randy Morris and his mentee, Bob Dallari, who is now chair of Seminole County—just reelected—that this is going to happen in Orange County. So Seminole County said, “Well, we want that too,” and they put in $50,000 to help this program, to match our $50,000 that we put in to keep it alive last year, and now, it is obviously going great guns this year, because the State has seen fit to invest in it. It is run out of UCF, but it’s a statewide program. Holsenbeck These things are good examples of what you can do with discretionary funds under enlightened leadership, and when people talk about—they want to reproduce the corridor or try to expand their operations or activities—we do have a foundation that nobody else in the state has. Nobody else in the state has been able to get or sustain. Randy gives you an example of how I think he very wisely has used a lot of these funds that uses them as incentives or matches or initial investments, but the truth of the matter is: without those dollars, he could not do that, and it is very hard for others to get that same hold. I don’t think today we could do that. With the current economic situation and the current political leadership. I don’t think we could do it. Berridge We’re a 501(c)(6) in the State of Florida with a fairly substantial budget by comparison. How many employees do we have? We are all consultants to the enterprise. Hitt Oh, I see. Berridge It is the most cost-effective way of running it. The idea that you would have a corporation set up to do these things, as we talked in ‘96—where does the money reside? It resides at the two universities. Well, three, because we have been able to get some one-time funding on occasion from UF, and hope to remedy that, and get David [P.] Norton, their new VP of Research—said it is their number 1 priority, and he is going to make sure Bernie says it is their number 1 priority to get recurring funding at UF for corridor funds, but the funds reside at the university, because if they transferred them to the corridor, a private corporation, you have a red flag. You have a target. Oh, by the way, having a county organization at AT&T, here’s—excuse me—I have really good people that did it, and I kind of showed up. The county thinks it is an expense, but the university managing it through their existing processes—both in county and the auditing, the corridor doesn’t have to incur that expense; therefore, we can use more of our corridor funds to do the matching projects that Dan just talked about, but you know—see, I don’t trust there. We have been doing this—finishing 16 years. You are chronicling it. How many issues have we had over the spending of funds in that many years? Holsenbeck Except for your travel budget? Oh, excuse me [laughs]. Berridge My travel budget. Saks takes me to Dallas later—later this week, and you are right. It’s been an experience. Holsenbeck We just… Berridge You told me. You tell them about that. Hitt He told me he wanted to come on a commission of colleges. I warned him, “Do you have any clue what you are getting into?” Berridge “You have a clue what you are getting into?” I said, “No, but I have got some real goods friends who can help.” The idea is that the university has trusted its volunteers, as well as consultants, as well as team members, to do the right thing, to spend the money in the correct fashion. The majority of the funds are spent on the matching grants project. People say, “You have an organization. It’s got what it does and so…” it is really like an “ad hoc-racy.” We come together, we address an issue, address the problem, put some resources to it. By the way, we thought we created that term—you are a historian—we found out. We did some checks. I think Roger did it—it was created—somebody came up with it in ’72. Hitt “Ad hoc-racy?” Berridge An ad hoc-racy. Hitt It was not a compliment. Berridge No, right, but we come together, address an issue, find some funds, get some other people who have some funds, do it, and move in. Holsenbeck We did. Randy and I in the last year requested an audit, because with all the things that keep popping out, they finished the audit, having given us a written report. There are no questions, not management statements, any negatives. Berridge She asked for a little more in terms of elaborating on why we are putting money into the GrowFL program, and I think we can fix that. So I got a hold up Fran Korosec, and said, “Fran, I need a little more information on the use of corridor funds.” Immediately fixed that. Holsenbeck I have to confess: I did not know it at the time. I would like to take credit for it, or give us credit for it, but using that term attract—attract implies recruiting public relations, advertisement things that you—a lot of things you can’t do with state-funded money, because the original appropriation has that word “attract” in it. Randy is exempted from some of the regulations. For instance, he can do things with state money that we can’t that relate to meetings and conferences. I wish we could say we were that smart in the beginning, but it just worked out that way. Pynn I always said you were that smart. Lester Since you are talking about funding—I have been teaching a class this semester in U.S. economic history. Divided my students into groups and each group did a project, and one group did a project on the High-Tech Corridor. So that way did their presentation today—and I said, “I’m coming…” Berridge No, no. wait a minute. Excuse me—we are having this conversation today. I had the conversation with the FIU lady and now your class… Pynn Randy is writing a book on small worlds. Berridge I have a book on small worlds. I should work harder on this book, but really? This is… Lester Well, they gave a very nice presentation, and after it was over, I told them I was coming to this meeting and I said, “If you had a question to present to this group, what would you ask?” And they thought about it and then they asked, “What is the role of venture capital in the Florida High-Tech Corridor? Is there a role, and if there is, what is it?” Berridge It is us. We are unique venture capitalists. Pynn We are venture capital. Berridge That is what we are, and the uniqueness is we don’t ask for our money back. Find a venture capitalist that will do that and not ask for their money back and I would like to see which asylum the gentleman is with. Lester Well, I think they were asking generally about private venture capital. Pynn Well, I think there are two sides to that, Randy. We do want. We are very supportive of the venture capital organizations, the Florida venture… Berridge Florida venture—we are supportive even though—if I may? Lester Mmhmm. Berridge They changed their model about a year ago, and said we will no longer support small companies, and as gently as I could, I am saying, “Well, you may just have lost a sponsor.” Because we can’t be attached to that regimented approach to lunacy of not supporting your livelihood going forward. It doesn’t make any sense. They changed the administration. They changed the board. Lester And this is? Berridge The Florida Venture Forward, and you will find the gentleman’s name on this list is now part of our Tuesday morning call. He called and said, “If I told you we’ve changed and have gone back to supporting small companies, can we come back to the fold?” I said, “Absolutely.” So… Hitt It could be an un—or under-developed part of what we do though. We really—that has probably been the thing we have talked the least about, and I am not involved day-to-day with this, so, you know—but if I could think of one area I could say we might do more in from my standpoint… Berridge Your students are very astute. Holsenbeck But GrowFL has that as one of its objectives, so we use our funds to help start GrowFL and support that aspect of their mission. Pynn But we have done, over the years, a number of things to support and expand venture capital flowing into the state. We hosted a group on the far western end that came here from around the country—I am trying to think of the name of it—but they go—they are actually an international group, and they go from market to market very quietly and find a sponsor like us to come in and show them what’s there. Hitt Yeah. Pynn We have been very supportive of the for—and I think you are really right. that’s an area that we—and this may be the time of us to step back and look and say, “What can we do?” Because it’s a one—we are two things. We get with our Central Florida Tech for or the Tampa Bay Tech for two issues: workforce, finding the town, and venture capital, and that is why Randy always says we are venture capital, because though we started with a mega-giant like AT&T as our partner, there are a lot of companies that are getting funding for that through that matching grant research program that otherwise it would have to come through a venture capitalist. Berridge May I compliment your students, number one? And number two, we have a pretty strong history of funding starving graduate and doctoral students. Twelve—excuse me—2,400 through our matching grants program over the 16 years, and Kerry is the keeper of that stat. We have two interns right now in Tom O’Neal’s shop helping us with economic impact studies that we do, but the question they have posed presents an opportunity for some corridor funding back to your organization and to them. I don’t believe as a state we do a good enough job of chronicling the venture capital invested in who, what, when, where, why, and how. Who are the venture capitalists investing in—in our state? How much? If we can capture that, but take it more than just venture. If I can expand their question, and have it friends and family starting with some crazy things I’ve done over the years, I have to admit, as well as angel funds, which I had that much money to qualify for that, and all the way to venture. Alright? And in doing that, they will get a better understanding of the difference in those categories and who they apply to, but more importantly, we may end up with a better study then we’ve ever had in terms of what is happening in Florida, and what can we do then to change the paradigm that we think exists of the folks that are in Peter’s category of having some megabucks and all? And why is he not investing in Florida, but in this—well, I know he’s investing in the Carolinas—but, the history we think we have… Hitt You are making a pretty good payment from the Cherokee Nation [laughs]. Berridge That is going to my church. What can we do to identify better why we think the folks that have some money to invest are investing it in the states and the companies in the states from whence they came? Okay, so… Hitt Well—or in California and New York or in California. I didn’t mean my comment to be at all critical of what we are or are not doing, but if I had to think of one area that we might be doing something in that I sort of thought—and heard the least about in discussions on the corridor—that is probably it. Berridge Right. That’s it. Right on target. Hitt And that might be an opportunity for us. Berridge You’re on the leadership board with some of the Metro Orlando EDC [Economic Development Commission] and some of the refocusing things they are doing. To have this study, maybe have it annually for them—for the EDC—critical. In terms of—it’s just not having major hunting in major boxes. It’s growing and starting and growing our own and having a better idea of the potential of investment capital, no matter what size. We would benefit from that. So compliment them, please and the astuteness of their question. Lester Well, I was somewhat shocked when they come up with that question. Hitt It’s a good question. Lester It’s a good question. Since you have brought up the subject of workforce as well, one of the things that struck me about the High-Tech Corridor as opposed to some other places, is the amount of effort that has gone into the partnerships to create a solid workforce that is going to do more than just put together widgets, but actually had make a contribution. So if you could talk about that… Berridge That’s from the golf—that’s from the golf course. We’re sitting on… Pynn A lot of things happen on the golf course. Berridge John goes—John goes… Hitt Some of them we can talk about. Lester Yes, I understand. Berridge John goes, “Let me get this straight,” and this is—gosh. This has to be 12 years ago? This was when Feeney was Speaker. He said, “You want to take some corridor money and invest it with the community—community—community colleges.” Yeah. I said, “Yeah, John. You want to be the number one metropolitan partnering university, and if you don’t help the companies that are in your backyard do a better job getting the technicians they need, and getting the technicians a chance to get a baccalaureate, you are not going to be as successful in the partner category as you could be, and when you think about the great relationships that exist between UCF and the State and community colleges, the idea of funding seven of the Associate’s Degrees—which is what we ended up doing with a little bit before we got the funding, thanks to Dan and Speaker Feeney—but the workforce money we have received with seven different state community colleges funding those Associate’s Degrees—that’s pretty special, and we put about an average of 150,000 into each one of them, with the caveat that the community—state college—community college would bring its industry to the table, define the need, develop the curriculum from what the industry said the need was, but then structure it in such a way that the graduate—should they elect to do so—could go on and get a baccalaureate. Now, I will give you an example and watch your facial expression. Volusia did the Modeling Simulation and Training degree. There have been 600 enrollees. Ask me how many graduates have graduated to date. Program’s about 4 years old—5 years old. Lester How many? Berridge Thirty. You see? You see that? And the individual—when I reacted the same way, I’m going, “Why did we put the money—why did we—what—with 30 graduates?” He said, “You didn’t ask the right question.” It goes back to your question in support of workforce. I said, “What?” He said, “Ask a different question.” He said, “Why don’t you ask me how many have jobs?” Light bulbs, light bulbs. He said, “All of them.” I said, “You are telling…” He said, “They are hiring them after they get their first year in. There is enough guts to the program that the corridor helped them devise, based on industry input to get enough that the industry hired them after they finish the first year.” Now I am going, “What happened to this idea of allowing the technicians to get a baccalaureate?” He says, “You’re helping the industry through the program that you funded. They can’t—they can’t get these—they can’t get enough of these technicians.” Panousis That goes back on—remember when you were looking for people? We could find engineers. We paid enough money to a company in California or wherever. We could not find technicians. We started some of the programs in community colleges. Berridge The first one—the first one—it was—and… Panousis We were paying a lot of money. We were stealing them from [Walt] Disney [World] and other companies, but there weren’t enough around to really fill it. Berridge It was… Panousis That was the most difficult job to fill was a technician. Berridge That was the first one. Pynn And that’s also why we started Tech Path. Berridge Tech Path. Pynn It was originally Chip Camp. Holsenbeck I had forgotten that. Berridge And… Hitt There’s a—there’s a thing in a book that really influenced me—Lester [Carl] Thurow’s book, Head to Head[: The Coming Economic Battle Among Japan, Europe and America]. He says that economists in Germany make more than they do in the U.S, and that is because the technicians in Germany make more. You know, the guys out on the floor who really make this stuff make more, and that’s a lesson we… Berridge Ben Noll… Hitt Need to learn. Berridge Head of the Interactive Game Academy. When he was number 2 at Electronic Arts or whatever his COR… Pynn Sacher. Berridge Right. When we asked him to be at the table to help determine the digital media Associate’s Degree at Seminole State College, he was Electronic Arts and had only technicians. Within about four months of that, he transitioned from Electronic Arts to FIAA, and he called—and I will count on you to clean this up if it makes your report—he said, “I will find the biggest crow in Central Florida. I’ll cook it any way you ask me to cook it, and I will eat it in front of any audience you choose.” He said, “I need technicians.” He said, “I want technicians to go through the UCF program, but coming in as technicians, because they offer a different perspective, but all are needed. That I need—I need the technician perspective, and then the baccalaureate, and then we will do some really neat things with them at FIAA.” But ask Ben Noll about that. He reaffirmed that, by the way, because he hosted our tech camp—the one that took place today, this morning. Kicked off for I/ITSEC [Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation and Education Conference] —the last one was at FIAA, which he hosted and he allowed me to tell this story, so that the teachers from schools all over the corridor would understand that their students. It’s all right to be a technician as well as then get your baccalaureate. Pynn So what that means is that everything we do is really workforce development. Every bit of it, and he who wins at workforce development wins at economic development. Berridge 2,400 students. Pynn Starting with kids in the middle schools and high schools. Berridge In fact, if M. J. or Tom were here, or Dr. Sanberg, or Tracy Swartz, or—or David—David Gordon—UF—or Shava Jackson-Carr—who runs a program there—they would tell you that, if a program gets to ask desk for approval—Peter is still one of our approvers—doesn’t have students built into it—hm? Pynn Doesn’t happen. Berridge Very rarely does it happen now, because the intent was—we are doing applied research to help a company, but we want students as a part of that process. Lester Excellent. Pynn Clark hasn’t asked any questions, have you noticed that? Clark Been wonderful. Berridge Oh, and I thought it was just Roger. Pynn Come on, we are so good at this, listen—he never—he never misses a chance to zing me a little bit. Hitt No, no. He’d never. Pynn I have a string today, John. I’ve got him under control. Clark I have—I have talked to Connie about this. Although it is called the I-4 Corridor, is there any limit to the north-south expansion? Hitt We actually changed the name from I-4, because it turned out, you couldn’t trademark the name of an Interstate [Highway], so it’s the Florida High-Tech Corridor now. It can be the XYZ Corridor if somebody else wanted… Clark But could you see—it keeping going? Berridge It’s in Gainesville. Hitt Well, you have to have business. Clark Even north of Gainesville or south… Hitt But you’ve got to have business and some kind of employment. It wouldn’t have to necessarily high-tech, but you—you need an employer base that you work with. Berridge We’ve used it as leverage. The governor has accepted it. Thanks to John and Bernie’s oratorical skills, witnessed by some folks in the room. We were a plank in the governor’s—one of eight—in the governor’s economic development plan, when he was governor-elect. If you look at the most recent report out of the foundation for—Florida’s Chamber Foundation—we are a plank in their 20 year plan to replicate this around the state. Mark Rosenberg, because of the friendship, because of working together, has said, “We would like to clone what you have done it, how you’ve done it, from Miami to Orlando.” Didn’t call it the I[nterstate]-95. He just simply called it—in fact, Roger and Kerry have been helpful in trying to get him to name it. The idea is rather than become one huge—we think it’s five city-states in our state regardless of what we try to do to make it a state. Why not build on that strength? We complement each other… Pynn We’ve tried. We’ve tried to—for instance, Jim, connect all the way to the Gulf Coast and become a South Florida version of this. We basically cover the central portion of the state, because we are a partnership of the three universities. We define it as you’ve gotta be in the primary service areas of the universities. Now, Florida, as a land grant, has this statewide mission, but they are—they have defined—was it Alachua [County]? And they added two counties. Berridge Bernie agreed—I know you are quick to go away there, but that didn’t go anywhere, but Bernie agreed that we would try to keep the idea of a corridor, so therefore it was just Alachua and Putnam [County] that we added, when we added UF, and that was their request. Hitt But you really do have to have an identifiable employment base that you are going to service and it can be high-tech, it can be something else. Clark So you are encouraging Mark to start his own, not join you. Berridge Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Hitt Well, if he wanted to join us, that’s fine, but he—he stills needs a base of employment down there. He needs some companies he is serving who will work in partnership with him. Absent that he can get appropriations, you can get all the free consulting from us—from Randy—that we could possibly give, but he won’t have an organic entity. You’ve got to have the real partnership. You’ve got to have a Peter Panousis, who says, “I need the research.” You know? “I’ve got a series of problems that we can work on together,” and absent that, you’ve just got another university office. Berridge We got the first funding based on the success of what was done for Peter through the two universities. We got the second funding—based on skills that Dr. Holsenbeck—Dr. Holsenbeck has—we got the second funding because of Peter, but also because of what we did with the money the first year. We got the third round of funding—again, the confluence of Toni Jennings, Dan Webster—leadership, leadership, leadership, but you gotta do something with the money. So the third round of funding came because we had branched out by that time, and we had done projects, like we did with Peter. We had done projects, started to do projects with companies of all sizes. So what we said to Mark—Mark called about three months ago, before he lost Davina. He said, “We’ve been meeting a lot.” I said, “Yes, sir.” “We’ve been meeting a lot.” I said, “Yeah. I got it the first time.” He said, “All we’ve been doing is meeting.” I said—“Mark, you’ve got it.” I said, “Just do something. Just do it. Okay?” And he goes, “Okay. What do you suggest?” I said, “Mark, you got a research foundation?” “Yeah.” “You got $250,000?” “Yeah.” “Does M. J. have a research foundation at FAU [Florida Atlantic University]?” “Yeah.” “Got $250,000?” “Yeah.” “Do you have friendship with the University of Miami?” “Yeah. kinda sorta.” I said, “Do they have a research foundation?” “Yeah.” I said, “Then why don’t you each put up 250,000 and just start doing projects like we’ve been doing projects? And once you’ve demonstrated success, I think you’ll have a better chance of getting some matching funds from the state to start doing what we are doing.” Besides you’re gonna get your money back off they call them—recovering’s or loadings—or what’s the proper term when it is charged to the companies? Pynn Overhead. Berridge Overhead. Holsenbeck Indirect overhead. Hitt The other thing you just said that I think is really important is you encouraged him to talk to M. J., at least, M. J. is not Soileau’s; it’s Sanders, president down there at FAU. The people in the Legislature and other people in the communities like to see universities work together. So the fact that it isn’t just one university working in the community helps in generating financial and others helps. So I think that is really good advice, but they’ve got to have a few employers down there between that whole corridor from Fort Lauderdale, down to essentially Miami-Dade [County], they’ve got to have a few employers they could enlist to come in as part of this. Pynn I think, John, at this point, they haven’t quite figured out that part of the equation. All the schools are together, all the economic developers are together, and the private sector hasn’t been brought to the table yet. Hitt They won’t get anywhere ultimately until they do that. I mean, that’s the… Berridge Right. Holsenbeck What Randy’s advice was: we’ll get two or three private developers on board for that match. Hitt But they need to reach out and ask. If they look at their foundation, let alone if they got it, even without a research foundation—just the university foundation—they’ve almost certainly got a few employers who are in manufacturing or some research operation they can bring in and just say, “Look, give us your research folks to attend a few séances here, and let’s try to get this going.” Pynn We represent, for instance, Florida Power and Light [Company]. We have asked them to come to the table. I am sure they will. Through our partnership with MSW, we represent United Technologies [Corporation] and Pratt [&] Whitney. I was down there a couple weeks ago, and I asked one of the plant executives about how much research is done. He said, “Well, you know, we do a lot of primary research in this specific area” —which I am not allowed to tell you about or he would shoot me—but something very important, but he said, “We got applied research going on all the time.” So when we have this conversation, I’m going to put those people together for you. That’s the kind of partnership that I mean—jet propulsion. Hitt Yeah, you’d think they’d kill for that. But, you know, Peter, you shared with me years back that a lot of the most profit-enhancing, if you will, work that you did in cooperation with the corridor, I think, was—was really operational research. You know, the industrial—classic industrial engineering. Pynn Got to make it better. Hitt Yeah, and that—you could be operating—you could be working with a trucking firm. Holsenbeck Yeah. Hitt And—and have—have opportunities there. Berridge Yeah, that’s right. We did one at USF. Hitt Well, but, you know, you don’t have to be in necessarily a high-tech industry to have really good engineering and scientific impact. Holsenbeck You know… Panousis [inaudible] that work there. It is really very valuable. You have as many kind of operation with stuff moving through a production line—and I use the term “production line” loosely, because it could be chemicals, it could be medicine, could be anything, but things are moving and they are limited by processes. Understanding that process is very important, and that’s something universities spend a lot of time on and was very valuable for us. We got a lot of out of it. Hitt It’s one of the basic skill sets that IEs brings to the table. Pynn One of the things that I think will help them is to broaden their horizon. One of the things that has been very powerful for us is the fact that we focus on a number of sectors. We have limited it other than to attach it to the areas that the partner universities believed were their real strengths, where there was the potential for a cluster to develop, where we were—we had teaching and researching in other areas that matched the interest of some industry that’s already here—modeling, simulation, aerospace. When Bernie and the University of Florida joined, they said, “Hey, don’t forget agro-tech.” We hadn’t even—I don’t think any of us had heard the term before. You know? But there’s a lot of technology that mirrors life sciences in agro-business. Right now, the folks in South Florida are focused solely on life sciences. They have—they believe for whatever reason that because of Scripts, because of the success in bringing them down there that that’s the ticket to ride. A few years back, they were the “Internet Coast.” Holsenbeck Mmhmm. Pynn And they are looking—they are trying to figure out—they need to look to their strengths. Berridge That didn’t go anywhere. Holsenbeck No, they need to look… Hitt Still at the beach. Pynn They need to look to their broad, academic strengths, and say, “Who can we match this to in support?” Holsenbeck One—excuse me—just a quick answer to your question too, by using a quick example is [Central Florida] Research Park. A lot of people ask High-Tech Corridor and the Research Park to, “Come help us be successful,” and Research Park is—you could build a research park and set up an office. And, by that, I mean just the land and the infrastructure and set up an office, and that’s what the folks at Innovation Way [Corridor] have already contracted with us to do. Joe didn’t ever go out there, okay? Because somebody like Peter has to come in and express an interest in being there. So why—how do you start these kinds of things? Research Park is a good example. You have to have some tenants. Our Research Park owes its success not to the High-Tech Corridor, but to the simulation and modeling industry and the presence of the [U.S.] Military. That’s why it’s doing what it is. Clark Doctor, do you think that the involvement of the business community, going back 16 years, helped get other things approved, such as the medical school, the stadium? That is—you coming into contact with all these business leaders, and business community getting to know you, and the university coming to trust you guys? Hitt Yeah, I think that’s the way it works, it wasn’t say—if you think about either of the projects you mentioned, it wasn’t the nuts and bolts of them. It was the fact that they associated us with a successful enterprise. That we had been able to—helped organize something and get it really working, and they had seen the university as a competent organization Clark So is it possible that those things might not have happened if it hadn’t been for the initiative of the High-Tech Corridor ? Hitt Well, I suppose so. You know, I—probably less so with the—less so with the stadium, but when you ask people to get behind something as complicated as getting the medical school approved, probably the perceived success of the—of the High-Tech Corridor was a really… Holsenbeck I can give you one very solid example. Ken Pruitt, President of the Senate—we are trying to get FIA, and I go in and talk to Ken and explain—this was—this was this was, I think, the two years before he became president. He was Chairman of [the Committee on Appropriations], I believe, and I go sit down and talk to him, and I said, “You’ve heard about the FIA project and what we are trying to do there?” And maybe a few words changed, but this is exactly the way the conversation went. “Do I need to give you a white paper or do I need to put any other facts or anything together for you?” And that’s the absolutely truth. He looked at me and he said, “If John Hitt says this is what you’re going to do with the money, and this is what it will do, then I am okay.” That’s exactly what he said, and the FIA money was eventually in the budget. Hitt I forgot—Dan had told me that story at one point and I forgot it. There’s an important thing nested within that, that Dan and others at the table deserve credit on too. Universities sometimes get a bad reputation for taking money to do one thing and then doing something else with it, and that’s something that Dan and I have worked very hard to get all of our people to understand. You don’t do that. If you ever want to get money again from those people, don’t do that. You ask for the money to do X, you do X. If for some reason that can’t happen, you go back to them, and if need be and re-appropriate it, but don’t just take it under the supposition—promise—that you will do one thing and do something else with it. That’s deadly. Surprising how often it happens. Lester Well, I have a couple—couple of last questions. One of them is: where do you see as the challenges now that you are 15 years into this? Berridge The answer I was honored to give a couple weeks ago in a similar setting was—if you believe in partnership, and it really is a partnership and you put yourself on the line—so I called Dan last week, following a conversation I had with David Norton, and I said, “David, we’ve been trying through some very, very tough times to get even one-time funding, let alone recurring funding for—for UF.” But it’s still a major objective. The governor accepted 5 million per state university that wanted to adopt our program on the basis that the money would come to us, we would validate their program, and only once we validated their program, would the money be transferred to said university. In doing so, that would have increased our funding as well, which we would be very happy, when you think in terms of UCF running through the budget by January-February, which it has historically done, that would tell you that there are plenty of projects. Pynn Let me explain that—running—running through the research projects, not running out of money. Berridge The budget is appropriation is consumed by January-February, because we have that many great projects coming to the university to partner with corridor money to do the applied research. You forget was—if you had an amount more than we have now—we have taken budget cuts just as the university has, of course. Well, we could do more, if we had more in terms of funding, but we didn’t put it that way. What we put it was—establish the program for any state university that wanted to do what we were doing. We said in the process, our three—UCF, USF, and UF—we would like to see recurring funding initially at the 2 million level for UF. So that’s a major goal. So hopefully it doesn’t take the next 15 years to get that done. That would be a major goal. Hitt I think one of the things we have got to—to address—I think we have been doing so, but look around the table we are not spring chickens. And, I mean, even a young guy like Roger. You know? But, you know, this Friday—I guess it is I will be 72 years old. I don’t know how much longer I’m going to be President [of the University of Central Florida], but it’s not another 20 years plus, and Randy’s gonna want to be fully retired one day, as well Ben, and Peter already is—the rascal. So you know we’ve gotta—I think we’ve institutionalized things pretty well, but if you got a president who just didn’t understand or commit to partnership, it would be hard for this to survive. When you think about the five goals, and partnership, and how much we are invested as an institution in that concept and in practice, I don’t think it’s likely that the next president will not care about partnership. I think that will be a criteria in the selection process that we’ve set up, but that’s clearly an issue, you know? Does it survive the person—the people who put it in place and operating it and sustaining that for 16 years? Berridge Bernie is in the process of going on to his next vocation—or vocation or what have you—dentist, I believe. Researcher, as well as a dentist. Pynn I bet he doesn’t go back to pulling teeth. Berridge No? Hitt Oh, no. He’s going to be here in Orlando for a lot of this time. Berridge So… Pynn Is he? Lester Really? Hitt Yeah. Berridge A transition plan for a couple years now. Pynn With the research center? Hitt Yeah, in developing part health partnership—expanding, I think, on what they’ve got with Orlando Health and… Pynn Wonderful. Berridge We have shared it this morning from folks all over the country that are part of this. It’s a program—some nationally acclaimed teachers—we have been recognized through the tech camp tech path program as the best of the best in terms of the state of Florida for STEM [Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics] programs. I want the gentleman sitting to your right to close his ears now. We’ve had his leadership in trying to bridge a number of STEM programs at our universities and in our region. PRISM [Promoting Regional Improvement in Science and Math]—I don’t like the term—no matter how you succinctly you try to pronounce the first thing that comes to mind is not an optical device or an acronym for STEM programs. Anyway, He lets me say that each time we get together, but the idea of merging all of these STEM programs across the region to make them more effective would be a target for sooner than later in the next 15 years. It needs to happen. With limited resources, Roger’s team has put together every school superintendent. Thanks to Jim Shot and others across our—is there ten? Ten of them? Pynn Ten. Berridge Ten counties. So that’s the lynchpin you’ve got—that you’ve got the school superintendents that have come and gone. Bill Vogel—his replacement—Orange County—he’ll shoot me—just retired from Orange County. Pynn Ron Walker. Berridge Don’t tell Ron I did that. All this transition and they’re still together, but they’re only… Hitt Yeah, but his successor’s also a [UCF] Knight. Pynn UCF alumni. Berridge That’ll help. That’s right. Pynn The school superintendent in Orange, Seminole, Lake County. All three of ‘em. ’80, ’81, ’82 grads. Berridge That’ll help us keep that group together, but there is so much more in terms of potential. So how do we do a better job or orchestrating and sharing best practices? Hitt We take so much for granted. The ability to partner vertically in this—Central Florida. It’s not even the case in a lot of the rest of the state, where, you know, where you could say, we’re going to work with the schools, we’re going to work with the state colleges. Hell, there are parts of the state where they’re at war with one another. Not only do they not collaborate and cooperate, they’re fighting one another, and we tend to take that for granted here. Holsenbeck Yeah. Instead of working together in difficult times—without mentioning the topics, because I think it is like this right here, a signed docent—but the school system and the community colleges have to come to us for a joint endeavor, and that’s an example, and we all talked—the three government relations people—as we sat around the table and talked, and we said, “Do you know anywhere else—not only in the state, but maybe in the country—where this kind of initiative would come from the K-12?” So I think that’s something unique. I think one of the long-range goals is that we need to move with even more design and strategy to emerge as truly the statewide model, and help everywhere we can go and every corner of Florida to instill this program, and I think that should be one of our goals, and Roger knows this. I think he and Kerry—his organization—do a great job, but I still think, as I said a while ago, we need to double our efforts to make the policy-makers aware of all these other programs that are going on behind the scenes that are so vital to the foundation of creating that high-tech knowledge and the workforce to go along with it. Pynn And that to me—and I talk about this all the time—having this history is such an important tool for us in our toolbox to tell that story. So once we’ve chronicled where this thing’s been, it’s a lot easier to do that. Hit somebody over the head with a book. Holsenbeck And one last goal that I think would really help us—and I’ve been saying this for years—and it takes the M. J.’s and the faculty, but we need one huge hit, one great big project that the three institutions secure together. We need a high-tech SymTech or a high-tech something with hundreds of millions of dollars from the Federal level, and if we could ever get all those faculty members working together unselfishly on that level to come up with some sort of sharing program on that, I think that would be an indelible footprint on the map of what we’re about. Pynn And that brings up a point that we really haven’t talked about here. It ain’t for not trying that we haven’t gotten there. Behind the scenes, we’ve made some incredible efforts… Holsenbeck Mmhmm. Pynn To try and focus Federal energy and other grant-making activities on this region. We’ve come very close, and the great news is that out of that we have—I always look at it as part of that pajama hotline we have on Tuesday mornings—we have a bunch of people on the phone on Tuesday mornings who can respond like that—put together responses for opportunities. One of these days—we’re going to hit another... Holsenbeck SymTech was one. Berridge We’ve had two by the way. Guess that—from what company the two projects came from? Yeah. You’re good. Yeah. One of your graduates, and it was a wafer-polishing deal where we brought professors and students in from USF and UCF to work on. Hitt You know, there’s a good example too of what Roger said—the learning that takes place as you respond to these. We were a lot better in our attempts to bring Sanford-Burnham [Medical Research Institute] here than we were in our attempts to bring Scripts here. I mean we learned a lot from the near-miss on Scripts, and we were a lot closer on that then people knew. What’s the guy’s name that’s head of Scripts, who’s going to retire now? Pynn Richard… Hitt Yeah, and he was—when we were out at the airport before they left to go down south, he was asking if I’d come out and meet with his board the next week. We were—we were that close to getting that, but I correctly forecasted we would not. The farther they got away from us, the more his desire to be down there with the billionaires would take over, and that’s what happened. Holsenbeck The area also looked like La Jolla[, San Diego, California]. A lot of those people were coming… Lester Yes. Holsenbeck Because they wanted that environmental landscape. Hitt You know, we—we had the better offer in terms of what we could really provide for them, but there’s was a lifestyle component that was very important to them and I thought the closer they got to that—the farther they got from Lake Nona and what we were offering them, the less we were going to be happy with the result, and that’s indeed what happened, but boy, what we learned. Not just here at the university, but what Orlando and—and Orange County learned made a big difference in the next effort. Clark One thing that surprised me ever since we got involved in this was: in so many places, the local university is either the 500 pound gorilla—and I am thinking Yale [University] and New Haven[, Connecticut] —or else is an ivory tower that almost is ashamed of—Duke [University] and Durham[, North Carolina]—being in the community, and this is really very unique. This is—I—I can’t think of other—other cities where this has happened, where the local university… Hitt There are a few. Clark Has played such a role in the business community. Hitt Yeah, yeah. No, and that makes a big difference for us, in the support we can get for various things. Berridge That’s how we had University of Florida [inaudible] Dean of Engineering, a friend—I guess they’ve been together in a past life—with President [Bernie] Machen. Vermont called and said, “We’d like to join the corridor,” and said, “We’re honored.” On asking why, he said, “Well, there’s no way we can stay on the top 20 or have any hope of getting into the top 10 of engineering colleges in the U.S. if we don’t climb out of our ivory tower and get down and start partnering with companies to do applied research.” Not basic—applied research. Oh, by the way, his stats—and he knew it—70 percent of those companies in Florida “were in your corridor, and we’d like to partner with them.” Hitt Mmhmm. Berridge I know we can come down, but that’s not the way to do it. We want to figure out how to partner with you. Holsenbeck I think that’s a change in attitude among the institutions… Hitt Yeah. Holsenbeck Again, which is to your credit, is this concept of partnership—that it does work, because I think what Randy said is, Bernie could be here, do whatever he wants to do. He does need us, but in reality, he could do it without us. Hitt Yeah, he could, and it’s a closely-held strategic view. They see, as he puts it, we are the survivors, and they would like to work with us. I hope that survives Bernie. Holsenbeck Yes, that’s the—that’s always the question. Berridge Mmhmm. Hitt Always the question. You know, if you’ve got an old-style, rigid, competitor mentality that it might not, but… Pynn John, I think going—part of [inaudible] we will know that very quickly, but that search committee was given the sense of the importance of that partnership. Hitt Well, and in their chair in that David Brown again? He and Bernie are really good in that selection. Berridge What can we do for you? Lester Well, I—this is… Clark You had another question, you said? Lester They answered it. Hitt Did they? Okay. Lester In going through that. This has been very helpful. A lot of the things that you said I kind of gathered through looking at other things and I kind of had the intuition that this was the way it was, but it is very helpful to hear you say it and confirm it. That that’s the way it was, and there was some new things I learned, and I know your time was very valuable and I really appreciate the time. Hitt This was fun. Berridge Thank you. Hitt Thank you. Yes. Lester I have to say, on a much smaller level, I’ve worked at a couple big universities before I got here. This is the first university I’ve been to that actually meant it when it says “partnership,” and even in the [UCF] History Department, RICHES [Regional Initiative for Collecting the History, Experiences, and Stories of Central Florida] now has 28 partnerships between different departments, the community, and businesses. Berridge Oh, wow. Hitt You guys and gals over there are doing partnerships. It—it’s known. Lester It’s really been amazing to me how well that works. Clark Did you know we have our own museum now? Up in Sanford?<a title="">[6]</a> Hitt Mmhmm. Pynn You’re the dinosaur. Clark A number of people have said… Pynn Can I get two points? Hitt You’re a leg up on three points Lester But you know… Clark A number of people I’ve talked to, involved in this, have said that giving me a pay raise would enhance the university. Lester Exactly. Clark Have you given that much… Hitt We have. We’ve thought about it a lot. Pynn You know what—actually, I understand. Hitt We’ve thought about it as much as we’re going to. Pynn I understand we’ve thought that we’re going to do some research on that. Berridge It’s a history project. Holsenbeck Let’s say goodbye to the staff. Thank you so much for the interview. <div> <div> <a title="">[1]</a> Randolph E. Berridge. </div> <div> <a title="">[2]</a> Irma Becerra-Fernandez. </div> <div> <a title="">[3]</a> Paul R. Sandberg. </div> <div> <a title="">[4]</a> Salon International de l'Aéronautique et de l'Espace, Paris-Le Bourget. </div> <div> <a title="">[5]</a> Richard “Rick” Lynn Scott. </div> <div> <a title="">[6]</a> UCF Public History Center. </div> </div> 501(c)(6) Advanced Materials Processing and Analysis Center agro-tech Alachua County Alzo J. Reddick American Telephone & Telegraph Company AMPAC Amy Evancho Antoinette Jennings AT&T Inc. Becerra-Fernandez, Irma Ben Noll Bernard Machen Bernie Machen Berridge, Randolph E. Bethany Dickens Betty Bowe Betty Castor Bill Vogel Bob Cook Bob Dallari Brevard County Buddy Dyer budgets Carrie Martine Cassopolis, Michigan Central Florida Research Park Charles Bass Reed Charles Gray Charlie Gross Charlie Reed Cherokee Nation Cherokee, North Carolina Cherokees Chip Camp Cirent Semiconductor Committee on Transportation and Economic Development Funding community colleges Connie L. Lester Core Team Dallari, Bob Dallas-Fort Worth Corridor Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas Dan Holsenbeck Dan Webster Daniel Alan Webster David Brown David Gordon David P. Norton Democratic Party Democrats DEO Department of Economic Opportunity Duvall County economic development Economic Development Commission of Florida's Space Coast economy EDC Economic Development Commission education Electronic Arts Elizabeth Bowe Elizabeth Castor Enterprise Florida FAU FIA FIAA FIU Florida Atlantic University Florida Department of Economic Opportunity Florida Economic Gardening Institute Florida Gulf Coast Florida High Tech Corridor Florida High Tech Corridor Council Florida House Committee on Transportation and Economic Development Funding Florida House of Respresentatives Florida International University Florida Polytechnic University Florida Power and Light Company Florida Senate Florida Senate Committee on Appropriations Florida Venture Forward Florida Virtual Entrepreneur Center Florida’s Chamber Foundation FLVEC FPU Fran Korosec funding George Gordon Get Smart Grant GrayRobinson, P.A. GrowFL: The Economic Gardening Institute Harrah's Cherokee Casino Head to Head: The Coming Economic Battle Among Japan, Europe and America high tech high tech corridors high technology House Committee on Transportation and Economic Development Funding House of Respresentatives Hunting F. Deutsch I-4 Corridor I/ITSEC IE industrial development industries industry Innovation Way Corridor intellectual property Interactive Game Academy International Paris Air Show Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation and Education Conference James C. Clark Jeff Mendell Jennifer Thompson Jim Clark Jim Shot John C. Hitt John Castor John Hugh Dyer K-12 education Kathy Betancourt Ken Pruitt Lake Nona Lake Nona Medical City Lawton Chiles Lawton Mainor Chiles, Jr. Lester Carl Thurow Littleton, Colorado Lowe Lynda Weatherman M. J. Sanders M. J. Soileau Mark B. Rosenberg matching grants Medical City Metro Orlando Economic Development Commision Metro Orlando Economic Development Commission Metro Orlando EDC MGRP Miami Michael Zaharris modeling MSW NAI National Academy of Inventors Native Americans orange county orlando Orlando Economic Development Commission Orlando EDC Pajama Hotline Paul Sanberg Peter T. Panousis Pratt & Whitney PRISM Promoting Regional Improvement in Science and Math Putnam County Randy Morris Ray Galley research and development Research Park Richard Lynn Scott RICHES of Central Florida Rick Scott Rob Goddell Roger Pynn Ron Walker Sacher Salon International de l'Aéronautique et de l'Espace, Paris-Le Bourget Sanford-Burnham Medical Research Institute Sarah McGreer Science, Technology, Engineering and Math Seminole County Seminole State College Senate Shava Jackson-Car Silicon Valley, California simulation simulation industry Smart South Florida SSC state colleges State of Florida State University System of Florida STEM programs Steve Burly Sunnyvale, California Tampa Tampa Bay TCU Tech Path Teresa Jacobs Texas Christian University The Chronicle of Higher Education Thomas Charles Feeney III Tom Feeney Tom Feeny Tom O'Neal Toni Jennings Tracy Swarztz UCF UCF Department of History UCF Knights UF UM United Technologies Corporation University of Central Florida University of Central Florida Department of History University of Florida University of Miami University of South Florida USF venture capitalism Venture Forward Volusia County Community College workforce development https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka/files/original/54764114e3bd1e47c99f39035e4d9cc9.pdf 6babc2bfaeea80bb3642c8459b27cda1 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title Sky Lake Collection Alternative Title Sky Lake Collection Subject Orlando (Fla.) Description Sky Lake is a residential community and unincorporated area in Orange County, Florida. It is located approximately seven miles south of Downtown Orlando between Lancaster Road and Sand Lake Road. The community was developed in late 1950s and 1960s by Hymen Lake. Houses originally sold in the range of $10,000 to $15,000. In the 1970s, Sky Lake became one of the first housing developments to be racially integrated. The community was originally proposed to include one thousand homes within the middle of the square mile block and a ring of commercial developments along the perimeter. Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/46" target="_blank">Orange County Collection</a>, RICHES of Central Florida Language eng Type Collection Coverage Sky Lake, Florida Curator Barnes, Mark Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Source Repository <a href="http://pinecastlehistory.org/" target="_blank">Pine Castle Historical Society</a> External Reference Mormino, Gary R. 2002. "<a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/5544029021" target="_blank">Sunbelt Dreams and Altered States: A Social and Cultural History of Florida, 1950-2000</a>." The Florida Historical Quarterly. 81, no. 1: 3-21. Arsenault, Raymond. "The End of the Long, Hot Summer: The Air Conditioner and Southern Culture." <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1782314" target="_blank">Journal of Southern History</a> Vol. 50, no. 4 (November, 1984): 597-628. Staeheli, Lynn A. and Don Mitchell. "USA’s Destiny? Regulating Space and Creting Community in American Shopping Malls." <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/37915650" target="_blank">Urban Studies</a> Vol. 43, nos 5/6 (May 2006): 977-992. Dietrich, T. Stanton. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/4683014" target="_blank">The Urbanization of Florida's Population: An Historical Perspective of County Growth, 1830-1970</a>. Gainesville, FL: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Florida, 1978. Rome, Adam Ward. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/44594084" target="_blank">The Bulldozer in the Countryside: Suburban Sprawl and the Rise of American Environmentalism</a>. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Original Format 52-page report Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title Bee Line Expressway Engineering Report Alternative Title Bee Line Engineering Report Subject Roads--Florida Highways Description An engineering report for the planned construction of Florida State Road 528 (SR 528), also called the Martin Andersen Bee Line Expressway, published in November of 1964. This report include details regarding the original phase of the project, along with a summary of future extensions, site plans, maps, and bridge plans. Now known as the Martin Andersen Beachline Expressway, SR 528 is a Central Florida Toll Road that connects Orlando, Florida, at Interstate 4 (I-4) with Cocoa Beach at Florida State Road A1A (SR A1A). The highway operates under the joint guidance of the Central Florida Expressway Authority (CFX) and the Florida's Turnpike Enterprise (FTE). The first segment of the 41 mile road was opened on July 14, 1968. Martin Anderson, the influential owner of the Orlando Sentinel newspaper, proposed the road to connect Orlando to the Florida State Road 520 (SR 520) exchange that ran to Cocoa Beach. Type Text Source Original 52-page report: <a href="http://pinecastlehistory.org/" target="_blank">Pine Castle Historical Society</a>, Pine Castle, Florida. Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/179" target="_blank">Sky Lake Collection</a>, Orange County Collection, RICHES of Central Florida. Is Format Of Digital reproduction of original 52-page report. Coverage Florida State Road 528, Orlando, Florida Florida State Road 528, Christmas, Florida Interstate 4-Florida State Road 528 Crossroad, Orlando, Florida Sunshine State Parkway-Florida State Road 528 Crossroad, Orlando, Florida Publisher <a href="https://www.cfxway.com/" target="_blank">Orange County Expressway Authority</a> Contributor <a href="http://rsandh.com/" target="_blank">Reynolds, Smith &amp</a> Hills <a href="http://www.hntb.com/" target="_blank">Howard, Needles, Tammen &amp</a> Bergendoff Lake, Harriett Date Created ca. 1964-11 Date Copyrighted 1964-11-01 Date Submitted 8.01 MB Format application/pdf Medium 52-page report Language eng Mediator History Teacher Civics/Government Teacher Economics Teacher Geography Teacher Provenance Originally published by the <a href="https://www.cfxway.com/" target="_blank">Orange County Expressway Authority</a>. Rights Holder This resource is not subject to copyright in the United States and there are no copyright restrictions on reproduction, derivative works, distribution, performance, or display of the work. Anyone may, without restriction under U.S. of state copyright laws: <ul class="one_column_bullet"><li>reproduce the work in print or digital form</li> <li>create derivative works</li> <li>perform the work publicly</li> <li>display the work</li> <li>distribute copies or digitally transfer the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.</li> </ul> This resource is provided here by <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> for educational purposes only. For more information on copyright, please refer to <a href="http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?submenu=3#A1S24" target="_blank">Secton 24 of the Florida Constitution</a>. Accrual Method Donation Curator Barnes, Mark Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Source Repository <a href="http://pinecastlehistory.org/" target="_blank">Pine Castle Historical Society</a> External Reference "<a href="https://www.cfxway.com/TravelersExpressways/Expressways/CurrentExpressways/528BeachLine.aspx" target="_blank">Welcome to State Road 528</a>." Central Florida Expressway Authority. https://www.cfxway.com/TravelersExpressways/Expressways/CurrentExpressways/528BeachLine.aspx. American Association of State Highway Officials Beachline Expressway Bee Line Expressway Brevard County bridges Cape Canaveral Cape Kennedy City of Orlando Civil Jet Terminal Cocoa Beach construction crossroads East Central Florida Regional Planning Council engineering Expressway Authority Act Commission farms Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 Florida Legislature Industrial Complex Florida State Road 15 Florida State Road 15A Florida State Road 50 Florida State Road 500 Florida State Road 520 Florida State Road 527 Florida State Road 528 highways Howard, Needles, Tammen & Bergendoff I-4 I-75 Interstate Highway 4 Interstate Highway 75 Interstate Highway Design Criteria Interstate Highway System Lake Barton Road Zoning Commission Martin Andersen Beachline Expressway Martin Andersen Bee Line Expressway Martin Anderson McCoy AFB McCoy Air Force Base Merritt Island Launch Area National Interstate and Defense Highways Act orlando Orlando International Airport Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority Patrick AFB Patrick Air Force Base ramps Reynolds, Smith & Hills roads SR 15 SR 15A SR 50 SR 500 SR 520 SR 527 SR 528 SRD Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction State Road Department Toll 528, tourism toll plazas toll roads U.S. Route 17 U.S. Route 441 U.S. Route 92 urban design urban planning US 17 US 441 US 92 https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka/files/original/95660f3d1666804919b5debe878481af.pdf 9e6f46607c8353b1a8f4f09d76030322 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title Friends of Lake Apopka Collection Alternative Title FOLA Collection Subject Lake Apopka (Fla.) Water quality--Florida Pollution--Florida Description The Friends of Lake Apopka (FOLA) is a citizen advocacy group with the mission of restoring Lake Apopka in Orange County and Lake County, Florida. Due to poor farming practices along its shores, Lake Apopka has become one of the largest polluted lakes in Florida. This collection features various archival items related to the restoration of the lake. Contributor <a href="http://www.fola.org/" target="_blank">Friends of Lake Apopka</a> Language eng Type Collection Coverage Lake Apopka, Florida Florida Game and Fresh Water Commission, Tallahassee, Florida Oakland, Florida Orlando, Florida Saint Johns River, Florida Winter Garden, Florida Winter Haven, Florida Zellwood, Florida Contributing Project <a href="http://www.fola.org/" target="_blank">Friends of Lake Apopka</a> Curator Cepero, Laura King, Joshua Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Source Repository <a href="http://www.oaktownusa.com/Pages/Preserve/index" target="_blank">Oakland Nature Preserve</a> External Reference "<a href="http://www.fola.org/" target="_blank">Our Mission & Purpose</a>." Friends of Lake Apopka. http://www.fola.org/. Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Original Format 2-page typewritten letter Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title Letter from Henry F. Swanson (February 11, 1966) Alternative Title Letter from Swanson (February 11, 1966) Subject Aquifers--Florida Rainfall Description A letter from Henry F. Swanson (1902-1989) to supporters of agriculture in Orange County, Florida. Swanson was the Orange County Agricultural Extension Agent from 1948 to 1978. The Extension Service is a cooperative effort between the University of Florida (UF) and state and local governments to make agricultural and ecological research available to the public. In addition to his role as a public advocate for Central Florida agriculture, Swanson was well-known as an early advocate for protection of Central Florida aquifers. In this letter, he describes a "greenbelt" of land in Central Florida that is a vital aquifer recharge area. Swanson also discusses the importance of agriculture, as a type of land use that does not prevent rainfall recharge (as real estate development would). Type Text Source Original 2-page typewritten letter from Henry F. Swanson, February 11, 1966: binder 1966, Friends of Lake Apopka Archives, Ginn Museum, <a href="http://www.oaktownusa.com/Pages/Preserve/index" target="_blank">Oakland Nature Preserve</a>, Oakland, Florida. Requires <a href="http://www.adobe.com/products/reader.html" target="_blank">Adobe Acrobat Reader</a> Is Part Of Binder 1966, Friends of Lake Apopka Archives, Ginn Museum, <a href="http://www.oaktownusa.com/Pages/Preserve/index" target="_blank">Oakland Nature Preserve</a>, Oakland, Florida. <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/153" target="_blank">Friends of Lake Apopka Collection</a>, RICHES of Central Florida. Is Format Of Digital reproduction of 2-page typewritten letter from Henry F. Swanson, February 11, 1966. Coverage Orlando, Florida Windermere, Florida Zellwood, Florida Tangerine, Florida Creator Swanson, Henry F. Date Created 1966-02-11 Format application/pdf Medium 2-page typewritten letter Language eng Mediator History Teacher Science Teacher Provenance Originally created by Henry F. Swanson. Rights Holder Copyright to this resource is held by the <a href="http://www.fola.org/" target="_blank">Friends of Lake Apopka</a> and is provided here by <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> for educational purposes only. Accrual Method Donation Contributing Project <a href="http://www.fola.org/" target="_blank">Friends of Lake Apopka</a> Curator King, Joshua Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Source Repository <a href="http://www.oaktownusa.com/Pages/Preserve/index" target="_blank">Oakland Nature Preserve</a> External Reference "<a href="http://www.protectingourwater.org/watersheds/map/ocklawaha/" target="_blank">Learn About Your Watershed: Ocklawaha River Watershed</a>." Florida's Water: Ours to Protect, Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Accessed June 12, 2015. http://www.protectingourwater.org/watersheds/map/ocklawaha/. aquifers Brevard County Cape Kennedy city planning Cocoa Florida Agricultural Extension Service Henry F. Swanson hydrologic cycle Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences Orange County Agricultural Center orlando rain rainfall Seminole County soil Tangerine topography West Orange County West Orange Greenbelt Windermere Zellwood zoning https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka/files/original/3c3d91b33117f2d4983c921fa2b95c33.pdf 69bec65b0d2c4c75c238e97968f22be6 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title Friends of Lake Apopka Collection Alternative Title FOLA Collection Subject Lake Apopka (Fla.) Water quality--Florida Pollution--Florida Description The Friends of Lake Apopka (FOLA) is a citizen advocacy group with the mission of restoring Lake Apopka in Orange County and Lake County, Florida. Due to poor farming practices along its shores, Lake Apopka has become one of the largest polluted lakes in Florida. This collection features various archival items related to the restoration of the lake. Contributor <a href="http://www.fola.org/" target="_blank">Friends of Lake Apopka</a> Language eng Type Collection Coverage Lake Apopka, Florida Florida Game and Fresh Water Commission, Tallahassee, Florida Oakland, Florida Orlando, Florida Saint Johns River, Florida Winter Garden, Florida Winter Haven, Florida Zellwood, Florida Contributing Project <a href="http://www.fola.org/" target="_blank">Friends of Lake Apopka</a> Curator Cepero, Laura King, Joshua Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Source Repository <a href="http://www.oaktownusa.com/Pages/Preserve/index" target="_blank">Oakland Nature Preserve</a> External Reference "<a href="http://www.fola.org/" target="_blank">Our Mission & Purpose</a>." Friends of Lake Apopka. http://www.fola.org/. Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Original Format 2-page typewritten letter Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title Letter from Henry F. Swanson (January 21, 1966) Alternative Title Letter from Swanson (January 21, 1966) Subject Aquifers--Florida Water quality--Florida Description A letter from Henry F. Swanson (1902-1989) to supporters of agriculture in Orange County, Florida. Swanson was the Orange County Agricultural Extension Agent from 1948 to 1978. The Extension Service is a cooperative effort between the University of Florida (UF) and state and local governments to make agricultural and ecological research available to the public. In addition to his role as a public advocate for Central Florida agriculture, Swanson was well-known as an early advocate for protection of Central Florida aquifers. In this letter, he outlines the need for a water management plan that would protect valuable aquifer "recharge" areas and better control excess rainfall. Type Text Source Original 2-page typewritten letter from Henry F. Swanson, January 21, 1966: binder 1966, Friends of Lake Apopka Archives, Ginn Museum, <a href="http://www.oaktownusa.com/Pages/Preserve/index" target="_blank">Oakland Nature Preserve</a>, Oakland, Florida. Requires <a href="http://www.adobe.com/products/reader.html" target="_blank">Adobe Acrobat Reader</a> Is Part Of Binder 1966, Friends of Lake Apopka Archives, Ginn Museum, <a href="http://www.oaktownusa.com/Pages/Preserve/index" target="_blank">Oakland Nature Preserve</a>, Oakland, Florida. <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/153" target="_blank">Friends of Lake Apopka Collection</a>, RICHES of Central Florida. Is Format Of Digital reproduction of original 2-page typewritten letter with attached map, January 21, 1966. Coverage Orlando, Florida College of Agriculture, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida Winter Park, Florida Maitland, Florida Cocoa, Florida Creator Swanson, Henry F. Date Created 1966-01-21 Format application/pdf Medium 2-page typewritten letter Language eng Mediator History Teacher Science Teacher Geography Teacher Provenance Originally created by Henry F. Swanson. Rights Holder Copyright to this resource is held by the <a href="http://www.fola.org/" target="_blank">Friends of Lake Apopka</a> and is provided here by <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> for educational purposes only. Accrual Method Donation Contributing Project <a href="http://www.fola.org/" target="_blank">Friends of Lake Apopka</a> Curator King, Joshua Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Source Repository <a href="http://www.oaktownusa.com/Pages/Preserve/index" target="_blank">Oakland Nature Preserve</a> External Reference Spear, Kevin. "<a href="http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-01-14/news/os-water-champion-swanson-dead-20120114_1_water-woes-floridan-aquifer-henry-swanson" target="_blank">Florida Water Champion Henry F. Swanson Dies</a>." The Orlando Sentinel. January 14, 2012. Accessed July 23, 2015. http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-01-14/news/os-water-champion-swanson-dead-20120114_1_water-woes-floridan-aquifer-henry-swanson. aquifers Brevard County Cape Kennedy city planning Cocoa Florida Agricultural Extension Service Henry F. Swanson hydrologic cycle hydrology Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences Maitland Michigan Avenue orange county Orange County Agricultural Center Orlando Florida pollution rain rainfall Seminole County soil Tom Adams topography UF University of Florida water water quality Winter Park zoning https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka/files/original/8c6b1db28cdb043850980335706ea3d9.pdf 4f9d0addbae766c3e9267d349063b64a Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title General Collection Description Collection of digital images, documents, and other records depicting the history of Florida. Series descriptions are based on special topics, the majority of which students focused their metadata entries around. Florida was first inhabited by Paleo-Indians as early as 14,000 years ago. By the 16th century, several distinct Native American tribes inhabited present-day Florida, primarily the Apalachee of the Panhandle, the Timucua of North and Central Florida), the Ais of the Central Atlantic Coast, the Tocobaga of the Tampa Bay area, the Calusa of Southwest Florida, and the Tequesta of the Southeast Florida. In 1513, Juan Ponce de León of Spain became the earliest known European explorer to arrive in Florida. During the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, Spanish, French, and English pioneers settled various parts of the states, though not all settlement were successful. Most of the region was owned by Spain, until it was ceded to the United States via the Adams–Onís Treaty of 1819. On March 3, 1845, Florida earned statehood. Florida was marred by nearly constant warfare with the Native Americans in the region, particularly with the Seminoles during the Seminole Wars. On January 10, 1861, Florida seceded from the Union and joined the Confederate States of American on January 20th. The state's participation in the Civil War revolved mostly around the transportation of goods via ships. On June 25, 1868, Florida regained its representation in Congress. During the Reconstruction period, Florida drafted a new state constitution, which included statues that effectively disenfranchised its African-American citizens, as well as many poor white citizens. Through much of its early history, Florida's economy relied heavily upon agriculture, especially citrus, cattle, sugarcane, tomatoes, and strawberries. Florida's tourism industry developed greatly with the economic prosperity of the 1920s. However, this was halted by devastating hurricanes in the second half of the decade, the Wall Street Crash of 1929, and the Great Depression. The economy would not fully recover until manufacturing was stimulated by World War II. As of 2014, Florida was the third most populous state in the country. Contributor Humphrey, Daphne F. Alternative Title General Collection Subject Florida Eatonville (Fla.) Orlando (Fla.) Winter Park (Fla.) Sanford (Fla.) Daytona Beach (Fla.) New Smyrna Beach (Fla.) Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a>. Language eng Type Collection Coverage Eatonville, Florida Orlando, Florida Winter Park, Florida Sanford , Florida Daytona Beach, Florida New Smyrna Beach, Florida Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> External Reference "<a href="http://dos.myflorida.com/florida-facts/florida-history/" target="_blank">Florida History</a>." Florida Department of State. http://dos.myflorida.com/florida-facts/florida-history/. Knotts, Bob. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/49672975" target="_blank">Florida History</a>. Chicago: Heinemann Library, 2003. Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Original Format 44-page paper Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title To Attract, Retain and Grow: The History of the Florida High Tech Corridor Council Alternative Title History of Florida High Tech Corridor Council Subject High technology industries--United States Orlando (Fla.) Tampa (Fla.) University of Central Florida University of South Florida Colleges Universities and colleges Hitt, John C. Castor, Betty, 1941- Education--Florida Description "To Attract, Retain and Grow: The History of the Florida High Tech Corridor Council" is a paper by Dr. Connie L. Lester and Dr. James C. Clark of the University of Central Florida (UCF). Dr. Lester is an Associate Professor of History concentrating in the Modern South, as well as agricultural, environmental, and economic history. She is also the Program Director of RICHES of Central Florida and Editor of Florida Historical Quarterly. A Lecturer of History, Dr. Clark's concentration is on Florida history, the American South, and presidential history. "To Attract, Retain and Grow" focuses on the history of the Florida High Tech Corridor Council (FHTCC), which an economic development initiative whose mission is to foster the high technology industry in Florida's High Tech Corridor, spanning 23 counties with rich industries in aerospace engineering, modeling and simulation, optics and photonics, digital media, and medical technologies. The council consists of the UCF in Orlando, the University of South Florida (USF) in Tampa, and the University of Florida (UF) in Gainesville. In 1966, the Florida Legislature passed an act founding the FHTCC to support the 21-county service areas of UCF and USF. Its original mission was to expand research and educational partnerships in order to retain the Cirent Semiconductor water fabrication facility located in Orlando, Florida. In 1997, the development of all technology industries across Central Florida was added to the FHTCC's mission. UF joined the partnership in 2005. Abstract This scientific study, conducted by the University of Central Florida’s history department, looks at the factors that contributed to the growth of the innovative technology clusters of Florida’s High Tech Corridor. Type Text Source Original 44-page paper: Lester, Connie L. and James C. Clark. "<a href="http://www.floridahightech.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Publications-To-Attract-Retain-and-Grow-Corridor-History.pdf" target="_blank">To Attract, Retain and Grow: The History of the Florida High Tech Corridor Council</a>." Requires a href="http://www.adobe.com/products/reader.html" target="_blank"&gt Adobe Acrobat Reader Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/36" target="_blank">General Collection</a>, RICHES of Central Florida. Coverage University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida Creator Lester, Connie L. Clark, James C. Publisher <a href="http://www.floridahightech.com/%20target=">Florida High Tech Corridor Council</a> Date Created ca. 2103 Date Issued ca. 2103 Date Copyrighted ca. 2103 Date Submitted ca. 2103 Format application/pdf Extent 447 KB Medium 44-page paper Language eng Mediator History Teacher Civics/Government Teacher Economics Teacher Geography Teacher Humanities Teacher Science Teacher Provenance Originally created by Dr. Connie L. Lester and James C. Clark, and published by the <a href="http://www.floridahightech.com/%20target=">Florida High Tech Corridor Council</a>. Rights Holder Copyright to this resource is held by the <a href="http://www.floridahightech.com/%20target=">Florida High Tech Corridor Council</a> and is provided here by <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> for educational purposes only. Accrual Method Donation Contributing Project <a href="http://www.floridahightech.com/%20target=">Florida High Tech Corridor Council</a> Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> External Reference "<a href="http://www.floridahightech.com/about/" target="_blank">ABOUT</a>." Florida High Tech Corridor. http://www.floridahightech.com/about/. Burnett, Richard. "<a href="http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-09-19/business/os-cfb-tech-corridor-092010-20100919_1_grant-program-florida-high-tech-corridor-council-advocacy-group" target="_blank">Technology: Local council's grant program wins award</a>." The Orlando Sentinel, September 19, 2010. http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-09-19/business/os-cfb-tech-corridor-092010-20100919_1_grant-program-florida-high-tech-corridor-council-advocacy-group. Florida High Tech Corridor Council. "<a href="http://www.floridahightech.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Press-Kit-florida.HIGH_.TECH-2014.pdf%20target=">florida.HIGH.TECH 2014: The Guide to Florida's High Tech Corridor</a>." Florida High Tech Corridor Council. http://www.floridahightech.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Press-Kit-florida.HIGH_.TECH-2014.pdf. Manning, Margie. "<a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/tampabay/print-edition/2011/09/30/high-tech-corridor-matching-grants.html?page=all" target="_blank">High Tech Corridor matching grants create billion-dollar economic engine</a>." Tampa Bay Business Journal, September 30, 2010. http://www.bizjournals.com/tampabay/print-edition/2011/09/30/high-tech-corridor-matching-grants.html?page=all. 13 Technology Incubators 501(c)(6) academia academics accelerators aerospace Agricultural College Act of 1890 agriculture Alachua County Alex Katsaros Alex Spinler Amy Bayes Andrew Huse AnnaLee Saxenian Antoinette Jennings AT&T Corporation aviation Barack Hussein Obama II Barack Obama Bernie Machen Berridge Consulting Group, Inc. Betty Bowe Betty Castor Brevard County Bruce J. Schulman Bruce Janz Buddy Dyer business businesses Center for Research and Education in Optics and Lasers Central Florida Technology Forum Charlie Reed Cirent Cirent Semiconductor Clusters of Creativity: Enduring Lessons on Innovation and Entrepreneurship from Silicon Valley and Europe’s Silicon Fen Cobham SATCOM Land Systems colleges computer science Connie L. Lester Consortium construction Core Tea cybercities Cybercities Report cybercity Dan Berglund Dan Rini Daniel Holsenbeck Daniel Webster Decade of Partnership Deepika Singh digital media economic development economic growth economics economies economy Ed Schons Educational Appropriations Committee educators electro-optics Electronic Arts Tiburon Elizabeth Bowe Elizabeth Castor endowments engineering engineers Equal Rights Amendment ESC Evaporative Spray Cooling Feng Kang Ferald J. Bryan FHTCC financial services Florida Cabinet Florida Cluster Metrics Task Force Florida Economic Gardening Institute Florida High Tech Corridor Council Florida Hospital Florida House of Representatives Florida Institute of Technology Florida Legislature Florida Office of Tourism, Trade and Economic Development Florida Research Consortium Florida Senate Florida State University System Florida Tax Watch Florida Venture Forum, Inc. Florida Virtual Entrepreneur Center florida.HIGH.TECH Florida’s High Tech Corridor: Opening the Door to Florida’s Future Florida’s Innovation Benchmark Study FLVEC From Soap Suds to Sheer Success: The Florida High-Tech Corridor Council Story G.I. Bill Georges Haour Gordon Hogan Grace Venture Partners L.P. grants GrowFL GTE Guy Hagen Harris Harvard of the South Henderson Air Field Henry W. Grady Hernando County high tech high technology higher education Hillsborough County Hillsborough County Commission I-4 I-4 Corridor I-4 High Tech Corridor Council IFAS incubators industries industry information technology Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences interactive entertainment Interactive Expeditions International Economic Development Council Interstate Highway 4 INTX investments J. William Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board Jack Sullivan Jacob Stuart James Bernard Machen James C. Clark James C. Cobb, James Schnur James Solomons Jeb Bush Jeff Bindell Jennie Miller Jim Clark John C. Hitt John Ellis Bush John H. Dyer John Montelione John Sacher Joseph England Joseph Schumpeter Josh Wyner Juan Carlos Sanabria Judy Genshaft Judy Lynn Genshaft Keith G, Baker Kerry Martin Kiran C. Patel Center for Global Solution Lake County lasers life sciences Lockheed Martin Lucent Technologies Luther H. Hodges Luther Hartwell Hodges M. J. Soileau Madrid, Spain manufacturing Massachusetts Institute of Technology matching funds Matching Grants Research Program Math & Physics Day mechanical arts medical technology Melbourne MGRP microelectronics microscopy military Miniature Refrigeration System MIT modeling Morrill Act of 1862 Morrill Act of 1890 Morrill Land-Grant Acts nanotechnology NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration National Board for Professional Teaching Standards Ned Grace New South New South Ventures Nicholson Center for Surgical Advancement Ocean Optics optics Oracle orange county orlando Orlando Chamber of Commerce Orlando Science Center OSC Osceola County Palm Bay Pasco County Peter Panousis Philip Peters photonics Pinellas County public-private partnerships Putnam County Randy E. Berridge Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128 research Research and Commercialization Research Triangle Rob Koepp robotics Robotics Camp ROBRADY Roger Pynn Rosalind Beiler Route 128 Rudy McDaniel Saint Petersburg Sanford Shugart Sanford-Burnham Medical Research Institute Scanning Electron Microscope Schwartz Electro-optics Scot French SeaWorld Orlando SEM semiconductors Seminole County Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 Sestar Technologies Silicon Fen Silicon Valley simulation Sinmat software South Florida Community College Southern Regional Education Board Space Coast St. Petersburg Stanford University STEM SU sustainable energy Tampa Tampa Bay Tampa Bay Technology Forum teachers Tech 4 Consortium Tech America Foundation techCAMPs Technology Incubator techPATH TES The Corridor by the Numbers The Scripps Research Institute Thermal Energy Storage Thomas Charles Feeney II Tito Santiago Tom Feeney Tom O’Neal Toni Jennings TracStar Ed-PAD training UCF UF Universal Studios Orlando universities university University of Central Florida University of Florida University of South Florida USF Valencia College Valencia Community College Valencia State College VC VCC venture capital Vicki Morelli Volusia County VSC Walt Disney World workforce development World War II WWII https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka/files/original/80b4c2cfe328ed23a797b0b8c7d69036.pdf 78ef0ef46396b4098d30b78b2a0b8c68 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title War in Afghanistan Collection Alternative Title Afghanistan Collection Description Operation Enduring Freedom is the official name for the "military conflict" commonly known as the "War in Afghanistan," which is a group of military actions within the Global War on Terror (GWOT). The operation in Afghanistan is an ongoing conflict between Afghanistan, the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Poland, Germany, Italy, Spain, Australia, New Zealand, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) against two Islamic fundamentalist groups in Afghanistan: the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The Taliban came to power in Afghanistan in 1996, the same year that international terrorist and Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden immigrated to the country with the invitation of the Northern Alliance. Following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the United States presented the Taliban with a five-point ultimatum to the Taliban government, which was suspected of providing asylum to Al-Qaeda terrorists. After the Taliban rejected the ultimatum and the U.S. rejected Taliban proposals to try suspected terrorists under Islamic Shari'a law, the United States and the United Kingdom initiated military action on October 7, 2001. Although the U.S.-led coalition removed the Taliban from power initially and severely damaged Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, the operation has overall had little success in defeating the Taliban insurgency. Operation Enduring Freedom has been transformed into a full war and has thus far lasted significantly longer than expected. Contributor <a href="http://digitalcollections.net.ucf.edu/cdm/landingpage/collection/VET" target="_blank">UCF Community Veterans History Project</a> Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/24" target="_blank">UCF Community Veterans History Project Collection</a>, RICHES of Central Florida. Language eng Type Collection Contributing Project <a href="http://digitalcollections.net.ucf.edu/cdm/landingpage/collection/VET" target="_blank">UCF Community Veterans History Project</a> Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="http://digital.library.ucf.edu/cdm/landingpage/collection/VET" target="_blank">UCF Community Veterans History Project</a>, UCF Digital Collections, University of Central Florida <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Subject Operation Enduring Freedom, 2001- Global War on Terror, 2001-2009 Veterans--Florida Coverage Afghanistan Source Repository <a href="http://digital.library.ucf.edu/cdm/landingpage/collection/VET" target="_blank">UCF Community Veterans History Project</a>, UCF Digital Collections, University of Central Florida External Reference "<a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/veterans/" target="_blank">About the Project</a>." UCF Community Veterans History Project, RICHES of Central Florida, University of Central Florida. http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/veterans/. Center of Military History. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/55079497" target="_blank">Operation Enduring Freedom: October 2001-March 2002</a>. Washington, D.C.: [U.S. Army Center of Military History], 2004. Neumann, Brian F., Lisa M. Mundey, and Jon Mikolashek. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/856994805" target="_blank">Operation Enduring Freedom</a>. 2013. Tripp, Robert S., Kristin F. Lynch, John G. Drew, and Edward Wei-Min Chan. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/427704785" target="_blank">Lessons from Operation Enduring Freedom</a>. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2004. Wright, Donald P. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/316737060" target="_blank">A Different Kind of War: The United States Army in Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), October 2001-September 2005</a>. Fort Leavenworth, KS: Combat Studies Institute Press, US Army Combined Arms Center, 2010. Oral History A resource containing historical information obtained in interviews with persons having firsthand knowledge. Interviewer Williams, Rachel Interviewee Dull, Joshua R. Bit Rate/Frequency 64kbps Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title Oral History of Joshua "Josh" R. Dull Alternative Title Oral History, Dull Subject Veterans--Florida Air Force Global War on Terror, 2001-2009 Afghan War, 2001- Post-traumatic stress disorder--United States Mental health--Florida Description An oral history of Joshua R. Dull, a Creative Writing student at the University of Central Florida (UCF) in Orlando, Florida. Dull served in the U.S. Air Force (USAF) during the Global War of Terror (2001-2009) and completed his service as a Senior Airman. Dull discusses his family's military background, his experience in basic training, tech school, the Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, deployments in Qatar at Al Udeid Air Base and in Afghanistan, operating cryogenics, leisure time in a war zone, maintaining a romantic relationship while deployed, struggles in life after service, and working at the UCF Veterans Academic Resource Center (VARC) and helping veteran students. Table Of Contents 0:00:00 Introduction 0:00:26 Early childhood 0:03:45 Basic training 0:06:15 Tech school 0:07:09 Active duty/Davis-Monthan Air Force Base 0:07:47 First deployment - Qatar - Al Udeid Air Base 0:09:20 First impression of Qatar 0:10:07 Locals in Qatar 0:12:09 Memorable day in Qatar/leaving 0:13:45 Second deployment ─ Afghanistan 0:15:42 First impression of Afghanistan 0:17:04 Operating cryogenics elements 0:17:30 Memorable day in Afghanistan/movie night 0:19:11 9/11 in Afghanistan 0:20:52 Rocket attack response 0:22:32 Funny story – sabotaging supervisor 0:24:40 Feelings leaving Afghanistan 0:25:58 Being in relationship while in Afghanistan 0:27:49 Life after service 0:29:45 Awards/medals earned for service 0:31:18 Today's activities 0:32:11 Working at the UCF VARC and helping veteran students 0:32:42 How service has affected life Abstract Oral history of Joshua R. Dull. Interview conducted by Rachel Williams at the <a href="http://www.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">University of Central Florida</a> in Orlando, Florida. Type Moving Image Source <a href="http://stars.library.ucf.edu/veteransoralhistories/278/" target="_blank">Dull, Joshua R.</a> Interviewed by Rachel Williams. Audio/video record available. <a href="http://digital.library.ucf.edu/cdm/landingpage/collection/VET" target="_blank">UCF Community Veterans History Project</a>, RICHES of Central Florida, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida. Requires Multimedia software, such as <a href="http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/" target="_blank"> QuickTime</a>. <a href="https://get.adobe.com/reader/" target="_blank">Adobe Acrobat Reader</a> Is Part Of <a href="http://digital.library.ucf.edu/cdm/landingpage/collection/VET" target="_blank">UCF Community Veterans History Project</a>, RICHES of Central Florida, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida. <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/96" target="_blank">War in Afghanistan Collection</a>, UCF Community Veterans History Project Collection, RICHES of Central Florida. Has Format Digital transcript of original 34-minute and 2-second oral history: <a href="http://stars.library.ucf.edu/veteransoralhistories/278/" target="_blank">Dull, Joshua R.</a> Interviewed by Rachel Williams. Audio/video record available. <a href="http://digital.library.ucf.edu/cdm/landingpage/collection/VET" target="_blank">UCF Community Veterans History Project</a>, RICHES of Central Florida, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida. Coverage University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Tucson, Arizona Al Udeid Air Base, Doha, Qatar Bagram Airfield, Bagram, Parwan, Afghanistan Creator Williams, Rachel Dull, Joshua R. Publisher <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> Date Created 2014-11-13 Date Copyrighted 2014-11-13 Format video/WMA application/pdf Extent 0.98 GB 190 KB Medium 34-minute and 2-second DVD/MP4 audio/video recording 20-page digital transcript Language eng Mediator History Teacher Civics/Government Teacher Geography Teacher Provenance Originally created by Rachel Williams and Joshua Dull and published by <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a>. Rights Holder <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> Accrual Method Item Creation Contributing Project <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/veterans/" target="_blank">UCF Community Veterans History Project</a> Curator Cravero, Geoffrey Digital Collection <a href="http://digital.library.ucf.edu/cdm/landingpage/collection/VET" target="_blank">UCF Community Veterans History Project</a>, UCF Digital Collections, University of Central Florida <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> External Reference Belasco, Amy. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/73526824" target="_blank">The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11</a>. [Washington, D.C.]: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, 2006. Baker, K. J. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/795120466" target="_blank">War in Afghanistan A Short History of Eighty Wars and Conflicts in Afghanistan and the North-West Frontier 1839-2011</a>. Dural Delivery Centre NSW: Rosenberg Publishing, 2011. Collins, Joseph J. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/720899564" target="_blank">Understanding War in Afghanistan</a>. Washington, DC: National Defense University Press, 2011. Finley, Finley, Erin P. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/732959290" target="_blank">Fields of Combat Understanding PTSD Among Veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan</a>. Ithaca: ILR Press, 2011. Click to View (Movie, Podcast, or Website) <a href="http://stars.library.ucf.edu/veteransoralhistories/278/" target="_blank">Dull, Joshua R.</a> Transcript Williams Today is November 13th, 2014. I am interviewing Mr. [Joshua] "Josh" [R.] Dull, who served in the United States Air Force. He served during the [Global] War on Terror and completed his service as a senior airman. My name is Rachel Williams and I am interviewing Mr. Dull as part of the UCF [University of Central Florida] Community Veterans History Project. We are recording this interview at UCF in Orlando, Florida. Alright. So to start, I’m just going to ask you some basic questions about your early childhood. So can you tell me where you were born? Dull Melbourne, Florida. Williams And what was your child like—childhood like? Dull Childhood? Williams Yeah. Dull It’s a very broad question. Um, lower middle class suburban. My dad was actually in the Air Force. I was what prompted him to join the Air Force. So my earliest memories are actually in Alaska. That’s where my youngest sister was born, Heather [Dull], and—yeah. We were stationed at Elmendorf [Air Force Base], at the time. Shortly after that, we moved to Washington. We had two houses there, but we lived in the Tacoma[, Washington] area. I think that could be McChord [Field], but I could be mistaken. So my dad got out the Air Force and, um—that year. About 1992-’93, we moved back to Florida, so we could be around our grandparents, because our whole family is from the Brevard County area. So, um, yeah. My parents basically stayed broke trying to give us a good—at least, middle class—upbringing. We had a strong support group with our aunts, uncles, grandparents, especially—few of our cousins. So we moved from there to Wyoming when I was in eighth grade—when I was 13. So that was kind of rough, ‘cause we left that whole support group around. Love my parents and they were good people, but they’re kind of hard-lined disciplinarians and kept us pretty sheltered too. At least me anyway, ‘cause I was the oldest. So… Williams Alright. So you said your dad was in the Air Force. What did your mother do for a living? Dull Good question. She kind of bounced around from job to job while we were in Florida. She kind of—her and my dad met at the airport in Melbourne.<a title="">[1]</a> That’s where they—yeah. They were working there at the time and got married from there, but—I don’t know if she worked while my dad was in the Air Force. and then I just remember her having an array of jobs when I was a kid. I think the last one was a—she was a secretary at a[sic] optometrist or an optometry clinic. So she’s working now for Empower Wyoming, which helps teach women self-defense skills, and I believe she has a—yeah. she does something with substance abuse prevention in Wyoming, so yeah. Williams So your dad served in the Air Force. Did any other family members serve? Dull My granddad was in the Navy, on my mom’s side. He was—he served during World War II. I had a couple cousins who were—or great cousins, I guess—who were—I’m not sure—Army or Marines or whatever. They served during Vietnam [War]. Great-grandfather served in World War I. I mean, I currently have one cousin who’s in the Marines. another who’s honorably discharged from the Marines. Williams So how much education did you have before going into the military? Dull High school and like one semester of college. Williams How long were you in the service? Dull Five years. Williams And when did you start basic training? Dull I began basic training on May 20th of 2008. Williams And what did you think of basic training? Dull Sucked. Williams Why do you say that? Dull Well, let’s see. We were herded onto a bus at about 3 in the morning, and as soon as we stepped off, people are yelling and screaming and cussing at you. Well, actually not necessarily cussing. That wasn’t allowed by this time. back in the day it was. They cuss at you in private, but whatever. But yeah. You know, basic training—it’s not designed to be fun. It’s not designed to be easy. Yeah. my first memories were doing my best to not get yelled at. Kind of following in the group think almost. And I remember we’re standing in our bay outside our beds and there’s this guy named Master Sargent Romero just screaming at us. And he kinda looked like Danny Trejo from Once Upon a Time in Mexico. Scary guy, you know? [laughs] Williams Alright. Describe a typical day during basic training. Dull During basic training? Well, at 4:45 in the morning, Reveille plays. Sleep is fleeing from your eyes as your TI [Training Instructor] and others are screaming at you. “Get up! Get up! You make me sick! Get your ass outta bed!” Whatever. You line up in the hallways and wait for the element leaders or whoever to lead us down—down to the pad, which is outside the squadrons. All the squadrons or all the flights in the squadrons had to sound off—the TIs leading them. You start the day with PT—physical training. So running, push-ups. All the while, people are yelling at you. It got better throughout the course of basic training, but at the beginning, definitely not. Then you had chow. That lasted about five minutes, if you were lucky. You learned to basically just put all your breakfast items between two thick pieces of French toast and that was your breakfast, ‘cause that’s the only way you could eat everything. Then you had to fall out. Then it was just a lot of marching and folding laundry and cleaning up the bay and doing military in-processing stuff. Regular appointments. And also prepping for the graduation ceremony. So nighttime, the TI would have a—at about 5 o’clock, TI would wind down with us. He’d tell us what went on that day, what we need to accomplish the next day. He gradually got nicer as the course of basic training went on. That was also when you got your letters and stuff, so yeah. Williams Did you have any special training? Dull Special training? Like, uh… Williams Anything other than basic training to get you ready for some special… Dull Yeah. Everybody goes to—in the Air Force—well, in the Army, it’s called “A-School,” but in the Air Force it’s called “Tech School.” That’s immediately following basic training. My original job was supposed to be Explosive Ordinance Disposal. So that’s what I began doing. Learning about various explosive devices, bombs, missiles, other projectiles; how to disarm them; which is mainly blow them up in place. We actually got to do that. That was pretty cool. One of the highlights of my service. But unfortunately, I didn’t make it through EOD training. Well, actually I say “fortunately” now in retrospect, but yeah. So after that, I went to fuels tech school in Wichita Falls, Texas. And that was completed in six weeks, and then I was ready for active duty. Williams So, where did you go once you were ready for active duty? Dull My first and only duty station was Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson, Arizona. Williams And what did you do there? Dull I refueled planes and also worked with the lab out there—the fuels lab. And operated the hydro system as well. Williams And how long were you there? Dull Well, that was my entire enlistment. However, I deployed out of there twice, so, give or take two deployments, five years. Well, actually, that’s a lie, ‘cause I forgot training and all that. I got there February 2009. So from February 2009 to end of May 2013. Williams So you said you had two deployments. Where was your first deployment to? Dull To [Doha, ]Qatar. Al Udeid Air Base. Williams And how long were you there? Dull Six months, give or take a few days. Williams And what did you do there? Dull I refueled planes. Yeah. Williams So describe a typical day when you were deployed there. Dull In Qatar? Williams Mmhmm. Dull Qatar was an awesome deployment, in retrospect. Well, a typical day was—at least before the Iraq War ended, ‘cause I was there right when that occurred, I think. It was very busy. You’d get there at work at about—well, you rode a bus to work at about—I—6:30 in the morning. Got there at 7. you’d have a morning briefing. Then you’d just take your backpack, you’d load it up—load it up with water, Gatorade—we used these energy drinks called “Rip Its.” If you can find them over here, you, like, stock up on them, because that’s what you had when you were deployed. But yeah, we had like this big stash of just free food that had been donated throughout. You just—that was basically it. You went to truck and you saw the—the shop again for lunch and the—again, when somebody was relieving you for the next shift to come on. After the Iraq—after the actions in Iraq started winding down, though the work load started to decrease, so you actually got to hang out in the building a little more throughout the day. So that was both good and bad. Got a lot of reading done. Williams So what was your first impression when you got to Qatar? Dull Mmm. Kind of a culture shock really, ‘cause, to be honest, I had never left the country before that so. And, I guess, the reality of actually being in a deployed zone, like, never in my—at that time, I think, 22-23 years of life—did I ever actually think I would be in that place. and—I don’t know—it was kind of scary at first, ‘cause I’m removed from everything. I don’t have as much freedom, just because—it’s not a distinctly oppressive environment. it’s just long shifts and you’re away from everything. Don’t have a car. Stuff like that. And I got so used to my little world over here that—so it was a bit of an adjustment. Williams Did you encounter any locals there? Dull Mmhmm. Williams What did you think of them? Dull Well, Qatar was—that was a very awesome experience, I thought. Very—very eye-opening, in a sense, too. We were actually—because it’s a non-hostile country, we were actually allowed to occasionally go downtown with commander’s approval. I got to do that about three times. I could have done it more, but I worked night shift and that basically meant going off base—meant being awake 24 hours straight [laughs]. But I met, um—I didn’t meet a lot of the actual Qatari nationals, ‘cause they’re considered royalty over there. You see them, but it’s not like you actually stop and converse with them. The few I did, they were seemingly pleasant. Um, there were a lot of Sri Lankan-Nepalese people there that—they worked most the areas and, you know, shops and whatnot. I had my first experience with bargaining. It was an Indian man named Hakthor. I’ll never forget the guy, ‘cause I remember he’s got this jewelry shop. And I just remember I was looking for presents to send home and he tells me a price and I’m like, “No. I’m not paying that.” He’s like—so he sits here, like trying to justify. He’s like yelling, so I’m yelling back at him like, “No. No way. There’s no way I’m paying for that.” I’m finally walking out the door, I say—he’s like, “Come on. Just tell me a price.” I’m like, “Fine. I’ll give you about 400 riyal for that and that’s it. I’m leaving.” He’s like, “You know how much I sell these for? 800 riyal. I’ll do it for you, but nobody else.” So after I buy it, suddenly he’s my best friend. He’s like, “Thank you so much,” and starts giving me all this free stuff, asking me if I want tea. Pours me up some tea, asks me if I want it with milk, and we just sat there and talked. I still remember where his shop is, so if I’m ever in the souqs in Doha, Qatar, I know all I got to do is walk down this little alleyway and turn right and I can find Hakthor’s shop. So yep. Williams So tell me about your most memorable day there. Dull My most memorable day in Qatar? Williams Mmhmm. Dull Leaving [laughs]. Um, I don’t know, ‘cause most of the days were just so similar. Even the days off—like, I had my own routine. Um—crap. Most memorable day—yeah… Williams Well, why don’t you tell me about leaving—that day. Dull Okay. Well, it was a very elating experience, because you spent six months just daydreaming about all the stuff you were going to do once you got back. Because that’s one thing you realize once you get there, is how much of being stateside you take for granted. like being able to just drive somewhere and see people, just being able to go to your favorite sushi restaurant, or you know, just the various things you can do to unwind, like hiking out in the desert. That was something I liked to do out there. There was a place called Picacho Peak [State Park] between Phoenix[, Arizona] and Tucson. I’d just—randomly, I’d drive there and hike the thing and come down, but you can’t do that over there. You live in a very small compound and—similar area, so—it was—everybody actually cheered when my plane actually left the tarmac, ‘cause we were finally going home. So… Williams So that was your first deployment. Dull Mmhmm. Williams Where was your second deployment? Dull That was Afghanistan. Williams And what was it like there? Dull Not as cushy [laughs]. Williams How so? Dull Well, because you don’t get to go off base there, ‘cause it’s actually dangerous outside. V-22 rockets and mortars are launched at you about twice a week. A little bit more during Ramadan, ‘cause I was deployed for those months. 9/11<a title="">[2]</a> was a particularly scary day. I’m sure those questions are coming up though. But no, there’s the big burn pits. The air was always kind of smoky. The place was kind of just like—I was in Bagram Airfield[, Bagram, Parwan, Afghanistan], and it was basically like living on a big construction site with an airport. So a lot of left over buildings from the early days of the campaign, and also from the Russian occupation.<a title="">[3]</a> Right where I was living, there was this big, old, disused—well, it’s been renovated, but it used to be the air traffic control tower when the Russians<a title="">[4]</a> owned it. So we—it was rumored to be haunted. Yeah. Williams So how long were you in Afghanistan? Dull That was six months and some change. We actually got held over for a couple weeks. We were supposed to be back around Thanksgiving. didn’t get back until December 4th. Yeah. Williams Why was that? Dull Um, it’s tough to catch a flight out of there, to be honest. They had to constantly change the itineraries. ‘Cause every time somebody updates on social media, they see it, and then they got to change it, so someone outside isn’t watching and knowing what planes to shoot at. At least that was what I was told. I don’t know. Williams Makes sense. Dull Yeah. Williams What did you think of Afghanistan when you first got there? Dull I was a little more prepared for it, but when I finally saw, like, the living quarters and just the base itself, I thought, Man, I miss Qatar. I used to complain about that place and—yeah. yeah. At least I had a swimming pool there [laughs]. Williams So in what way was Afghanistan’s living quarters different from Qatar’s? Dull Well, in Qatar—in Qatar, I lived in these things called—well, I don’t remember what the name for them was. I think it was “trailers” probably. It was two to a room—I mean, it was supposed to be four to a room, but they didn’t do that to you. They just put you in with two people. You had like a mini fridge and all that. Bathrooms were located outside though. that kind of sucked. It was basically just this long hallway with rooms off each side, and it was a single-story building. Guys and girls in both buildings—in—in the building. So you weren’t allowed to go in each other’s rooms but, you know. Afghanistan—there were more dorm-like buildings. They were about three or four stories. Had bathrooms located inside, so that was cool. But it was like three and four to a room and a lot smaller. Yeah. Williams So what were your duties in Afghanistan? Dull Afghanistan—I ran the cryogenic element and the fuels department. So basically, my duties were to store liquid oxygen and issue it to the various agencies on base that needed it. mainly aerospace ground equipment. I was also in charge of shipping and receiving replacement cryogenic fluid from Al Udeid. So… Williams And what was your most memorable day in Afghanistan? Dull Hmm. Once again, a lot of similar days. I’ll say one of my favorite memories from that was the first time we had a movie night, just—yeah. It’s simple, but it was fun. I mean, it was towards the end, and I guess we were kind of like finally growing closer as a unit, just the few of us that were on day shift. So one night, we decided to make this like, uh—it was somebody’s day off, so that’s how we do it. it was a tradition. We’d run to the chow hall and load up on like whatever free food we could get. It was all free, but, you know. Then we just rolled back to—we had this tent that was basically designated for recreation and stuff, like there was stuff to work out with. It was a big open space and you could just go in there and chill. And one of our supervisors—this guy, Sargent Little, had a projector. And so we just put a big sheet up, and just picked a movie off of somebody’s external, and just sat there and hung out. I mean, if there had been a 12-pack right there, it would have felt like home. So… Williams Do you remember what movie you watched? Dull Well, I remember we watched Spider-Man and [The] Cabin in the Woods—a couple others. So I don’t know. It was just one of those—it was where it almost felt like I was back home, so that was kind of cool. Williams So you said that 9/11 was particularly kind of scary. Why was that? Dull That’s ‘cause rockets were falling out of the sky all night around base. Every time—and every time something explodes, like usually they landed on the opposite side of where I was—the east side of base. so you’d hear a boom somewhere. It sounded like somebody was setting a dumpster down, you know? But then, all of a sudden, you’d hear the alarms going off and “Incoming! Incoming!” if they saw it on time. If they didn’t see it, then it’s “IDF<a title="">[5]</a> impact! Take shelter! Don IBA!”<a title="">[6]</a> You hear every emergency vehicle on the base and that just kept going on all night. They were trying to have—they had a commemorative, like five—not 5K [kilometer]—but like “fun run” or something for, you know—to commemorate 9/11,<a title="">[7]</a> which, I think—I thought was a stupid idea, but that’s just me. Gathering a bunch of people in one spot in a war zone. Sure enough, at—this is the first time a rocket landed during the day. It’s like 8 in the morning, the sun’s up, and I just—I was in the bathroom, I heard “BOOM!” And I thought, They have a signal gun or something? They never shoot at us during the day. Sure enough, I hear the alarm. “IDF impact! Take shelter!” So that was when they actually started attacking us, you know, during the day, at more sporadic, less predictable times, so… Williams So in that event, what did you do? Like when they were attacking during the day? Dull Well, you stay in your dorm basically. You weren’t allowed to leave. If they—if you were like, you know—if you had to take shelter, there’s[sic] bunkers that you can dive into if you’re caught outside. If there’s nothing around, you’ve got to basically hit the ground, open your mouth, cover your ears. But that definitely wasn’t the worst one, as far as my experience though. Worst one came a couple weeks later. I was, thankfully, still in the dorms, but, the PAX [passengers] terminal right across the street got hit, and that was a loud rocking explosion. Like, it was wasn’t just the sound of, you know, a dumpster being set down. It was real. like I jumped out of my seat. I was sitting there reading, and one of my roommates was outside, and he came running upstairs white as a ghost saying, “I heard it whistle right over my head.” And suddenly you just start to hear stuff just exploding all over the base. I was actually kind of scared at that one—at that point. So we were—yeah, I think I was about an hour—two hours late to work. One of our fuel trucks got hit. One of the contractors was driving it. If he had been parked about three feet back, he’d be dead. Our expeditor pick-up actually took shrapnel too. Busted out the back windows, holes up and down sides. So that was the closest to home it came. Actually, I think I kept a piece of shrapnel. So yeah. Williams So do you have any, like—a funny story that sticks out in your mind while being either in Qatar or in Afghanistan? Dull Um, yeah. Can I say it on a camera? Williams Go for it. Dull Okay. We had a supervisor that pissed us off. He was this guy named Sargent Myer and—just no one liked him but supervision. He threw people under the bus. He was in charge of another shop and he just dealt out these draconian punishments for rules that didn’t even exist. Like doing a walk around. Walking around your truck to inspect it after you parked it. It’s not necessary, but somebody didn’t do that, so he took away all their reading materials—whatever. This guy was a douche. So I found out about a site called stickerjunkie.com, where you can pay like 25 dollars for a hundred stickers. So I was bored one day sitting at my computer, and I decided to mess around with it and wrote, “Sergeant Myer licks balls and jerks off donkeys with his mouth.” [laughs] My supervisor read it. He’s like, “That’s hilarious. You’re not buying that, are you?” And I’m like, “We get hazardous duty pay. sure, why not?” I bought a hundred of those stickers and distributed them to everybody in the—in the flight that was in on it. And those are to this day still decorating various places in Bagram Airfield, Kyrgyzstan Air Base,<a title="">[8]</a> um, a jet engine somewhere in Al Udeid. Yeah [laughs]. Williams How did your supervisor feel about that? [laughs]. Dull Well, he didn’t find out until like the last day we left. He saw one of them sitting on the USO [United Service Organizations. So he’s like, “Oh, no.” He tried to laugh it off, you know, like, “It’s cool. I’m not mad,” but he was. He had no idea who did it to him either. Williams So did you serve anywhere else overseas other than Qatar and Afghanistan? Dull No. Williams What did—or how did you feel once you were leaving Afghanistan? Describe your last day there. Dull Um, a lot of kind of mixed emotions. I was definitely glad, but—I don’t know. There was just a lot—um, my plan was—well, this is what ended up happening. My deed of discharge was coming up about four months after I got back from Afghanistan. So there was a lot of that on my mind. Knowing that once I landed, I was pretty much gonna have to start getting ready to, um, basically end my entire military career and move back to Florida. Most of that was already in the works. It was just applying to UCF and getting my affairs in order, so there was a bitter sweetness. Plus, I was in a relationship that was kind of just on its downward spiral. Like, I’d actually—we’d actually broken up once like a week before I got back, but then got back together and—I don’t know. it was just different. I was definitely glad to be back, of course, but it wasn’t—it wasn’t the elating experience that it was leaving Qatar. I guess, just because—I don’t know. I was in a different place then. So… Williams So you said that you were in a relationship while you were overseas in Afghanistan? Dull Yeah. Williams What was that like? Dull Hmm. Well, definitely strained. Part of it was—I don’t know. Um, it was cool at first, but that was because we had like just met up before I left, so we were still in that stage of the relationship. We were talking everyday, messaging each other on Facebook, talking about the future when I get back. I’d always—I’d post YouTube songs on her Facebook, you know. Cute stuff like that. But, after a while, it just sort of—I don’t know—tapered off. I said something insensitive at some point, I guess. I don’t know. I’d probably be—I undoubtedly became insensitive, because, after a while, the stress of the place just gets to you. Pretty soon you can’t, you know—you’re not in a good mood. When you’ve seen enough fallen warrior ceremonies—I helped out with a couple casket missions. I had to see casualties, um, you know—you see stuff like that, suddenly you don’t really want to sit here and type out, “Oh, I love you,” and “Hugs and kisses,” and “Butterflies,” and, you know. So she sees that change and can’t really appreciate it, I guess. so pretty soon, every conversation we were having was just—had this undercurrent of like—what’s the word I’m looking for—I actually wrote a non-fiction piece about it that described it perfectly, but I’ll be damned if I can think of it now. But yeah. Needless to say, there was a lot of strain on that. I’m surprised it lasted as long as it did. Williams So what has life been like after leaving the service? Dull It was a stressful transition for me, but part of that was ‘cause, as soon as I landed from Afghanistan, I was trying to deconstruct that life and try and start a new one so. I didn’t really have the time to come down from it, I guess. Um, yeah. I dealt with a lot of just anxiety and depression. I had some—I’d say alcohol abuse. I wasn’t an alcoholic, but it was enough to where it was causing certain people—the VA [Veterans Administration] and others concern. Yeah. So I don’t know, there was a long period when I first got back here where I was consistently pissed off 24/7. If I wasn’t mad, pissed off, whatever, I was depressed. Um, it sucks, but I only remember like one or two days of that first summer here being actually, you know, kind of happy and at peace. Part of that is just—school’s tough, and part of it was an end of another relationship in Arizona that was anterior to the military. But, also yeah. Just having to face that lack of structure for the first time in a while and kind of being in an alien place again. so… Williams So do you feel like you still kind of deal with that depression and anxiety today? Or have you kind of gotten over it a little bit? Dull I’m definitely a lot better off now than I was a year ago. So it’s still there, but most of that is mostly early childhood stuff that, according to my psychotherapist, was reactivated by my experiences in the military. So, um, yeah. So still kind of a struggle, but not near as bad. Williams When was your discharge date for the military? Dull 19 May 2013. Williams And did you earn any awards or medals for your service? Dull Mmhmm. There are several medals that they give you, like I have Outstanding Unit Award. That wasn’t a personal achievement. That was—I won an achievement medal for my duties in Qatar, actually. and that was probably the only one I can think of that I earned on my own personal merit. And that was just for, um—for working hard, basically being proactive. I impressed enough people and also did some volunteering there too. I took some college courses while I was over there and helped process some blood units to send to other areas of the AOR [area of responsibility]. so… Williams So what are you doing today? Dull Today? As in—this. Okay. So today I’m doing an oral history project. Then I’m—I’ve got a class—Women in Hispanic Literature. then I’m going to be conducting my own interview on my friend, Lynette, for that same class. I’m supposed to go to my anthropology lecture hall today, and then community group at my church tonight. and that’s about it. Revising a story. Williams So what do you do in like your everyday life now-a-days? Dull Day-to-day life. I work at the VARC [Veterans Academic Resource Center] about three hours a day there. just helping out other student veterans with whatever issues they have. Our big focus this semester, besides Military Appreciation Week, was just trying to get people off the academic probation list, touching base with them, seeing what we can do to them to help them out and try to direct them to whatever resources we have available for them. Then I’m taking a full course load. I’m majoring in Creative Writing, so—taking Women in Hispanic Lit, ‘cause you need literature courses and diversity. Advanced Fiction Writing. I’m an intern at The Florida Review, as well. So I’ve been doing a lot of work with them. And then just a gen[eral]-ed[ucation] class. so… Williams Do you feel that working at the VARC and helping other veteran students—do you feel like that helps you as well? Dull Mmhmm. Yeah. Williams In what ways? Dull Well, it’s fulfilling to know that you can—that you’ve helped somebody out. And I also enjoy interacting with the other veterans on campus too. I’ve grown pretty close with the work study staff there, as well. Like, we all hang out together and everything. And I’ve made a lot of friends just from people coming in and out of the—out of the VARC. So… Williams So how did your time in the Air Force affect your life today? Dull Well, mostly positive. I mean, before I was living in an apartment in Cocoa Beach with a drug dealer, and a—yeah—psychopath. and I basically had a decision to make. It was either stay in this lifestyle and struggle. I’d undoubtedly end up in jail. No future there. I was always working minimum wage jobs. Or I could join the military, have a shot at going to college. I’d always wanted to be an author, and I’d always wanted to go to college, but didn’t really get that opportunity coming out of high school. So the military definitely served its purpose. The GI Bill [Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944] had been excellent. I’m done with most of the requirements for my degree next semester. So, yeah. I’ve basically attained a dream. Came at a price though, but… Williams Is there anything else that we have not discussed that you would like to talk about? Dull Hmm. Not that I can think of. Williams Alright. Dull I’m better with questions, so… Williams Alright. Well, that will conclude the interview. Thank you so much for your service and for talking with us today. Dull Yeah. Absolutely. Thank you. <div> <div> <a title="">[1]</a> Melbourne International Airport. </div> <div> <a title="">[2]</a> September 11th. </div> <div> <a title="">[3]</a> The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in December of 1979. </div> <div> <a title="">[4]</a> Correction: Soviets. </div> <div> <a title="">[5]</a> Indirect fire. </div> <div> <a title="">[6]</a> Interceptor body armor. </div> <div> <a title="">[7]</a> Terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001. </div> <div> <a title="">[8]</a> Correction: Manas Air Base. </div> </div> Date Issued 2015-01 Conforms To Standards established by the <a href="http://www.loc.gov/vets/" target="_blank">Veterans History Projects</a>, Library of Congress. 9/11 Attacks Abu Nakhlah Airport Afghan War Afghanistan airman airmen Al Udeid AB Al Udeid Air Base alcohol abuse alcoholism Anchorage, Alaska anxiety Bagram Airfield bargaining basic training Brevard County cryogenics Danny Trejo Davis-Monthan AFB Davis-Monthan Air Force Base deployment deployments depression Doha, Qatar drug addictions Dull, Heather Dull, Josh R. Dull, Joshua "Josh" R. Elmendorf AFB Elmendorf Air Force Base Empower Wyoming EOD Explosive Ordinance Disposal fuels department fuels tech school GI Bill Global War on Terror GWOT Hakthor Heather Dull Indians Iraq War Josh Dull Joshua R. Dull liquid oxygen Little McChord Field Melbourne Melbourne International Airport mental health Middle East Middle Easterner military family military training Myer Nepalese Once Upon a Time in Mexico Outstanding Unit Award oxygen Picacho Peak State Park post-traumatic stress disorder PTSD Qatar Qataris Rachel Williams Ramadan Reveille Rip It rocket attacks Romero September 11 Attacks Servicemen's��s Readjustment Act of 1944 souq Soviet Union Soviet War in Afghanistan Spider-Man Sri Lankan substance abuse Tacoma, Washington tech school terrorism terrorists The Cabin in the Woods The Florida Review Tucson, Arizona U.S. Air Force UCF UCF VARC University of Central Florida USAF V-22 VARC veterans Veterans Academic Resource Center War in Afghanistan Wichita Falls, Texas Wyoming Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A History of Central Florida Collection Alternative Title History of Central Florida Collection Subject Podcasts Documentaries Description A History of Central Florida Podcast series explores Central Florida's history through the artifacts found in local area museums and historical societies. Contributor <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a> Cassanello, Robert Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/70" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries Collection</a>, RICHES of Central Florida. Language eng Type Collection Coverage Altoona, Florida Astor, Florida Brevard County, Florida Bushnell, Florida Clermont, Florida Cocoa Beach, Florida Daytona Beach, Florida DeLand, Florida Disston City, Florida Fort King, Florida Geneva, Florida Goldenrod, Florida Groveland, Florida Holly Hill, Florida Hontoon Island, DeLand, Florida Jacksonville, Florida Kissimmee, Florida Lake Apopka, Florida Lake County, Florida Lake Mary, Florida Marion County, Florida Merritt Island, Florida Miami, Florida Mims, Florida Mount Dora, Florida Newnans Lake, Gainesville, Florida New Smyrna, Florida New Smyrna Beach, Florida Ocala, Florida Ocklawaha River, Florida Orlando, Florida Ormond Beach, Florida Osceola County, Florida Sanford, Florida Silver Springs, Florida St. Augustine, Florida St. Cloud, Florida St. Johns River, Florida St. Petersburg, Florida Tampa, Florida Tavares, Florida Weirsdale, Florida Winter Garden, Florida Winter Park, Florida Ybor City, Tampa, Florida Rights Holder <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES</a> Contributing Project <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a> Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Source Repository <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a> External Reference "<a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a>." RICHES of Central Florida. http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php. Moving Image A series of visual representations that, when shown in succession, impart an impression of motion. Original Format 1 video podcast Duration 14 minutes and 39 seconds Producer Cassanello, Robert Director Dickens, Bethany Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A History of Central Florida, Episode 18: Time Pieces Alternative Title Time Pieces Podcast Subject Clocks and watches--United States Railroads--Florida Civil rights--Florida Farming Mims (Fla.) Winter Garden (Fla.) Description Episode 18 of A History of Central Florida podcasts: Time Pieces. A History of Central Florida Podcast series explores Central Florida's history through the artifacts found in local area museums and historical societies. These podcasts can involve the participation or cooperation of local area partners. Episode 18 features a discussion of time pieces at the Museum of Geneva History, the Central Florida Railroad Museum, and the Harry T. & Harriette V. Moore Cultural Complex. This podcast also includes interviews with Dr. Mark Howard Long of the University of Central Florida, Dr. Alexis M. McCrossen of Southern Methodist University, Philip Cross of the National Railway Historical Society, and Ben Green, author of Before His Time: The Untold Story of Harry T. Moore, America's First Civil Rights Martyr. Type Moving Image Source Original 14-minute and 39-second podcast by Bethany Dickens, 2014: "A History of Central Florida, Episode 18: Time Pieces." <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">A History of Central Florida</a>, Orlando, Florida. Requires <a href="http://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/" target="_blank">Adobe Flash Player</a> <a href="http://java.com/en/download/index.jsp" target="_blank">Java</a> Is Part Of <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">A History of Central Florida</a>, Orlando, Florida. <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/137" target="_blank">A History of Central Florida Collection</a>, RICHES Podcast Documentaries Collection, RICHES of Central Florida. Coverage Museum of Geneva History, Geneva, Florida Central Florida Railroad Museum, Winter Garden, Florida Harry T. & Harriette V. Moore Cultural Complex, Mims, Florida Creator Dickens, Bethany Publisher <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES </a> Contributor Long, Mark Howard McCrossen, Alexis M. Green, Ben Cross, Philip Cassanello, Robert Clarke, Bob Ford, Chip Gibson, Ella Hazen, Kendra Kelley, Katie Velásquez, Daniel <a href="http://www.usgennet.org/usa/fl/county/seminole/Geneva/museum.htm" target="_blank">Museum of Geneva History</a> <a href="http://www.floridamemory.com/" target="_blank">Florida Memory Project</a> <a href="http://www.loc.gov/" target="_blank">Library of Congress</a> Date Created ca. 2014-06-02 Date Issued 2014-06-02 Date Copyrighted 2014-06-02 Format video/mp4 Medium 14-minute and 39-second podcast Language eng Mediator History Teacher Economics Teacher Geography Teacher Provenance Originally created by Bethany Dickens and published by <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES</a>. Rights Holder <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES</a> Accrual Method Item Creation Contributing Project <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">A History of Central Florida</a> Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> External Reference "<a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/items/show/4563" target="_blank">A History of Central Florida, Episode 18: Time Pieces</a>." RICHES of Central Florida. https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/items/show/4563. McCrossen, Alexis M. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/809910985" target="_blank">Marking Modern Times: A History of Clocks, Watches, and Other Timekeepers in American Life</a>. 2013. Green, Ben. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/40403600" target="_blank">Before His Time: The Untold Story of Harry T. Moore, America's First Civil Rights Martyr</a>. New York, NY: Free Press, 1999. Click to View (Movie, Podcast, or Website) <a href="http://youtu.be/76S3CqwMR50" target="_blank">A History of Central Florida, Episode 18: Time Pieces</a> Extent 117 MB 1st Street A History of Central Florida Alexis M. McCrossen Apopka Atlantic Standard Time Before His Time: The Untold Story of Harry T. Moore, America's First Civil Rights Martyr Ben Green Bob Clarke Boyd Street Brevard County Central Florida Railroad Museum Central Standard Time Chip Ford citrus civil rights civil rights activists clocks Cross, Philip CST dairy Daniel Velásquez Dickens, Bethany Eastern Standard Time Ella Gibson EST farmers First Street Florida Memory Project Freedom Avenue Geneva Harry and Harriette Moore Memorial Park Harry T. & Harriette V. Moore Cultural Complex Harry T. Moore Harry Tyson Moore Industrial Revolution J. T. McLain Katie Kelley Kendra Hazen Lake County Leesburg Library of Congress Mark Howard Long Mark Long Mims Mountain Standard Time MST Museum of Geneva History NAACP National Association for the Advancement of Colored People National Railway Historical Society OCRHC Orange County Regional History Center orlando Pacific Standard Time podcast PST railroad conductors railroads railways Robert Cassanello SMU Southern Methodist University Springarn Medal Standard Time Zones sundials time time pieces time zonez UCF watch watches Winter Garden https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka/files/original/c7d8a7e494694e243a45a41b972c7d8f.pdf f4789631d253ca61c3d8ea5db3f76151 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title The Long History of the African American Civil Rights Movement in Florida Collection Alternative Title Civil Rights Movement in Florida Collection Subject Civil rights--Florida Civil rights movements--Florida Description Digitized items of the Long History of the African American Civil Rights Movement in Florida, an exhibit created by Dr. Robert Cassanello and his students at the University of Central Florida. The exhibit chronicles both national and local events in the civil rights movements dating from the Civil War to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. Curators for the exhibit were Joseph Corbett and Anne Ladyem McDiviitt. Assistant curators included Patrick Anderson, Laura Cepero, Jennifer Cook, Tanya Engelhardt, Jacob Flynn, William Franklin, Barbara Houser, Rustin Lloyd, Joshua Petitt, Lindsey Turnbull, and Jon Wolfe. Andrew Callovi was the graphic designer. Contributor Cassanello, Robert <a href="http://www.floridamemory.com/photographiccollection/" target="_blank">Florida Photographic Collection</a> <a href="http://www.harryharriettemoore.org/" target="_blank">Harry T. & Harriette V. Moore Cultural Complex, Inc.</a> <a href="http://www.loc.gov/" target="_blank">Library of Congress</a> <a href="http://www.nypl.org/locations/schomburg%20target=">Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture</a> <a href="http://dlis.dos.state.fl.us/index_Researchers.cfm" target="_blank">State Library and Archives of Florida</a> Language eng Type Collection Coverage Brevard County, Florida Cocoa, Florida Daytona Beach, Florida Eatonville, Florida Fort Lauderdale, Florida Gainesville, Florida Groveland, Florida Live Oak, Florida Madison County, Florida Miami, Florida Miami Gardens, Florida Mims, Florida Ocoee, Florida Palatka, Florida Rosewood, Florida Tallahassee, Florida Tampa, Florida St. Augustine, Florida Contributing Project <a href="http://www.robertcassanello.com/" target="_blank">Dr. Robert Cassanello's</a> Spring 2011 Historiography Graduate Class Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> External Reference "<a href="http://floridacivilrightsexhibit.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">The Long History of the African American Civil Rights Movement in Florida</a>." The Long History of the African American Civil Rights Movement in Florida. http://floridacivilrightsexhibit.blogspot.com/. Bartley, Abel A. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/41482161" target="_blank">Keeping the Faith: Race, Politics, and Social Development in Jacksonville, Florida, 1940-1970</a>. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 2000. Brown, Canter. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/44963696" target="_blank">Florida's Black Public Officials, 1867-1924</a>. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1998. Brown, Canter. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/44963696" target="_blank">Florida's Black Public Officials, 1867-1924</a>. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1998. Colburn, David R. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/11133337" target="_blank">Racial Change and Community Crisis: St. Augustine, Florida, 1877-1980</a>. New York: Columbia University Press, 1985. Corsair, Gary. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/53097367" target="_blank">The Groveland Four: The Sad Saga of a Legal Lynching</a>. [Bloomington, IN]: 1st Books, 2003. Crooks, James B. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/53435227" target="_blank">Jacksonville: The Consolidation Story, from Civil Rights to the Jaguars</a>. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2004. D'Orso, Michael. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/33047183" target="_blank">Like Judgment Day: The Ruin and Redemption of a Town Called Rosewood</a>. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1996. Dunn, Marvin. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/49414756" target="_blank">Black Miami in the Twentieth Century</a>. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 1997. Evans, Arthur S., and David R. Lee. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/21563352" target="_blank">Pearl City, Florida: A Black Community Remembers</a>. Boca Raton: Florida Atlantic University Press, 1990. Green, Ben. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/40403600" target="_blank">Before His Time: The Untold Story of Harry T. Moore, America's First Civil Rights Martyr</a>. New York, NY: Free Press, 1999. Greenbaum, Susan D. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/47965343" target="_blank">More Than Black: Afro-Cubans in Tampa</a>. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2002. McCarthy, Kevin. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/74987559" target="_blank">African American Sites in Florida</a>. Sarasota, Fla: Pineapple Press, 2007. Mohl, Raymond A., Matilda Graff, and Shirley M. Zoloth. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/52688091" target="_blank">South of the South: Jewish Activists and the Civil Rights Movement in Miami, 1945-1960</a>. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2004. Oliver, Kitty. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/45301837" target="_blank">Race and Change in Hollywood Florida</a>. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Pub, 2000. Ortiz, Paul. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/58728548" target="_blank">Emancipation Betrayed The Hidden History of Black Organizing and White Violence in Florida from Reconstruction to the Bloody Election of 1920</a>. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005. Phelts, Marsha Dean. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/48138754" target="_blank">An American Beach for African Americans</a>. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 1997. Price, Hugh Douglas. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/423585" target="_blank">The Negro and Southern Politics: A Chapter of Florida History</a>. [New York]: New York University Press, 1957. Rabby, Glenda Alice. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/39860115" target="_blank">The Pain and the Promise: The Struggle for Civil Rights in Tallahassee, Florida</a>. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1999. Rymer, Russ. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/40145621" target="_blank">American Beach: A Saga of Race, Wealth, and Memory</a>. New York, NY: HarperCollinsPublishers, 1998. Saunders, Robert W. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/44585446" target="_blank">Bridging the Gap: Continuing the Florida NAACP Legacy of Harry T. Moore, 1952-1966</a>. Tampa, Fla: University of Tampa Press, 2000. Shell-Weiss, Melanie. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/226356610%20target=">Coming to Miami: A Social History</a>. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2009. Still Image A static visual representation. Examples of still images are: paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type "text" to images of textual materials. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title The Long History of the African American Civil Rights Movement in Florida Alternative Title History of the Civil Rights Movement in Florida Subject Civil rights--Florida Exhibit Civil Rights Movement Civil rights movements--Florida Description The Long History of the African American Civil Rights Movement in Florida, an exhibit created by Dr. Robert Cassanello and his students at the University of Central Florida. The exhibit chronicles both national and local events in the civil rights movements dating from the Civil War to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. Curators for the exhibit were Joseph Corbett and Anne Ladyem McDiviitt. Assistant curators included Patrick Anderson, Laura Cepero, Jennifer Cook, Tanya Engelhardt, Jacob Flynn, William Franklin, Barbara Houser, Rustin Lloyd, Joshua Petitt, Lindsey Turnbull, and Jon Wolfe. Andrew Callovi was the graphic designer. Type Physical Object Source Original exhibit by Robert Cassanello's Spring 2011 Historiography Graduate Class: <a href="http://history.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">University of Central Florida Department of History</a>, Orlando, Florida. Requires <a href="http://www.adobe.com/reader.html" target="_blank">Adobe Acrobat Reader</a> Is Part Of <a href="http://floridacivilrightsexhibit.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">The Long History of the African American Civil Rights Movement in Florida</a>. <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/114" target="_blank">The Long History of the African American Civil Rights Movement in Florida Collection</a>, RICHES of Central Florida. Creator Corbett, Joseph McDivitt, Anne Ladyem Anderson, Patrick Cepero, Laura Cook, Jennifer Englehardt, Tanya Flynn, Jacob Franklin, William Houser, Barbara Lloyd, Rustin Petitt, Joshua Turnbull Lindsey Wolfe, Jon Cassanello, Robert Callovi, Andrew Publisher <a href="http://history.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">University of Central Florida Department of History</a> Contributor <a href="http://www.floridamemory.com/photographiccollection/" target="_blank">Florida Photographic Collection</a> <a href="http://dlis.dos.state.fl.us/index_Researchers.cfm" target="_blank">State Library and Archives of Florida</a> <a href="http://www.loc.gov/" target="_blank">Library of Congress</a> <a href="http://www.nypl.org/locations/schomburg%20target=">Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture</a> Barton, Juanita Gary, Bill <a href="http://www.harryharriettemoore.org/" target="_blank">Harry T. &amp</a> Harriette V. Moore Cultural Complex, Inc. Date Created 2011 Format application/pdf Extent 249 MB Medium 1 exhibit Language eng Mediator History Teacher Civics/Government Teacher Provenance Originally created by Robert Cassanello's Spring 2011 Historiography Graduate Class. Rights Holder Copyright to this resource is held by the <a href="http://history.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">University of Central Florida Department of History</a> and is provided here by <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES</a> for educational purposes only. Accrual Method Donation Contributing Project Robert Cassanello's Spring 2011 Historiography Graduate Class Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> External Reference "<a href="http://floridacivilrightsexhibit.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">The Long History of the African American Civil Rights Movement in Florida</a>." The Long History of the African American Civil Rights Movement in Florida. http://floridacivilrightsexhibit.blogspot.com/. Bartley, Abel A. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/41482161" target="_blank">Keeping the Faith: Race, Politics, and Social Development in Jacksonville, Florida, 1940-1970</a>. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 2000. Brown, Canter. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/44963696" target="_blank">Florida's Black Public Officials, 1867-1924</a>. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1998. Colburn, David R. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/11133337" target="_blank">Racial Change and Community Crisis: St. Augustine, Florida, 1877-1980</a>. New York: Columbia University Press, 1985. Corsair, Gary. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/53097367" target="_blank">The Groveland Four: The Sad Saga of a Legal Lynching</a>. [Bloomington, IN]: 1st Books, 2003. Crooks, James B. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/53435227" target="_blank">Jacksonville: The Consolidation Story, from Civil Rights to the Jaguars</a>. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2004. D'Orso, Michael. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/33047183" target="_blank">Like Judgment Day: The Ruin and Redemption of a Town Called Rosewood</a>. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1996. Dunn, Marvin. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/49414756" target="_blank">Black Miami in the Twentieth Century</a>. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 1997. Evans, Arthur S., and David R. Lee. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/21563352" target="_blank">Pearl City, Florida: A Black Community Remembers</a>. Boca Raton: Florida Atlantic University Press, 1990. Green, Ben. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/40403600" target="_blank">Before His Time: The Untold Story of Harry T. Moore, America's First Civil Rights Martyr</a>. New York, NY: Free Press, 1999. Greenbaum, Susan D. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/47965343" target="_blank">More Than Black: Afro-Cubans in Tampa</a>. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2002. McCarthy, Kevin. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/74987559" target="_blank">African American Sites in Florida</a>. Sarasota, Fla: Pineapple Press, 2007. Mohl, Raymond A., Matilda Graff, and Shirley M. Zoloth. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/52688091" target="_blank">South of the South: Jewish Activists and the Civil Rights Movement in Miami, 1945-1960</a>. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2004. Oliver, Kitty. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/45301837" target="_blank">Race and Change in Hollywood Florida</a>. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Pub, 2000. Ortiz, Paul. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/58728548" target="_blank">Emancipation Betrayed The Hidden History of Black Organizing and White Violence in Florida from Reconstruction to the Bloody Election of 1920</a>. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005. Phelts, Marsha Dean. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/48138754" target="_blank">An American Beach for African Americans</a>. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 1997. Price, Hugh Douglas. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/423585" target="_blank">The Negro and Southern Politics: A Chapter of Florida History</a>. [New York]: New York University Press, 1957. Rabby, Glenda Alice. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/39860115" target="_blank">The Pain and the Promise: The Struggle for Civil Rights in Tallahassee, Florida</a>. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1999. Rymer, Russ. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/40145621" target="_blank">American Beach: A Saga of Race, Wealth, and Memory</a>. New York, NY: HarperCollinsPublishers, 1998. Saunders, Robert W. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/44585446" target="_blank">Bridging the Gap: Continuing the Florida NAACP Legacy of Harry T. Moore, 1952-1966</a>. Tampa, Fla: University of Tampa Press, 2000. Shell-Weiss, Melanie. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/226356610%20target=">Coming to Miami: A Social History</a>. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2009. Coverage Brevard County, Florida Cocoa, Florida Daytona Beach, Florida Eatonville, Florida Fort Lauderdale, Florida Gainesville, Florida Groveland, Florida Jacksonville, Florida Live Oak, Florida Madison County, Florida Miami, Florida Miami Gardens, Florida Mims, Florida Ocoee, Florida Palatka, Florida Rosewood, Florida Tallahassee, Florida Tampa, Florida St. Augustine, Florida Montogmery, Alabama Scottsboro, Alabama Selma, Alabama Tuskegee, Alabama Chicago, Illinois Syracuse, New York Greensboro, North Carolina Knoxville, Tennessee Pulaski, Tennessee 101st Airborne Division 14th Amendment 15th Amendment 99th Fighter Squadron A Red Record African Americans Afro-Cubans American Civil War Anderson, Patrick Asa Philip Randolph Atlanta Exposition Bahamians Barton, Juanita beach beaches Bethel Baptist Institutional Church Bethune-Cookman College Bethune, Mary McLeod Black Cabinet Booker Taliaferro Washington Brevard County Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters Brown v. Board of Education of Topek bus boycotts Callovi, Andrew Central Florida Cepero, Laura Chambers v. Florida Chaney, James Charles Kenzie Steele Chicago, Illinois civil disobedience civil rights Civil Rights Act of 1875 Civil Rights Act of 1964 Civil Rights March Civil Rights Movement Clara White Mission Cocoa Cocoa Elementary School Confederates Constitution Constitutional League of Florida Cook, Jennifer Cookman Institute Corbett, Joseph Francis II Dale Mabry Field Davis, Ed Davis, John A. Daytona Beach Democratic Party desegregation discrimination disfranchisement Double V Campaign Dwight David Eisenhower Eartha M. M. White Eartha Mary Magdalene White Eatonville educators Eisenhower, Dwight D. Englehardt, Tanya equal pay exhibits FDR Federal Council of Negro Affairs Fifteenth Amendment Florida Civil Rights Act Florida Memorial college Florida Photographic Collection Florida Streetcar Segregation Law Florida Supreme court Florida Teachers Association Flynn, Jacob Fort Lauderdale Fourteenth Amendment Franklin D. Roosevelt Franklin Delano Roosevelt Franklin, William Freedom Riders Freedom Rides Freedom Summer Garvey, Marcus Gary, Bill Gibson v. Board of Public Instruction of Dade County Goff, Cynthia Goodman, Andrew Grant, Ulysses S. Great Depression Greensboro Sit-in Greensboro, North Carolina Groveland Groveland Four Harry T. & Harriette V. Moore Cultural Complex, Inc. Hawkins, Virgil D. Holland Houser, Barbara Houston, Texas Howard, Willie James Hurston, Zora Neale Ida Bell Wells-Barnett Ike Eisenhower Jacksonville Jakes, Wilhelmina Jim Crow South King, Martin Luther, Jr. KKK Knoxville, Tennessee Ku Klux Klan Library of Congress Lincoln, Abraham Literary and Industrial Training School for Negro Girls Little Rock 9 Little Rock Central High School Little Rock Nine Little Rock, Arkansas Live Oak Lloyd, Rustin lynchings Madison County Marcus Mosiah Garvey, Jr. Marshall, Thurgood Mary Jane McLeod Bethune McCall, Willis V. McDivitt, Anne Ladyem Miami Michael Henry Schwerner Mississippi Plan Montgomery Bus Boycott Montgomery, Alabama Moore, Harriette V. Moore, Harriette Vyda Simms Moore, Harry T. Moore, Harry Tyson NAACP National Afro-American League National Association for the Advancement of Colored People National Equal Rights League NERL New Deal New York Niagara Movement Ocoee Massacre Ocoee Riot Omaha, Nebraska Orchard Villa Elementary School Palatka Parks, Rosa Patterson, Carrie Payne, Jesse Petitt, Joshua Plessy v. Ferguson Progressive Voter's League protests Pulaski, Tennessee race relations race riots racial equality racism Randolph, A. Philip Reconstruction Red Summer of 1919 Republican Party Robert Cassanello Rosa Louise McCauley Parks Rosewood Massacre Saunders, Robert Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture Schwerner, Michael Scottsboro Boys Scottsboro, Alabama SCOTUS segregation Selma, Alabama separate but equal Shepard sit-ins slavery Sociedad la Union Marti-Maceo soldiers South Carolina Southern Horrors: Lynch Law in All Its Phases St. Augustine State Library and Archives of Florida Steele, C. K. Supreme Court Supreme Court of the United States Syracuse, New York Tallahassee Tallahassee Bus Boycott Tampa teachers The Long History of the African American Civil Rights Movement in Florida Timothy Thomas Fortune To Secure These Rights: The Report of the President's Committee on Civil rights Truman, Harry S. Turnbull, Lindsey Tuskegee University Tuskegee, Alabama U.S. Armed Forces U.S. Army U.S. Supreme Court UF UNIA Union Universal Negro Improvement Association University of Florida veterans voting voting rights Voting Rights Act of 1965 W. E. B. Du Bois wade-ins Waldron, J. Milton Washington, Booker T. Wells, Ida B. Wetmore, J. Douglas white supremacy White, Clara William Edward Burghardt Du Bois Williams, Alice Willis Virgil McCall Wolfe, Jon Woolworth Woolworth's World War II WWII https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka/files/original/c15371e0c6ae5885bc6f64ccd636cea1.tif 61de1989e782d8c8396d65702b9fa1dc Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title U.S. Census Collection Alternative Title Census Collection Subject Census--United States Population--United States Orange County (Fla.) Marion County (Fla.) Brevard County (Fla.) St. Lucie County (Fla.) Seminole County (Fla.) Volusia County (Fla.) Flagler County (Fla.) Lake County (Fla.) Osceola County (Fla.) Description Collection of United States Census population records for various counties in Central Florida from 1840 to 2000. The Census Act of 1840 was signed into law on March 3, 1839 and later amended on February 26, 1840. This piece of legislation established a centralized census office during each enumeration. Congress designated the census questionnaire designs to the Secretary of State. However, each household received inquiries regarding "the pursuits, industry, education, and resources of the country" and included questions related to school attendance, literacy, and vocation. In March of 1849, Congress pass legislation that established a census board consisting of the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Postmaster General. The board was responsible for preparing and printing forms and schedules for enumeration related to population, mining, agriculture, commerce, manufacturing, education, etc. The 1850 Census also increased population inquiries to include every free person's name (as opposed to just the head of the household), as well as information on taxes, schools, crime, wages, estate values, etc. The Census Act of 1850 authorized the U.S. Census of 1860 and stipulated that its provisions be adhered to for all future decennial censuses should no new legislation be passed by the first of the year of said census. In May of 1865, the U.S. Census Office was abolished and many superintending clerks were transferred to the General Land Office. Although the 1870 Census was conducted under the provisions of the Census Act of 1850, a new act was passed on May 6, 1870. The new census legislation required two changes in procedures related to questionnaire return submission dates. Moreover, penalties for refusing to reply to inquires were expanded to apply to all questions and questionnaires. The questionnaires themselves had to be redesigned due to the end of the "slave questionnaire", as slavery had been formally abolished slavery nationwide via the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This left five schedules for the census: General Population, Mortality, Agriculture, Products of Industry, and Social Statistics. In addition, the use of a Charles W. Seaton, a U.S. Census Office chief clerk and later superintendent, invited a rudimentary tallying machine that partially alleviated the difficulties of tallying and tabulating questionnaire responses. Finally, the new superintendent for the Ninth Census, General Francis A. Walker, introduced employment examinations to test the qualifications of applicants to the Census Office, allowing for increased efficiency in the process of collecting census data. The newest act authorizing the Census of 1880 provided for supervision of enumeration by "supervisors of the census", selected exclusively for the collection of census data. All supervisors, as well as the superintendent, were to appointed by the U.S. President and approved by the Senate. Census enumerators were required to personally visit each household and family within his subdivision. The new census act also allowed for the collection of data related to the condition and operation of railroad corporations, incorporated express companies, and telegraph companies, as well as data related to the condition and operation of life, fire, and marine insurance companies. Corporations who refused to provide the census with "true and complete" answers were subject to fines. In addition, the census superintendent was required to collect and publish data on the population, industries and resources of the District of Alaska. Finally, the 1880 Census consisted of five schedules: Population, Mortality, Agriculture, Social Statistics, and Manufacturing. The Census of 1890 was authorized by an act modeled after the 1880 enumeration and signed into law on March 1, 1889. The 1890 Census was supervised by 175 employees and enumerators were required to collect all information by personally visiting each household. The 1890 Census included essentially the same inquires from the 1880 Census, with some notable additions, such as questions about home and farm ownership and indebtedness; and the names, units, length of service, and residences of former Union soldiers and sailors, as well as the names of the widows of those who were no longer alive. Racial categorization was expanded to include "Japanese", along with "Chinese", "Negro", "mulatto", "quadroon", "octoroon", and "White". Herman Hollerith, a former employee of the U.S. Census Office, invited the electric tabulating system, which was widely used in the 1890 Census, allowing data to be processed faster and more efficiently. On October 3, 1893, Congress passed a law that transferred census-related work to the direction of the commissioner of labor. Congress passed another act on March 2, 1895, effectively abolishing the U.S. Census Office and transferring the remaining responsibilities to the Office of the Secretary of the Interior. Congress limited the Census of 1900 to content related to population, mortality, agriculture, and manufacturing. Special census agents were authorized to collect statistics related to incidents of deafness, blindness, insanity, and juvenile delinquency; as well as data on religious bodies, utilities, mining, and transportation. The act authorizing the 1900 Census designated the enumeration of military personally to the U.S. Department of War and the U.S. Department of the Navy, while Indiana Territory was to be enumerated by the commissioner of Indian Affairs. Annexed in 1898, Hawaii was included in the census for the first time. In 1902, the U.S. Census Office was officially established as a permanent organization within the U.S. Department of the Interior. The office became the U.S. Census Bureau in 1903 and was transferred to the Department of Commerce and Labor. The Census of 1910 was approved by legislation introduced in December of 1907 and enacted in July of 1909. The delay was the result of a disagreement over the appointment of enumerators. President Theodore Roosevelt supported the hiring of enumerators via the civil service system, while Congress supported enumerators as positions of patronage. President Roosevelt successfully won the debate. This census act also changed Census Day from the traditional date of June 1st to April 15th. Additional questions regarding the nationality and native language of foreign-born persons and their parents. Funds for the U.S. Census Bureau were also increased to expand the Census' permanent workforce and created several new full-time positions, including a geographer, a chief statistician, and an assistant director. The assistant director was to be appointed by the President and approved by the Senate, while all other census employees were hired on the basis of open, competitive examinations administered by the Civil Service Commission. Despite the use of automatic counting machinery, issues with the tabulation process persisted. Finally, with the United States' entrance into World War I in 1917, the U.S. Census Bureau became a source of even more valuable purpose: the Census was able to use population and economic data to report on the populations of draft-age men, as well as information regarding each state's industrial capabilities. The Census of 1920 changed the date of Census Day from April 15th to January 1st, as requested by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which argued that farmers' memories and harvest information would be more accurate on this day. The U.S. Census Bureau was also authorized to hire additional employees at its headquarters in Washington, D.C. and to create a special field force to collect census data. The legislation authorizing the 1920 Census also allowed for a census of manufacturing to be conducted in 1921, and for such a census to be repeated every two years thereafter, as opposed to the traditional five-year census cycle. Furthermore, a census of agriculture and livestock was to be conducted in 1925 and to be repeated every ten years thereafter. In addition, penalties for those who refused to supply information or those who supplied false information were strengthened. As a result of these changes, census of population, manufacturing, and agriculture and livestock became increasingly independent of one another. The "usual place of abode", the location where residents regularly slept, instead of where they worked or were visiting, became the new basis for enumeration in the 1920 Census. Those with no permanent or regular residence were listed as residents of the location that they were enumerated at. Enumeration related to institutional inmates and dependent, defective, and delinquent classes were also modified. Unlike the previous census, the 1920 Census did not have inquires related to unemployment, to Union or Confederate Army or Navy service, to the number of children born, or to the length of time that a couple had been married. The Census of 1920, however, did include four additional questions: one regarding year of naturalization and three regarding native languages. Issues also arose as a result of changes in international boundaries following World War I, particularly for persons declaring birth or parental birth in Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia, or Turkey. In response, enumerators were required to ask said persons for their province, state, or region of birth. Enumerators were not required to ask individuals how to spell their names, nor were respondents required to provide proof of various pieces of information. Race was determined by the enumerator's impressions. The act authorizing the 1930 Census was approved on June 18, 1929, allowing for a census of population, agriculture, irrigation, draining, distribution, unemployment, and mining. For the first time, specific questions for inquiry were left to the discretion of the Director of the Census. The Census encompassed each state, as well as the District of Columbia, Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. The Governors of Guam, American Samoa, the Virginia Islands, and the Panama Canal Zone were responsible for conducting censuses in their territory. Between the date that the census act was passed and Census Day (April 1st), the stock market crashed, plunging the entire country into the Great Depression. In response, there were public and academic requests for access to unemployment data collected in the 1930 Census; however, the U.S. Census Bureau was unable to meet this demands and the bureau was accused of present unreliable data. Congress required a special unemployment census for January 1931, which ultimately confirmed the severity of the economic crisis. Another unemployment census was conducted in 1937, as mandated by Congress. Because this special census was voluntary, it allowed the Census Bureau to experiment with statistical sampling. Only two percent of households received a special census questionnaire. Congress authorized the 1940 Census in August 1939, providing the Director of the Census the additional authority to conduct a national census of housing in each state, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Alaska. The housing census was conducted separately, though enumerators often collection housing information at the same time that they collected population information. The Census of 1940 was the first time that the U.S. Census Bureau used advanced statistical techniques. In particular, the census used probably sampling, which had only previously been tested in a trial census of unemployment conducted the Civil Works Administration during 1933-1934, in surveys of retail stores in the 1930s, and in an official sample survey of unemployment conducted amongst two percent of American households in 1937. Probability sampling allowed for the inclusion of additional demographic questions without increasing the burden on the collection process or on data processing. Moreover, sampling the U.S. Census Bureau was able to publish preliminary returns eight months before tabulations were completed. Likewise, the census increased its number of published tables, and also was able to complete data processing with higher quality and more efficiency. New census questions focused on employment, unemployment, internal migration, and incomes—reflecting on the concerns of the Great Depression, the country's housing stock, and the need for public housing programs. The Census of 1950 encompassed every state, Alaska, Hawaii, American Samoa, the Panama Canal Zone, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and other small American territories. For the first time, the U.S. Census Bureau enumerate American living abroad to account for members of the U.S. Armed Forces, vessel crew members, and government employees residing in foreign countries. The U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Maritime Administration, and several other federal agencies were responsible for distributing and collecting census questionnaires in a cooperative effort. Persons living abroad for reasons other than what is listed above had their census information reported by families or neighbors residing in the United States, but such data was criticized as unreliable and were not published in official statistics. The 1950 Census also included a new survey on residential financing collected separately on a sample basis from owners of owner-occupied properties, rental properties, and mortgage lenders. The accuracy of the new census was increased by improved enumerator training, the use of detailed street maps for enumerators, the publication of "Missed Person" forms in local newspapers, and the designation of a specific night to conduct a special enumeration of transient individuals. Moreover, a post-enumeration survey was conducted to further verify the accuracy of the original enumeration. A sample of approximately 3,500 small areas was compared to the original census data to identify households that may have been omitted initially. Likewise, a sample of approximately 22,000 households were re-interviewed to identify persons omitted in the original enumeration count. Though not used for the 1950 Census, the UNIVersal Automatic Computer I (UNIVAC I), the first non-military computer, was used to tabulate some of the statistics for the 1954 census of economy. In August of 1954, Congress codified various census statutes, such as the Fifteenth Census Act of 1929, authorizing the decennial census and other census. The Census of 1960 was the first to be mailed to respondents. The U.S. Postal Service delivered census questionnaires to households, the head of household was required to complete the questionnaire, and an enumerator was to pick it up. The enumeration process was divided into two stages: first, select data for each person and dwelling unit was collected; and second, more detailed economic and social data was collected from a sample of households and dwelling units. The census questionnaires for the second stage were hand-delivered by enumerators as they were collecting data from the first stage. Households receiving the second census questionnaire were to complete the form and mail it to their local census office. Twenty-five percent of the population was giving additional sample questions. Because of the increased use of sampling, less populated areas were prone to sampling variation; however, this did not significantly decrease the usefulness of census statistics gathered. Moreover, increased use of sampling reduced data processing costs. Additional questions included in the 1960 Census were related to places of works and means of transportation to work. By 1960, nearly all census data was processed using computers. The U.S. Census Bureau used a Film Optical Sensing Device for Input to Computer (FOSDIC) for the first time, thus decreasing the amount of time and money required for data input. In 1966, the U.S. Census Bureau sought suggestions from advisory committees and from the public, resulting in numerous proposals for additional inquiries related to the scope and structure of the census, as well as in public interest for the publication of additional census data. Researchers also concluded that the 1950 Census and the 1960 Census had undercounted certain segments of the population. Moreover, they noted a growing distrust of government activity and increased resistance to responding to the census. Simultaneously, both the public and private sectors expressed need for accurate information. The U.S. Census Bureau decreased its number of questions from 66 to 23 in an effort to simplify its products. A register for densely populated areas was also created to ensure that all housing units were accounted for. A Spanish-language questionnaire was also enclosed with census questionnaires in areas with a significant amount of Spanish-speaking households. Additionally, a question on Hispanic origins or descent was asked independently from race, but only on a five-percent sample. Only five questions were given to all individuals: relationship to household head, sex, race, age, and marital status. Additional questions were asked in smaller sample groups. This was also the first census in which respondents of urban areas were asked to mail their forms to the Census Bureau, rather than to hold questionnaires for enumerators. Address Coding Guides were used to assign census geographic codes to questionnaires. Counts, a series of computer tape files, were an additional innovation used to increase the accuracy of census data. Count 1 consisted of complete count data for block groups and/or enumeration districts. Count 2 contained census tracts and minor civil/census county divisions, while Count 3 consisted of census blocks. Counts 4-6 provided sample census data for geographic areas of various population sizes. The Census Bureau also produced six Public Use Microdata Sample files, each of which contained complete information for a sample of approximately two million people. Finally, the Census Bureau developed the Summary Tape Processing Center Program, which was a group of organizations, both public and private, that processed census data from computer tapes. For the 1990 Census, the U.S. Census Bureau utilized extensive user consultation prior to enumeration in order to refine both long and short form census questionnaires. The short form consisted of 13 questions and was given to the entire population. The long form asked 45 questions and was given to a 20 percent sample. The long form included topics related to marital history, carpooling, residence, residential elevators, and energy usage. Unlike the 1980 Census, the new census eliminated questions regarding air conditioning, the number of bathrooms in a residence, and the type of heating equipment used. A vast advertising campaign was marketed to increase public awareness of the census via public television, radio, and print media. Like the previous census, the Census of 1990 made a special effort to enumerate groups that have historically been undercounted in previous censuses called "S-Night": individuals in homeless shelters, soup kitchens, bus and railway stations, and dormitories (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "M-Night"); and permanent residents in hotels and motels (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "T-Night"). Following legal issues filed in response to the 1980 Census regarding statistical readjustment of undercounted areas, the Census Bureau initiated a post-enumeration survey (PES), in which a contemporaneous survey of households would be conducted and compare to the census results from the official census. In a partial resolution of a 1989 lawsuit filed by New York plaintiffs, the U.S. Department of Commerce agreed to use the PES to produce population data that had been adjusted for the projected undercount and that said data would be judged against the unadjusted data by the Secretary of Commerce's Special Advisory Panel (SAP). The Census of 1990 also introduced the U.S. to the Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing System (TIGER), which was developed by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Census Bureau. TIGER used computerized representations of various map features to geographically code addresses into appropriate census geographic areas. It also produced different maps required for census data collection and tabulation. Five years earlier, the Census Bureau became the first government agency to publish information on CD-ROM. For the 1990 Census, the bureau made detailed census data, which had previously been only available to organizations with large mainframe computers, accessible to any individual with a personal computer. Census data was also available in print, on computer tape, and on microfiche. Using two online service vendors, DIALOG and CompuServe, the Census Bureau also published select census data online. As with previous censuses, the 1990 Census undercounted the national population, and again, the African-American population had an estimated net undercount rate that was significantly higher than the rate for other races. In July of 1991, the Secretary of Commerce announced that he did not find evidence in favor of using adjusted counts compelling—despite SAP's split vote on the issue—and chose to use unadjusted totals for the official census results. In response, the New York plaintiffs resumed the lawsuit against the Department of Commerce. A federal district court divided in favor of the DOC in April of 1993. The U.S. Court of Appeals, however, rejected the previous court ruling and ordered that the case be reheard by the federal district court. In March of 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court finally ruled in favor of the Secretary of Commerce's decision to use the unadjusted census date, but did not rule on the legality or constitutionality of the use of statistical adjustment in producing apportionment counts. For the 1990 Census, the U.S. Census Bureau utilized extensive user consultation prior to enumeration in order to refine both long and short form census questionnaires. The short form consisted of 13 questions and was given to the entire population. The long form asked 45 questions and was given to a 20 percent sample. The long form included topics related to marital history, carpooling, residence, residential elevators, and energy usage. Unlike the 1980 Census, the new census eliminated questions regarding air conditioning, the number of bathrooms in a residence, and the type of heating equipment used. A vast advertising campaign was marketed to increase public awareness of the census via public television, radio, and print media. Like the previous census, the Census of 1990 made a special effort to enumerate groups that have historically been undercounted in previous censuses called "S-Night": individuals in homeless shelters, soup kitchens, bus and railway stations, and dormitories (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "M-Night"); and permanent residents in hotels and motels (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "T-Night"). Following legal issues filed in response to the 1980 Census regarding statistical readjustment of undercounted areas, the Census Bureau initiated a post-enumeration survey (PES), in which a contemporaneous survey of households would be conducted and compare to the census results from the official census. In a partial resolution of a 1989 lawsuit filed by New York plaintiffs, the U.S. Department of Commerce agreed to use the PES to produce population data that had been adjusted for the projected undercount and that said data would be judged against the unadjusted data by the Secretary of Commerce's Special Advisory Panel (SAP). The Census of 1990 also introduced the U.S. to the Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing System (TIGER), which was developed by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Census Bureau. TIGER used computerized representations of various map features to geographically code addresses into appropriate census geographic areas. It also produced different maps required for census data collection and tabulation. Five years earlier, the Census Bureau became the first government agency to publish information on CD-ROM. For the 1990 Census, the bureau made detailed census data, which had previously been only available to organizations with large mainframe computers, accessible to any individual with a personal computer. Census data was also available in print, on computer tape, and on microfiche. Using two online service vendors, DIALOG and CompuServe, the Census Bureau also published select census data online. As with previous censuses, the 1990 Census undercounted the national population, and again, the African-American population had an estimated net undercount rate that was significantly higher than the rate for other races. In July of 1991, the Secretary of Commerce announced that he did not find evidence in favor of using adjusted counts compelling—despite SAP's split vote on the issue—and chose to use unadjusted totals for the official census results. In response, the New York plaintiffs resumed the lawsuit against the Department of Commerce. A federal district court divided in favor of the DOC in April of 1993. The U.S. Court of Appeals, however, rejected the previous court ruling and ordered that the case be reheard by the federal district court. In March of 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court finally ruled in favor of the Secretary of Commerce's decision to use the unadjusted census date, but did not rule on the legality or constitutionality of the use of statistical adjustment in producing apportionment counts. For the Census of 2000, the short form consisted of only seven questions, while the long form consisted of 52 questions and used for a 17 percent sample of the population. For the first time, race questions were not limited to a single category; rather, respondents were able to check multiple boxes. A new question related to grandparents as caregivers was also mandated by legislation passed in 1996. Disability questions were expanded to including hearing and vision impairments, as well as learning, memory, and concentration disabilities. The 2000 Census also eliminated questions related to children born, water sources, sewage disposal, and condominium status. In addition, the 2000 Census was the first in which the Internet was used as the principal medium for the dissemination of census information. Summary Files were available for download immediately upon release and individual tables could be viewed via American FactFinder, the Census Bureau's online database. Files were also available for purchase on CD-Rom and DVD. Due to declining questionnaire mail-back rates, the U.S. Census Bureau marketed a $167 million national and local print, television, and public advertising campaign in 17 different languages. The campaign successfully brought the mail-back rate up to 67 percent. Additionally, respondents receiving the short form were given the option of responding via the Internet. Telephone questionnaire assistance centers available in 6 languages also took responses via the phone. Statistical sampling techniques were utilized in two ways: first, to alter the traditional 100 percent personal visit of non-responding households during the non-response follow-up (NRFU) process by instead following up on a smaller sample basis; second, the sampling of 750,000 housing units matched to housing unit questionnaires obtained from mail and telephone responses, as well as from personal visits. The goal of the latter was to develop adjustment factors for individuals estimated to have been missed or duplicated and to correct the census counts to produce one set of numbers. This "one-number census" would correct for net coverage errors called Integrated Coverage Measurement (ICM). Both of these measures were taken in an attempt to avoid repetition of the litigation costs generated by the 1980 Census and the 1990 Census. Despite these efforts, two lawsuits—one filed by the U.S. House of Representatives—were filed in February 1998 challenging the constitutionality and legality of the planned uses of sampling to produce apportionment counts. Both cases were decided in favor of the plaintiffs in federal district courts, but the U.S. Department of Commerce made appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court. Known as the U.S. Department of Commerce v. the U.S. House of Representatives, the Court ruled that the Census Bureau's plans to use statistical sampling for purposes of congressional apportionments violated the Census Act. The bureau revised its plan, stating that it would produce statistically adjusted data for non-apportionment uses of census data information, such as redistricting. However, in March of 2001, the Census Bureau recommended against the use of adjusted census data for redistricting due to accuracy concerns; the Secretary of Commerce determined that the unadjusted data would be released as the bureau's official redistricting data. The Director of the Census Bureau also rejected to the use of adjusted data for non-redistricting purposes in October of that same year. Language eng Type Collection Coverage Mosquito County, Florida Brevard County, Florida Flagler County, Florida Lake County, Florida Marion County, Florida Orange County, Florida Osceola County, Florida Seminole County, Florida Volusia County, Florida Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Contributor Gibson, Ella Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a>. Rights Holder This resource is not subject to copyright in the United States and there are no copyright restrictions on reproduction, derivative works, distribution, performance, or display of the work. Anyone may, without restriction under U.S. copyright laws: <ul class="one_column_bullet"><li>reproduce the work in print or digital form</li> <li>create derivative works</li> <li>perform the work publicly</li> <li>display the work</li> <li>distribute copies or digitally transfer the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.</li> </ul>This resources is provided here by <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> for educational purposes only. For more information on copyright, please refer to <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#105" target="_blank">Section 5</a> of <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html" target="_blank">Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code</a>. Source Repository <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> External Reference United States. <a href="https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf" target="_blank">Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970</a>. Washington: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1975. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/histstats-colonial-1970.pdf. United States, and Carroll D. Wright. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/166662" target="_blank">The History and Growth of the United States Census</a>. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1900. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf. "<a href="https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/" target="_blank">Through the Decades</a>." United States Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce. https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/. Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Original Format 1 table Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title U.S. Census for Central Florida, 2000 Alternative Title Census, 2000 Subject Census--United States Orange County (Fla.) Marion County (Fla.) Brevard County (Fla.) St. Lucie County (Fla.) Seminole County (Fla.) Volusia County (Fla.) Flagler County (Fla.) Lake County (Fla.) Osceola County (Fla.) Population--United States Description The Twenty-Second United States Census records for Brevard County, Flagler County, Lake County, Marion County, Orange County, Osceola County, Seminole County, and Volusia County, Florida, for 2000. The census divides the population by gender, race ("white alone," "black," "American Indian and Alaska Native," "Asian," Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander," "other race," "two or moreraces," "Hispanic," "Mexican," "Puerto Rican," "Cuban," "Dominican," "Central American," "Costa Rican," "Guatemalan," "Honduran," "Nicaraguan," "Panamanian," "Salvadoran," "Other Central American," "South American," "Argentinean," "Bolivian," "Chilean," "Columbian," "Ecuadorian," "Paraguayan," "Peruvian," "Uruguayan," "Venezuelan," "Other South American," "Spaniard," "Asian Indian," "Bangladeshi," "Cambodian," "Chinese," "Filipino," "Hmong," "Indonesian," "Japanese," "Korean," "Laotian," "Malaysian," "Pakistani,""Sri Lankan," "Taiwanese," "Vietnamese," and "other Asian"), and native-born vs. foreign-born. Those who are foreign born are further divided by country of origin. The census then lists the population categorized by marital status, type of residence, military service, primary and secondary school attendance, and college attendance. The census also collected information on labor, on unemployment, on energy usage, and on transportation. For the Census of 2000, the short form consisted of only seven questions, while the long form consisted of 52 questions and was used for a 17-percent sample of the population. For the first time, race questions were not limited to a single category; rather, respondents were able to check multiple boxes. A new question related to grandparents as caregivers was also mandated by legislation passed in 1996. Disability questions were expanded to including hearing and vision impairments, as well as learning, memory, and concentration disabilities. The 2000 Census also eliminated questions related to children born, water sources, sewage disposal, and condominium status. In addition, the 2000 Census was the first in which the Internet was used as the principal medium for the dissemination of census information. Summary Files were available for download immediately upon release and individual tables could be viewed via American FactFinder, the Census Bureau's online database. Files were also available for purchase on CD-Rom and DVD. Due to declining questionnaire mail-back rates, the U.S. Census Bureau marketed a $167 million national and local print, television, and public advertising campaign in 17 different languages. The campaign successfully brought the mail-back rate up to 67 percent. Additionally, respondents receiving the short form were given the option of responding via the Internet. Telephone questionnaire assistance centers available in six languages also took responses via the phone. Statistical sampling techniques were utilized in two ways: first, to alter the traditional 100-percent personal visit of non-responding households during the non-response follow-up (NRFU) process instead by following up on a smaller sample basis; second, the sampling of 750,000 housing units matched to housing unit questionnaires obtained from mail and telephone responses, as well as from personal visits. The goal of the latter was to develop adjustment factors for individuals estimated to have been missed or duplicated and to correct the census counts to produce one set of numbers. This "one-number census" would correct for net coverage errors called Integrated Coverage Measurement (ICM). Both of these measures were taken in an attempt to avoid repetition of the litigation costs generated by the 1980 Census and the 1990 Census. Despite these efforts, two lawsuits—one filed by the U.S. House of Representatives—were filed in February 1998 challenging the constitutionality and legality of the planned uses of sampling to produce apportionment counts. Both cases were decided in favor of the plaintiffs in federal district courts, but the U.S. Department of Commerce made appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court. Known as the U.S. Department of Commerce v. the U.S. House of Representatives, the Court ruled that the Census Bureau's plans to use statistical sampling for purposes of congressional apportionments violated the Census Act. The bureau revised its plan, stating that it would produce statistically adjusted data for non-apportionment uses of census data information, such as redistricting. However, in March of 2001, the Census Bureau recommended against the use of adjusted census data for redistricting due to accuracy concerns; the Secretary of Commerce determined that the unadjusted data would be released as the bureau's official redistricting data. The Director of the Census Bureau also rejected to the use of adjusted data for non-redistricting purposes in October of that same year. Type Dataset Source Original census data collected by the <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Bureau</a>, 2000. Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/104" target="_blank">U.S. Census Collection</a>, RICHES of Central Florida. Is Format Of Digital reproduction of original census data collected by the <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Bureau</a>, 2000. Coverage Brevard County, Florida Flagler County, Florida Lake County, Florida Marion County, Florida Orange County, Florida Osceola County, Florida Seminole County, Florida Volusia County, Florida Creator <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Bureau</a> Publisher <a href="http://www.commerce.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Department of Commerce</a> Contributor Gibson, Ella Date Created ca. 2000-04-01 Format image/jpg Extent 3.12 MB Medium 1 table Language eng Mediator History Teacher Economics Teacher Civics/Government Teacher Geography Teacher Provenance Originally collected by the <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Bureau</a> and published by the <a href="http://www.commerce.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Department of Commerce</a>. Rights Holder This resource is not subject to copyright in the United States and there are no copyright restrictions on reproduction, derivative works, distribution, performance, or display of the work. Anyone may, without restriction under U.S. copyright laws: <ul class="one_column_bullet"><li>reproduce the work in print or digital form</li> <li>create derivative works</li> <li>perform the work publicly</li> <li>display the work</li> <li>distribute copies or digitally transfer the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.</li> </ul> This resources is provided here by <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> for educational purposes only. For more information on copyright, please refer to <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#105" target="_blank">Section 5</a> of <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html" target="_blank">Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code</a>. Accrual Method Item Creation Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> External Reference "<a href="https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/overview/2000.html" target="_blank">2000 Overview</a>." U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/overview/2000.html. United States, and Carroll D. Wright. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/166662" target="_blank">The History and Growth of the United States Census</a>. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf. U.S. Bureau of the Census. <a href="https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/Census2000v1.pdf" target="_blank">History: 2000 Census of Population and Housing</a><a href="https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/Census2000v1.pdf" target="_blank">, Volume 1</a>. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/Census2000v1.pdf. U.S. Bureau of the Census. <a href="https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/Census2000v2.pdf" target="_blank">History: 2000 Census of Population and Housing, Volume 2</a>. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/Census2000v2.pdf. Transcript U.S. Census of 2000 Population Brevard County Flagler County Lake County Marion County Orange County Osceola County Seminole County Volusia County Population Total 476,230 49,832 210,528 258,916 896,344 172,493 365,196 443,343 Males 233,186 23,887 101,866 124,945 443,716 85,022 178,776 215,361 Females 243,044 25,945 108,662 133,971 452,628 87,471 186,420 227,982 Population by Race White Alone 413,411 43,490 184,138 217,909 614,830 133,169 300,948 381,760 Black 40,000 4,401 17,503 29,900 162,899 12,702 34,764 41,198 American Indian and Alaska Native 1,765 133 701 1,158 3,079 790 1,087 1,373 Asian 7,152 583 1,667 1,806 30,033 3,802 9,115 4,430 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 305 12 76 57 843 142 163 164 Other Race 5,168 480 3,966 4,363 53,889 15,631 11,175 8,071 Two or More Races 8,429 733 2,477 3,723 30,771 6,257 7,944 6,347 Population by Descent or Origin Hispanic 21,970 2,537 11,808 15,616 168,361 50,727 40,731 29,111 Mexican 3,281 237 5,638 3,350 19,755 3,400 3,871 7,733 Puerto Rican 9,111 1,031 2,978 6,997 86,583 30,728 19,609 13,546 Cuban 2,161 292 638 1,049 12,371 2,178 3,610 1,570 Dominican 458 37 102 257 6,358 2,313 1,223 452 Central American 1,296 101 372 561 5,703 1,870 1,595 789 Costa Rican 150 5 39 45 600 188 233 122 Guatemalan 323 23 75 122 949 241 165 83 Honduran 210 15 71 87 1,223 266 212 138 Nicaraguan 93 6 34 78 716 315 220 100 Panamanian 392 34 75 152 1,037 251 402 173 Salvadorian 91 11 58 62 883 521 265 134 Other Central American 37 7 20 15 295 88 98 39 South American 1,690 340 559 1,013 15,436 4,254 4,690 1,541 Argentinean 136 26 32 29 794 217 370 132 Bolivian 26 7 2 1 191 34 83 22 Chilean 116 7 24 33 451 130 114 101 Colombian 661 149 235 520 7,676 2,071 2,182 592 Ecuadorian 156 28 60 181 1,687 474 484 210 Paraguayan 15 0 1 1 25 4 8 7 Peruvian 217 54 114 96 1,629 470 648 141 Uruguayan 15 33 8 8 115 42 41 49 Venezuelan 256 21 60 95 2,315 686 587 190 Other South American 92 15 23 49 553 126 173 97 Other Hispanic 3,973 499 1,521 2,389 22,155 5,984 6,133 3,480 Spaniard 262 37 52 50 599 129 218 147 Spanish 784 88 267 333 1,968 415 759 556 Spanish American 90 4 36 69 329 78 104 63 Other Hispanic or Latino 2,837 370 1,166 1,937 19,259 5,362 5,052 2,714 Asian Indian 1,806 69 562 715 8,166 1,230 2,994 1,345 Bangladeshi 15 0 11 0 101 33 33 14 Cambodian 48 13 9 1 141 6 33 19 Chinese, Except Taiwanese 951 82 217 160 4,227 569 1,428 661 Filipino 1,577 292 332 313 5,066 951 1,281 798 Hmong 0 0 2 0 2 0 10 0 Indonesian 32 2 3 4 71 9 30 25 Japanese 531 16 84 129 1,193 92 307 256 Korean 631 37 153 209 1,950 141 1,094 445 Laotian 20 1 11 1 232 25 154 120 Malaysian 9 0 0 1 33 2 10 7 Pakistani 52 1 13 17 732 245 171 76 Sri Lankan 2 0 3 1 56 14 8 28 Taiwanese 72 11 2 13 226 45 65 21 Thai 351 10 47 26 436 85 123 79 Vietnamese 763 24 174 130 6,189 184 1,074 329 Other Asian 23 0 4 1 58 3 9 4 Other Asian, Not Specified 166 10 19 72 577 90 161 130 Households Total 198,195 21,294 88,413 106,755 336,286 60,977 139,572 184,723 Family Households 132,480 15,683 62,468 74,637 220,258 45,077 97,249 120,064 Married Couple Family 104,964 13,378 52,105 59,339 157,937 34,207 75,718 93,161 Other Family 27,516 2,305 10,363 15,298 62,321 10,870 21,531 26,903 Non- Family 65,715 5,611 25,945 32,118 116,028 15,900 42,323 64,659 Population by Marital Status Never Married 78,006 5,869 27,762 37,350 214,910 32,173 71,780 78,186 Married 224,987 28,530 110,140 127,501 355,270 75,570 162,707 205,036 Separated 7,403 553 2,689 4,160 19,485 3,577 5,162 6,690 Widowed 31,880 3,799 17,018 19,631 36,918 7,860 15,876 34,496 Divorced 47,747 3,707 17,129 24,635 79,329 14,725 32,730 45,397 Population in Group Quarters Total 9,695 462 3,767 6,881 18,831 2,400 3,606 14,737 Institutionalized 6,303 428 3,071 5,644 11,987 1,921 2,260 7,391 Correctional Institutions 2,431 55 1,522 3,780 6,307 903 1,216 2,616 Nursing Homes 2,543 342 1,425 1,579 3,684 862 994 3,931 Other Institutions 1,329 31 124 285 1,996 156 50 844 Non-Institutionalized 3,392 34 696 1,237 6,844 479 1,346 7,346 College Dormitories 1,088 0 0 231 3,402 155 12 4,530 Military Quarters 215 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Other, Non-Institutionalized 2,089 34 696 1,006 3,442 324 1,334 2,811 Not in Group Quarters 466,535 49,370 206,761 252,035 877,513 170,093 361,590 428,606 Population by Military Service Active Armed Forces 2,318 19 129 113 413 76 198 255 Veterans 79,145 9,252 35,534 43,300 84,940 17,226 39,515 66,646 Non-Veterans 290,433 31,631 132,175 160,233 585,412 108,979 233,200 286,986 Veteran Population by War or Conflict Gulf War 6,733 444 1,748 2,324 11,262 1,975 4,764 4,137 Vietnam Era 19,233 1,769 6,720 8,584 23,668 4,829 12,294 15,369 Korean Conflict 10,541 1,739 6,225 7,318 8,673 1,903 4,025 10,017 World War II 15,312 2,797 10,930 12,695 11,921 2,722 5,281 18,058 Multiple Wars 7,086 469 2,240 2,301 4,506 595 2,142 3,455 Other Service 20,240 2,034 7,671 10,078 24,910 5,202 11,009 15,610 Native-Born Population Total 445,229 44,875 199,708 245,564 767,440 148,383 331,911 414,990 Foreign-Born Population Total 31,001 4,957 10,820 13,352 128,904 24,110 33,285 28,353 Naturalized 18,374 3,354 5,084 7,516 53,651 9,514 16,507 14,955 Non-Citizen 12,627 1,603 5,736 5,836 75,253 14,596 16,778 13,398 Foreign-Born Population by Region or Country of Origin Europe 9,881 2,267 2,779 3,458 13,547 3,790 6,769 9,808 Northern Europe 3,374 561 1,091 1,060 4,471 1,560 2,414 2,883 United Kingdom 2,595 413 820 875 3,519 1,388 1,891 2,217 Ireland 317 74 105 79 432 70 214 297 Sweden 172 31 59 26 135 34 115 151 Other Northern Europe 290 43 107 80 385 68 194 218 Western Europe 3,480 585 1,167 1,394 3,827 805 1,735 3,281 Austria 76 21 36 52 112 23 113 164 France 509 17 193 56 754 43 118 293 Germany 2,298 440 867 1,137 2,378 617 1,185 2,407 Netherlands 305 77 20 96 280 71 162 252 Other Western Europe 292 30 51 53 303 51 157 165 Southern Europe 1,616 523 205 477 2,044 457 1,218 1,603 Greece 239 16 21 52 255 25 144 379 Italy 961 230 143 329 1,080 207 706 975 Portugal 132 178 10 41 235 120 108 92 Spain 227 77 31 51 459 89 237 129 Other Southern Europe 57 22 0 4 15 16 23 28 Eastern Europe 1,400 598 316 527 3,195 959 1,402 2,031 Czechoslovakia, Including Czech Republic and Slovakia 128 29 48 48 208 275 129 242 Hungary 166 15 50 144 306 110 217 303 Poland 469 179 101 168 366 169 204 501 Romania 143 15 16 28 252 19 134 101 Belarus 2 0 0 0 16 0 8 18 Russia 166 148 42 10 430 298 116 180 Ukraine 50 187 19 23 259 50 26 147 Bosnia and Herzegovina 0 0 0 0 451 0 214 7 Yugoslavia 62 14 12 41 126 5 128 131 Other Eastern Europe 214 11 28 65 781 33 226 401 Europe, Not Elsewhere Classified 11 0 0 0 10 9 0 10 Asia 6,529 570 1,209 1,704 23,739 3,187 7,205 4,426 Eastern Asia 1,584 36 307 459 5,728 636 1,947 1,224 China 640 16 133 152 2,843 496 852 494 China, Excluding Hong Kong and Taiwan 361 9 75 99 1,635 218 589 267 Hong Kong 57 7 29 19 460 93 64 146 Taiwan 222 0 29 34 748 185 199 81 Japan 410 9 96 133 1,069 52 279 321 Korea 534 11 71 174 1,757 88 801 409 Other Eastern Asia 0 0 7 0 59 0 15 0 South Central Asia 1,558 108 336 501 5,754 1,270 2,060 1,179 Afghanistan 0 0 0 0 1 0 8 31 Bangladesh 12 0 0 8 361 120 15 90 India 1,261 43 273 392 3,298 424 1,268 735 Iran 151 38 39 52 562 25 429 202 Pakistan 126 26 16 18 1,426 574 299 58 Other South Central Asia 8 1 8 31 106 127 41 63 South Eastern Asia 2,426 380 479 581 10,114 1,063 2,339 1,347 Cambodia 54 37 0 9 146 12 13 13 Indonesia 129 19 18 83 88 13 57 57 Laos 0 0 52 5 77 102 194 37 Malaysia 52 6 13 24 140 16 29 58 Philippines 1,177 225 246 200 3,418 647 1,060 783 Thailand 398 18 28 30 452 63 151 128 Vietnam 616 75 121 195 5,730 203 814 271 Other South Eastern Asia 0 0 1 35 63 7 21 0 Western Asia 924 46 78 145 1,774 165 816 610 Iraq 39 0 0 0 61 0 58 12 Israel 29 0 31 12 238 49 163 64 Jordan 33 0 5 27 165 50 77 120 Lebanon 266 0 26 70 437 13 254 85 Syria 24 0 0 5 222 20 104 25 Turkey 122 46 16 7 170 6 87 109 Armenia 6 0 0 7 0 0 0 9 Other Western Asia 405 0 0 17 481 27 73 186 Asia, Not Elsewhere Classified 37 0 9 18 369 53 43 66 Africa 1,088 58 253 251 3,710 804 1,344 828 Eastern Africa 161 8 18 93 820 45 479 183 Ethiopia 14 8 0 11 123 0 0 20 Other Eastern Africa 147 0 18 82 697 45 479 163 Middle Africa 20 0 0 0 98 0 0 36 Northern Africa 474 50 122 9 1,338 519 409 353 Egypt 263 31 80 9 358 42 304 195 Other Northern Africa 211 19 42 0 980 477 105 158 Southern Africa 228 0 15 43 549 30 204 103 South Africa 200 0 15 43 549 30 204 103 Other Southern Africa 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Western Africa 163 0 28 91 561 185 225 108 Ghana 16 0 9 0 69 8 94 15 Nigeria 121 0 19 91 308 6 81 48 Sierra Leone 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 Other Western Africa 26 0 0 0 165 171 50 45 Africa, Not Elsewhere Classified 42 0 70 15 344 25 27 45 Oceania 140 78 36 95 313 38 129 138 Australia and New Zealand Subregion 104 78 36 73 188 23 108 124 Australia 78 21 36 64 142 13 70 109 Other Australian and New Zealand Subregion 26 57 0 9 46 10 38 15 Melanesia 0 0 0 16 17 15 0 0 Micronesia 16 0 0 6 59 0 0 14 Polynesia 20 0 0 0 49 0 15 0 Oceania, Not Elsewhere Classified 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 Americas 13,363 1,984 6,543 7,827 87,595 16,291 17,838 13,153 Latin America 10,644 1,762 5,479 6,469 83,648 15,648 15,711 10,093 Caribbean 5,495 974 1,322 2,559 41,956 6,227 6,632 3,287 Barbados 153 33 19 62 589 141 88 28 Cuba 970 159 424 554 8,809 1,251 2,094 875 Dominican Republic 331 58 128 210 5,153 2,080 931 446 Haiti 213 33 167 143 13,227 569 718 268 Jamaica 2,414 437 375 1,198 8,756 1,248 1,684 790 Trinidad and Tobago 693 180 119 222 2,663 457 586 493 Other Caribbean 721 74 90 170 2,759 481 531 387 Central America 2,553 203 3,396 2,172 16,926 3,549 3,387 4,556 Mexico 1,028 34 2,846 1,597 11,100 1,626 1,364 3,663 Other Central America 1,525 169 550 575 5,826 1,923 2,023 893 Costa Rica 206 0 0 35 506 133 340 172 El Salvador 180 11 91 66 826 572 404 161 Guatemala 355 16 162 112 1,114 172 280 106 Honduras 236 18 116 151 1,457 290 336 141 Nicaragua 94 8 32 70 708 414 155 87 Panama 454 95 137 133 1,066 310 385 199 Other Central America 0 21 12 8 149 32 123 27 South America 2,596 585 761 1,738 24,766 5,872 5,692 2,250 Argentina 255 57 18 0 853 177 417 159 Bolivia 3 0 0 0 442 7 30 7 Brazil 352 25 39 98 4,765 835 435 307 Chile 144 40 30 13 562 184 178 93 Colombia 744 193 211 819 8,550 2,156 2,306 761 Ecuador 121 30 99 270 1,885 607 403 209 Guyana 397 102 113 282 2,741 291 538 185 Peru 226 20 102 142 1,707 574 725 163 Venezuela 299 20 119 80 2,826 878 518 259 Other South America 55 98 30 34 435 163 142 107 Northern America 2,719 222 1,064 1,358 3,947 643 2,127 3,060 Canada 2,682 220 1,055 1,338 3,900 643 2,085 3,030 Other Northern America 37 2 9 20 47 0 42 30 Born at Sea 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 Housing Units Total 222,072 24,452 102,830 122,663 361,349 72,293 147,079 211,938 Occupied 198,195 21,294 88,413 106,755 336,286 60,977 139,572 184,723 Vacant 23,877 3,158 14,417 15,908 25,063 11,316 7,507 27,215 For Rent 5,970 358 2,158 2,341 10,116 2,429 2,819 4,039 For Sale 3,477 370 1,886 2,331 3,619 958 1,319 2,864 Households by Energy Usage for Heat Gas (Utility, Bottled, Tank, or LP Gas) 30,291 645 15,796 19,235 26,907 5,163 12,114 16,924 Electricity 163,791 20,322 70,732 83,373 299,899 54,547 124,260 159,179 Fuel Oil, Kerosene, Etc. 2,073 169 882 2,380 6,047 365 2,233 6,144 Coal, Coke, and Wood 336 36 387 843 506 101 203 660 Solar Energy 39 0 3 0 43 24 57 79 Other Fuel 105 33 130 112 243 33 50 256 No Fuel 1,560 89 483 812 2,641 744 655 1,481 Population by Work Transportation Method Car, Truck, or Van 192,896 17,168 76,050 90,409 404,604 73,183 174,772 171,448 Public Transportation 591 130 348 217 10,923 825 1,227 1,914 Motorcycles 765 76 217 159 853 281 534 981 Bicycles 1,278 78 248 313 2,038 386 660 1,033 Walking 2,653 221 1,129 1,369 6,085 1,054 1,898 3,531 Other Means 1,390 151 838 818 3,642 624 1,317 1,582 Working from Home 5,506 625 2,633 3,019 11,178 1,510 7,186 5,426 Education Brevard County Flagler County Lake County Marion County Orange County Osceola County Seminole County Volusia County Population by School Completion Completing Less Than High School 46,416 5,453 31,482 40,813 104,591 23,095 27,523 56,982 High School Completed 98,108 12,330 53,339 67,271 148,006 37,536 59,280 102,353 Some College Completed 115,194 12,642 44,940 53,477 171,495 32,560 80,922 101,929 Bachelor's Degree 51,616 5,170 17,509 16,126 104,818 12,052 51,235 36,646 Master's Degree 20,995 2,023 5,458 5,966 29,990 3,610 16,882 12,536 Professional School 4,889 722 2,056 2,638 10,945 1,393 5,472 4,785 Doctorate Degree 2,520 276 788 896 4,256 361 1,902 1,994 Male Population by School Completion Completing Less Than High School 21,055 2,682 15,185 20,255 50,528 11,453 12,856 27,650 High School Completed 42,196 5,366 23,137 29,860 67,485 17,246 25,644 46,259 Some College Completed 53,613 5,775 21,256 24,683 81,995 15,676 36,647 46,461 Bachelor's Degree 28,222 2,753 9,236 7,952 53,117 6,076 27,227 18,609 Master's Degree 12,251 997 2,942 2,950 15,844 1,661 8,764 6,326 Professional School 3,216 459 1,254 1,626 6,803 725 3,674 3,072 Doctorate Degree 1,751 189 579 674 2,822 204 1,369 1,385 Female Population by School Completion Completing Less Than High School 25,361 2,771 16,297 20,558 54,063 11,642 14,667 29,332 High School Completed 55,912 6,964 30,202 37,411 80,521 20,290 33,636 56,094 Some College Completed 61,581 6,867 23,684 28,794 89,500 16,884 44,275 55,468 Bachelor's Degree 23,394 2,417 8,273 8,174 51,701 5,976 24,008 18,037 Master's Degree 8,744 1,026 2,516 3,016 14,146 1,949 8,118 6,210 Professional School 1,673 263 802 1,012 4,142 668 1,798 1,713 Doctorate Degree 769 87 209 222 1,434 157 533 609 White Population by School Completion Completing Less Than High School 37,567 4,500 25,766 33,247 60,146 17,355 19,218 47,006 High School Completed 265,645 29,645 115,146 130,473 358,068 71,834 186,568 236,703 Some College Completed 177,263 18,296 66,168 70,187 250,401 40,341 136,300 143,048 Bachelor's Degree 73,746 7,262 24,294 22,835 121,362 14,077 66,382 50,651 Graduate or Professional School 26,151 2,599 7,793 8,503 36,549 4,353 20,807 17,596 Black Population by School Completion Completing Less Than High School 6,222 612 3,791 5,330 27,290 1,928 5,406 6,694 High School Completed 15,871 2,365 5,630 11,463 61,429 5,240 14,425 15,128 Some College Completed 9,416 1,661 2,351 6,135 36,623 2,845 9,327 9,047 Bachelor's Degree 2,667 564 692 1,768 13,058 828 3,660 3,207 Graduate or Professional School 747 259 267 638 3,681 272 1,397 1,049 American Indian and Alaska Native Population by School Completion Completing Less Than High School 314 12 154 201 461 109 164 191 High School Completed 1,160 87 317 612 1,503 193 842 871 Some College Completed 725 80 145 456 853 106 612 624 Bachelor's Degree 152 26 8 134 284 19 268 180 Graduate or Professional School 38 26 0 31 116 0 99 73 Asian Population by School Completion Completing Less Than High School 904 61 202 336 3,867 394 638 532 High School Completed 4,249 345 798 1,149 15,500 2,031 5,225 2,711 Some College Completed 3,235 267 649 808 12,144 1,610 4,258 2,044 Bachelor's Degree 1,946 151 338 513 7,945 997 2,838 1,190 Graduate or Professional School 947 58 80 190 2,684 256 1,189 408 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Population by School Completion Completing Less Than High School 24 0 9 10 84 34 0 23 High School Completed 134 0 0 28 327 46 101 57 Some College Completed 81 0 0 28 230 31 40 42 Bachelor's Degree 21 0 0 19 76 5 0 0 Graduate or Professional School 12 0 0 14 25 0 0 0 Some Other Race Population by School Completion Completing Less Than High School 500 143 1,091 1,177 8,193 2,388 1,318 1,630 High School Completed 2,225 258 978 1,147 19,255 5,492 4,552 2,055 Some College Completed 1,666 166 635 646 12,161 3,369 3,005 1,321 Bachelor's Degree 478 70 249 97 3,700 894 1,082 330 Graduate or Professional School 164 19 64 27 985 310 279 88 Hispanic or Latino Population by School Completion Aged 25+ 12,809 1,767 6,248 8,790 95,505 28,364 24,165 16,659 Completing Less Than High School 2,540 461 2,705 3,460 27,742 8,247 5,071 6,202 High School Completed 10,269 1,306 3,543 5,330 67,763 20,117 19,094 10,457 Some College Completed 7,396 741 2,326 3,228 44,475 11,928 13,519 6,860 Bachelor's Degree 2,935 302 907 831 16,194 3,552 5,625 1,954 Graduate or Professional School 972 163 277 374 5,099 939 1,915 658 Population by School Enrollment Enrolled 112,005 9,366 40,624 54,173 248,040 44,944 99,337 101,190 Not Enrolled 349,620 39,284 163,384 197,003 611,968 120,923 252,611 329,318 Public School 91,848 8,149 34,908 46,347 204,974 38,926 80,854 79,381 Public Pre-School 3,521 324 1,400 1,882 7,437 1,321 2,503 2,905 Public K-8 49,627 4,380 19,813 26,299 102,097 22,395 42,047 42,065 Public High School 21,896 2,024 9,201 11,584 45,485 10,211 18,665 19,215 Public College 16,804 1,421 4,494 6,582 49,955 4,999 17,639 15,196 Private School 20,157 1,217 5,716 7,826 43,066 6,018 18,483 21,809 Private Pre-School 3,885 376 1,353 1,592 9,371 1,284 4,830 3,730 Private K-8 7,203 360 2,720 3,620 15,393 2,146 7,126 5,258 Private High School 1,996 118 633 1,118 4,102 495 2,071 1,655 Private College 7,073 363 1,010 1,496 14,200 2,093 4,456 11,166 Labor Brevard County Flagler County Lake County Marion County Orange County Osceola County Seminole County Volusia County Population in Labor Force Total 220,413 19,670 86,307 104,422 471,974 84,142 198,464 201,913 Armed Forces 2,318 19 129 113 413 76 198 255 Civilian Labor Force 218,095 19,651 86,178 104,309 471,561 84,066 198,266 201,658 Employed 207,366 18,815 82,819 98,248 447,861 79,859 190,973 189,035 Unemployed 10,729 836 3,359 6,061 23,700 4,207 7,293 12,623 Not in Labor Force 163,663 22,200 85,967 105,310 221,452 47,135 84,636 162,621 Male Population in Labor Force Total 119,342 10,349 46,312 54,645 251,471 44,428 106,283 107,321 Armed Forces 2,048 10 109 109 375 58 178 206 Civilian Labor Force 117,294 10,339 46,203 54,536 251,096 44,370 106,105 107,115 Employed 111,595 9,889 44,453 51,569 239,431 42,204 102,411 100,145 Unemployed 5,699 450 1,750 2,967 11,665 2,166 3,694 6,970 Not in Labor Force 66,680 9,544 36,010 44,657 87,278 19,206 30,039 67,395 Female Population in Labor Force Total 101,071 9,321 39,995 49,777 220,503 39,714 92,181 94,592 Armed Forces 270 9 20 4 38 18 20 49 Civilian Labor Force 100,801 9,312 39,975 49,773 220,465 39,696 92,161 94,543 Employed 95,771 8,926 38,366 46,679 208,430 37,655 88,562 88,890 Unemployed 5,030 386 1,609 3,094 12,035 2,041 3,599 5,653 Not in Labor Force 96,983 12,656 49,957 60,653 134,174 27,929 54,597 95,226 Employment and Unemployment by Race White Employed 182,829 16,701 72,821 84,361 324,773 63,838 161,737 164,827 White Unemployed 8,644 722 2,596 4,543 13,878 3,045 5,384 9,831 Black or African American Employed 14,154 1,364 5,894 9,629 67,034 5,376 14,393 15,240 Black or African American Unemployed 1,445 92 520 1,155 5,956 454 1,089 2,144 American Indian and Alaska Native Employed 1,044 60 356 496 1,478 222 826 765 American Indian and Alaska Native Unemployed 81 0 29 62 119 30 46 77 Asian Employed 3,329 220 728 962 14,961 1,702 4,757 2,131 Asian Unemployed 205 14 25 16 675 107 169 88 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Employed 142 0 12 14 355 63 68 97 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Unemployed 9 0 0 0 22 0 0 8 Some Other Race Employed 2,289 267 1,901 1,694 24,246 5,983 5,163 3,364 Some Other Race Unemployed 152 6 126 171 1,939 465 289 228 Hispanic or Latino Employed 9,415 873 5,232 5,816 73,233 20,739 19,335 11,101 Hispanic or Latino Unemployed 622 29 334 590 5,428 1,477 1,123 1,797 Employment by Industry Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting, and Mining 1,042 241 2,311 3,432 2,369 482 621 2,075 Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing and Hunting 887 223 2,132 3,266 2,257 434 584 2,058 Mining 155 18 179 166 112 48 37 17 Construction 16,424 1,873 8,556 8,803 33,618 7,030 15,439 16,827 Manufacturing 28,223 1,875 5,264 10,416 28,548 4,325 15,131 16,297 Wholesale Trade 5,177 439 3,399 3,117 17,584 2,559 8,255 5,606 Retail Trade 27,766 3,046 11,145 15,499 54,069 10,596 26,089 26,243 Transportation, Warehousing, and Utilities 8,434 813 4,043 4,789 24,799 4,689 8,412 8,310 Transportation and Warehousing 7,176 611 3,229 3,714 21,872 4,084 7,030 6,655 Utilities 1,258 202 814 1,075 2,927 605 1,382 1,655 Information 6,541 412 2,347 1,892 17,174 1,229 8,357 5,339 Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, and Rental and Leasing 10,828 1,151 4,901 5,100 34,668 4,409 18,231 11,886 Finance and Insurance 5,875 579 2,982 2,896 20,344 1,720 12,994 6,701 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 4,953 572 1,919 2,204 14,324 2,689 5,237 5,185 Professional, Scientific, Management, Administrative, and Waste Management Services 21,876 1,633 6,716 7,712 51,511 5,497 25,213 17,342 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 13,377 823 2,754 3,488 29,078 2,113 16,195 8,448 Management of Companies and Enterprise 57 0 5 24 210 7 80 18 Administrative, Support, and Waste Management Services 8,442 810 3,957 4,200 22,223 3,377 8,938 8,876 Educational, Health, and Social Services 36,027 3,497 14,135 19,167 64,356 9,802 32,953 37,004 Educational Services 13,513 1,634 5,099 7,275 27,559 4,522 14,673 15,296 Health Care and Social Assistance 22,514 1,863 9,036 11,892 36,797 5,280 18,280 21,708 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation, Accommodation, and Food Services 20,476 2,124 11,273 8,440 82,026 23,687 16,862 22,680 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 4,542 466 5,154 1,940 31,553 8,907 4,969 4,891 Accommodation and Food Services 15,934 1,658 6,119 6,500 50,473 14,780 11,893 17,789 Other Services, Except Public Administration 9,517 836 4,416 5,305 21,953 3,088 8,218 10,088 Public Administration 15,035 875 4,313 4,576 15,186 2,466 7,192 9,338 Employment by Occupation Management, Business, and Financial Operations Employees 25,257 2,385 10,256 10,089 63,728 8,262 31,322 21,985 Professional and Related Employees 47,217 3,121 13,456 15,821 81,543 10,119 42,507 32,511 Health Care Support Employees 4,085 407 1,996 2,333 5,904 1,160 2,658 4,085 Protective Service Employees 4,921 494 2,225 2,313 8,794 1,852 3,507 4,497 Food Preparation and Serving Related Employees 11,930 1,272 4,274 5,089 30,987 7,844 8,461 12,263 Building, Grounds Cleaning, and Maintenance Employees 7,971 914 4,061 3,995 18,641 5,343 5,128 8,353 Personal Care and Service Employees 5,303 501 2,649 3,458 15,855 2,814 4,895 4,980 Sales and Related Employees 25,845 2,447 10,301 13,270 58,829 10,614 29,534 24,853 Office and Administrative Support Employees 29,940 2,962 12,118 14,457 74,240 12,573 30,850 29,414 Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Employees 642 65 1,540 1,297 1,808 239 314 1,562 Construction, Extraction, and Maintenance Employees 21,793 2,175 10,229 11,851 40,021 9,616 16,353 22,216 Production Employees 12,388 1,242 3,985 7,344 20,704 3,753 7,463 11,721 Transportation and Material Moving Employees 10,074 830 5,729 6,931 26,807 5,670 7,981 10,595 Male Employment by Occupation Management, Business, and Financial Operations Employees 14,925 1,448 6,088 5,838 35,997 4,460 18,881 12,645 Professional and Related Employees 24,396 1,279 5,224 5,957 38,302 4,211 20,386 13,322 Health Care Support Employees 456 51 192 297 843 109 284 453 Protective Service Employees 3,998 414 1,895 1,818 6,603 1,454 2,818 3,558 Food Preparation and Serving Related Employees 4,759 516 1,686 1,611 16,146 3,765 4,144 5,303 Building, Grounds Cleaning, and Maintenance Employees 4,818 633 2,734 2,432 10,339 2,741 3,417 5,346 Personal Care and Service Employees 1,197 147 738 1,088 5,860 975 1,418 1,306 Sales and Related Employees 11,874 1,099 5,047 6,147 29,017 4,668 16,138 11,841 Office and Administrative Support Employees 7,137 672 2,652 3,079 20,733 3,287 7,376 7,067 Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Employees 544 38 999 1,012 1,083 160 212 1,017 Construction, Extraction, and Maintenance Employees 20,941 2,043 9,759 11,359 38,404 9,055 15,590 21,334 Production Employees 7,991 878 2,776 5,006 13,455 2,513 4,841 7,752 Transportation and Material Moving Employees 8,559 671 4,663 5,925 22,649 4,806 6,906 9,201 Female Employment by Occupation Management, Business, and Financial Operations Employees 10,332 937 4,168 4,251 27,731 3,802 12,441 9,340 Professional and Related Employees 22,821 1,842 8,232 9,864 43,241 5,908 22,121 19,189 Health Care Support Employees 3,629 356 1,804 2,036 5,061 1,051 2,374 3,632 Protective Service Employees 923 80 330 495 2,191 398 689 939 Food Preparation and Serving Related Employees 7,171 756 2,588 3,478 14,841 4,079 4,317 6,960 Building, Grounds Cleaning, and Maintenance Employees 3,153 281 1,327 1,563 8,302 2,602 1,711 3,007 Personal Care and Service Employees 4,106 354 1,911 2,370 9,995 1,839 3,477 3,674 Sales and Related Employees 13,971 1,348 5,254 7,123 29,812 5,946 13,396 13,012 Office and Administrative Support Employees 22,803 2,290 9,466 11,378 53,507 9,286 23,474 22,347 Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Employees 98 27 541 285 725 79 102 545 Construction, Extraction, and Maintenance Employees 852 132 470 492 1,617 561 763 882 Production Employees 4,397 364 1,209 2,338 7,249 1,240 2,622 3,969 Transportation and Material Moving Employees 1,515 159 1,066 1,006 4,158 864 1,075 1,394 Employment by Sector Private Sector Employees 140,975 12,217 57,209 67,011 336,958 62,521 135,938 127,632 Public Sector Employees 31,971 2,806 10,183 13,194 47,342 7,878 21,726 25,132 Self-Employed Employees 21,305 2,634 10,119 12,153 37,746 6,330 21,673 22,679 Non-Profit Employees 12,549 1,098 4,964 5,510 24,923 2,983 11,169 13,052 Unpaid Family Workers 566 60 344 380 892 147 467 540 Male Employment by Sector Private Sector Employees 77,045 6,502 31,252 36,394 184,769 33,504 74,886 68,711 Public Sector Employees 16,669 1,214 4,841 5,436 20,573 3,474 9,221 11,784 Self-Employed Employees 13,933 1,867 6,565 7,979 25,601 4,277 14,931 14,977 Non-Profit Employees 3,748 277 1,621 1,605 8,051 898 3,160 4,432 Unpaid Family Workers 200 29 174 155 437 51 213 241 Female Employment by Sector Private Sector Employees 63,930 5,715 25,957 30,617 152,189 29,017 61,052 58,921 Public Sector Employees 15,302 1,592 5,342 7,758 26,769 4,404 12,505 13,348 Self-Employed Employees 7,372 767 3,554 4,174 12,145 2,053 6,742 7,702 Non-Profit Employees 8,801 821 3,343 3,905 16,872 2,085 8,009 8,620 Unpaid Family Workers 366 31 170 225 455 96 254 299 accommodation administrative administrative support administrators Afghan Americans African Americans agriculture Alaska Natives American Indians American War Amerindians Arab Americans Argentinian Americans Armed Forces Armenian Americans arts Asian Americans Australian Americans Austrian Americans automobiles bachelor's degree Bangladeshi Americans Barbadian Americans Belorussian Americans bicycles bikers Bolivian Americans Bosnian Americans bottled gas Brazilian Americans Brevard County British Americans building business Cambodian Americans Canadian Americans car Caribbean Americans cars Caucasian Americans census Census of 2000 Central Americans Chilean Americans Chinese Americans citizens civilian labor coal Coke college dormitories college education Colombian Americans construction correctional institutions Costa Rican Americans Cuban Americans Czech Americans Czechoslovakian Americans divorced divorcees doctorate degree Dominican Americans dorms Dutch Americans Ecuadorian Americans education educational educators Egyptian Americans electric heat electricity employees employment energy usage English Americans enterprise entertainment Ethiopian Americans European Americans extraction families family farmers farming females Filipino Americans finance financial operators First Gulf War First Iraq War fishing Flagler County food preparation food services food serving forestry French Americans fuel oil gas heat German Americans Ghanaian Americans Greek Americans grounds cleaning group quarters Guatemalan Americans Gulf War Gulf War I Haitian Americans Hawaiian Natives health care heat Herzegovinian Americans high school education higher education Hispanic Americans Hmong Americans Honduran Americans Hong Kongese Americans households housing units Hungarian Americans hunting Indian Americans Indonesian Americans information institutionalized insurance Iranian Americans Iraq War Iraqi Americans Irish Americans Israeli Americans Italian Americans Jamaican Americans Japanese Americans Jordanian Americans kerosene Korean Americans Korean War Kuwait War labor labor force laborers Lake County Laotian Americans Latin Americans Latinas Latinos leasing Lebanese Americans LP gas maintenance Malay Americans Malaysian Americans males management managers manufacturing Marion County marital status married master's degree material moving medical care Melanesian Americans Mexican Americans Micronesian Americans Middle Eastern Americans military service mining motor vehicles motorcycles Native Americans naturalized New Zealander Americans Nicaraguan Americans Nigerian Americans non-citizens non-profit nursing homes Oceanic Americans office Operation Desert Shield Operation Desert Storm orange county Osceola County Pacific Islander Americans Pakistani Americans Panamanian Americans Paraguayan Americans pedestrians Persian Americans Persian Gulf War personal care Peruvian Americans PhD Polish Americans Polynesian Americans population Portuguese Americans preschool education primary education private education private schools private sector production professional professional school professionals protective services public administration public education public schools public sector public transportation Puerto Rican Americans Puerto Ricans real estate recreation rental Resistance War Against America retail Romanian Americans Russian Americans sales Salvadorian Americans Scandinavian Americans schools scientific scientists Scotch Americans Scottish Americans Second Indochina War Second World War secondary education self-employed Seminole County separated Sierra Leonean Americans single Slovakian Americans social assistance social services solar energy South Americans Spaniards Spanish Americans Sri Lankan Americans Swedish Americans Syrian Americans Taiwanese Americans tank gas teachers technical Thai Americans Tobagonian Americans trade transportation Trinidadian Americans truck trucks Turkish Americans U.S. Census Ukrainian Americans unemployment Uruguayan Americans utilities utility gas van vans Venezuelan Americans veterans Vietnam War Vietnamese Americans Volusia County walking warehousing waste management Welsh Americans wholesale widowed widowers widows wood workers World War II WWII Yugoslavian Americans https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka/files/original/b7fe9b73a3d3dc95e3d2c4ff36030f1b.jpg d192eb411d8345af9e2318eda47216c1 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title U.S. Census Collection Alternative Title Census Collection Subject Census--United States Population--United States Orange County (Fla.) Marion County (Fla.) Brevard County (Fla.) St. Lucie County (Fla.) Seminole County (Fla.) Volusia County (Fla.) Flagler County (Fla.) Lake County (Fla.) Osceola County (Fla.) Description Collection of United States Census population records for various counties in Central Florida from 1840 to 2000. The Census Act of 1840 was signed into law on March 3, 1839 and later amended on February 26, 1840. This piece of legislation established a centralized census office during each enumeration. Congress designated the census questionnaire designs to the Secretary of State. However, each household received inquiries regarding "the pursuits, industry, education, and resources of the country" and included questions related to school attendance, literacy, and vocation. In March of 1849, Congress pass legislation that established a census board consisting of the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Postmaster General. The board was responsible for preparing and printing forms and schedules for enumeration related to population, mining, agriculture, commerce, manufacturing, education, etc. The 1850 Census also increased population inquiries to include every free person's name (as opposed to just the head of the household), as well as information on taxes, schools, crime, wages, estate values, etc. The Census Act of 1850 authorized the U.S. Census of 1860 and stipulated that its provisions be adhered to for all future decennial censuses should no new legislation be passed by the first of the year of said census. In May of 1865, the U.S. Census Office was abolished and many superintending clerks were transferred to the General Land Office. Although the 1870 Census was conducted under the provisions of the Census Act of 1850, a new act was passed on May 6, 1870. The new census legislation required two changes in procedures related to questionnaire return submission dates. Moreover, penalties for refusing to reply to inquires were expanded to apply to all questions and questionnaires. The questionnaires themselves had to be redesigned due to the end of the "slave questionnaire", as slavery had been formally abolished slavery nationwide via the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This left five schedules for the census: General Population, Mortality, Agriculture, Products of Industry, and Social Statistics. In addition, the use of a Charles W. Seaton, a U.S. Census Office chief clerk and later superintendent, invited a rudimentary tallying machine that partially alleviated the difficulties of tallying and tabulating questionnaire responses. Finally, the new superintendent for the Ninth Census, General Francis A. Walker, introduced employment examinations to test the qualifications of applicants to the Census Office, allowing for increased efficiency in the process of collecting census data. The newest act authorizing the Census of 1880 provided for supervision of enumeration by "supervisors of the census", selected exclusively for the collection of census data. All supervisors, as well as the superintendent, were to appointed by the U.S. President and approved by the Senate. Census enumerators were required to personally visit each household and family within his subdivision. The new census act also allowed for the collection of data related to the condition and operation of railroad corporations, incorporated express companies, and telegraph companies, as well as data related to the condition and operation of life, fire, and marine insurance companies. Corporations who refused to provide the census with "true and complete" answers were subject to fines. In addition, the census superintendent was required to collect and publish data on the population, industries and resources of the District of Alaska. Finally, the 1880 Census consisted of five schedules: Population, Mortality, Agriculture, Social Statistics, and Manufacturing. The Census of 1890 was authorized by an act modeled after the 1880 enumeration and signed into law on March 1, 1889. The 1890 Census was supervised by 175 employees and enumerators were required to collect all information by personally visiting each household. The 1890 Census included essentially the same inquires from the 1880 Census, with some notable additions, such as questions about home and farm ownership and indebtedness; and the names, units, length of service, and residences of former Union soldiers and sailors, as well as the names of the widows of those who were no longer alive. Racial categorization was expanded to include "Japanese", along with "Chinese", "Negro", "mulatto", "quadroon", "octoroon", and "White". Herman Hollerith, a former employee of the U.S. Census Office, invited the electric tabulating system, which was widely used in the 1890 Census, allowing data to be processed faster and more efficiently. On October 3, 1893, Congress passed a law that transferred census-related work to the direction of the commissioner of labor. Congress passed another act on March 2, 1895, effectively abolishing the U.S. Census Office and transferring the remaining responsibilities to the Office of the Secretary of the Interior. Congress limited the Census of 1900 to content related to population, mortality, agriculture, and manufacturing. Special census agents were authorized to collect statistics related to incidents of deafness, blindness, insanity, and juvenile delinquency; as well as data on religious bodies, utilities, mining, and transportation. The act authorizing the 1900 Census designated the enumeration of military personally to the U.S. Department of War and the U.S. Department of the Navy, while Indiana Territory was to be enumerated by the commissioner of Indian Affairs. Annexed in 1898, Hawaii was included in the census for the first time. In 1902, the U.S. Census Office was officially established as a permanent organization within the U.S. Department of the Interior. The office became the U.S. Census Bureau in 1903 and was transferred to the Department of Commerce and Labor. The Census of 1910 was approved by legislation introduced in December of 1907 and enacted in July of 1909. The delay was the result of a disagreement over the appointment of enumerators. President Theodore Roosevelt supported the hiring of enumerators via the civil service system, while Congress supported enumerators as positions of patronage. President Roosevelt successfully won the debate. This census act also changed Census Day from the traditional date of June 1st to April 15th. Additional questions regarding the nationality and native language of foreign-born persons and their parents. Funds for the U.S. Census Bureau were also increased to expand the Census' permanent workforce and created several new full-time positions, including a geographer, a chief statistician, and an assistant director. The assistant director was to be appointed by the President and approved by the Senate, while all other census employees were hired on the basis of open, competitive examinations administered by the Civil Service Commission. Despite the use of automatic counting machinery, issues with the tabulation process persisted. Finally, with the United States' entrance into World War I in 1917, the U.S. Census Bureau became a source of even more valuable purpose: the Census was able to use population and economic data to report on the populations of draft-age men, as well as information regarding each state's industrial capabilities. The Census of 1920 changed the date of Census Day from April 15th to January 1st, as requested by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which argued that farmers' memories and harvest information would be more accurate on this day. The U.S. Census Bureau was also authorized to hire additional employees at its headquarters in Washington, D.C. and to create a special field force to collect census data. The legislation authorizing the 1920 Census also allowed for a census of manufacturing to be conducted in 1921, and for such a census to be repeated every two years thereafter, as opposed to the traditional five-year census cycle. Furthermore, a census of agriculture and livestock was to be conducted in 1925 and to be repeated every ten years thereafter. In addition, penalties for those who refused to supply information or those who supplied false information were strengthened. As a result of these changes, census of population, manufacturing, and agriculture and livestock became increasingly independent of one another. The "usual place of abode", the location where residents regularly slept, instead of where they worked or were visiting, became the new basis for enumeration in the 1920 Census. Those with no permanent or regular residence were listed as residents of the location that they were enumerated at. Enumeration related to institutional inmates and dependent, defective, and delinquent classes were also modified. Unlike the previous census, the 1920 Census did not have inquires related to unemployment, to Union or Confederate Army or Navy service, to the number of children born, or to the length of time that a couple had been married. The Census of 1920, however, did include four additional questions: one regarding year of naturalization and three regarding native languages. Issues also arose as a result of changes in international boundaries following World War I, particularly for persons declaring birth or parental birth in Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia, or Turkey. In response, enumerators were required to ask said persons for their province, state, or region of birth. Enumerators were not required to ask individuals how to spell their names, nor were respondents required to provide proof of various pieces of information. Race was determined by the enumerator's impressions. The act authorizing the 1930 Census was approved on June 18, 1929, allowing for a census of population, agriculture, irrigation, draining, distribution, unemployment, and mining. For the first time, specific questions for inquiry were left to the discretion of the Director of the Census. The Census encompassed each state, as well as the District of Columbia, Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. The Governors of Guam, American Samoa, the Virginia Islands, and the Panama Canal Zone were responsible for conducting censuses in their territory. Between the date that the census act was passed and Census Day (April 1st), the stock market crashed, plunging the entire country into the Great Depression. In response, there were public and academic requests for access to unemployment data collected in the 1930 Census; however, the U.S. Census Bureau was unable to meet this demands and the bureau was accused of present unreliable data. Congress required a special unemployment census for January 1931, which ultimately confirmed the severity of the economic crisis. Another unemployment census was conducted in 1937, as mandated by Congress. Because this special census was voluntary, it allowed the Census Bureau to experiment with statistical sampling. Only two percent of households received a special census questionnaire. Congress authorized the 1940 Census in August 1939, providing the Director of the Census the additional authority to conduct a national census of housing in each state, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Alaska. The housing census was conducted separately, though enumerators often collection housing information at the same time that they collected population information. The Census of 1940 was the first time that the U.S. Census Bureau used advanced statistical techniques. In particular, the census used probably sampling, which had only previously been tested in a trial census of unemployment conducted the Civil Works Administration during 1933-1934, in surveys of retail stores in the 1930s, and in an official sample survey of unemployment conducted amongst two percent of American households in 1937. Probability sampling allowed for the inclusion of additional demographic questions without increasing the burden on the collection process or on data processing. Moreover, sampling the U.S. Census Bureau was able to publish preliminary returns eight months before tabulations were completed. Likewise, the census increased its number of published tables, and also was able to complete data processing with higher quality and more efficiency. New census questions focused on employment, unemployment, internal migration, and incomes—reflecting on the concerns of the Great Depression, the country's housing stock, and the need for public housing programs. The Census of 1950 encompassed every state, Alaska, Hawaii, American Samoa, the Panama Canal Zone, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and other small American territories. For the first time, the U.S. Census Bureau enumerate American living abroad to account for members of the U.S. Armed Forces, vessel crew members, and government employees residing in foreign countries. The U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Maritime Administration, and several other federal agencies were responsible for distributing and collecting census questionnaires in a cooperative effort. Persons living abroad for reasons other than what is listed above had their census information reported by families or neighbors residing in the United States, but such data was criticized as unreliable and were not published in official statistics. The 1950 Census also included a new survey on residential financing collected separately on a sample basis from owners of owner-occupied properties, rental properties, and mortgage lenders. The accuracy of the new census was increased by improved enumerator training, the use of detailed street maps for enumerators, the publication of "Missed Person" forms in local newspapers, and the designation of a specific night to conduct a special enumeration of transient individuals. Moreover, a post-enumeration survey was conducted to further verify the accuracy of the original enumeration. A sample of approximately 3,500 small areas was compared to the original census data to identify households that may have been omitted initially. Likewise, a sample of approximately 22,000 households were re-interviewed to identify persons omitted in the original enumeration count. Though not used for the 1950 Census, the UNIVersal Automatic Computer I (UNIVAC I), the first non-military computer, was used to tabulate some of the statistics for the 1954 census of economy. In August of 1954, Congress codified various census statutes, such as the Fifteenth Census Act of 1929, authorizing the decennial census and other census. The Census of 1960 was the first to be mailed to respondents. The U.S. Postal Service delivered census questionnaires to households, the head of household was required to complete the questionnaire, and an enumerator was to pick it up. The enumeration process was divided into two stages: first, select data for each person and dwelling unit was collected; and second, more detailed economic and social data was collected from a sample of households and dwelling units. The census questionnaires for the second stage were hand-delivered by enumerators as they were collecting data from the first stage. Households receiving the second census questionnaire were to complete the form and mail it to their local census office. Twenty-five percent of the population was giving additional sample questions. Because of the increased use of sampling, less populated areas were prone to sampling variation; however, this did not significantly decrease the usefulness of census statistics gathered. Moreover, increased use of sampling reduced data processing costs. Additional questions included in the 1960 Census were related to places of works and means of transportation to work. By 1960, nearly all census data was processed using computers. The U.S. Census Bureau used a Film Optical Sensing Device for Input to Computer (FOSDIC) for the first time, thus decreasing the amount of time and money required for data input. In 1966, the U.S. Census Bureau sought suggestions from advisory committees and from the public, resulting in numerous proposals for additional inquiries related to the scope and structure of the census, as well as in public interest for the publication of additional census data. Researchers also concluded that the 1950 Census and the 1960 Census had undercounted certain segments of the population. Moreover, they noted a growing distrust of government activity and increased resistance to responding to the census. Simultaneously, both the public and private sectors expressed need for accurate information. The U.S. Census Bureau decreased its number of questions from 66 to 23 in an effort to simplify its products. A register for densely populated areas was also created to ensure that all housing units were accounted for. A Spanish-language questionnaire was also enclosed with census questionnaires in areas with a significant amount of Spanish-speaking households. Additionally, a question on Hispanic origins or descent was asked independently from race, but only on a five-percent sample. Only five questions were given to all individuals: relationship to household head, sex, race, age, and marital status. Additional questions were asked in smaller sample groups. This was also the first census in which respondents of urban areas were asked to mail their forms to the Census Bureau, rather than to hold questionnaires for enumerators. Address Coding Guides were used to assign census geographic codes to questionnaires. Counts, a series of computer tape files, were an additional innovation used to increase the accuracy of census data. Count 1 consisted of complete count data for block groups and/or enumeration districts. Count 2 contained census tracts and minor civil/census county divisions, while Count 3 consisted of census blocks. Counts 4-6 provided sample census data for geographic areas of various population sizes. The Census Bureau also produced six Public Use Microdata Sample files, each of which contained complete information for a sample of approximately two million people. Finally, the Census Bureau developed the Summary Tape Processing Center Program, which was a group of organizations, both public and private, that processed census data from computer tapes. For the 1990 Census, the U.S. Census Bureau utilized extensive user consultation prior to enumeration in order to refine both long and short form census questionnaires. The short form consisted of 13 questions and was given to the entire population. The long form asked 45 questions and was given to a 20 percent sample. The long form included topics related to marital history, carpooling, residence, residential elevators, and energy usage. Unlike the 1980 Census, the new census eliminated questions regarding air conditioning, the number of bathrooms in a residence, and the type of heating equipment used. A vast advertising campaign was marketed to increase public awareness of the census via public television, radio, and print media. Like the previous census, the Census of 1990 made a special effort to enumerate groups that have historically been undercounted in previous censuses called "S-Night": individuals in homeless shelters, soup kitchens, bus and railway stations, and dormitories (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "M-Night"); and permanent residents in hotels and motels (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "T-Night"). Following legal issues filed in response to the 1980 Census regarding statistical readjustment of undercounted areas, the Census Bureau initiated a post-enumeration survey (PES), in which a contemporaneous survey of households would be conducted and compare to the census results from the official census. In a partial resolution of a 1989 lawsuit filed by New York plaintiffs, the U.S. Department of Commerce agreed to use the PES to produce population data that had been adjusted for the projected undercount and that said data would be judged against the unadjusted data by the Secretary of Commerce's Special Advisory Panel (SAP). The Census of 1990 also introduced the U.S. to the Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing System (TIGER), which was developed by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Census Bureau. TIGER used computerized representations of various map features to geographically code addresses into appropriate census geographic areas. It also produced different maps required for census data collection and tabulation. Five years earlier, the Census Bureau became the first government agency to publish information on CD-ROM. For the 1990 Census, the bureau made detailed census data, which had previously been only available to organizations with large mainframe computers, accessible to any individual with a personal computer. Census data was also available in print, on computer tape, and on microfiche. Using two online service vendors, DIALOG and CompuServe, the Census Bureau also published select census data online. As with previous censuses, the 1990 Census undercounted the national population, and again, the African-American population had an estimated net undercount rate that was significantly higher than the rate for other races. In July of 1991, the Secretary of Commerce announced that he did not find evidence in favor of using adjusted counts compelling—despite SAP's split vote on the issue—and chose to use unadjusted totals for the official census results. In response, the New York plaintiffs resumed the lawsuit against the Department of Commerce. A federal district court divided in favor of the DOC in April of 1993. The U.S. Court of Appeals, however, rejected the previous court ruling and ordered that the case be reheard by the federal district court. In March of 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court finally ruled in favor of the Secretary of Commerce's decision to use the unadjusted census date, but did not rule on the legality or constitutionality of the use of statistical adjustment in producing apportionment counts. For the 1990 Census, the U.S. Census Bureau utilized extensive user consultation prior to enumeration in order to refine both long and short form census questionnaires. The short form consisted of 13 questions and was given to the entire population. The long form asked 45 questions and was given to a 20 percent sample. The long form included topics related to marital history, carpooling, residence, residential elevators, and energy usage. Unlike the 1980 Census, the new census eliminated questions regarding air conditioning, the number of bathrooms in a residence, and the type of heating equipment used. A vast advertising campaign was marketed to increase public awareness of the census via public television, radio, and print media. Like the previous census, the Census of 1990 made a special effort to enumerate groups that have historically been undercounted in previous censuses called "S-Night": individuals in homeless shelters, soup kitchens, bus and railway stations, and dormitories (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "M-Night"); and permanent residents in hotels and motels (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "T-Night"). Following legal issues filed in response to the 1980 Census regarding statistical readjustment of undercounted areas, the Census Bureau initiated a post-enumeration survey (PES), in which a contemporaneous survey of households would be conducted and compare to the census results from the official census. In a partial resolution of a 1989 lawsuit filed by New York plaintiffs, the U.S. Department of Commerce agreed to use the PES to produce population data that had been adjusted for the projected undercount and that said data would be judged against the unadjusted data by the Secretary of Commerce's Special Advisory Panel (SAP). The Census of 1990 also introduced the U.S. to the Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing System (TIGER), which was developed by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Census Bureau. TIGER used computerized representations of various map features to geographically code addresses into appropriate census geographic areas. It also produced different maps required for census data collection and tabulation. Five years earlier, the Census Bureau became the first government agency to publish information on CD-ROM. For the 1990 Census, the bureau made detailed census data, which had previously been only available to organizations with large mainframe computers, accessible to any individual with a personal computer. Census data was also available in print, on computer tape, and on microfiche. Using two online service vendors, DIALOG and CompuServe, the Census Bureau also published select census data online. As with previous censuses, the 1990 Census undercounted the national population, and again, the African-American population had an estimated net undercount rate that was significantly higher than the rate for other races. In July of 1991, the Secretary of Commerce announced that he did not find evidence in favor of using adjusted counts compelling—despite SAP's split vote on the issue—and chose to use unadjusted totals for the official census results. In response, the New York plaintiffs resumed the lawsuit against the Department of Commerce. A federal district court divided in favor of the DOC in April of 1993. The U.S. Court of Appeals, however, rejected the previous court ruling and ordered that the case be reheard by the federal district court. In March of 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court finally ruled in favor of the Secretary of Commerce's decision to use the unadjusted census date, but did not rule on the legality or constitutionality of the use of statistical adjustment in producing apportionment counts. For the Census of 2000, the short form consisted of only seven questions, while the long form consisted of 52 questions and used for a 17 percent sample of the population. For the first time, race questions were not limited to a single category; rather, respondents were able to check multiple boxes. A new question related to grandparents as caregivers was also mandated by legislation passed in 1996. Disability questions were expanded to including hearing and vision impairments, as well as learning, memory, and concentration disabilities. The 2000 Census also eliminated questions related to children born, water sources, sewage disposal, and condominium status. In addition, the 2000 Census was the first in which the Internet was used as the principal medium for the dissemination of census information. Summary Files were available for download immediately upon release and individual tables could be viewed via American FactFinder, the Census Bureau's online database. Files were also available for purchase on CD-Rom and DVD. Due to declining questionnaire mail-back rates, the U.S. Census Bureau marketed a $167 million national and local print, television, and public advertising campaign in 17 different languages. The campaign successfully brought the mail-back rate up to 67 percent. Additionally, respondents receiving the short form were given the option of responding via the Internet. Telephone questionnaire assistance centers available in 6 languages also took responses via the phone. Statistical sampling techniques were utilized in two ways: first, to alter the traditional 100 percent personal visit of non-responding households during the non-response follow-up (NRFU) process by instead following up on a smaller sample basis; second, the sampling of 750,000 housing units matched to housing unit questionnaires obtained from mail and telephone responses, as well as from personal visits. The goal of the latter was to develop adjustment factors for individuals estimated to have been missed or duplicated and to correct the census counts to produce one set of numbers. This "one-number census" would correct for net coverage errors called Integrated Coverage Measurement (ICM). Both of these measures were taken in an attempt to avoid repetition of the litigation costs generated by the 1980 Census and the 1990 Census. Despite these efforts, two lawsuits—one filed by the U.S. House of Representatives—were filed in February 1998 challenging the constitutionality and legality of the planned uses of sampling to produce apportionment counts. Both cases were decided in favor of the plaintiffs in federal district courts, but the U.S. Department of Commerce made appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court. Known as the U.S. Department of Commerce v. the U.S. House of Representatives, the Court ruled that the Census Bureau's plans to use statistical sampling for purposes of congressional apportionments violated the Census Act. The bureau revised its plan, stating that it would produce statistically adjusted data for non-apportionment uses of census data information, such as redistricting. However, in March of 2001, the Census Bureau recommended against the use of adjusted census data for redistricting due to accuracy concerns; the Secretary of Commerce determined that the unadjusted data would be released as the bureau's official redistricting data. The Director of the Census Bureau also rejected to the use of adjusted data for non-redistricting purposes in October of that same year. Language eng Type Collection Coverage Mosquito County, Florida Brevard County, Florida Flagler County, Florida Lake County, Florida Marion County, Florida Orange County, Florida Osceola County, Florida Seminole County, Florida Volusia County, Florida Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Contributor Gibson, Ella Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a>. Rights Holder This resource is not subject to copyright in the United States and there are no copyright restrictions on reproduction, derivative works, distribution, performance, or display of the work. Anyone may, without restriction under U.S. copyright laws: <ul class="one_column_bullet"><li>reproduce the work in print or digital form</li> <li>create derivative works</li> <li>perform the work publicly</li> <li>display the work</li> <li>distribute copies or digitally transfer the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.</li> </ul>This resources is provided here by <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> for educational purposes only. For more information on copyright, please refer to <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#105" target="_blank">Section 5</a> of <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html" target="_blank">Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code</a>. Source Repository <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> External Reference United States. <a href="https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf" target="_blank">Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970</a>. Washington: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1975. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/histstats-colonial-1970.pdf. United States, and Carroll D. Wright. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/166662" target="_blank">The History and Growth of the United States Census</a>. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1900. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf. "<a href="https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/" target="_blank">Through the Decades</a>." United States Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce. https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/. Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Original Format 1 table Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title U.S. Census for Central Florida, 1990 Alternative Title Census, 1990 Subject Census--United States Orange County (Fla.) Marion County (Fla.) Brevard County (Fla.) St. Lucie County (Fla.) Seminole County (Fla.) Volusia County (Fla.) Flagler County (Fla.) Lake County (Fla.) Osceola County (Fla.) Population--United States Description The Twenty-First United States Census records for Brevard County, Flagler County, Lake County, Marion County, Orange County, Osceola County, Seminole County, and Volusia County, Florida, for 1990. The census divides the population by gender, race ("white," "black," "American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut," "Asian or Pacific Islander," "other," "Hispanic," "Mexican," "Puerto Rican," "Cuban," "Other Hispanic," "Dominican," "Central American Hispanic," "Guatemalan," "Honduran," "Nicaraguan," "Panamanian," "Salvadorian," "Other Central American Hispanic," "South American Hispanic," "Columbian," "Ecuadorian," "Peruvian," "Other South American Hispanic," "Chinese," "Japanese," "Filipino," "Korean," "Asian Indian," "Vietnamese," "Cambodian," "Laotian," "Thai," and "Other Asian"), and native-born vs. foreign-born. Those who are foreign born are further divided by country of origin. The census then lists the population categorized by marital status and military service. The census also collected information on labor, on unemployment, on energy usage, and on transportation. For the 1990 Census, the U.S. Census Bureau utilized extensive user consultation prior to enumeration in order to refine both long and short form census questionnaires. The short form consisted of 13 questions and was given to the entire population. The long form asked 45 questions and was given to a 20-percent sample. The long form included topics related to marital history, carpooling, residence, residential elevators, and energy usage. Unlike the 1980 Census, the new census eliminated questions regarding air conditioning, the number of bathrooms in a residence, and the type of heating equipment used. A vast advertising campaign was marketed to increase public awareness of the census via public television, radio, and print media. Like the previous census, the Census of 1990 made a special effort to enumerate groups that have historically been undercounted in previous censuses called "S-Night": individuals in homeless shelters, soup kitchens, bus and railway stations, and dormitories (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "M-Night"); and permanent residents in hotels and motels (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "T-Night"). Following legal issues filed in response to the 1980 Census regarding statistical readjustment of undercounted areas, the Census Bureau initiated a post-enumeration survey (PES), in which a contemporaneous survey of households would be conducted and compared to the census results from the official census. In a partial resolution of a 1989 lawsuit filed by New York plaintiffs, the U.S. Department of Commerce agreed to use the PES to produce population data that had been adjusted for the projected undercount and that said data would be judged against the unadjusted data by the Secretary of Commerce's Special Advisory Panel (SAP). The Census of 1990 also introduced the U.S. to the Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing System (TIGER), which was developed by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Census Bureau. TIGER used computerized representations of various map features to geographically code addresses into appropriate census geographic areas. It also produced different maps required for census data collection and tabulation. Five years earlier, the Census Bureau became the first government agency to publish information on CD-ROM. For the 1990 Census, the bureau made detailed census data, which had previously been only available to organizations with large mainframe computers, accessible to any individual with a personal computer. Census data was also available in print, on computer tape, and on microfiche. Using two online service vendors, DIALOG and CompuServe, the Census Bureau also published select census data online. As with previous censuses, the 1990 Census undercounted the national population, and again, the African-American population had an estimated net undercount rate that was significantly higher than the rate for other races. In July of 1991, the Secretary of Commerce announced that he did not find evidence in favor of using adjusted counts compelling—despite SAP's split vote on the issue—and chose to use unadjusted totals for the official census results. In response, the New York plaintiffs resumed the lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Commerce. A federal district court ruleded in favor of the DOC in April of 1993. The U.S. Court of Appeals, however, rejected the previous court ruling and ordered that the case be reheard by the federal district court. In March of 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court finally ruled in favor of the Secretary of Commerce's decision to use the unadjusted census date, but did not rule on the legality or constitutionality of the use of statistical adjustment in producing apportionment counts. Type Dataset Source Original census data collected by the <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Bureau</a>, 1990. Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/104" target="_blank">U.S. Census Collection</a>, RICHES of Central Florida. Is Format Of Digital reproduction of original census data collected by the <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Bureau</a>, 1990. Coverage Brevard County, Florida Flagler County, Florida Lake County, Florida Marion County, Florida Orange County, Florida Osceola County, Florida Seminole County, Florida Volusia County, Florida Creator <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Bureau</a> Publisher <a href="http://www.commerce.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Department of Commerce</a> Contributor Gibson, Ella Date Created ca. 1990-04-01 Format image/jpg Extent 1.65 MB Medium 1 table Language eng Mediator History Teacher Economics Teacher Civics/Government Teacher Geography Teacher Provenance Originally collected by the <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Bureau</a> and published by the <a href="http://www.commerce.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Department of Commerce</a>. Rights Holder This resource is not subject to copyright in the United States and there are no copyright restrictions on reproduction, derivative works, distribution, performance, or display of the work. Anyone may, without restriction under U.S. copyright laws: <ul class="one_column_bullet"><li>reproduce the work in print or digital form</li> <li>create derivative works</li> <li>perform the work publicly</li> <li>display the work</li> <li>distribute copies or digitally transfer the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.</li> </ul> This resources is provided here by <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> for educational purposes only. For more information on copyright, please refer to <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#105" target="_blank">Section 5</a> of <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html" target="_blank">Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code</a>. Accrual Method Item Creation Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Source Repository <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> External Reference "<a href="https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/overview/1990.html" target="_blank">1990 Overview</a>." U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/overview/1990.html. United States, and Carroll D. Wright. <a href="https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf" target="_blank">The History and Growth of the United States Census</a>. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf. U.S. Bureau of the Census. <a href="http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1990/history/Chapter1-14.zip" target="_blank">Procedural History: 1990 Census of Population and Housing</a>. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966. Transcript U.S. Census of 1990 Population Brevard County Flagler County Lake County Marion County Orange County Osceola County Seminole County Volusia County Population Total 398,978 28,701 152,104 194,833 677,491 107,728 287,529 370,712 Males 197,163 13,756 72,929 93,813 336,061 52,716 140,587 179,481 Females 201,815 14,945 79,175 101,020 341,430 55,012 146,952 191,231 Population by Race White 358,391 25,831 135,619 167,094 539,061 96,231 253,621 328,530 Black 31,417 2,366 14,191 24,844 103,092 5,902 24,314 33,455 American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut 1,369 52 384 638 2,036 360 803 915 Asian and Pacific Islander 5,379 283 566 945 13,994 1,637 4,843 2,739 Other 2,422 169 1,344 1,312 19,308 3,598 3,948 5,073 Population by Descent or Origin Hispanic 12,279 1,280 4,154 5,705 63,087 12,813 18,758 14,668 Mexican 1,724 82 2,358 685 7,439 1,161 1,801 4,652 Puerto Rican 4,785 418 595 2,535 34,091 8,091 9,521 5,832 Cuban 1,248 240 366 648 7,056 943 2,091 1,257 Other Hispanic 4,522 540 835 1,837 14,501 2,618 5,345 2,927 Dominican 181 38 58 109 1,785 411 484 45 Central American Hispanic 879 34 279 152 2,552 518 667 429 Guatemalan 114 0 50 37 476 165 51 23 Honduran 190 27 27 71 513 56 72 52 Nicaraguan 50 0 0 0 374 42 101 50 Panamanian 248 7 179 44 640 109 274 117 Salvadorian 85 0 15 0 266 96 127 154 Other Central American Hispanic 192 0 8 0 283 50 42 33 South American Hispanic 1,229 222 122 586 5,386 827 2,325 1,047 Colombian 507 90 84 312 3,081 438 1,188 383 Ecuadorian 136 0 0 76 493 120 298 198 Peruvian 213 0 16 37 602 99 161 54 Other South American Hispanic 373 132 22 161 1,210 170 678 412 Other Hispanic American 2,233 246 376 990 4,778 862 1,869 1,406 Chinese 828 47 79 127 2,133 339 873 489 Filipino 1,058 147 114 136 2,450 392 760 435 Japanese 493 11 43 60 697 65 235 198 Asian Indian 1,059 29 114 318 3,244 427 1,235 669 Korean 601 12 66 149 1,046 73 582 273 Vietnamese 474 8 70 71 2,686 87 551 264 Cambodian 33 8 2 0 77 8 21 11 Laotian 11 0 0 0 186 7 103 66 Thai 272 4 21 20 233 61 109 67 Other Asian 358 12 28 38 717 112 277 161 Population by Marital Status Never Married 66,486 3,592 18,793 27,666 154,225 17,676 54,036 65,316 Married 194,871 16,588 82,858 97,858 281,616 51,243 131,451 176,551 Separated 6,527 379 2,236 3,635 14,056 1,690 4,765 6,040 Widowed 24,229 1,873 13,044 14,375 32,388 5,945 13,294 31,185 Divorced 32,790 1,687 10,150 15,039 58,114 8,245 23,290 30,347 Veteran Population Veterans 70,358 5,665 26,923 32,473 83,928 14,560 37,374 60,087 Non-Veterans 246,413 18,064 98,512 123,910 436,056 68,764 185,243 245,155 Veteran Population by War or Conflict Veterans from May 1975 or Later 10,467 326 1,961 3,386 15,270 2,049 5,129 6,322 Vietnam Era 16,445 800 4,821 6,262 23,690 4,279 12,158 12,431 Korean Conflict 8,301 758 2,888 3,887 9,453 1,783 4,041 6,856 World War II 20,618 2,816 12,720 14,030 19,755 4,059 8,087 24,826 World War I 137 0 112 41 98 58 48 306 Multiple Wars 8,515 523 2,162 2,130 7,587 879 3,298 4,103 Other Service 5,875 442 2,259 2,737 8,075 1,453 4,613 5,243 Native-Born Population Total 378,016 26,326 146,809 187,848 626,436 100,071 269,494 349,372 Foreign-Born Population Total 20,962 2,375 5,295 6,985 51,055 7,657 18,035 21,340 Naturalized 11,803 1,577 3,119 4,185 22,480 3,554 8,779 12,076 Non-Citizen 9,159 798 2,176 2,800 28,575 4,103 9,256 9,262 Households by Energy Usage for Heat Gas (Utility, Bottled, Tank, or LP Gas) 28,232 1,127 17,521 23,407 30,664 6,505 12,834 22,707 Electricity 123,633 10,080 42,252 47,220 203,089 30,855 88,181 113,935 Fuel Oil, Kerosene, Etc. 7,230 476 2,713 5,270 18,190 1,165 5,736 14,278 Coal, Coke, and Wood 791 114 846 1,883 1,047 333 491 1,287 Solar Energy 89 17 17 72 60 28 40 102 Other Fuel 159 29 30 91 290 36 40 337 No Fuel 1,231 37 237 234 1,512 228 335 730 Population by Work Transportation Method Car, Truck, or Van 171,569 9,578 52,519 68,824 319,961 48,215 141,039 139,505 Public Transportation 505 25 181 125 7,671 206 740 1,648 Motorcycles 1,309 92 299 331 1,641 235 500 1,373 Bicycles 1,616 79 255 185 2,345 387 709 1,507 Walking 3,564 210 1,662 1,614 15,755 1,043 2,472 4,145 Other Means 931 107 619 618 2,475 503 668 1,282 Working from Home 3,775 293 1,399 1,825 6,423 655 3,805 3,604 Labor Brevard County Flagler County Lake County Marion County Orange County Osceola County Seminole County Volusia County Population in Labor Force Total 198,490 11,280 61,591 80,415 381,101 55,154 159,464 165,864 Armed Forces 3,773 20 106 107 12,529 39 717 430 Civilian Work Force 194,717 11,260 61,485 80,308 368,572 55,115 158,747 165,434 Employed 183,692 10,542 57,965 74,958 350,953 52,455 151,377 155,529 Unemployed 11,025 718 3,520 5,350 17,619 2,660 7,370 9,905 Not in Work Force 122,054 12,469 63,950 76,075 151,412 28,209 63,870 139,808 Male Population in Labor Force Total 110,881 6,106 33,653 43,092 209,060 29,754 86,497 89,643 Armed Forces 3,395 9 81 100 10,247 34 594 405 Civilian Work Force 107,486 6,097 33,572 42,992 198,813 29,720 85,903 89,238 Employed 101,530 5,786 31,679 40,226 189,907 28,281 82,157 83,833 Unemployed 5,956 311 1,893 2,766 8,906 1,439 3,746 5,405 Not in Work Force 46,033 5,175 25,774 30,815 52,562 10,539 21,026 56,768 Female Population in Labor Force Total 87,609 5,174 27,938 37,323 172,041 25,400 72,967 76,221 Armed Forces 378 11 25 7 2,282 5 123 25 Civilian Work Force 87,231 5,163 27,913 37,316 169,759 25,395 72,844 76,196 Employed 82,162 4,756 26,286 34,732 161,046 24,174 69,220 71,696 Unemployed 5,069 407 1,627 2,584 8,713 1,221 3,624 4,500 Not in Work Force 76,021 7,294 38,176 45,260 98,850 17,670 42,844 83,040 Employment and Unemployment by Race White Employed 167,811 9,574 51,334 65,887 290,042 47,449 136,251 139,601 White Unemployed 9,129 577 2,680 4,180 12,253 2,174 6,220 7,921 Black Employed 11,740 682 5,499 7,647 42,870 2,487 9,920 11,720 Black Unemployed 1,456 98 738 1,144 4,110 255 783 1,681 American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut Employed 816 72 226 405 1,267 202 569 592 American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut Unemployed 82 0 0 36 103 0 51 40 Asian and Pacific Islander Employed 2,266 131 316 469 7,243 814 2,348 1,103 Asian and Pacific Islander Unemployed 268 21 30 37 323 32 153 81 Other Race Employed 1,059 83 590 550 9,531 1,503 2,019 2,513 Other Race Unemployed 90 22 72 15 830 199 163 182 Hispanic Employed 5,533 433 2,020 2,003 30,876 5,588 8,768 6,479 Hispanic Unemployed 412 63 110 139 2,336 521 761 634 Employment by Industry Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishery 3,437 395 4,054 4,030 7,682 1,252 3,095 5,468 Mining 148 8 170 213 215 24 46 138 Construction 14,823 13,559 5,058 5,691 26,863 4,679 11,660 13,254 Manufacturing Non-Durable Goods 3,381 205 2,581 2,884 10,562 1,139 4,434 4,724 Manufacturing Durable Goods 32,952 1,022 3,392 7,910 24,101 2,703 13,580 12,075 Transportation 6,688 396 2,137 2,172 17,333 2,387 5,398 5,128 Communications and Other Public Utility 3,942 314 2,201 1,883 10,585 1,382 4,897 4,189 Wholesale Trade 5,836 357 2,534 3,894 17,169 1,770 8,848 5,477 Retail Trade 34,686 2,006 11,698 15,125 65,210 11,627 29,513 34,590 Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 10,033 750 3,403 4,856 25,976 2,581 13,789 10,693 Business and Repair Services 11,175 504 2,313 3,543 22,772 2,346 9,592 7,598 Personal Services 5,918 558 2,831 2,582 22,404 6,111 4,903 7,697 Entertainment and Recreation Services 3,144 261 1,885 1,342 24,292 5,037 4,149 3,213 Professional and Related Services 35,933 2,043 11,256 15,291 63,103 7,482 31,675 33,496 Health Services 12,933 697 4,637 6,160 22,052 2,794 11,317 13,573 Educational Services 10,952 777 3,480 5,230 20,327 2,660 9,709 11,197 Other Professional and Related Services 12,048 569 3,139 3,901 20,724 2,028 10,649 8,726 Public Administration 11,596 364 2,452 3,542 12,686 1,935 5,798 7,789 Employment by Occupation Managerial and Professional Employees 53,807 2,301 11,327 15,627 89,965 10,112 47,570 37,311 Executive, Administrative and Managerial Employees 23,616 1,482 5,606 7,511 46,089 5,418 24,616 18,905 Professional Specialty Employees 30,191 1,119 5,721 8,116 43,876 4,694 22,954 18,405 Technical, Sales, and Administrative Employees 59,003 3,409 18,080 24,321 118,893 16,312 55,707 50,263 Technicians and Related Support Employees 9,879 278 1,705 2,193 11,892 1,283 5,883 5,296 Sales Employees 22,290 1,551 8,259 11,631 47,443 6,841 25,621 21,931 Administrative Support, Including Clerical, Employees 26,834 1,580 8,116 10,497 59,558 8,188 24,203 23,036 Service Employees 25,352 1,478 9,047 10,595 57,969 11,489 17,124 25,978 Private Household Employees 430 55 336 199 1,305 128 406 527 Protective Service Employees 4,209 176 1,170 1,756 6,467 1,193 2,565 3,744 Service, Except Protective and Household, Employees 20,713 1,247 7,541 8,640 50,197 10,168 14,153 21,707 Farming, Forestry, and Fishing Employees 3,369 408 3,534 3,545 6,923 1,348 2,468 4,917 Precision Production, Craft, and Repair Employees 23,485 1,345 7,571 9,686 37,308 6,760 14,791 19,699 Operators, Fabricators, and Laborers 18,676 1,301 8,406 11,184 39,895 6,434 13,717 17,361 Machine Operators, Assemblers, and Inspectors 7,021 519 2,981 4,668 12,224 1,862 4,815 8,428 Transportation and Material Moving Employees 5,735 303 2,945 3,349 14,839 2,524 4,438 5,572 Handlers, Equipment Cleaners, Helpers, and Laborers 5,920 479 2,480 3,167 12,832 2,048 4,464 5,361 Employment by Sector Private Sector, Wage and Salary Workers 135,001 7,742 42,595 54,435 274,595 42,410 116,103 112,473 Public Sector, Wage and Salary Workers 27,172 1,217 6,734 10,447 39,665 5,418 16,738 20,540 Self-Employed Workers 10,897 878 4,636 6,246 18,937 2,679 9,759 12,661 Private Sector, Not-For-Profit, Wage and Salary Workers 9,992 618 3,525 3,430 16,556 1,805 8,077 9,125 Unpaid Family Workers 630 87 474 400 1,200 143 700 730 administrative administrative support administrators African Americans agriculture Aleuts American Indians Amerindians Armed Forces Asian Americans assemblers automobiles bicycles bikes bottled gas Brevard County business Cambodian Americans Caribbean Americans cars Caucasian Americans census Census of 1990 Central Americans Chinese Americans citizens civilian work clerical coal Coke Colombian Americans communications construction craft Cuban Americans divorced divorcees domestic services durable goods Ecuadorian Americans education educators electric heat electricity employees employment energy usage entertainment equipment cleaners Eskimos executives fabricators farmers farming females Filipino Americans finance fishery Flagler County forestry fuel oil gas Guatemalan Americans handlers health car heat helpers Hispanic Americans Honduran Americans Indian Americans inspectors insurance Japanese Americans kerosene Korean Americans Korean War labor labor force laborers Lake County Laotian Americans Latin Americans Latinas Latinos LP gas machine operators males managerial managers manufacturing Marion County marital status married material moving medical Mexican Americans mining motor vehicles motorcycles Native Americans naturalized Nicaraguan Americans non-citizens non-durable goods operators orange county Osceola County Pacific Islander Americans Panamanian Americans pedestrians personal services Peruvian Americans population precision production private sector professionals protective services public administration public sector public transportation public utility Puerto Rican Americans Puerto Ricans real estate recreation repair retail salaried salary sales Salvadorian Americans self-employeed Seminole County separated service industry servicemen servicewomen single solar energy specialty tank gas teachers technical technicians Thai Americans trade transportation trucks U.S. Census unemployment utility vans veterans Vietnam War Vietnamese Americans Volusia County wages walkers walking wholesale widowed widowers widows wood workers World War I World War II WWI WWII https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka/files/original/8b547d3a5224a9bfe187723655b82ccf.jpg 3dee748e21788c4592f42ef2eacfc09f Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title U.S. Census Collection Alternative Title Census Collection Subject Census--United States Population--United States Orange County (Fla.) Marion County (Fla.) Brevard County (Fla.) St. Lucie County (Fla.) Seminole County (Fla.) Volusia County (Fla.) Flagler County (Fla.) Lake County (Fla.) Osceola County (Fla.) Description Collection of United States Census population records for various counties in Central Florida from 1840 to 2000. The Census Act of 1840 was signed into law on March 3, 1839 and later amended on February 26, 1840. This piece of legislation established a centralized census office during each enumeration. Congress designated the census questionnaire designs to the Secretary of State. However, each household received inquiries regarding "the pursuits, industry, education, and resources of the country" and included questions related to school attendance, literacy, and vocation. In March of 1849, Congress pass legislation that established a census board consisting of the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Postmaster General. The board was responsible for preparing and printing forms and schedules for enumeration related to population, mining, agriculture, commerce, manufacturing, education, etc. The 1850 Census also increased population inquiries to include every free person's name (as opposed to just the head of the household), as well as information on taxes, schools, crime, wages, estate values, etc. The Census Act of 1850 authorized the U.S. Census of 1860 and stipulated that its provisions be adhered to for all future decennial censuses should no new legislation be passed by the first of the year of said census. In May of 1865, the U.S. Census Office was abolished and many superintending clerks were transferred to the General Land Office. Although the 1870 Census was conducted under the provisions of the Census Act of 1850, a new act was passed on May 6, 1870. The new census legislation required two changes in procedures related to questionnaire return submission dates. Moreover, penalties for refusing to reply to inquires were expanded to apply to all questions and questionnaires. The questionnaires themselves had to be redesigned due to the end of the "slave questionnaire", as slavery had been formally abolished slavery nationwide via the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This left five schedules for the census: General Population, Mortality, Agriculture, Products of Industry, and Social Statistics. In addition, the use of a Charles W. Seaton, a U.S. Census Office chief clerk and later superintendent, invited a rudimentary tallying machine that partially alleviated the difficulties of tallying and tabulating questionnaire responses. Finally, the new superintendent for the Ninth Census, General Francis A. Walker, introduced employment examinations to test the qualifications of applicants to the Census Office, allowing for increased efficiency in the process of collecting census data. The newest act authorizing the Census of 1880 provided for supervision of enumeration by "supervisors of the census", selected exclusively for the collection of census data. All supervisors, as well as the superintendent, were to appointed by the U.S. President and approved by the Senate. Census enumerators were required to personally visit each household and family within his subdivision. The new census act also allowed for the collection of data related to the condition and operation of railroad corporations, incorporated express companies, and telegraph companies, as well as data related to the condition and operation of life, fire, and marine insurance companies. Corporations who refused to provide the census with "true and complete" answers were subject to fines. In addition, the census superintendent was required to collect and publish data on the population, industries and resources of the District of Alaska. Finally, the 1880 Census consisted of five schedules: Population, Mortality, Agriculture, Social Statistics, and Manufacturing. The Census of 1890 was authorized by an act modeled after the 1880 enumeration and signed into law on March 1, 1889. The 1890 Census was supervised by 175 employees and enumerators were required to collect all information by personally visiting each household. The 1890 Census included essentially the same inquires from the 1880 Census, with some notable additions, such as questions about home and farm ownership and indebtedness; and the names, units, length of service, and residences of former Union soldiers and sailors, as well as the names of the widows of those who were no longer alive. Racial categorization was expanded to include "Japanese", along with "Chinese", "Negro", "mulatto", "quadroon", "octoroon", and "White". Herman Hollerith, a former employee of the U.S. Census Office, invited the electric tabulating system, which was widely used in the 1890 Census, allowing data to be processed faster and more efficiently. On October 3, 1893, Congress passed a law that transferred census-related work to the direction of the commissioner of labor. Congress passed another act on March 2, 1895, effectively abolishing the U.S. Census Office and transferring the remaining responsibilities to the Office of the Secretary of the Interior. Congress limited the Census of 1900 to content related to population, mortality, agriculture, and manufacturing. Special census agents were authorized to collect statistics related to incidents of deafness, blindness, insanity, and juvenile delinquency; as well as data on religious bodies, utilities, mining, and transportation. The act authorizing the 1900 Census designated the enumeration of military personally to the U.S. Department of War and the U.S. Department of the Navy, while Indiana Territory was to be enumerated by the commissioner of Indian Affairs. Annexed in 1898, Hawaii was included in the census for the first time. In 1902, the U.S. Census Office was officially established as a permanent organization within the U.S. Department of the Interior. The office became the U.S. Census Bureau in 1903 and was transferred to the Department of Commerce and Labor. The Census of 1910 was approved by legislation introduced in December of 1907 and enacted in July of 1909. The delay was the result of a disagreement over the appointment of enumerators. President Theodore Roosevelt supported the hiring of enumerators via the civil service system, while Congress supported enumerators as positions of patronage. President Roosevelt successfully won the debate. This census act also changed Census Day from the traditional date of June 1st to April 15th. Additional questions regarding the nationality and native language of foreign-born persons and their parents. Funds for the U.S. Census Bureau were also increased to expand the Census' permanent workforce and created several new full-time positions, including a geographer, a chief statistician, and an assistant director. The assistant director was to be appointed by the President and approved by the Senate, while all other census employees were hired on the basis of open, competitive examinations administered by the Civil Service Commission. Despite the use of automatic counting machinery, issues with the tabulation process persisted. Finally, with the United States' entrance into World War I in 1917, the U.S. Census Bureau became a source of even more valuable purpose: the Census was able to use population and economic data to report on the populations of draft-age men, as well as information regarding each state's industrial capabilities. The Census of 1920 changed the date of Census Day from April 15th to January 1st, as requested by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which argued that farmers' memories and harvest information would be more accurate on this day. The U.S. Census Bureau was also authorized to hire additional employees at its headquarters in Washington, D.C. and to create a special field force to collect census data. The legislation authorizing the 1920 Census also allowed for a census of manufacturing to be conducted in 1921, and for such a census to be repeated every two years thereafter, as opposed to the traditional five-year census cycle. Furthermore, a census of agriculture and livestock was to be conducted in 1925 and to be repeated every ten years thereafter. In addition, penalties for those who refused to supply information or those who supplied false information were strengthened. As a result of these changes, census of population, manufacturing, and agriculture and livestock became increasingly independent of one another. The "usual place of abode", the location where residents regularly slept, instead of where they worked or were visiting, became the new basis for enumeration in the 1920 Census. Those with no permanent or regular residence were listed as residents of the location that they were enumerated at. Enumeration related to institutional inmates and dependent, defective, and delinquent classes were also modified. Unlike the previous census, the 1920 Census did not have inquires related to unemployment, to Union or Confederate Army or Navy service, to the number of children born, or to the length of time that a couple had been married. The Census of 1920, however, did include four additional questions: one regarding year of naturalization and three regarding native languages. Issues also arose as a result of changes in international boundaries following World War I, particularly for persons declaring birth or parental birth in Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia, or Turkey. In response, enumerators were required to ask said persons for their province, state, or region of birth. Enumerators were not required to ask individuals how to spell their names, nor were respondents required to provide proof of various pieces of information. Race was determined by the enumerator's impressions. The act authorizing the 1930 Census was approved on June 18, 1929, allowing for a census of population, agriculture, irrigation, draining, distribution, unemployment, and mining. For the first time, specific questions for inquiry were left to the discretion of the Director of the Census. The Census encompassed each state, as well as the District of Columbia, Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. The Governors of Guam, American Samoa, the Virginia Islands, and the Panama Canal Zone were responsible for conducting censuses in their territory. Between the date that the census act was passed and Census Day (April 1st), the stock market crashed, plunging the entire country into the Great Depression. In response, there were public and academic requests for access to unemployment data collected in the 1930 Census; however, the U.S. Census Bureau was unable to meet this demands and the bureau was accused of present unreliable data. Congress required a special unemployment census for January 1931, which ultimately confirmed the severity of the economic crisis. Another unemployment census was conducted in 1937, as mandated by Congress. Because this special census was voluntary, it allowed the Census Bureau to experiment with statistical sampling. Only two percent of households received a special census questionnaire. Congress authorized the 1940 Census in August 1939, providing the Director of the Census the additional authority to conduct a national census of housing in each state, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Alaska. The housing census was conducted separately, though enumerators often collection housing information at the same time that they collected population information. The Census of 1940 was the first time that the U.S. Census Bureau used advanced statistical techniques. In particular, the census used probably sampling, which had only previously been tested in a trial census of unemployment conducted the Civil Works Administration during 1933-1934, in surveys of retail stores in the 1930s, and in an official sample survey of unemployment conducted amongst two percent of American households in 1937. Probability sampling allowed for the inclusion of additional demographic questions without increasing the burden on the collection process or on data processing. Moreover, sampling the U.S. Census Bureau was able to publish preliminary returns eight months before tabulations were completed. Likewise, the census increased its number of published tables, and also was able to complete data processing with higher quality and more efficiency. New census questions focused on employment, unemployment, internal migration, and incomes—reflecting on the concerns of the Great Depression, the country's housing stock, and the need for public housing programs. The Census of 1950 encompassed every state, Alaska, Hawaii, American Samoa, the Panama Canal Zone, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and other small American territories. For the first time, the U.S. Census Bureau enumerate American living abroad to account for members of the U.S. Armed Forces, vessel crew members, and government employees residing in foreign countries. The U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Maritime Administration, and several other federal agencies were responsible for distributing and collecting census questionnaires in a cooperative effort. Persons living abroad for reasons other than what is listed above had their census information reported by families or neighbors residing in the United States, but such data was criticized as unreliable and were not published in official statistics. The 1950 Census also included a new survey on residential financing collected separately on a sample basis from owners of owner-occupied properties, rental properties, and mortgage lenders. The accuracy of the new census was increased by improved enumerator training, the use of detailed street maps for enumerators, the publication of "Missed Person" forms in local newspapers, and the designation of a specific night to conduct a special enumeration of transient individuals. Moreover, a post-enumeration survey was conducted to further verify the accuracy of the original enumeration. A sample of approximately 3,500 small areas was compared to the original census data to identify households that may have been omitted initially. Likewise, a sample of approximately 22,000 households were re-interviewed to identify persons omitted in the original enumeration count. Though not used for the 1950 Census, the UNIVersal Automatic Computer I (UNIVAC I), the first non-military computer, was used to tabulate some of the statistics for the 1954 census of economy. In August of 1954, Congress codified various census statutes, such as the Fifteenth Census Act of 1929, authorizing the decennial census and other census. The Census of 1960 was the first to be mailed to respondents. The U.S. Postal Service delivered census questionnaires to households, the head of household was required to complete the questionnaire, and an enumerator was to pick it up. The enumeration process was divided into two stages: first, select data for each person and dwelling unit was collected; and second, more detailed economic and social data was collected from a sample of households and dwelling units. The census questionnaires for the second stage were hand-delivered by enumerators as they were collecting data from the first stage. Households receiving the second census questionnaire were to complete the form and mail it to their local census office. Twenty-five percent of the population was giving additional sample questions. Because of the increased use of sampling, less populated areas were prone to sampling variation; however, this did not significantly decrease the usefulness of census statistics gathered. Moreover, increased use of sampling reduced data processing costs. Additional questions included in the 1960 Census were related to places of works and means of transportation to work. By 1960, nearly all census data was processed using computers. The U.S. Census Bureau used a Film Optical Sensing Device for Input to Computer (FOSDIC) for the first time, thus decreasing the amount of time and money required for data input. In 1966, the U.S. Census Bureau sought suggestions from advisory committees and from the public, resulting in numerous proposals for additional inquiries related to the scope and structure of the census, as well as in public interest for the publication of additional census data. Researchers also concluded that the 1950 Census and the 1960 Census had undercounted certain segments of the population. Moreover, they noted a growing distrust of government activity and increased resistance to responding to the census. Simultaneously, both the public and private sectors expressed need for accurate information. The U.S. Census Bureau decreased its number of questions from 66 to 23 in an effort to simplify its products. A register for densely populated areas was also created to ensure that all housing units were accounted for. A Spanish-language questionnaire was also enclosed with census questionnaires in areas with a significant amount of Spanish-speaking households. Additionally, a question on Hispanic origins or descent was asked independently from race, but only on a five-percent sample. Only five questions were given to all individuals: relationship to household head, sex, race, age, and marital status. Additional questions were asked in smaller sample groups. This was also the first census in which respondents of urban areas were asked to mail their forms to the Census Bureau, rather than to hold questionnaires for enumerators. Address Coding Guides were used to assign census geographic codes to questionnaires. Counts, a series of computer tape files, were an additional innovation used to increase the accuracy of census data. Count 1 consisted of complete count data for block groups and/or enumeration districts. Count 2 contained census tracts and minor civil/census county divisions, while Count 3 consisted of census blocks. Counts 4-6 provided sample census data for geographic areas of various population sizes. The Census Bureau also produced six Public Use Microdata Sample files, each of which contained complete information for a sample of approximately two million people. Finally, the Census Bureau developed the Summary Tape Processing Center Program, which was a group of organizations, both public and private, that processed census data from computer tapes. For the 1990 Census, the U.S. Census Bureau utilized extensive user consultation prior to enumeration in order to refine both long and short form census questionnaires. The short form consisted of 13 questions and was given to the entire population. The long form asked 45 questions and was given to a 20 percent sample. The long form included topics related to marital history, carpooling, residence, residential elevators, and energy usage. Unlike the 1980 Census, the new census eliminated questions regarding air conditioning, the number of bathrooms in a residence, and the type of heating equipment used. A vast advertising campaign was marketed to increase public awareness of the census via public television, radio, and print media. Like the previous census, the Census of 1990 made a special effort to enumerate groups that have historically been undercounted in previous censuses called "S-Night": individuals in homeless shelters, soup kitchens, bus and railway stations, and dormitories (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "M-Night"); and permanent residents in hotels and motels (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "T-Night"). Following legal issues filed in response to the 1980 Census regarding statistical readjustment of undercounted areas, the Census Bureau initiated a post-enumeration survey (PES), in which a contemporaneous survey of households would be conducted and compare to the census results from the official census. In a partial resolution of a 1989 lawsuit filed by New York plaintiffs, the U.S. Department of Commerce agreed to use the PES to produce population data that had been adjusted for the projected undercount and that said data would be judged against the unadjusted data by the Secretary of Commerce's Special Advisory Panel (SAP). The Census of 1990 also introduced the U.S. to the Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing System (TIGER), which was developed by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Census Bureau. TIGER used computerized representations of various map features to geographically code addresses into appropriate census geographic areas. It also produced different maps required for census data collection and tabulation. Five years earlier, the Census Bureau became the first government agency to publish information on CD-ROM. For the 1990 Census, the bureau made detailed census data, which had previously been only available to organizations with large mainframe computers, accessible to any individual with a personal computer. Census data was also available in print, on computer tape, and on microfiche. Using two online service vendors, DIALOG and CompuServe, the Census Bureau also published select census data online. As with previous censuses, the 1990 Census undercounted the national population, and again, the African-American population had an estimated net undercount rate that was significantly higher than the rate for other races. In July of 1991, the Secretary of Commerce announced that he did not find evidence in favor of using adjusted counts compelling—despite SAP's split vote on the issue—and chose to use unadjusted totals for the official census results. In response, the New York plaintiffs resumed the lawsuit against the Department of Commerce. A federal district court divided in favor of the DOC in April of 1993. The U.S. Court of Appeals, however, rejected the previous court ruling and ordered that the case be reheard by the federal district court. In March of 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court finally ruled in favor of the Secretary of Commerce's decision to use the unadjusted census date, but did not rule on the legality or constitutionality of the use of statistical adjustment in producing apportionment counts. For the 1990 Census, the U.S. Census Bureau utilized extensive user consultation prior to enumeration in order to refine both long and short form census questionnaires. The short form consisted of 13 questions and was given to the entire population. The long form asked 45 questions and was given to a 20 percent sample. The long form included topics related to marital history, carpooling, residence, residential elevators, and energy usage. Unlike the 1980 Census, the new census eliminated questions regarding air conditioning, the number of bathrooms in a residence, and the type of heating equipment used. A vast advertising campaign was marketed to increase public awareness of the census via public television, radio, and print media. Like the previous census, the Census of 1990 made a special effort to enumerate groups that have historically been undercounted in previous censuses called "S-Night": individuals in homeless shelters, soup kitchens, bus and railway stations, and dormitories (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "M-Night"); and permanent residents in hotels and motels (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "T-Night"). Following legal issues filed in response to the 1980 Census regarding statistical readjustment of undercounted areas, the Census Bureau initiated a post-enumeration survey (PES), in which a contemporaneous survey of households would be conducted and compare to the census results from the official census. In a partial resolution of a 1989 lawsuit filed by New York plaintiffs, the U.S. Department of Commerce agreed to use the PES to produce population data that had been adjusted for the projected undercount and that said data would be judged against the unadjusted data by the Secretary of Commerce's Special Advisory Panel (SAP). The Census of 1990 also introduced the U.S. to the Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing System (TIGER), which was developed by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Census Bureau. TIGER used computerized representations of various map features to geographically code addresses into appropriate census geographic areas. It also produced different maps required for census data collection and tabulation. Five years earlier, the Census Bureau became the first government agency to publish information on CD-ROM. For the 1990 Census, the bureau made detailed census data, which had previously been only available to organizations with large mainframe computers, accessible to any individual with a personal computer. Census data was also available in print, on computer tape, and on microfiche. Using two online service vendors, DIALOG and CompuServe, the Census Bureau also published select census data online. As with previous censuses, the 1990 Census undercounted the national population, and again, the African-American population had an estimated net undercount rate that was significantly higher than the rate for other races. In July of 1991, the Secretary of Commerce announced that he did not find evidence in favor of using adjusted counts compelling—despite SAP's split vote on the issue—and chose to use unadjusted totals for the official census results. In response, the New York plaintiffs resumed the lawsuit against the Department of Commerce. A federal district court divided in favor of the DOC in April of 1993. The U.S. Court of Appeals, however, rejected the previous court ruling and ordered that the case be reheard by the federal district court. In March of 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court finally ruled in favor of the Secretary of Commerce's decision to use the unadjusted census date, but did not rule on the legality or constitutionality of the use of statistical adjustment in producing apportionment counts. For the Census of 2000, the short form consisted of only seven questions, while the long form consisted of 52 questions and used for a 17 percent sample of the population. For the first time, race questions were not limited to a single category; rather, respondents were able to check multiple boxes. A new question related to grandparents as caregivers was also mandated by legislation passed in 1996. Disability questions were expanded to including hearing and vision impairments, as well as learning, memory, and concentration disabilities. The 2000 Census also eliminated questions related to children born, water sources, sewage disposal, and condominium status. In addition, the 2000 Census was the first in which the Internet was used as the principal medium for the dissemination of census information. Summary Files were available for download immediately upon release and individual tables could be viewed via American FactFinder, the Census Bureau's online database. Files were also available for purchase on CD-Rom and DVD. Due to declining questionnaire mail-back rates, the U.S. Census Bureau marketed a $167 million national and local print, television, and public advertising campaign in 17 different languages. The campaign successfully brought the mail-back rate up to 67 percent. Additionally, respondents receiving the short form were given the option of responding via the Internet. Telephone questionnaire assistance centers available in 6 languages also took responses via the phone. Statistical sampling techniques were utilized in two ways: first, to alter the traditional 100 percent personal visit of non-responding households during the non-response follow-up (NRFU) process by instead following up on a smaller sample basis; second, the sampling of 750,000 housing units matched to housing unit questionnaires obtained from mail and telephone responses, as well as from personal visits. The goal of the latter was to develop adjustment factors for individuals estimated to have been missed or duplicated and to correct the census counts to produce one set of numbers. This "one-number census" would correct for net coverage errors called Integrated Coverage Measurement (ICM). Both of these measures were taken in an attempt to avoid repetition of the litigation costs generated by the 1980 Census and the 1990 Census. Despite these efforts, two lawsuits—one filed by the U.S. House of Representatives—were filed in February 1998 challenging the constitutionality and legality of the planned uses of sampling to produce apportionment counts. Both cases were decided in favor of the plaintiffs in federal district courts, but the U.S. Department of Commerce made appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court. Known as the U.S. Department of Commerce v. the U.S. House of Representatives, the Court ruled that the Census Bureau's plans to use statistical sampling for purposes of congressional apportionments violated the Census Act. The bureau revised its plan, stating that it would produce statistically adjusted data for non-apportionment uses of census data information, such as redistricting. However, in March of 2001, the Census Bureau recommended against the use of adjusted census data for redistricting due to accuracy concerns; the Secretary of Commerce determined that the unadjusted data would be released as the bureau's official redistricting data. The Director of the Census Bureau also rejected to the use of adjusted data for non-redistricting purposes in October of that same year. Language eng Type Collection Coverage Mosquito County, Florida Brevard County, Florida Flagler County, Florida Lake County, Florida Marion County, Florida Orange County, Florida Osceola County, Florida Seminole County, Florida Volusia County, Florida Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Contributor Gibson, Ella Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a>. Rights Holder This resource is not subject to copyright in the United States and there are no copyright restrictions on reproduction, derivative works, distribution, performance, or display of the work. Anyone may, without restriction under U.S. copyright laws: <ul class="one_column_bullet"><li>reproduce the work in print or digital form</li> <li>create derivative works</li> <li>perform the work publicly</li> <li>display the work</li> <li>distribute copies or digitally transfer the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.</li> </ul>This resources is provided here by <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> for educational purposes only. For more information on copyright, please refer to <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#105" target="_blank">Section 5</a> of <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html" target="_blank">Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code</a>. Source Repository <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> External Reference United States. <a href="https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf" target="_blank">Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970</a>. Washington: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1975. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/histstats-colonial-1970.pdf. United States, and Carroll D. Wright. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/166662" target="_blank">The History and Growth of the United States Census</a>. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1900. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf. "<a href="https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/" target="_blank">Through the Decades</a>." United States Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce. https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/. Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Original Format 1 table Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title U.S. Census for Central Florida, 1980 Alternative Title Census, 1980 Subject Census--United States Orange County (Fla.) Marion County (Fla.) Brevard County (Fla.) St. Lucie County (Fla.) Seminole County (Fla.) Volusia County (Fla.) Flagler County (Fla.) Lake County (Fla.) Osceola County (Fla.) Population--United States Description The Twentieth United States Census records for Brevard County, Flagler County, Lake County, Marion County, Orange County, Osceola County, Seminole County, and Volusia County, Florida for 1980. The census divides the population by gender, race ("white," "black," "American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut," "Asian and Pacific Islander," "Spanish," "Mexican American," "Puerto Rican American," "Cuban American," "Other Spanish American," "Chinese American," "Japanese American," "Filipino American," "Korean American," "Asian Indian American," "Vietnamese American," "Hawaiian American," "Guamanian American," and "Samoan American"), and native-born vs. foreign-born. Those who are foreign born are further divided by country of origin. The census then lists the population categorized by marital status, type of residence, military service, primary and secondary school attendance, and college attendance. The census also collected information on labor, on unemployment, and on transportation. Due to the success of the 1970 Census' mail-out/mail-back questionnaire, the program was expanded for the Census of 1980 to include approximately 95 percent of the population. The short-form questionnaire for this census contained seven questions related to population and 11 questions related to housing; whereas the long-form questionnaire included 26 questions on population and 10 questions on housing. A question regarding Spanish or Hispanic origin, separate from race inquires, was used in all questionnaires due to its success in a five-percent sample for the 1970 Census. Two surveys were included in the new census: the Components of Inventory Change Survey, making inquiries regarding the number and characteristics of housing units that either changed or remained the same between 1973 and 1980; and the Residential Finance Survey, which collected information on mortgages, shelter costs, housing characteristics, and owner characteristics. The U.S. Census Bureau's Census Publicity Office, established in 1978, directed an extensive public service advertising campaign focusing on public awareness of the census and encouraging individuals to participate. A special effort was made to enumerate groups that have historically been undercounted in previous censuses: "M-Night" focused on counting individuals in homeless shelters, soup kitchens, bus and railway stations, and dormitories; "T-Night" focused on the enumeration of hotels and motels with permanent residents. The State Data Center Program was established to simplify public access to census data via computer tapes. The Census Bureau was to provide free copies of electronic and printed census information and products to each state; in return, the state agreed to develop a network of affiliated organizations, such as state executive departments, chambers of commerce, councils of government, university research departments, and libraries, by which census information would be housed for public access. All states had joined the program by the middle of the decade. Despite various technological and procedural advances, the U.S. Census undercounted the national population, as it typically did in previous censuses. The African-American population had an estimated net undercount rate that was 3.7 percentage points higher than the rate for all other races combined. Various cities and states, beginning with the City of Detroit, filed suit against the U.S. Census Bureau, demanding that statistical adjustment be used to compensate for census estimates that had been omitted or improperly counted. In the Fall of 1980, the Bureau announced that it would not adjust its population totals because it was unable to determine the number and distribution of illegal aliens and other undercounted groups. A federal district court ruled in favor of the City of New York and the State of New York that same year, ordering the Census Bureau to correct its numbers. The U.S. Supreme Court stayed this ruling, as well as other similar rulings, in December of 1980, which allowed the Bureau to report its figures to the President unadjusted. In 1987, a federal appeals court ruled that the census figures should not be adjusted because the Census Bureau's decision not to adjust the figures was not arbitrary nor capricious. Type Dataset Source Original census data collected by the <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Bureau</a>, 1980. Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/104" target="_blank">U.S. Census Collection</a>, RICHES of Central Florida. Is Format Of Digital reproduction of original census data collected by the <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Bureau</a>, 1980. Coverage Brevard County, Florida Flagler County, Florida Lake County, Florida Marion County, Florida Orange County, Florida Osceola County, Florida Seminole County, Florida Volusia County, Florida Creator <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Bureau</a> Publisher <a href="http://www.commerce.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Department of Commerce</a> Contributor Gibson, Ella Date Created ca. 1980-04-01 Format image/jpg Extent 2.26 MB Medium 1 table Language eng Mediator History Teacher Economics Teacher Civics/Government Teacher Geography Teacher Provenance Originally collected by the <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Bureau</a> and published by the <a href="http://www.commerce.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Department of Commerce</a>. Rights Holder This resource is not subject to copyright in the United States and there are no copyright restrictions on reproduction, derivative works, distribution, performance, or display of the work. Anyone may, without restriction under U.S. copyright laws: <ul class="one_column_bullet"><li>reproduce the work in print or digital form;</li> <li>create derivative works;</li> <li>perform the work publicly;</li> <li>display the work;</li> <li>distribute copies or digitally transfer the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.</li> </ul> This resources is provided here by <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> for educational purposes only. For more information on copyright, please refer to <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#105" target="_blank">Section 5</a> of <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html" target="_blank">Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code</a>. Accrual Method Item Creation Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Source Repository <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> External Reference "<a href="https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/overview/1980.html" target="_blank">1980 Overview</a>." U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/overview/1980.html. United States, and Carroll D. Wright. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/166662" target="_blank">The History and Growth of the United States Census</a>. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf. U.S. Bureau of the Census. <a href="http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1980/proceduralHistory/1980proceduralhistory.zip" target="_blank">Procedural History: 1980 Census of Population and Housing</a>. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966. Transcript U.S. Census of 1980 Population Brevard County Flagler County Lake County Marion County Orange County Osceola County Seminole County Volusia County Population Total 272,959 10,913 104,870 122,488 471,016 49,287 179,752 258,762 Males 134,937 5,297 49,999 58,908 229,001 23,573 86,869 122,668 Females 138,022 5,616 54,871 63,850 242,015 25,714 92,883 136,094 Population by Race White 245,223 9,552 90,196 101,336 390,383 45,468 159,067 227,324 Black 23,832 1,303 13,240 20,276 69,557 3,012 18,026 28,883 American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut 588 6 191 259 1,351 119 316 427 Asian and Pacific Islander 1,739 29 259 250 3,712 284 1,294 1,046 Other 1,577 23 984 367 6,013 404 1,049 1,082 Population by Descent or Origin Not Spanish Descent or Origin 267,623 10,725 102,615 120,476 451,290 48,198 174,595 254,638 Total 5,336 188 2,255 2,012 19,726 1,089 5,157 4,124 Mexican American 964 38 1,497 451 3,959 258 583 835 Puerto Rican American 1,239 30 170 586 6,662 417 2,079 1,242 Cuban American 760 32 83 218 4,099 148 851 349 Other Spanish American 2,373 88 505 757 5,006 266 1,644 1,698 Japanese American 286 3 27 40 349 23 116 125 Chinese American 333 4 26 74 599 32 281 276 Filipino American 351 14 53 22 918 66 240 143 Korean American 215 4 25 28 314 59 191 96 Asian Indian American 323 4 34 34 418 52 214 232 Vietnamese American 157 0 79 32 923 36 210 113 Hawaiian American 53 0 13 15 115 8 31 37 Guamanian American 16 0 1 4 45 1 6 10 Samoan American 5 0 1 1 31 7 5 14 Households by Race White 93,614 3,971 37,344 39,065 147,099 17,490 56,977 96,107 Black 7,094 369 3,993 6,146 20,699 918 5,518 8,873 American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut 218 2 71 84 444 41 107 176 Asian and Pacific Islander 403 9 65 54 901 73 330 299 Other 454 8 177 109 1,611 93 315 318 Population by Marital Status Single 49,790 1,474 13,935 18,016 98,234 7,283 29,725 44,851 Married 136,618 5,956 56,658 61,718 204,810 24,636 86,312 127,066 Separated 4,085 174 1,705 2,130 9,805 774 2,618 4,378 Widowed 14,781 750 9,103 8,508 26,475 3,607 8,740 23,400 Divorced 15,655 556 4,846 6,703 32,299 2,891 10,146 15,694 Population in Group Quarters Total 3,787 66 1,856 2,359 15,496 780 1,065 6,031 Institutionalized 1,772 0 1,081 1,929 3,065 522 803 2,468 Inmates of Mental Hospitals 58 0 0 16 52 0 29 42 Inmates of Homes for the Aged 682 0 534 375 1,395 412 551 1,450 Inmates of Other Institutions 1,032 0 547 1,538 1,618 110 223 976 Population Not Institutionalized 215 66 775 430 12,431 258 262 3,563 College Dormitories 1,146 0 206 15 1,340 237 0 3,072 Other Group Quarters 869 66 569 415 11,091 21 262 491 Not in Group Quarters 269,172 108,477 103,014 120,129 455,520 48,507 178,687 252,731 Veteran Population Veterans 48,557 1,962 15,611 18,260 68,100 7,156 28,670 41,139 Non-Veterans 163,042 6,794 68,894 76,268 283,154 31,121 105,124 170,179 Male Veterans 46,069 1,860 14,889 17,456 64,590 6,823 27,126 39,012 Male Non-Veterans 55,977 2,347 24,724 27,362 100,641 11,022 36,005 5,902 Female Veterans 2,488 102 722 804 3,510 333 1,544 2,127 Female Non-Veterans 107,065 4,447 44,170 49,266 182,513 20,099 69,119 111,159 Veteran Population by War or Conflict Veterans from May 1975 or Later 1,657 23 448 535 2,734 173 847 1,345 Vietnam Era 14,973 496 3,492 4,308 23,837 2,205 10,351 9,349 Korean Conflict 9,599 216 2,405 2,504 11,891 1,064 4,882 5,856 World War II 16,684 1,035 7,006 8,424 20,913 2,518 8,578 18,820 World War I 646 17 764 285 1,179 275 318 1,617 Other Engagements 4,998 175 1,496 2,204 7,546 921 3,694 4,152 Native-Born Population Total 258,528 10,351 101,031 118,567 447,689 47,619 181,319 243,731 Born in Florida 65,987 2,804 33,817 49,553 148,940 13,564 50,386 68,762 Born in Different State 188,506 7,493 66,600 68,120 290,061 33,497 118,029 172,711 Born Abroad 435 54 614 894 8,688 558 2,904 2,258 Foreign-Born Population Total 14,431 562 3,839 3,921 23,327 1,668 8,433 15,031 Households by Energy Usage Using Utility Gas for Heat 17,729 141 8,249 6,414 17,954 664 7,657 13,854 Using Bottled, Tank or LP Gas for Heat 9,703 689 8,024 12,765 14,378 6,063 4,210 11,473 Using Electricity for Heat 57,725 2,723 18,616 16,529 97,398 9,877 40,506 51,722 Using Fuel Oil, Kerosene, Etc. for Heat 14,452 619 5,491 7,598 39,819 1,562 9,929 26,858 Using Coal and Coke for Heat 0 0 8 6 6 0 0 5 Using Wood for Heat 1,139 136 979 1,782 1,561 340 619 1,546 Using Other Fuel for Heat 90 8 18 22 92 6 11 37 Using No Fuel for Heat 945 43 265 312 1,546 103 315 548 Population by Work Transportation Method Cars 105,631 3,368 32,929 38,876 195,317 18,106 75,974 82,121 Driving Alone 76,581 2,584 25,033 30,618 151,238 13,316 60,762 64,044 Carpooling 29,050 784 7,896 8,258 44,079 4,790 15,212 18,077 Public Transportation 471 0 387 254 4,752 105 638 1,260 Walking 3,330 196 1,769 1,444 13,113 588 1,557 4,241 Other Means 4,443 144 1,031 8,789 7,073 470 1,722 3,874 Working from Home 1,420 78 675 953 2,652 287 1,167 1,962 Education Brevard County Flagler County Lake County Marion County Orange County Osceola County Seminole County Volusia County Population by School Completion Elementary School Completed 19,017 895 14,551 16,265 39,319 6,090 12,165 27,795 High School Completed 87,757 4,136 38,182 44,147 141,202 17,626 52,568 94,031 1-3 Years of High School 22,827 1,292 12,981 15,607 41,698 5,888 13,558 30,353 4 Years of High School 64,930 2,844 25,201 28,540 99,504 11,738 39,010 63,678 College Completed 63,518 2,455 19,401 18,205 93,290 7,342 43,339 51,988 1-3 Years of College 34,376 1,427 10,279 10,686 50,228 4,499 22,223 29,456 4+ Years of College 29,142 1,028 9,122 7,519 43,062 2,843 21,116 22,532 White Population by School Completion Elementary School Completed 15,391 619 11,323 12,428 28,406 5,592 8,242 23,155 High School Completed 81,569 3,876 34,898 39,129 122,450 16,651 48,146 86,944 1-3 Years of High School 20,549 1,122 11,425 13,330 33,986 5,434 11,510 27,148 4 Years of High School 61,020 2,754 23,473 25,799 88,464 11,217 36,636 59,796 College Completed 60,523 2,345 18,453 16,292 85,718 7,044 41,325 48,368 1-3 Years of College 32,596 1,343 9,764 9,593 45,750 4,316 21,126 27,358 4+ Years of College 27,927 1,002 8,689 6,699 39,368 2,728 20,199 21,010 Black Population by School Completion Elementary School Completed 3,269 270 2,877 3,631 9,750 386 3,675 4,267 High School Completed 5,234 260 2,964 4,833 16,519 734 3,797 6,417 1-3 Years of High School 2,083 170 1,396 2,228 7,072 365 1,881 3,008 4 Years of High School 3,151 90 1,568 2,605 9,447 369 1,916 3,409 College Completed 2,270 88 792 1,805 6,168 167 1,328 3,021 1-3 Years of College 1,534 70 421 1,011 3,710 112 788 1,812 4+ Years of College 736 18 371 794 2,458 55 540 1,209 Native American, Eskimo, Aleut Population by School Completion Elementary School Completed 70 0 38 52 125 35 46 110 High School Completed 214 0 93 106 475 112 107 215 1-3 Years of High School 60 0 63 35 240 55 63 53 4 Years of High School 154 0 30 71 235 57 44 162 College Completed 123 0 18 39 154 21 112 106 1-3 Years of College 74 0 18 39 112 21 67 78 4+ Years of College 49 0 0 0 42 0 45 28 Asian and Pacific Islander Population by School Completion Elementary School Completed 220 0 26 69 209 32 100 102 High School Completed 579 0 141 39 918 48 354 353 1-3 Years of High School 122 0 53 7 164 18 63 100 4 Years of High School 457 0 88 32 754 30 291 253 College Completed 436 0 65 33 750 66 403 352 1-3 Years of College 116 0 17 21 358 20 138 105 4+ Years of College 320 0 48 12 392 46 265 247 Other Population by School Completion Elementary School Completed 67 6 287 85 829 45 102 161 High School Completed 161 0 86 40 840 81 164 102 1-3 Years of High School 13 0 44 7 236 16 41 44 4 Years of High School 148 0 42 33 604 65 123 58 College Completed 166 22 73 36 500 44 171 141 1-3 Years of College 56 14 59 22 298 30 104 103 4+ Years of College 110 8 14 14 202 14 67 38 Spanish Population by School Completion Elementary School Completed 318 15 480 406 2,573 11 500 578 High School Completed 1,220 31 244 633 4,204 238 1,144 960 1-3 Years of High School 288 12 94 248 1,153 49 319 330 4 Years of High School 932 19 150 385 3,051 189 825 630 College Completed 1,274 17 167 349 3,036 135 1,155 707 1-3 Years of College 621 17 105 182 1,821 60 569 432 4+ Years of College 653 0 62 167 1,215 75 586 275 Labor Brevard County Flagler County Lake County Marion County Orange County Osceola County Seminole County Volusia County Population in Labor Force Armed Forces 4,022 9 123 93 12,487 23 418 239 Civilian Labor Force 121,034 4,148 39,585 46,567 225,975 21,311 86,174 102,437 Employed 113,941 3,861 37,625 43,511 215,888 20,262 82,316 96,113 Unemployed 7,093 287 1,960 3,056 10,087 1,049 3,858 6,324 Not in Labor Force 90,565 4,608 44,920 48,321 125,279 16,966 47,620 108,881 Male Population in Labor Force Total 73,284 2,415 22,599 26,504 134,581 11,812 49,306 57,030 Armed Forces 3,563 9 101 55 9,080 15 367 239 Civilian Labor Force 69,721 2,406 22,498 26,449 125,501 11,797 48,939 56,791 Employed 66,269 2,261 21,641 24,946 120,264 11,237 46,910 53,436 Unemployed 3,452 145 857 1,503 5,237 560 2,029 3,355 Not in Labor Force 32,325 1,801 17,115 18,369 39,730 6,048 14,192 41,241 Female Population in Labor Force Total 51,772 1,742 17,109 20,156 103,881 9,522 37,286 45,646 Armed Forces 459 0 22 38 3,407 8 51 0 Civilian Labor Force 51,313 1,742 17,087 20,118 100,474 9,514 37,235 45,646 Employed 47,672 1,600 15,984 18,565 95,624 9,025 35,406 42,677 Unemployed 3,641 142 1,103 1,553 4,850 489 1,829 2,969 Not in Labor Force 58,240 2,807 27,805 29,952 85,549 10,918 33,428 67,640 Employment and Unemployment by Race White Employed 104,353 3,404 32,066 36,975 184,092 18,727 74,817 84,965 White Unemployed 5,965 240 1,374 2,355 7,586 932 3,313 5,259 Black Employed 8,147 419 4,868 6,279 27,377 1,119 6,221 10,036 Black Unemployed 933 47 511 659 2,224 461 461 981 American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut Employed 325 0 96 121 653 150 181 318 American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut Unemployed 71 0 33 18 75 33 7 45 Asian and Pacific Islander Employed 750 0 106 41 1,536 106 699 471 Asian and Pacific Islander Unemployed 95 0 0 7 54 0 47 19 Other Employed 366 38 489 95 2,230 160 398 323 Other Unemployed 29 0 42 17 148 18 30 20 Spanish Employed 2,070 45 848 783 8,399 420 2,368 1,568 Spanish Unemployed 146 0 66 63 726 35 154 128 Employment by Industry Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries, and Mining 2,279 298 5,604 3,493 10,157 1,083 2,315 3,407 Construction 9,660 560 2,794 3,997 15,594 1,594 6,706 8,800 Manufacturing 24,729 311 3,577 5,120 25,260 2,384 11,932 10,456 Non-Durable Goods 1,959 54 1,590 1,843 8,639 674 2,818 2,921 Durable Goods 22,770 257 1,987 3,277 16,621 1,710 9,114 7,535 Transportation 3,243 129 1,145 1,507 8,614 693 2,622 2,632 Communications and Other Public Utilities 3,151 86 1,567 1,306 7,095 431 3,325 2,866 Wholesale Trade 2,798 132 1,279 2,393 10,457 521 4,146 2,684 Retail Trade 20,979 523 6,755 8,373 40,454 4,131 15,856 22,590 Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 5,863 449 2,037 2,551 14,953 1,092 7,167 6,399 Business and Repair Services 6,614 234 1,493 1,612 11,688 675 4,195 3,914 Personal, Entertainment, and Recreation Services 5,605 258 2,687 2,793 24,224 3,926 4,503 8,372 Professional and Related Services 21,398 679 7,242 8,060 37,987 2,720 15,476 18,898 Health Services 6,138 272 2,765 2,743 13,024 1,088 5,232 7,318 Educational Services 8,401 240 3,016 3,792 14,652 1,064 6,658 7,877 Other Professional and Related Services 6,859 167 1,461 1,525 10,311 568 3,586 3,703 Public Administration 7,622 202 1,445 2,306 9,405 1,012 4,073 5,095 Employment by Occupation Managerial and Professional Employees 30,782 1,047 7,424 8,492 48,352 3,451 22,954 21,782 Executive, Administrative and Managerial Employees 13,963 578 3,535 4,369 23,782 2,061 12,020 10,977 Professional Specialty Employees 16,819 469 3,889 4,123 24,750 1,390 10,934 10,805 Technical, Sales, and Administrative Employees 36,748 943 10,391 12,380 69,197 5,980 28,991 29,634 Technicians and Related Support Employees 5,757 63 892 813 6,162 399 2,857 2,798 Sales Employees 12,171 348 4,251 5,073 26,111 2,603 12,084 12,168 Administrative Support, Including Clerical Employees 18,820 532 5,248 6,494 36,924 2,978 14,050 14,668 Service Employees 14,689 579 5,364 6,462 34,770 4,003 9,384 17,248 Private Household Employees 581 43 432 409 1,715 96 375 828 Protective Service Employees 2,166 86 481 763 3,737 444 1,097 2,051 Service, Except Protective and Household Employees 11,942 450 4,451 5,290 29,318 3,463 7,912 14,369 Farming, Forestry, and Fishing Employees 1,772 314 4,018 2,729 7,760 1,071 1,736 3,150 Precision Production, Craft, and Repair Employees 16,292 501 4,806 6,268 25,789 2,731 9,974 12,978 Operators, Fabricators, and Laborers 13,658 477 5,622 7,180 29,840 3,026 9,277 11,321 Machine Operators, Assemblers, and Inspectors 6,205 112 1,848 2,476 10,498 1,026 3,709 4,336 Transportation and Material Moving Employees 3,173 248 1,800 2,223 9,533 1,124 2,221 3,197 Handlers, Equipment Cleaners, Helpers, and Laborers 4,280 117 1,974 2,481 9,809 876 3,347 3,788 Employment by Sector Private Wage and Salary Workers 85,872 2,694 28,084 30,835 172,595 16,228 64,582 72,551 Federal Government Workers 6,842 55 737 882 6,538 270 1,975 1,753 State Government Workers 2,934 134 1,234 2,236 6,410 501 2,598 2,859 Local Government Workers 10,681 358 3,741 4,852 17,411 1,748 7,119 9,605 Self-Employed Workers 6,894 544 3,497 4,278 12,127 1,427 5,582 8,652 Unpaid Family Workers 718 76 332 428 807 88 460 693 administrators African Americans agriculture Aleuts American Indians Amerindians Armed Forces Asian Americans Asian Indian Americans assembles assisted living facilities automobiles bottle gas Brevard County business Caribbean Americans carpooling carpools cars Caucasian Americans census Census of 1980 Central Americans Chinese Americans civilian labor clerical coals Coke college dormitories college dorms college education communications construction craft Cuban Americans divorced divorcees domestic service durable goods education educators electricity elementary education employees employment energy usage entertainment equipment cleaners Eskimos European Americans executives fabricators farmers farming federal government females Filipino Americans finance fishery Flagler County forestry fuel fuel oil gas heat government group quarters Guamanian Americans handlers Hawaiian Americans health care health services helpers high school education higher education Hispanic Americans homes for the aged households immigrants immigration Indian Americans inmates inspectors institutionalized insurance Japanese Americans kerosene Korean Americans Korean War labor labor force laborers Lake County Latin Americans Latinas Latinos local government LP gas machine operators males managers manufacturing Marion County marital status married material movers medical mental hospitals Mexican Americans mining motor vehicles Native Americans non-durable goods nursing homes old folks homes operators orange county Osceola County Pacific Islanders pedestrians personal services population precision production primary education professionals protective services public administration public transportation public utilities Puerto Rican Americans Puerto Ricans real estate recreation repair retail salaried salaries sales Samoan Americans schools secondary education self-employed Seminole County separated service industry servicemen servicewomen single Spanish Americans state government tank gas teachers technicians trade transportation U.S. Census unemployment utility gas veterans Vietnam War Vietnamese Americans Volusia County wages walkers walking wholesale widowed widowers widows wood workers World War I World War II WWI WWII https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka/files/original/7d7e2487b93969a4abf35b4756c23383.jpg 88b5aabf531eb18928b6abbf7524e70b Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title U.S. Census Collection Alternative Title Census Collection Subject Census--United States Population--United States Orange County (Fla.) Marion County (Fla.) Brevard County (Fla.) St. Lucie County (Fla.) Seminole County (Fla.) Volusia County (Fla.) Flagler County (Fla.) Lake County (Fla.) Osceola County (Fla.) Description Collection of United States Census population records for various counties in Central Florida from 1840 to 2000. The Census Act of 1840 was signed into law on March 3, 1839 and later amended on February 26, 1840. This piece of legislation established a centralized census office during each enumeration. Congress designated the census questionnaire designs to the Secretary of State. However, each household received inquiries regarding "the pursuits, industry, education, and resources of the country" and included questions related to school attendance, literacy, and vocation. In March of 1849, Congress pass legislation that established a census board consisting of the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Postmaster General. The board was responsible for preparing and printing forms and schedules for enumeration related to population, mining, agriculture, commerce, manufacturing, education, etc. The 1850 Census also increased population inquiries to include every free person's name (as opposed to just the head of the household), as well as information on taxes, schools, crime, wages, estate values, etc. The Census Act of 1850 authorized the U.S. Census of 1860 and stipulated that its provisions be adhered to for all future decennial censuses should no new legislation be passed by the first of the year of said census. In May of 1865, the U.S. Census Office was abolished and many superintending clerks were transferred to the General Land Office. Although the 1870 Census was conducted under the provisions of the Census Act of 1850, a new act was passed on May 6, 1870. The new census legislation required two changes in procedures related to questionnaire return submission dates. Moreover, penalties for refusing to reply to inquires were expanded to apply to all questions and questionnaires. The questionnaires themselves had to be redesigned due to the end of the "slave questionnaire", as slavery had been formally abolished slavery nationwide via the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This left five schedules for the census: General Population, Mortality, Agriculture, Products of Industry, and Social Statistics. In addition, the use of a Charles W. Seaton, a U.S. Census Office chief clerk and later superintendent, invited a rudimentary tallying machine that partially alleviated the difficulties of tallying and tabulating questionnaire responses. Finally, the new superintendent for the Ninth Census, General Francis A. Walker, introduced employment examinations to test the qualifications of applicants to the Census Office, allowing for increased efficiency in the process of collecting census data. The newest act authorizing the Census of 1880 provided for supervision of enumeration by "supervisors of the census", selected exclusively for the collection of census data. All supervisors, as well as the superintendent, were to appointed by the U.S. President and approved by the Senate. Census enumerators were required to personally visit each household and family within his subdivision. The new census act also allowed for the collection of data related to the condition and operation of railroad corporations, incorporated express companies, and telegraph companies, as well as data related to the condition and operation of life, fire, and marine insurance companies. Corporations who refused to provide the census with "true and complete" answers were subject to fines. In addition, the census superintendent was required to collect and publish data on the population, industries and resources of the District of Alaska. Finally, the 1880 Census consisted of five schedules: Population, Mortality, Agriculture, Social Statistics, and Manufacturing. The Census of 1890 was authorized by an act modeled after the 1880 enumeration and signed into law on March 1, 1889. The 1890 Census was supervised by 175 employees and enumerators were required to collect all information by personally visiting each household. The 1890 Census included essentially the same inquires from the 1880 Census, with some notable additions, such as questions about home and farm ownership and indebtedness; and the names, units, length of service, and residences of former Union soldiers and sailors, as well as the names of the widows of those who were no longer alive. Racial categorization was expanded to include "Japanese", along with "Chinese", "Negro", "mulatto", "quadroon", "octoroon", and "White". Herman Hollerith, a former employee of the U.S. Census Office, invited the electric tabulating system, which was widely used in the 1890 Census, allowing data to be processed faster and more efficiently. On October 3, 1893, Congress passed a law that transferred census-related work to the direction of the commissioner of labor. Congress passed another act on March 2, 1895, effectively abolishing the U.S. Census Office and transferring the remaining responsibilities to the Office of the Secretary of the Interior. Congress limited the Census of 1900 to content related to population, mortality, agriculture, and manufacturing. Special census agents were authorized to collect statistics related to incidents of deafness, blindness, insanity, and juvenile delinquency; as well as data on religious bodies, utilities, mining, and transportation. The act authorizing the 1900 Census designated the enumeration of military personally to the U.S. Department of War and the U.S. Department of the Navy, while Indiana Territory was to be enumerated by the commissioner of Indian Affairs. Annexed in 1898, Hawaii was included in the census for the first time. In 1902, the U.S. Census Office was officially established as a permanent organization within the U.S. Department of the Interior. The office became the U.S. Census Bureau in 1903 and was transferred to the Department of Commerce and Labor. The Census of 1910 was approved by legislation introduced in December of 1907 and enacted in July of 1909. The delay was the result of a disagreement over the appointment of enumerators. President Theodore Roosevelt supported the hiring of enumerators via the civil service system, while Congress supported enumerators as positions of patronage. President Roosevelt successfully won the debate. This census act also changed Census Day from the traditional date of June 1st to April 15th. Additional questions regarding the nationality and native language of foreign-born persons and their parents. Funds for the U.S. Census Bureau were also increased to expand the Census' permanent workforce and created several new full-time positions, including a geographer, a chief statistician, and an assistant director. The assistant director was to be appointed by the President and approved by the Senate, while all other census employees were hired on the basis of open, competitive examinations administered by the Civil Service Commission. Despite the use of automatic counting machinery, issues with the tabulation process persisted. Finally, with the United States' entrance into World War I in 1917, the U.S. Census Bureau became a source of even more valuable purpose: the Census was able to use population and economic data to report on the populations of draft-age men, as well as information regarding each state's industrial capabilities. The Census of 1920 changed the date of Census Day from April 15th to January 1st, as requested by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which argued that farmers' memories and harvest information would be more accurate on this day. The U.S. Census Bureau was also authorized to hire additional employees at its headquarters in Washington, D.C. and to create a special field force to collect census data. The legislation authorizing the 1920 Census also allowed for a census of manufacturing to be conducted in 1921, and for such a census to be repeated every two years thereafter, as opposed to the traditional five-year census cycle. Furthermore, a census of agriculture and livestock was to be conducted in 1925 and to be repeated every ten years thereafter. In addition, penalties for those who refused to supply information or those who supplied false information were strengthened. As a result of these changes, census of population, manufacturing, and agriculture and livestock became increasingly independent of one another. The "usual place of abode", the location where residents regularly slept, instead of where they worked or were visiting, became the new basis for enumeration in the 1920 Census. Those with no permanent or regular residence were listed as residents of the location that they were enumerated at. Enumeration related to institutional inmates and dependent, defective, and delinquent classes were also modified. Unlike the previous census, the 1920 Census did not have inquires related to unemployment, to Union or Confederate Army or Navy service, to the number of children born, or to the length of time that a couple had been married. The Census of 1920, however, did include four additional questions: one regarding year of naturalization and three regarding native languages. Issues also arose as a result of changes in international boundaries following World War I, particularly for persons declaring birth or parental birth in Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia, or Turkey. In response, enumerators were required to ask said persons for their province, state, or region of birth. Enumerators were not required to ask individuals how to spell their names, nor were respondents required to provide proof of various pieces of information. Race was determined by the enumerator's impressions. The act authorizing the 1930 Census was approved on June 18, 1929, allowing for a census of population, agriculture, irrigation, draining, distribution, unemployment, and mining. For the first time, specific questions for inquiry were left to the discretion of the Director of the Census. The Census encompassed each state, as well as the District of Columbia, Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. The Governors of Guam, American Samoa, the Virginia Islands, and the Panama Canal Zone were responsible for conducting censuses in their territory. Between the date that the census act was passed and Census Day (April 1st), the stock market crashed, plunging the entire country into the Great Depression. In response, there were public and academic requests for access to unemployment data collected in the 1930 Census; however, the U.S. Census Bureau was unable to meet this demands and the bureau was accused of present unreliable data. Congress required a special unemployment census for January 1931, which ultimately confirmed the severity of the economic crisis. Another unemployment census was conducted in 1937, as mandated by Congress. Because this special census was voluntary, it allowed the Census Bureau to experiment with statistical sampling. Only two percent of households received a special census questionnaire. Congress authorized the 1940 Census in August 1939, providing the Director of the Census the additional authority to conduct a national census of housing in each state, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Alaska. The housing census was conducted separately, though enumerators often collection housing information at the same time that they collected population information. The Census of 1940 was the first time that the U.S. Census Bureau used advanced statistical techniques. In particular, the census used probably sampling, which had only previously been tested in a trial census of unemployment conducted the Civil Works Administration during 1933-1934, in surveys of retail stores in the 1930s, and in an official sample survey of unemployment conducted amongst two percent of American households in 1937. Probability sampling allowed for the inclusion of additional demographic questions without increasing the burden on the collection process or on data processing. Moreover, sampling the U.S. Census Bureau was able to publish preliminary returns eight months before tabulations were completed. Likewise, the census increased its number of published tables, and also was able to complete data processing with higher quality and more efficiency. New census questions focused on employment, unemployment, internal migration, and incomes—reflecting on the concerns of the Great Depression, the country's housing stock, and the need for public housing programs. The Census of 1950 encompassed every state, Alaska, Hawaii, American Samoa, the Panama Canal Zone, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and other small American territories. For the first time, the U.S. Census Bureau enumerate American living abroad to account for members of the U.S. Armed Forces, vessel crew members, and government employees residing in foreign countries. The U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Maritime Administration, and several other federal agencies were responsible for distributing and collecting census questionnaires in a cooperative effort. Persons living abroad for reasons other than what is listed above had their census information reported by families or neighbors residing in the United States, but such data was criticized as unreliable and were not published in official statistics. The 1950 Census also included a new survey on residential financing collected separately on a sample basis from owners of owner-occupied properties, rental properties, and mortgage lenders. The accuracy of the new census was increased by improved enumerator training, the use of detailed street maps for enumerators, the publication of "Missed Person" forms in local newspapers, and the designation of a specific night to conduct a special enumeration of transient individuals. Moreover, a post-enumeration survey was conducted to further verify the accuracy of the original enumeration. A sample of approximately 3,500 small areas was compared to the original census data to identify households that may have been omitted initially. Likewise, a sample of approximately 22,000 households were re-interviewed to identify persons omitted in the original enumeration count. Though not used for the 1950 Census, the UNIVersal Automatic Computer I (UNIVAC I), the first non-military computer, was used to tabulate some of the statistics for the 1954 census of economy. In August of 1954, Congress codified various census statutes, such as the Fifteenth Census Act of 1929, authorizing the decennial census and other census. The Census of 1960 was the first to be mailed to respondents. The U.S. Postal Service delivered census questionnaires to households, the head of household was required to complete the questionnaire, and an enumerator was to pick it up. The enumeration process was divided into two stages: first, select data for each person and dwelling unit was collected; and second, more detailed economic and social data was collected from a sample of households and dwelling units. The census questionnaires for the second stage were hand-delivered by enumerators as they were collecting data from the first stage. Households receiving the second census questionnaire were to complete the form and mail it to their local census office. Twenty-five percent of the population was giving additional sample questions. Because of the increased use of sampling, less populated areas were prone to sampling variation; however, this did not significantly decrease the usefulness of census statistics gathered. Moreover, increased use of sampling reduced data processing costs. Additional questions included in the 1960 Census were related to places of works and means of transportation to work. By 1960, nearly all census data was processed using computers. The U.S. Census Bureau used a Film Optical Sensing Device for Input to Computer (FOSDIC) for the first time, thus decreasing the amount of time and money required for data input. In 1966, the U.S. Census Bureau sought suggestions from advisory committees and from the public, resulting in numerous proposals for additional inquiries related to the scope and structure of the census, as well as in public interest for the publication of additional census data. Researchers also concluded that the 1950 Census and the 1960 Census had undercounted certain segments of the population. Moreover, they noted a growing distrust of government activity and increased resistance to responding to the census. Simultaneously, both the public and private sectors expressed need for accurate information. The U.S. Census Bureau decreased its number of questions from 66 to 23 in an effort to simplify its products. A register for densely populated areas was also created to ensure that all housing units were accounted for. A Spanish-language questionnaire was also enclosed with census questionnaires in areas with a significant amount of Spanish-speaking households. Additionally, a question on Hispanic origins or descent was asked independently from race, but only on a five-percent sample. Only five questions were given to all individuals: relationship to household head, sex, race, age, and marital status. Additional questions were asked in smaller sample groups. This was also the first census in which respondents of urban areas were asked to mail their forms to the Census Bureau, rather than to hold questionnaires for enumerators. Address Coding Guides were used to assign census geographic codes to questionnaires. Counts, a series of computer tape files, were an additional innovation used to increase the accuracy of census data. Count 1 consisted of complete count data for block groups and/or enumeration districts. Count 2 contained census tracts and minor civil/census county divisions, while Count 3 consisted of census blocks. Counts 4-6 provided sample census data for geographic areas of various population sizes. The Census Bureau also produced six Public Use Microdata Sample files, each of which contained complete information for a sample of approximately two million people. Finally, the Census Bureau developed the Summary Tape Processing Center Program, which was a group of organizations, both public and private, that processed census data from computer tapes. For the 1990 Census, the U.S. Census Bureau utilized extensive user consultation prior to enumeration in order to refine both long and short form census questionnaires. The short form consisted of 13 questions and was given to the entire population. The long form asked 45 questions and was given to a 20 percent sample. The long form included topics related to marital history, carpooling, residence, residential elevators, and energy usage. Unlike the 1980 Census, the new census eliminated questions regarding air conditioning, the number of bathrooms in a residence, and the type of heating equipment used. A vast advertising campaign was marketed to increase public awareness of the census via public television, radio, and print media. Like the previous census, the Census of 1990 made a special effort to enumerate groups that have historically been undercounted in previous censuses called "S-Night": individuals in homeless shelters, soup kitchens, bus and railway stations, and dormitories (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "M-Night"); and permanent residents in hotels and motels (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "T-Night"). Following legal issues filed in response to the 1980 Census regarding statistical readjustment of undercounted areas, the Census Bureau initiated a post-enumeration survey (PES), in which a contemporaneous survey of households would be conducted and compare to the census results from the official census. In a partial resolution of a 1989 lawsuit filed by New York plaintiffs, the U.S. Department of Commerce agreed to use the PES to produce population data that had been adjusted for the projected undercount and that said data would be judged against the unadjusted data by the Secretary of Commerce's Special Advisory Panel (SAP). The Census of 1990 also introduced the U.S. to the Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing System (TIGER), which was developed by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Census Bureau. TIGER used computerized representations of various map features to geographically code addresses into appropriate census geographic areas. It also produced different maps required for census data collection and tabulation. Five years earlier, the Census Bureau became the first government agency to publish information on CD-ROM. For the 1990 Census, the bureau made detailed census data, which had previously been only available to organizations with large mainframe computers, accessible to any individual with a personal computer. Census data was also available in print, on computer tape, and on microfiche. Using two online service vendors, DIALOG and CompuServe, the Census Bureau also published select census data online. As with previous censuses, the 1990 Census undercounted the national population, and again, the African-American population had an estimated net undercount rate that was significantly higher than the rate for other races. In July of 1991, the Secretary of Commerce announced that he did not find evidence in favor of using adjusted counts compelling—despite SAP's split vote on the issue—and chose to use unadjusted totals for the official census results. In response, the New York plaintiffs resumed the lawsuit against the Department of Commerce. A federal district court divided in favor of the DOC in April of 1993. The U.S. Court of Appeals, however, rejected the previous court ruling and ordered that the case be reheard by the federal district court. In March of 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court finally ruled in favor of the Secretary of Commerce's decision to use the unadjusted census date, but did not rule on the legality or constitutionality of the use of statistical adjustment in producing apportionment counts. For the 1990 Census, the U.S. Census Bureau utilized extensive user consultation prior to enumeration in order to refine both long and short form census questionnaires. The short form consisted of 13 questions and was given to the entire population. The long form asked 45 questions and was given to a 20 percent sample. The long form included topics related to marital history, carpooling, residence, residential elevators, and energy usage. Unlike the 1980 Census, the new census eliminated questions regarding air conditioning, the number of bathrooms in a residence, and the type of heating equipment used. A vast advertising campaign was marketed to increase public awareness of the census via public television, radio, and print media. Like the previous census, the Census of 1990 made a special effort to enumerate groups that have historically been undercounted in previous censuses called "S-Night": individuals in homeless shelters, soup kitchens, bus and railway stations, and dormitories (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "M-Night"); and permanent residents in hotels and motels (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "T-Night"). Following legal issues filed in response to the 1980 Census regarding statistical readjustment of undercounted areas, the Census Bureau initiated a post-enumeration survey (PES), in which a contemporaneous survey of households would be conducted and compare to the census results from the official census. In a partial resolution of a 1989 lawsuit filed by New York plaintiffs, the U.S. Department of Commerce agreed to use the PES to produce population data that had been adjusted for the projected undercount and that said data would be judged against the unadjusted data by the Secretary of Commerce's Special Advisory Panel (SAP). The Census of 1990 also introduced the U.S. to the Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing System (TIGER), which was developed by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Census Bureau. TIGER used computerized representations of various map features to geographically code addresses into appropriate census geographic areas. It also produced different maps required for census data collection and tabulation. Five years earlier, the Census Bureau became the first government agency to publish information on CD-ROM. For the 1990 Census, the bureau made detailed census data, which had previously been only available to organizations with large mainframe computers, accessible to any individual with a personal computer. Census data was also available in print, on computer tape, and on microfiche. Using two online service vendors, DIALOG and CompuServe, the Census Bureau also published select census data online. As with previous censuses, the 1990 Census undercounted the national population, and again, the African-American population had an estimated net undercount rate that was significantly higher than the rate for other races. In July of 1991, the Secretary of Commerce announced that he did not find evidence in favor of using adjusted counts compelling—despite SAP's split vote on the issue—and chose to use unadjusted totals for the official census results. In response, the New York plaintiffs resumed the lawsuit against the Department of Commerce. A federal district court divided in favor of the DOC in April of 1993. The U.S. Court of Appeals, however, rejected the previous court ruling and ordered that the case be reheard by the federal district court. In March of 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court finally ruled in favor of the Secretary of Commerce's decision to use the unadjusted census date, but did not rule on the legality or constitutionality of the use of statistical adjustment in producing apportionment counts. For the Census of 2000, the short form consisted of only seven questions, while the long form consisted of 52 questions and used for a 17 percent sample of the population. For the first time, race questions were not limited to a single category; rather, respondents were able to check multiple boxes. A new question related to grandparents as caregivers was also mandated by legislation passed in 1996. Disability questions were expanded to including hearing and vision impairments, as well as learning, memory, and concentration disabilities. The 2000 Census also eliminated questions related to children born, water sources, sewage disposal, and condominium status. In addition, the 2000 Census was the first in which the Internet was used as the principal medium for the dissemination of census information. Summary Files were available for download immediately upon release and individual tables could be viewed via American FactFinder, the Census Bureau's online database. Files were also available for purchase on CD-Rom and DVD. Due to declining questionnaire mail-back rates, the U.S. Census Bureau marketed a $167 million national and local print, television, and public advertising campaign in 17 different languages. The campaign successfully brought the mail-back rate up to 67 percent. Additionally, respondents receiving the short form were given the option of responding via the Internet. Telephone questionnaire assistance centers available in 6 languages also took responses via the phone. Statistical sampling techniques were utilized in two ways: first, to alter the traditional 100 percent personal visit of non-responding households during the non-response follow-up (NRFU) process by instead following up on a smaller sample basis; second, the sampling of 750,000 housing units matched to housing unit questionnaires obtained from mail and telephone responses, as well as from personal visits. The goal of the latter was to develop adjustment factors for individuals estimated to have been missed or duplicated and to correct the census counts to produce one set of numbers. This "one-number census" would correct for net coverage errors called Integrated Coverage Measurement (ICM). Both of these measures were taken in an attempt to avoid repetition of the litigation costs generated by the 1980 Census and the 1990 Census. Despite these efforts, two lawsuits—one filed by the U.S. House of Representatives—were filed in February 1998 challenging the constitutionality and legality of the planned uses of sampling to produce apportionment counts. Both cases were decided in favor of the plaintiffs in federal district courts, but the U.S. Department of Commerce made appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court. Known as the U.S. Department of Commerce v. the U.S. House of Representatives, the Court ruled that the Census Bureau's plans to use statistical sampling for purposes of congressional apportionments violated the Census Act. The bureau revised its plan, stating that it would produce statistically adjusted data for non-apportionment uses of census data information, such as redistricting. However, in March of 2001, the Census Bureau recommended against the use of adjusted census data for redistricting due to accuracy concerns; the Secretary of Commerce determined that the unadjusted data would be released as the bureau's official redistricting data. The Director of the Census Bureau also rejected to the use of adjusted data for non-redistricting purposes in October of that same year. Language eng Type Collection Coverage Mosquito County, Florida Brevard County, Florida Flagler County, Florida Lake County, Florida Marion County, Florida Orange County, Florida Osceola County, Florida Seminole County, Florida Volusia County, Florida Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Contributor Gibson, Ella Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a>. Rights Holder This resource is not subject to copyright in the United States and there are no copyright restrictions on reproduction, derivative works, distribution, performance, or display of the work. Anyone may, without restriction under U.S. copyright laws: <ul class="one_column_bullet"><li>reproduce the work in print or digital form</li> <li>create derivative works</li> <li>perform the work publicly</li> <li>display the work</li> <li>distribute copies or digitally transfer the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.</li> </ul>This resources is provided here by <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> for educational purposes only. For more information on copyright, please refer to <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#105" target="_blank">Section 5</a> of <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html" target="_blank">Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code</a>. Source Repository <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> External Reference United States. <a href="https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf" target="_blank">Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970</a>. Washington: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1975. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/histstats-colonial-1970.pdf. United States, and Carroll D. Wright. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/166662" target="_blank">The History and Growth of the United States Census</a>. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1900. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf. "<a href="https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/" target="_blank">Through the Decades</a>." United States Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce. https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/. Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Original Format 1 table Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title U.S. Census for Central Florida, 1970 Alternative Title Census, 1970 Subject Census--United States Orange County (Fla.) Marion County (Fla.) Brevard County (Fla.) St. Lucie County (Fla.) Seminole County (Fla.) Volusia County (Fla.) Flagler County (Fla.) Lake County (Fla.) Osceola County (Fla.) Population--United States Description The Nineteenth United States Census records for Brevard County, Flagler County, Lake County, Marion County, Orange County, Osceola County, Seminole County, and Volusia County, Florida, for 1970. The census divides the population by gender, race ("white," "black," "Spanish," and "other"), and native-born vs. foreign-born. Those who are foreign born are further divided by country of origin. The census then lists the population categorized by marital status, type of residence, military service, primary and secondary school attendance, and college attendance. The census also collected information on labor, on unemployment, on transportation, and on ownership of various types of technology. In 1966, the U.S. Census Bureau sought suggestions from advisory committees and from the public, resulting in numerous proposals for additional inquiries related to the scope and structure of the census, as well as in public interest for the publication of additional census data. Researchers also concluded that the 1950 Census and the 1960 Census had undercounted certain segments of the population. Moreover, they noted a growing distrust of government activity and increased resistance to responding to the census. Simultaneously, both the public and private sectors expressed need for accurate information. The U.S. Census Bureau decreased its number of questions from 66 to 23 in an effort to simplify its products. A register for densely populated areas was also created to ensure that all housing units were accounted for. A Spanish-language questionnaire was also enclosed with census questionnaires in areas with a significant amount of Spanish-speaking households. Additionally, a question on Hispanic origins or descent was asked independently from race, but only on a five-percent sample. Only five questions were given to all individuals: relationship to household head, sex, race, age, and marital status. Additional questions were asked in smaller sample groups. This was also the first census in which respondents of urban areas were asked to mail their forms to the Census Bureau, rather than to hold questionnaires for enumerators. Address Coding Guides were used to assign census geographic codes to questionnaires. Counts, a series of computer tape files, was an additional innovation used to increase the accuracy of census data. Count 1 consisted of complete count data for block groups and/or enumeration districts. Count 2 contained census tracts and minor civil/census county divisions, while Count 3 consisted of census blocks. Counts 4-6 provided sample census data for geographic areas of various population sizes. The Census Bureau also produced six Public Use Microdata Sample files, each of which contained complete information for a sample of approximately two million people. Finally, the Census Bureau developed the Summary Tape Processing Center Program, which was a group of organizations, both public and private, that processed census data from computer tapes. Type Dataset Source Original census data collected by the <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Bureau</a>, 1970. Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/104" target="_blank">U.S. Census Collection</a>, RICHES of Central Florida. Is Format Of Digital reproduction of original census data collected by the <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Bureau</a>, 1970. Coverage Brevard County, Florida Flagler County, Florida Lake County, Florida Marion County, Florida Orange County, Florida Osceola County, Florida Seminole County, Florida Volusia County, Florida Creator <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Bureau</a> Publisher <a href="http://www.commerce.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Department of Commerce</a> Contributor Gibson, Ella Date Created ca. 1970-04-01 Format image/jpg Extent 2.23 MB Medium 1 table Language eng Mediator History Teacher Economics Teacher Civics/Government Teacher Geography Teacher Provenance Originally collected by the <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Bureau</a> and published by the <a href="http://www.commerce.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Department of Commerce</a>. Rights Holder This resource is not subject to copyright in the United States and there are no copyright restrictions on reproduction, derivative works, distribution, performance, or display of the work. Anyone may, without restriction under U.S. copyright laws: <ul class="one_column_bullet"><li>reproduce the work in print or digital form;</li> <li>create derivative works;</li> <li>perform the work publicly;</li> <li>display the work;</li> <li>distribute copies or digitally transfer the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.</li> </ul> This resources is provided here by <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> for educational purposes only. For more information on copyright, please refer to <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#105" target="_blank">Section 5</a> of <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html" target="_blank">Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code</a>. Accrual Method Item Creation Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Source Repository <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> External Reference "<a href="https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/overview/1970.html" target="_blank">1970 Overview</a>." U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/overview/1970.html. United States. <a href="https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf" target="_blank">Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970</a>. Washington: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1975. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/histstats-colonial-1970.pdf. United States, and Carroll D. Wright. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/166662" target="_blank">The History and Growth of the United States Census</a>. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf. U.S. Bureau of the Census. <a href="http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1970/proceduralHistory/1970proceduralhistory.zip" target="_blank">Procedural History: 1970 Census of Population and Housing</a>. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966. Transcript U.S. Census of 1970 Population Brevard County Flagler County Lake County Marion County Orange County Osceola County Seminole County Volusia County Population Total 230,006 4,454 69,305 69,030 344,311 25,267 83,692 169,487 Males 115,184 2,211 33,350 33,005 167,980 12,095 40,605 79,328 Females 114,822 2,243 35,955 36,025 176,331 13,172 43,087 90,159 Population by Race White 208,436 3,068 57,104 50,914 294,653 23,098 69,582 145,320 Black 20,664 1,365 12,056 18,060 48,593 2,148 13,977 23,984 Other Race 906 21 145 56 1,065 21 133 183 Population by Descent or Origin Spanish Descent or Origin 5,100 5 761 875 6,940 194 1,012 1,304 Not Spanish Descent or Origin 224,900 4,449 68,544 68,155 337,371 25,073 82,680 168,183 Households Occupied 68,560 1,488 24,621 22,317 108,645 9,092 25,757 62,747 Husband-Wife Families 51,151 949 16,866 15,104 75,525 6,055 19,194 39,510 Other Family Units 7,069 193 2,478 2,768 12,589 1,005 2,619 7,300 Family Units with Male Head 1,731 71 619 729 2,294 229 468 1,417 Family Units with Female Head 5,338 122 1,859 2,039 10,295 776 2,151 5,883 Male Primary Individual Household Units 5,028 168 1,862 1,676 7,213 677 1,420 5,035 Female Primary Individual Household Units 5,312 178 3,415 2,769 13,318 1,355 2,524 10,902 Population in Group Quarters Total 3,250 77 1,163 1,394 10,655 391 446 4,972 Institutionalized People 289 7 800 1,157 2,669 239 267 1,519 Inmates of Mental Hospitals 0 0 0 6 38 0 0 17 Inmates of Homes for the Aged and Dependent 231 0 582 147 1,063 119 245 957 Inmates of Other Institutions 58 7 218 1,004 1,568 120 22 545 Population Not Institutionalized 2,961 70 363 237 7,986 152 179 3,453 Rooming Houses 209 23 175 83 346 32 99 663 Military Barracks 1,824 0 0 0 5,534 0 4 7 College Dormitories 682 0 24 26 1,276 0 0 2,327 Other Group Quarters 246 47 164 128 830 90 76 456 Population by Marital Status Never Married 35,563 735 9,597 10,702 59,514 3,295 12,091 26,855 Married 108,282 2,018 35,798 32,303 158,034 12,957 39,775 83,513 Spouse Present 104,133 1,924 34,419 30,832 153,144 12,550 38,847 80,356 Spouse Absent 4,149 94 1,379 1,471 4,890 407 928 3,157 Separated 2,627 127 1,115 1,460 5,710 384 1,580 2,539 Widowed 7,930 328 5,694 4,822 19,390 2,226 4,149 16,508 Divorced 5,779 78 1,713 1,766 10,333 677 1,752 5,682 Veteran Population by War or Conflict Vietnam Conflict 5,998 16 1,020 1,470 10,602 470 2,556 3,358 Korean War 8,513 125 1,264 1,384 3,522 521 1,957 3,259 Korean War and World War II 2,589 11 278 335 3,764 186 1,083 960 World War II 13,782 334 4,177 4,181 20,725 1,354 4,576 10,861 World War I 984 45 1,623 793 2,873 583 691 4,307 Other Services 5,916 18 1,060 1,505 6,359 493 1,769 3,172 Non-Veterans 31,721 919 14,626 12,902 52,302 5,056 13,199 32,679 Native-Born Population Total 222,761 4,403 67,996 67,786 333,532 24,479 81,601 160,528 Foreign-Born Population Total 6,429 161 1,468 1,710 9,378 699 1,716 9,474 Foreign-Born Population by Country of Origin United Kingdom 1,084 60 188 208 1,705 157 199 1,954 Ireland 190 8 8 6 138 25 0 257 Norway 25 0 19 21 836 0 18 142 Sweden 110 0 44 7 173 39 6 244 Denmark 72 0 26 27 56 0 41 130 Netherlands 88 0 75 0 148 6 31 132 Switzerland 64 0 8 12 59 13 16 74 France 119 9 6 20 157 17 35 179 Germany 966 11 163 306 1,008 129 233 1,647 Poland 73 41 59 279 216 0 12 268 Czechoslovakia 97 0 36 15 160 0 128 70 Austria 62 0 38 38 142 64 44 359 Hungary 178 5 64 0 202 26 18 209 Yugoslavia 29 0 11 27 119 0 11 133 Russia 84 0 7 61 207 6 35 232 Lithuania 15 0 8 11 62 0 13 45 Finland 32 0 51 0 48 0 5 36 Romania 5 0 0 7 48 5 0 39 Greece 35 0 13 0 123 0 11 118 Italy 348 6 60 73 420 5 117 617 Portugal 8 0 0 0 40 0 0 16 Other Europe 177 9 33 26 84 23 77 150 Southwest Asia 125 0 13 6 114 0 77 148 China 35 0 0 0 77 0 0 33 Japan 104 0 0 0 126 17 20 35 Other Asia 252 0 8 24 171 4 26 93 Canada 1,045 12 385 362 1,465 124 275 1,550 Mexico 35 0 27 15 46 4 38 32 Cuba 273 0 7 50 788 0 85 152 Other America 379 0 54 95 660 18 81 195 Africa 44 0 9 7 134 0 0 24 All Other 151 0 39 7 111 10 19 78 Not Reported 125 0 9 0 285 7 45 83 Population by Work Transportation Method Private Automobile 77,928 1,170 18,827 20,689 114,255 7,113 26,710 46,121 Private Driver Automobile 67,363 921 16,021 17,708 98,709 6,038 23,245 39,700 Private Passenger Automobile 10,565 249 2,806 2,981 15,546 1,078 3,465 6,421 Bus or Streetcar 382 41 486 203 4,364 49 475 825 Subway or Elevated Transportation 5 0 15 0 8 0 8 0 Railroad 0 0 0 6 12 8 24 11 Taxicab 245 0 205 248 559 30 230 552 Walking 3,538 125 1,383 984 7,142 499 1,031 3,287 Multiple Means of Transportation 2,839 55 1,300 1,121 4,704 288 1,354 2,410 Work at Home 1,191 23 511 847 2,469 199 450 1,875 Population by Automobile Ownership None 4,227 304 3,398 3,509 13,081 1,433 2,548 9,174 1 30,228 654 13,914 11,530 51,115 5,223 11,884 35,319 1+ 64,333 1,184 21,223 18,808 95,564 7,659 23,209 53,573 2 29,003 447 6,103 6,002 37,100 2,046 9,343 15,419 3+ 5,102 83 1,206 1,276 7,349 390 1,982 2,835 Population by Television Ownership None 2,544 124 1,135 1,461 4,967 266 881 2,488 1 45,788 1,181 18,269 17,649 71,421 7,277 16,907 46,312 1+ 65,864 1,432 23,492 20,856 103,625 8,826 24,876 60,348 2+ 20,076 251 5,223 3,207 32,204 1,549 7,969 14,036 Population by Home Appliance Ownership Clothes Washing Machine 48,116 1,149 16,374 15,148 73,520 5,566 18,445 36,415 Automatic or Semi-Automatic Clothes Washing Machine 46,670 931 14,727 13,226 69,686 4,767 16,836 33,695 Wringer or Separate Clothes Washing Machine 1,446 218 1,647 1,922 3,834 769 1,609 2,720 No Clothes Washing Machine 20,292 407 8,253 7,169 35,072 3,526 7,312 26,421 Clothes Dryers 28,429 358 5,233 5,429 35,056 1,441 8,542 14,018 Electrically-Heated Clothes Dryers 25,214 339 4,867 5,314 33,661 1,247 8,169 13,378 Gas-Heated Clothes Dryers 3,215 19 366 115 1,395 194 373 640 No Clothes Dryers 39,979 1,198 19,394 16,888 73,536 7,651 17,215 48,818 Dishwashers 18,302 121 3,449 3,081 25,069 652 6,851 8,712 No Dishwashers 50,106 1,435 21,178 19,236 83,523 8,440 18,906 54,124 Education Brevard County Flagler County Lake County Marion County Orange County Osceola County Seminole County Volusia County Population by School Completion No School Completed 689 59 544 582 2,234 192 574 1,036 Elementary School Completed 15,957 876 13,005 11,913 41,362 5,010 10,838 25,266 1-4 Years of Elementary School 2,288 216 2,378 2,397 6,987 563 2,109 3,398 5-6 Years of Elementary School 3,252 222 2,864 2,687 9,767 978 2,389 5,179 7 Years of Elementary School 2,552 118 1,980 1,910 7,213 806 1,901 3,652 8 Years of Elementary School 7,865 320 5,783 4,919 17,395 2,663 4,439 13,037 High School Completed 64,037 1,264 21,359 19,580 96,067 8,354 23,695 55,823 1-3 Years of High School 18,199 501 9,032 8,146 36,723 3,621 8,999 20,155 4 Years of High School 45,838 763 12,327 11,534 59,344 4,733 14,696 35,668 College Completed 38,264 395 8,702 6,924 45,204 2,278 9,681 25,773 1-3 Years of College 20,287 272 4,715 4,043 23,709 1,219 5,467 14,225 4 Years of College 11,605 87 2,713 1,924 13,488 643 2,620 7,418 5+ Years of College 6,372 36 1,274 957 8,007 416 1,594 4,130 Male Population by School Completion No School Completed 374 44 372 360 1,132 116 305 592 Elementary School Completed 8,156 466 6,759 6,245 20,538 2,594 5,371 12,485 High School Completed 27,446 556 8,998 8,514 40,077 3,563 10,183 22,667 College Completed 22,576 194 4,273 3,324 24,310 1,124 5,334 12,547 Female Population by School Completion No School Completed 315 15 172 222 1,102 76 269 444 Elementary School Completed 7,801 410 6,246 5,668 20,824 2,416 5,467 12,781 High School Completed 36,591 708 12,361 11,166 55,990 4,791 13,512 33,156 College Completed 15,688 201 4,429 3,600 20,894 1,154 4,347 13,226 White Population by School Completion No School Completed 408 18 269 247 1,315 128 214 543 Elementary School Completed 12,362 516 10,019 7,779 31,235 4,452 7,168 20,503 1-4 Years of Elementary School 1,082 59 1,210 879 3,581 339 617 1,703 5-6 Years of Elementary School 2,256 117 2,082 1,453 6,801 781 1,365 3,756 7 Years of Elementary School 2,024 71 1,637 1,369 5,614 746 1,375 3,026 8 Years of Elementary School 7,000 269 5,090 4,078 15,239 2,586 3,811 12,018 High School Completed 59,985 1,072 19,070 16,359 87,158 8,014 21,558 51,512 1-3 Years of High School 16,017 406 7,659 6,080 31,501 3,416 7,620 17,807 4 Years of High School 43,968 666 11,411 10,279 55,657 4,598 13,938 33,705 College Completed 37,227 376 8,369 6,253 43,325 2,244 9,343 24,448 1-3 Years of College 19,754 260 4,578 3,730 22,871 1,200 5,274 13,519 4 Years of College 11,249 80 2,579 1,660 12,802 637 2,533 7,035 5+ Years of College 6,224 36 1,212 863 7,652 407 1,536 3,894 Black Population by School Completion No School Completed 277 41 270 335 905 64 360 493 Elementary School Completed 3,570 355 2,972 4,129 9,954 558 3,657 4,757 1-4 Years of Elementary School 1,206 152 1,168 1,518 3,358 224 1,492 1,691 5-6 Years of Elementary School 996 105 772 1,229 2,930 197 1,015 1,423 7 Years of Elementary School 521 47 339 541 1,567 60 522 626 8 Years of Elementary School 847 51 693 841 2,101 77 628 1,014 High School Completed 3,835 176 2,268 3,314 8,603 329 2,076 4,262 1-3 Years of High School 2,128 79 1,357 2,059 5,097 199 1,355 2,330 4 Years of High School 1,707 97 911 1,255 3,506 130 721 1,932 College Completed 841 19 328 659 1,763 34 321 1,294 1-3 Years of College 444 12 132 301 786 19 181 696 4 Years of College 275 4 0 264 657 6 87 366 5+ Years of College 122 0 62 94 320 9 53 232 Other Race Population by School Completion No School Completed 4 0 5 0 14 0 0 0 Elementary School Completed 25 5 14 5 173 0 13 9 1-4 Years of Elementary School 0 5 0 0 50 0 0 4 5-6 Years of Elementary School 0 0 10 5 36 0 9 0 7 Years of Elementary School 7 0 4 0 32 0 4 0 8 Years of Elementary School 18 0 0 0 55 0 0 5 High School Completed 217 16 21 7 306 1 61 49 1-3 Years of High School 54 16 16 7 125 6 24 18 4 Years of High School 163 0 5 0 181 5 37 31 College Completed 196 0 5 12 116 0 17 31 1-3 Years of College 89 0 5 12 52 0 12 10 4 Years of College 81 0 0 0 29 0 0 17 5+ Years of College 26 0 0 0 35 0 5 4 Spanish Population by School Completion No School Completed 7 0 18 0 8 0 5 0 Elementary School Completed 197 0 114 84 707 9 26 100 1-4 Years of Elementary School 21 0 27 20 157 0 5 0 5-6 Years of Elementary School 39 0 37 31 208 9 8 5 7 Years of Elementary School 26 0 5 13 73 0 6 15 8 Years of Elementary School 111 0 45 20 269 0 7 80 High School Completed 1,069 5 67 136 1,291 25 249 362 1-3 Years of High School 213 5 20 38 385 7 73 42 4 Years of High School 856 0 47 98 906 18 176 320 College Completed 1,008 0 117 153 948 44 202 282 1-3 Years of College 500 0 70 69 503 6 133 146 4 Years of College 279 0 27 32 235 20 34 58 5+ Years of College 229 0 20 52 210 18 35 78 Labor Brevard County Flagler County Lake County Marion County Orange County Osceola County Seminole County Volusia County Population in Labor Force Total 92,489 1,481 24,045 25,369 142,011 8,509 32,266 58,551 Armed Forces 4,502 23 68 62 8,953 28 461 157 Civilian Labor Force 87,987 1,458 23,977 25,307 133,058 8,481 31,805 58,394 Employed 83,051 1,437 22,830 24,428 126,731 8,233 30,242 56,054 Unemployed 4,936 21 1,147 879 6,327 248 1,563 2,340 Not in Labor Force 57,079 1,598 27,182 22,829 96,488 9,994 23,283 70,519 Male Population in Labor Force Total 61,033 951 14,804 15,420 89,238 5,316 20,195 33,902 Armed Forces 4,437 23 68 57 8,817 28 435 150 Civilian Labor Force 56,596 928 14,736 15,363 80,421 5,288 19,760 33,752 Employed 53,911 916 14,100 14,943 77,240 5,114 18,948 32,515 Unemployed 2,685 12 636 420 3,181 174 812 1,237 Not in Labor Force 12,743 542 9,344 7,201 24,663 3,383 6,040 24,880 Female Population in Labor Force Total 31,456 530 9,241 9,949 52,773 3,193 12,071 24,649 Armed Forces 65 0 0 5 136 0 26 7 Civilian Labor Force 31,391 530 9,241 9,944 52,637 3,193 12,045 24,642 Employed 29,140 521 8,730 9,485 49,491 3,119 11,294 23,539 Unemployed 2,251 9 511 459 3,146 74 751 1,103 Not in Labor Force 44,336 1,056 17,838 15,628 71,825 6,611 17,243 45,639 White Population in Labor Force Total 84,261 1,016 19,134 19,279 122,059 7,775 26,956 49,696 Armed Forces 4,121 14 62 50 7,774 28 441 157 Civilian Labor Force 80,140 1,002 19,072 19,229 114,735 7,747 26,515 49,539 Employed 75,669 988 18,219 18,614 109,551 7,508 25,348 47,647 Unemployed 4,471 14 853 615 5,184 239 1,167 1,892 Not in Labor Force 53,174 1,286 24,555 18,017 85,934 9,463 20,093 64,512 Black Population in Labor Force Total 7,870 454 4,850 6,083 19,054 723 5,279 8,786 Armed Forces 297 9 6 12 1,070 0 20 0 Civilian Labor Force 7,573 445 4,844 6,071 17,984 723 5,259 8,786 Employed 7,118 438 4,550 5,807 16,858 714 4,863 8,343 Unemployed 455 7 294 264 1,126 9 396 443 Not in Labor Force 3,688 302 2,613 4,795 10,214 521 3,118 5,928 Other Race Population in Labor Force Total 358 11 61 7 448 11 31 69 Armed Forces 84 0 0 0 109 0 0 0 Civilian Labor Force 274 11 61 7 339 11 31 69 Employed 264 11 61 7 322 11 31 64 Unemployed 10 0 0 0 17 0 0 5 Not in Labor Force 217 10 14 17 340 10 72 79 Spanish Population in Labor Force Total 1,919 5 260 349 2,741 42 355 511 Armed Forces 183 0 0 0 290 5 8 0 Civilian Labor Force 1,736 5 260 349 2,451 37 347 511 Employed 1,610 5 234 336 2,260 37 317 493 Unemployed 126 0 26 13 191 0 30 18 Not in Labor Force 119 0 171 144 1,467 77 291 421 Employment by Sector Private Sector 60,990 1,011 17,072 18,020 98,386 5,974 23,570 41,989 Private Company 59,979 983 16,609 17,744 95,860 5,852 23,034 40,937 Own Corporation 1,011 28 463 276 2,526 122 536 1,052 Public Sector 17,663 296 3,108 4,007 18,233 1,414 4,109 7,893 Federal Government Workers 8,404 32 366 500 4,992 227 1,139 1,189 State Government Workers 1,513 98 615 1,140 3,018 251 755 1,368 Local Government Workers 7,746 166 2,127 2,367 10,223 936 2,215 5,336 Self-Employed Workers 4,018 120 2,479 2,271 9,297 804 2,400 5,726 Unpaid Family Workers 380 10 171 130 815 41 163 446 Male Employment by Sector Private Company 39,740 623 10,193 11,091 57,829 3,563 14,444 23,051 Own Corporation 817 23 394 237 2,111 116 461 833 Federal Government Workers 6,291 27 226 355 3,677 162 835 868 State Government Workers 733 66 331 543 1,320 180 389 730 Local Government Workers 3,315 62 974 864 4,748 464 930 2,586 Self-Employed Workers 2,952 107 1,938 1,827 7,339 617 1,849 4,383 Unpaid Family Workers 63 5 44 26 216 12 40 64 Female Employment by Sector Private Company 20,239 360 6,416 6,653 38,031 2,289 8,590 17,886 Own Corporation 194 5 69 39 415 6 75 219 Federal Government Workers 2,113 5 140 145 1,315 65 304 321 State Government Workers 780 32 284 597 1,698 71 366 638 Local Government Workers 4,431 101 1,153 1,503 5,475 472 1,285 2,750 Self-Employed Workers 1,066 13 541 444 1,958 187 551 1,343 Unpaid Family Workers 317 5 127 104 599 29 123 382 Employment by Industry Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery 1,335 186 3,827 2,518 6,018 922 2,024 2,461 Mining 59 0 82 171 81 12 11 50 Construction 5,255 103 1,689 2,111 11,156 974 2,980 5,013 Furniture and Lumber 39 89 262 447 549 183 144 257 Primary Metal 6 0 62 22 158 6 83 56 Fabricated Metal 7,765 0 116 125 6,051 200 867 673 Machinery, Except Electrical 705 0 115 65 817 129 261 298 Electrical Machinery, Equipment, and Supply 7,959 38 118 36 1,830 94 1,053 1,665 Motor Vehicle 1,252 5 228 506 642 183 272 400 Other Durable Goods 1,004 8 430 347 1,540 134 434 994 Food and Kindred Products 234 0 680 516 2,563 95 359 388 Textile and Fabric 31 0 42 234 233 6 391 177 Printing and Publishing 770 17 164 176 1,731 160 358 698 Chemical 151 0 164 137 484 5 114 93 Other Non-Durable Goods 373 17 187 284 1,240 120 260 313 Railroad and Railways Services 28 7 84 183 222 11 338 231 Trucking Services and Warehousing 390 10 329 193 1,964 119 447 319 Other Transportation 1,547 35 193 171 1,400 90 347 698 Communication 1,187 16 324 422 2,696 104 555 883 Utilities and Sanitary 1,361 42 330 428 2,459 194 598 1,128 Wholesale Trade 1,617 35 1,547 1,100 7,977 268 1,525 1,358 Food and Bakery 2,238 26 710 624 3,203 266 951 1,578 Eating and Drinking Establishments 2,718 72 599 907 4,186 362 879 2,984 General Merchandise Retail 2,641 5 343 585 4,689 170 1,068 1,629 Motor Vehicle Retail 2,159 37 920 1,098 4,091 295 912 1,964 Other Retail Trade 4,141 79 1,577 1,723 8,146 404 1,658 4,488 Banking and Credit 1,033 0 321 316 2,282 136 534 1,108 Insurance, Real Estate, and Finance 2,024 24 550 768 6,109 202 1,369 2,174 Business Service 5,507 3 158 243 2,993 102 681 927 Repair Service 1,483 18 337 379 2,516 97 608 990 Private Household 1,069 48 777 815 2,874 133 606 1,578 Other Personal Services 3,233 147 908 1,129 4,538 304 940 4,205 Entertainment and Recreation Service 640 14 154 545 1,582 39 548 906 Hospital 1,760 67 563 586 3,887 254 828 2,210 Medical and Other Health Service 1,350 14 543 399 2,740 229 658 1,594 School-Related 6,544 114 1,723 1,920 8,361 542 2,024 4,420 Government 5,039 104 1,482 1,578 6,459 479 1,589 2,736 Private 1,505 10 241 342 1,902 63 435 1,684 Other Education and Kindred 283 0 110 61 488 22 66 235 Welfare, Religious, and Non-Profit 930 13 326 345 2,061 92 473 695 Legal, Engineering, and Miscellaneous Professional 1,995 22 467 553 3,629 139 571 1,578 Public Administration 8,235 126 771 1,240 6,545 436 1,447 2,638 Professional, Technical, and Kindred 22,143 200 2,624 2,634 18,976 874 4,281 7,756 Engineer and Technical 6,402 0 128 84 2,788 75 546 791 Physicians, Dentists, and Related Practitioners 395 9 126 104 808 22 134 386 Medical and Health Workers, Except Practitioners 1,059 14 364 344 1,896 87 454 1,103 Teachers, Elementary and Secondary Schools 3,243 75 853 852 4,346 331 975 1,682 Technicians, Except Health 3,835 7 207 181 1,350 69 502 645 Other Professional Workers 7,209 95 946 1,069 7,788 290 1,670 3,149 Managers and Administrators, Except Farms 7,693 162 2,119 2,324 11,907 701 3,270 6,149 Salaried Managers and Administrators 6,686 134 1,595 1,683 9,820 456 2,754 4,407 Salaried Manufacturing Managers and Administrators 1,239 11 179 158 1,281 45 370 436 Salaried Retail Managers and Administrators 1,694 34 434 474 2,533 113 743 1,355 Salaried Other Managers and Administrators 3,753 89 982 1,051 6,006 298 1,641 2,616 Self-Employed Workers 1,007 28 524 641 2,087 245 516 1,742 Self-Employed Retail Trade Workers 436 24 240 334 966 115 223 797 Self-Employed Other Industry Workers 571 4 284 307 1,121 130 293 945 Sales Workers 5,259 59 1,776 1,907 12,620 490 2,972 5,144 Manufacturing and Wholesale Trade Workers 629 10 203 277 2,777 56 728 656 Retail Sales Workers 3,353 38 1,128 1,085 6,413 300 1,445 2,975 Other Sales Workers 1,277 11 445 545 3,430 134 799 1,513 Clerical and Kindred Workers 15,177 145 2,747 3,558 24,021 1,041 4,747 8,942 Bookkeepers 1,495 25 435 618 2,907 154 589 1,141 Secretaries, Stenographers, and Typists 4,728 29 756 1,000 7,382 251 1,399 2,488 Other Clerical Workers 8,954 91 1,556 1,940 13,732 636 2,759 5,313 Craftsmen, Foremen, and Kindred Workers 12,101 172 2,836 3,251 17,269 1,382 4,609 7,896 Automobile Mechanics and Body Workers 1,072 11 365 372 1,980 149 462 881 Mechanics and Repair Men, Except Auto 2,633 22 385 477 2,589 131 748 1,145 Machinists 242 0 26 46 248 39 28 130 Metal Craftsmen, Except Mechanics and Machinists 169 5 29 67 451 46 107 199 Carpenters 962 14 312 438 1,628 196 505 686 Construction Craftsmen 2,526 33 651 792 4,161 383 1,139 2,063 Others Craftsmen 4,497 87 1,068 1,059 6,212 438 1,620 2,792 Operatives, Except Transport, Workers 4,832 128 2,150 2,180 9,301 837 2,674 3,442 Manufacturing Durable Goods Workers 2,137 36 556 492 2,608 386 946 1,235 Manufacturing Non-Durable Goods Workers 343 8 388 623 1,751 96 589 349 Non-Manufacturing Industry 2,352 84 1,206 1,065 4,942 355 1,139 1,858 Transport Equipment Operators 1,803 47 1,179 1,115 5,309 388 1,213 1,719 Truck Drivers 658 26 703 528 2,463 223 631 659 Other Transport Equipment Operatives 1,145 21 476 587 2,846 165 582 1,060 Laborers, Except Farms 2,947 126 1,138 1,445 6,263 417 1,440 2,925 Construction Laborers 767 37 269 299 1,578 116 457 639 Freight, Stock, and Material Handlers 949 23 298 473 2,076 123 395 612 Other Laborers, Except Farm 1,231 66 571 673 2,609 178 588 1,674 Farmers and Farm Managers 169 44 560 587 566 156 220 335 Farm Laborers and Farm Foremen 595 101 2,595 1,466 3,797 574 1,357 973 Farm Laborers, Unpaid Family Workers 12 0 26 13 49 6 9 14 Farm Laborers, Except Unpaid and Farm Foremen 583 101 2,569 1,453 3,748 568 1,348 959 Service Workers, Except Private Household 9,233 208 2,351 3,143 13,759 1,202 2,836 9,290 Cleaning Service Workers 2,168 100 467 674 2,473 199 588 2,063 Food Service Workers 2,974 56 810 1,103 4,824 414 973 3,362 Health Service Workers 765 10 333 307 1,889 236 420 1,174 Personal Service Workers 1,282 10 322 437 1,958 101 400 1,112 Protective Service Workers 1,366 24 224 402 1,493 144 301 885 Service Workers, Except Private Household 678 8 195 220 1,122 108 154 694 Private Household Workers 1,099 45 755 818 2,943 171 623 1,483 administrators African Americans aged agriculture Armed Forces Asian Americans assisted living facilities Austrian Americans automobiles bakeries bakers bakery banking bars bookkeepers Brevard County British Americans bus buses business cabs Canadian Americans Caribbean Americans carpenters cars Caucasian Americans census Census of 1970 Central Americans chemicals Chinese Americans civilian labor cleaning services clerical college dormitories college dorms college education communications construction crafts craftsman craftsmen credit Cuban Americans Czech Americans Czechoslovakian Americans Danish Americans dentists dependents dishwashers divorced divorcees doctors domestic service drinking establishment dryers durable goods Dutch Americans eating establishment education educations electric heat electrical equipment electrical machinery electrical supply elementary education elevated transportation employees employment engineering engineers English Americans entertainment European Americans fabricated metal fabrics families farm managers farmers farming federal government females finance Finnish Americans fishery Flagler County food food services foreman foremen forestry freight French Americans furniture gas eat German Americans government Greek Americans group quarters health care health services high school education higher education Hispanic Americans hospitals households Hungarian Americans inmates institutionalized insurance Irish Americans Italian Americans Japanese Americans kindred Korean War labor labor force laborers Lake County Latin Americans Latinas Latinos legal Lithuanian Americans local government lumber machinery machinists males managers manufacturing Marion County marital status married material handlers mechanics medical medical practitioners mental hospitals merchandise Mexican Americans Middle Eastern Americans military barracks mining motor vehicles non-durable goods non-profit Norwegian Americans nursing homes old folks homes operatives orange county Osceola County pedestrians personal services physicians Polish Americans population Portuguese Americans primary education primary metal printing private sector professionals protective services public administration public sector public transportation publishing railroads railways real estate recreation religious repair restaurants retail Romanian Americans rooming houses Russian Americans salaried sales sanitary sanitation Scandinavian Americans schools secondary education secretaries secretary self-employed Seminole County separated servicemen servicewomen single Slovakian Americans Southwest Asian Americans Spanish Americans spouses state government stenographers stock streetcars subways Swedish Americans Swiss Americans taxicabs teachers technical technicians televisions textiles trade transport equipment transportation truck drivers trucking services TV typists U.S. Census unemployment university education utilities veterans Vietnam War Volusia County walkers walking warehousing washing machines welfare wholesale widowed widowers widows workers World War I World War II wringers WWI WWII Yugoslavian Americans https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka/files/original/f1daededa509d63078e20ecb89f2a2f4.jpg 3a7ef7ad3a7ce370fedcc74612a39049 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title U.S. Census Collection Alternative Title Census Collection Subject Census--United States Population--United States Orange County (Fla.) Marion County (Fla.) Brevard County (Fla.) St. Lucie County (Fla.) Seminole County (Fla.) Volusia County (Fla.) Flagler County (Fla.) Lake County (Fla.) Osceola County (Fla.) Description Collection of United States Census population records for various counties in Central Florida from 1840 to 2000. The Census Act of 1840 was signed into law on March 3, 1839 and later amended on February 26, 1840. This piece of legislation established a centralized census office during each enumeration. Congress designated the census questionnaire designs to the Secretary of State. However, each household received inquiries regarding "the pursuits, industry, education, and resources of the country" and included questions related to school attendance, literacy, and vocation. In March of 1849, Congress pass legislation that established a census board consisting of the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Postmaster General. The board was responsible for preparing and printing forms and schedules for enumeration related to population, mining, agriculture, commerce, manufacturing, education, etc. The 1850 Census also increased population inquiries to include every free person's name (as opposed to just the head of the household), as well as information on taxes, schools, crime, wages, estate values, etc. The Census Act of 1850 authorized the U.S. Census of 1860 and stipulated that its provisions be adhered to for all future decennial censuses should no new legislation be passed by the first of the year of said census. In May of 1865, the U.S. Census Office was abolished and many superintending clerks were transferred to the General Land Office. Although the 1870 Census was conducted under the provisions of the Census Act of 1850, a new act was passed on May 6, 1870. The new census legislation required two changes in procedures related to questionnaire return submission dates. Moreover, penalties for refusing to reply to inquires were expanded to apply to all questions and questionnaires. The questionnaires themselves had to be redesigned due to the end of the "slave questionnaire", as slavery had been formally abolished slavery nationwide via the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This left five schedules for the census: General Population, Mortality, Agriculture, Products of Industry, and Social Statistics. In addition, the use of a Charles W. Seaton, a U.S. Census Office chief clerk and later superintendent, invited a rudimentary tallying machine that partially alleviated the difficulties of tallying and tabulating questionnaire responses. Finally, the new superintendent for the Ninth Census, General Francis A. Walker, introduced employment examinations to test the qualifications of applicants to the Census Office, allowing for increased efficiency in the process of collecting census data. The newest act authorizing the Census of 1880 provided for supervision of enumeration by "supervisors of the census", selected exclusively for the collection of census data. All supervisors, as well as the superintendent, were to appointed by the U.S. President and approved by the Senate. Census enumerators were required to personally visit each household and family within his subdivision. The new census act also allowed for the collection of data related to the condition and operation of railroad corporations, incorporated express companies, and telegraph companies, as well as data related to the condition and operation of life, fire, and marine insurance companies. Corporations who refused to provide the census with "true and complete" answers were subject to fines. In addition, the census superintendent was required to collect and publish data on the population, industries and resources of the District of Alaska. Finally, the 1880 Census consisted of five schedules: Population, Mortality, Agriculture, Social Statistics, and Manufacturing. The Census of 1890 was authorized by an act modeled after the 1880 enumeration and signed into law on March 1, 1889. The 1890 Census was supervised by 175 employees and enumerators were required to collect all information by personally visiting each household. The 1890 Census included essentially the same inquires from the 1880 Census, with some notable additions, such as questions about home and farm ownership and indebtedness; and the names, units, length of service, and residences of former Union soldiers and sailors, as well as the names of the widows of those who were no longer alive. Racial categorization was expanded to include "Japanese", along with "Chinese", "Negro", "mulatto", "quadroon", "octoroon", and "White". Herman Hollerith, a former employee of the U.S. Census Office, invited the electric tabulating system, which was widely used in the 1890 Census, allowing data to be processed faster and more efficiently. On October 3, 1893, Congress passed a law that transferred census-related work to the direction of the commissioner of labor. Congress passed another act on March 2, 1895, effectively abolishing the U.S. Census Office and transferring the remaining responsibilities to the Office of the Secretary of the Interior. Congress limited the Census of 1900 to content related to population, mortality, agriculture, and manufacturing. Special census agents were authorized to collect statistics related to incidents of deafness, blindness, insanity, and juvenile delinquency; as well as data on religious bodies, utilities, mining, and transportation. The act authorizing the 1900 Census designated the enumeration of military personally to the U.S. Department of War and the U.S. Department of the Navy, while Indiana Territory was to be enumerated by the commissioner of Indian Affairs. Annexed in 1898, Hawaii was included in the census for the first time. In 1902, the U.S. Census Office was officially established as a permanent organization within the U.S. Department of the Interior. The office became the U.S. Census Bureau in 1903 and was transferred to the Department of Commerce and Labor. The Census of 1910 was approved by legislation introduced in December of 1907 and enacted in July of 1909. The delay was the result of a disagreement over the appointment of enumerators. President Theodore Roosevelt supported the hiring of enumerators via the civil service system, while Congress supported enumerators as positions of patronage. President Roosevelt successfully won the debate. This census act also changed Census Day from the traditional date of June 1st to April 15th. Additional questions regarding the nationality and native language of foreign-born persons and their parents. Funds for the U.S. Census Bureau were also increased to expand the Census' permanent workforce and created several new full-time positions, including a geographer, a chief statistician, and an assistant director. The assistant director was to be appointed by the President and approved by the Senate, while all other census employees were hired on the basis of open, competitive examinations administered by the Civil Service Commission. Despite the use of automatic counting machinery, issues with the tabulation process persisted. Finally, with the United States' entrance into World War I in 1917, the U.S. Census Bureau became a source of even more valuable purpose: the Census was able to use population and economic data to report on the populations of draft-age men, as well as information regarding each state's industrial capabilities. The Census of 1920 changed the date of Census Day from April 15th to January 1st, as requested by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which argued that farmers' memories and harvest information would be more accurate on this day. The U.S. Census Bureau was also authorized to hire additional employees at its headquarters in Washington, D.C. and to create a special field force to collect census data. The legislation authorizing the 1920 Census also allowed for a census of manufacturing to be conducted in 1921, and for such a census to be repeated every two years thereafter, as opposed to the traditional five-year census cycle. Furthermore, a census of agriculture and livestock was to be conducted in 1925 and to be repeated every ten years thereafter. In addition, penalties for those who refused to supply information or those who supplied false information were strengthened. As a result of these changes, census of population, manufacturing, and agriculture and livestock became increasingly independent of one another. The "usual place of abode", the location where residents regularly slept, instead of where they worked or were visiting, became the new basis for enumeration in the 1920 Census. Those with no permanent or regular residence were listed as residents of the location that they were enumerated at. Enumeration related to institutional inmates and dependent, defective, and delinquent classes were also modified. Unlike the previous census, the 1920 Census did not have inquires related to unemployment, to Union or Confederate Army or Navy service, to the number of children born, or to the length of time that a couple had been married. The Census of 1920, however, did include four additional questions: one regarding year of naturalization and three regarding native languages. Issues also arose as a result of changes in international boundaries following World War I, particularly for persons declaring birth or parental birth in Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia, or Turkey. In response, enumerators were required to ask said persons for their province, state, or region of birth. Enumerators were not required to ask individuals how to spell their names, nor were respondents required to provide proof of various pieces of information. Race was determined by the enumerator's impressions. The act authorizing the 1930 Census was approved on June 18, 1929, allowing for a census of population, agriculture, irrigation, draining, distribution, unemployment, and mining. For the first time, specific questions for inquiry were left to the discretion of the Director of the Census. The Census encompassed each state, as well as the District of Columbia, Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. The Governors of Guam, American Samoa, the Virginia Islands, and the Panama Canal Zone were responsible for conducting censuses in their territory. Between the date that the census act was passed and Census Day (April 1st), the stock market crashed, plunging the entire country into the Great Depression. In response, there were public and academic requests for access to unemployment data collected in the 1930 Census; however, the U.S. Census Bureau was unable to meet this demands and the bureau was accused of present unreliable data. Congress required a special unemployment census for January 1931, which ultimately confirmed the severity of the economic crisis. Another unemployment census was conducted in 1937, as mandated by Congress. Because this special census was voluntary, it allowed the Census Bureau to experiment with statistical sampling. Only two percent of households received a special census questionnaire. Congress authorized the 1940 Census in August 1939, providing the Director of the Census the additional authority to conduct a national census of housing in each state, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Alaska. The housing census was conducted separately, though enumerators often collection housing information at the same time that they collected population information. The Census of 1940 was the first time that the U.S. Census Bureau used advanced statistical techniques. In particular, the census used probably sampling, which had only previously been tested in a trial census of unemployment conducted the Civil Works Administration during 1933-1934, in surveys of retail stores in the 1930s, and in an official sample survey of unemployment conducted amongst two percent of American households in 1937. Probability sampling allowed for the inclusion of additional demographic questions without increasing the burden on the collection process or on data processing. Moreover, sampling the U.S. Census Bureau was able to publish preliminary returns eight months before tabulations were completed. Likewise, the census increased its number of published tables, and also was able to complete data processing with higher quality and more efficiency. New census questions focused on employment, unemployment, internal migration, and incomes—reflecting on the concerns of the Great Depression, the country's housing stock, and the need for public housing programs. The Census of 1950 encompassed every state, Alaska, Hawaii, American Samoa, the Panama Canal Zone, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and other small American territories. For the first time, the U.S. Census Bureau enumerate American living abroad to account for members of the U.S. Armed Forces, vessel crew members, and government employees residing in foreign countries. The U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Maritime Administration, and several other federal agencies were responsible for distributing and collecting census questionnaires in a cooperative effort. Persons living abroad for reasons other than what is listed above had their census information reported by families or neighbors residing in the United States, but such data was criticized as unreliable and were not published in official statistics. The 1950 Census also included a new survey on residential financing collected separately on a sample basis from owners of owner-occupied properties, rental properties, and mortgage lenders. The accuracy of the new census was increased by improved enumerator training, the use of detailed street maps for enumerators, the publication of "Missed Person" forms in local newspapers, and the designation of a specific night to conduct a special enumeration of transient individuals. Moreover, a post-enumeration survey was conducted to further verify the accuracy of the original enumeration. A sample of approximately 3,500 small areas was compared to the original census data to identify households that may have been omitted initially. Likewise, a sample of approximately 22,000 households were re-interviewed to identify persons omitted in the original enumeration count. Though not used for the 1950 Census, the UNIVersal Automatic Computer I (UNIVAC I), the first non-military computer, was used to tabulate some of the statistics for the 1954 census of economy. In August of 1954, Congress codified various census statutes, such as the Fifteenth Census Act of 1929, authorizing the decennial census and other census. The Census of 1960 was the first to be mailed to respondents. The U.S. Postal Service delivered census questionnaires to households, the head of household was required to complete the questionnaire, and an enumerator was to pick it up. The enumeration process was divided into two stages: first, select data for each person and dwelling unit was collected; and second, more detailed economic and social data was collected from a sample of households and dwelling units. The census questionnaires for the second stage were hand-delivered by enumerators as they were collecting data from the first stage. Households receiving the second census questionnaire were to complete the form and mail it to their local census office. Twenty-five percent of the population was giving additional sample questions. Because of the increased use of sampling, less populated areas were prone to sampling variation; however, this did not significantly decrease the usefulness of census statistics gathered. Moreover, increased use of sampling reduced data processing costs. Additional questions included in the 1960 Census were related to places of works and means of transportation to work. By 1960, nearly all census data was processed using computers. The U.S. Census Bureau used a Film Optical Sensing Device for Input to Computer (FOSDIC) for the first time, thus decreasing the amount of time and money required for data input. In 1966, the U.S. Census Bureau sought suggestions from advisory committees and from the public, resulting in numerous proposals for additional inquiries related to the scope and structure of the census, as well as in public interest for the publication of additional census data. Researchers also concluded that the 1950 Census and the 1960 Census had undercounted certain segments of the population. Moreover, they noted a growing distrust of government activity and increased resistance to responding to the census. Simultaneously, both the public and private sectors expressed need for accurate information. The U.S. Census Bureau decreased its number of questions from 66 to 23 in an effort to simplify its products. A register for densely populated areas was also created to ensure that all housing units were accounted for. A Spanish-language questionnaire was also enclosed with census questionnaires in areas with a significant amount of Spanish-speaking households. Additionally, a question on Hispanic origins or descent was asked independently from race, but only on a five-percent sample. Only five questions were given to all individuals: relationship to household head, sex, race, age, and marital status. Additional questions were asked in smaller sample groups. This was also the first census in which respondents of urban areas were asked to mail their forms to the Census Bureau, rather than to hold questionnaires for enumerators. Address Coding Guides were used to assign census geographic codes to questionnaires. Counts, a series of computer tape files, were an additional innovation used to increase the accuracy of census data. Count 1 consisted of complete count data for block groups and/or enumeration districts. Count 2 contained census tracts and minor civil/census county divisions, while Count 3 consisted of census blocks. Counts 4-6 provided sample census data for geographic areas of various population sizes. The Census Bureau also produced six Public Use Microdata Sample files, each of which contained complete information for a sample of approximately two million people. Finally, the Census Bureau developed the Summary Tape Processing Center Program, which was a group of organizations, both public and private, that processed census data from computer tapes. For the 1990 Census, the U.S. Census Bureau utilized extensive user consultation prior to enumeration in order to refine both long and short form census questionnaires. The short form consisted of 13 questions and was given to the entire population. The long form asked 45 questions and was given to a 20 percent sample. The long form included topics related to marital history, carpooling, residence, residential elevators, and energy usage. Unlike the 1980 Census, the new census eliminated questions regarding air conditioning, the number of bathrooms in a residence, and the type of heating equipment used. A vast advertising campaign was marketed to increase public awareness of the census via public television, radio, and print media. Like the previous census, the Census of 1990 made a special effort to enumerate groups that have historically been undercounted in previous censuses called "S-Night": individuals in homeless shelters, soup kitchens, bus and railway stations, and dormitories (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "M-Night"); and permanent residents in hotels and motels (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "T-Night"). Following legal issues filed in response to the 1980 Census regarding statistical readjustment of undercounted areas, the Census Bureau initiated a post-enumeration survey (PES), in which a contemporaneous survey of households would be conducted and compare to the census results from the official census. In a partial resolution of a 1989 lawsuit filed by New York plaintiffs, the U.S. Department of Commerce agreed to use the PES to produce population data that had been adjusted for the projected undercount and that said data would be judged against the unadjusted data by the Secretary of Commerce's Special Advisory Panel (SAP). The Census of 1990 also introduced the U.S. to the Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing System (TIGER), which was developed by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Census Bureau. TIGER used computerized representations of various map features to geographically code addresses into appropriate census geographic areas. It also produced different maps required for census data collection and tabulation. Five years earlier, the Census Bureau became the first government agency to publish information on CD-ROM. For the 1990 Census, the bureau made detailed census data, which had previously been only available to organizations with large mainframe computers, accessible to any individual with a personal computer. Census data was also available in print, on computer tape, and on microfiche. Using two online service vendors, DIALOG and CompuServe, the Census Bureau also published select census data online. As with previous censuses, the 1990 Census undercounted the national population, and again, the African-American population had an estimated net undercount rate that was significantly higher than the rate for other races. In July of 1991, the Secretary of Commerce announced that he did not find evidence in favor of using adjusted counts compelling—despite SAP's split vote on the issue—and chose to use unadjusted totals for the official census results. In response, the New York plaintiffs resumed the lawsuit against the Department of Commerce. A federal district court divided in favor of the DOC in April of 1993. The U.S. Court of Appeals, however, rejected the previous court ruling and ordered that the case be reheard by the federal district court. In March of 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court finally ruled in favor of the Secretary of Commerce's decision to use the unadjusted census date, but did not rule on the legality or constitutionality of the use of statistical adjustment in producing apportionment counts. For the 1990 Census, the U.S. Census Bureau utilized extensive user consultation prior to enumeration in order to refine both long and short form census questionnaires. The short form consisted of 13 questions and was given to the entire population. The long form asked 45 questions and was given to a 20 percent sample. The long form included topics related to marital history, carpooling, residence, residential elevators, and energy usage. Unlike the 1980 Census, the new census eliminated questions regarding air conditioning, the number of bathrooms in a residence, and the type of heating equipment used. A vast advertising campaign was marketed to increase public awareness of the census via public television, radio, and print media. Like the previous census, the Census of 1990 made a special effort to enumerate groups that have historically been undercounted in previous censuses called "S-Night": individuals in homeless shelters, soup kitchens, bus and railway stations, and dormitories (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "M-Night"); and permanent residents in hotels and motels (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "T-Night"). Following legal issues filed in response to the 1980 Census regarding statistical readjustment of undercounted areas, the Census Bureau initiated a post-enumeration survey (PES), in which a contemporaneous survey of households would be conducted and compare to the census results from the official census. In a partial resolution of a 1989 lawsuit filed by New York plaintiffs, the U.S. Department of Commerce agreed to use the PES to produce population data that had been adjusted for the projected undercount and that said data would be judged against the unadjusted data by the Secretary of Commerce's Special Advisory Panel (SAP). The Census of 1990 also introduced the U.S. to the Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing System (TIGER), which was developed by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Census Bureau. TIGER used computerized representations of various map features to geographically code addresses into appropriate census geographic areas. It also produced different maps required for census data collection and tabulation. Five years earlier, the Census Bureau became the first government agency to publish information on CD-ROM. For the 1990 Census, the bureau made detailed census data, which had previously been only available to organizations with large mainframe computers, accessible to any individual with a personal computer. Census data was also available in print, on computer tape, and on microfiche. Using two online service vendors, DIALOG and CompuServe, the Census Bureau also published select census data online. As with previous censuses, the 1990 Census undercounted the national population, and again, the African-American population had an estimated net undercount rate that was significantly higher than the rate for other races. In July of 1991, the Secretary of Commerce announced that he did not find evidence in favor of using adjusted counts compelling—despite SAP's split vote on the issue—and chose to use unadjusted totals for the official census results. In response, the New York plaintiffs resumed the lawsuit against the Department of Commerce. A federal district court divided in favor of the DOC in April of 1993. The U.S. Court of Appeals, however, rejected the previous court ruling and ordered that the case be reheard by the federal district court. In March of 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court finally ruled in favor of the Secretary of Commerce's decision to use the unadjusted census date, but did not rule on the legality or constitutionality of the use of statistical adjustment in producing apportionment counts. For the Census of 2000, the short form consisted of only seven questions, while the long form consisted of 52 questions and used for a 17 percent sample of the population. For the first time, race questions were not limited to a single category; rather, respondents were able to check multiple boxes. A new question related to grandparents as caregivers was also mandated by legislation passed in 1996. Disability questions were expanded to including hearing and vision impairments, as well as learning, memory, and concentration disabilities. The 2000 Census also eliminated questions related to children born, water sources, sewage disposal, and condominium status. In addition, the 2000 Census was the first in which the Internet was used as the principal medium for the dissemination of census information. Summary Files were available for download immediately upon release and individual tables could be viewed via American FactFinder, the Census Bureau's online database. Files were also available for purchase on CD-Rom and DVD. Due to declining questionnaire mail-back rates, the U.S. Census Bureau marketed a $167 million national and local print, television, and public advertising campaign in 17 different languages. The campaign successfully brought the mail-back rate up to 67 percent. Additionally, respondents receiving the short form were given the option of responding via the Internet. Telephone questionnaire assistance centers available in 6 languages also took responses via the phone. Statistical sampling techniques were utilized in two ways: first, to alter the traditional 100 percent personal visit of non-responding households during the non-response follow-up (NRFU) process by instead following up on a smaller sample basis; second, the sampling of 750,000 housing units matched to housing unit questionnaires obtained from mail and telephone responses, as well as from personal visits. The goal of the latter was to develop adjustment factors for individuals estimated to have been missed or duplicated and to correct the census counts to produce one set of numbers. This "one-number census" would correct for net coverage errors called Integrated Coverage Measurement (ICM). Both of these measures were taken in an attempt to avoid repetition of the litigation costs generated by the 1980 Census and the 1990 Census. Despite these efforts, two lawsuits—one filed by the U.S. House of Representatives—were filed in February 1998 challenging the constitutionality and legality of the planned uses of sampling to produce apportionment counts. Both cases were decided in favor of the plaintiffs in federal district courts, but the U.S. Department of Commerce made appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court. Known as the U.S. Department of Commerce v. the U.S. House of Representatives, the Court ruled that the Census Bureau's plans to use statistical sampling for purposes of congressional apportionments violated the Census Act. The bureau revised its plan, stating that it would produce statistically adjusted data for non-apportionment uses of census data information, such as redistricting. However, in March of 2001, the Census Bureau recommended against the use of adjusted census data for redistricting due to accuracy concerns; the Secretary of Commerce determined that the unadjusted data would be released as the bureau's official redistricting data. The Director of the Census Bureau also rejected to the use of adjusted data for non-redistricting purposes in October of that same year. Language eng Type Collection Coverage Mosquito County, Florida Brevard County, Florida Flagler County, Florida Lake County, Florida Marion County, Florida Orange County, Florida Osceola County, Florida Seminole County, Florida Volusia County, Florida Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Contributor Gibson, Ella Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a>. Rights Holder This resource is not subject to copyright in the United States and there are no copyright restrictions on reproduction, derivative works, distribution, performance, or display of the work. Anyone may, without restriction under U.S. copyright laws: <ul class="one_column_bullet"><li>reproduce the work in print or digital form</li> <li>create derivative works</li> <li>perform the work publicly</li> <li>display the work</li> <li>distribute copies or digitally transfer the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.</li> </ul>This resources is provided here by <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> for educational purposes only. For more information on copyright, please refer to <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#105" target="_blank">Section 5</a> of <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html" target="_blank">Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code</a>. Source Repository <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> External Reference United States. <a href="https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf" target="_blank">Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970</a>. Washington: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1975. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/histstats-colonial-1970.pdf. United States, and Carroll D. Wright. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/166662" target="_blank">The History and Growth of the United States Census</a>. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1900. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf. "<a href="https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/" target="_blank">Through the Decades</a>." United States Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce. https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/. Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Original Format 1 table Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title U.S. Census for Central Florida, 1960 Alternative Title Census, 1960 Subject Census--United States Orange County (Fla.) Marion County (Fla.) Brevard County (Fla.) St. Lucie County (Fla.) Seminole County (Fla.) Volusia County (Fla.) Flagler County (Fla.) Lake County (Fla.) Osceola County (Fla.) Population--United States Description The Eighteenth United States Census records for Brevard County, Flagler County, Lake County, Marion County, Orange County, Osceola County, Seminole County, and Volusia County, Florida, for 1960. The census divides the population by gender, race ("white", "black", "Japanese", "Chinese", "Filipino", and "other"), and native-born vs. foreign-born. Those who are foreign born are further divided by country of origin. The census then lists the population categorized by age, military service, transportation use, primary and secondary school attendance, and college attendance. The census also collected information on labor and on unemployment. The Census of 1960 was the first to be mailed to respondents. The U.S. Post Office Department delivered census questionnaires to households, the head of household was required to complete the questionnaire, and an enumerator was to pick it up. The enumeration process was divided into two stages: first, select data for each person and dwelling unit was collected; and second, more detailed economic and social data was collected from a sample of households and dwelling units. The census questionnaires for the second stage were hand-delivered by enumerators as they were collecting data from the first stage. Households receiving the second census questionnaire were to complete the form and mail it to their local census office. Twenty-five percent of the population was giving additional sample questions. Because of the increased use of sampling, less populated areas were prone to sampling variation; however, this did not significantly decrease the usefulness of census statistics gathered. Moreover, increased use of sampling reduced data processing costs. Additional questions included in the 1960 Census were related to places of work and means of transportation to work. By 1960, nearly all census data was processed using computers. The U.S. Census Bureau used a Film Optical Sensing Device for Input to Computer (FOSDIC) for the first time, thus decreasing the amount of time and money required for data input. Type Dataset Source Original census data collected by the <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Bureau</a>, 1960. Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/104" target="_blank">U.S. Census Collection</a>, RICHES of Central Florida. Is Format Of Digital reproduction of original census data collected by the <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Bureau</a>, 1960. Coverage Brevard County, Florida Flagler County, Florida Lake County, Florida Marion County, Florida Orange County, Florida Osceola County, Florida Seminole County, Florida Volusia County, Florida Creator <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Bureau</a> Publisher <a href="http://www.commerce.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Department of Commerce</a> Contributor Gibson, Ella Date Created ca. 1960-04-01 Format image/jpg Extent 1.75 MB Medium 1 table Language eng Mediator History Teacher Economics Teacher Civics/Government Teacher Geography Teacher Provenance Originally collected by the <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Bureau</a> and published by the <a href="http://www.commerce.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Department of Commerce</a>. Rights Holder This resource is not subject to copyright in the United States and there are no copyright restrictions on reproduction, derivative works, distribution, performance, or display of the work. Anyone may, without restriction under U.S. copyright laws: <ul class="one_column_bullet"><li>reproduce the work in print or digital form;</li> <li>create derivative works;</li> <li>perform the work publicly;</li> <li>display the work;</li> <li>distribute copies or digitally transfer the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.</li> </ul> This resources is provided here by <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> for educational purposes only. For more information on copyright, please refer to <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#105" target="_blank">Section 5</a> of <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html" target="_blank">Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code</a>. Accrual Method Item Creation Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Source Repository <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> External Reference "<a href="https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/overview/1960.html" target="_blank">1960 Overview</a>." U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/overview/1960.html. United States. <a href="https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf" target="_blank">Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970</a>. Washington: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1975. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/histstats-colonial-1970.pdf. United States, and Carroll D. Wright. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/166662" target="_blank">The History and Growth of the United States Census</a>. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf. U.S. Bureau of the Census. <a href="http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1960/proceduralHistory/1960proceduralhistory.zip" target="_blank">1960 Censuses of Population and Housing: Procedural History</a>. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966. Transcript U.S. Census of 1960 Population Brevard County Flagler County Lake County Marion County Orange County Osceola County Seminole County Volusia County Population Total 111,435 4,566 57,383 51,616 263,540 19,029 54,947 125,319 Males 56,724 2,297 28,893 24,940 129,843 9,237 27,495 59,635 Females 54,711 2,269 28,490 26,676 133,697 9,792 27,452 65,684 White Population Total 98,909 2,826 46,209 33,586 224,105 17,021 41,373 104,177 Males 50,286 1,406 22,691 16,535 109,757 8,239 20,900 49,530 Females 48,623 1,420 23,518 17,051 114,348 8,782 20,473 54,647 Black Population Total 12,334 1,733 11,122 18,001 39,088 1,977 13,500 21,048 Males 6,348 887 6,173 8,392 19,924 982 6,559 10,053 Females 5,986 846 4,949 9,609 19,164 995 6,941 10,995 Indian Population Total 78 2 34 16 89 21 3 24 Males 49 1 18 7 46 11 2 13 Females 29 1 16 9 43 10 1 11 Japanese Population Total 52 0 6 8 102 4 34 13 Males 11 0 2 2 42 2 14 5 Females 41 0 4 6 60 2 20 8 Chinese Population Total 14 0 0 0 60 0 0 19 Males 10 0 0 0 25 0 0 14 Females 4 0 0 0 35 0 0 5 Filipino Population Total 13 4 0 0 35 4 15 6 Males 5 2 0 0 14 2 9 3 Females 8 2 0 0 21 2 6 3 Other Race Population Total 35 1 12 5 61 2 22 32 Males 15 1 9 4 35 1 11 17 Females 20 0 3 1 26 1 11 15 Native-Born Population Total 11,374 N/A 5,825 2,751 27,317 2,065 4,391 20,186 Foreign-Born Population Total 100,061 N/A 51,558 48,865 236,223 16,964 50,556 105,133 Foreign-Born Population by Country of Origin United Kingdom 1,810 N/A 924 314 4,390 434 728 4,106 Irish Free State 414 N/A 171 97 845 96 113 1,010 Norway 164 N/A 113 20 444 34 59 290 Sweden 440 N/A 274 110 984 114 168 883 Denmark 158 N/A 75 33 321 28 66 259 Netherlands 147 N/A 77 32 381 26 74 253 Switzerland 103 N/A 87 52 287 29 48 215 France 295 N/A 109 83 543 63 78 430 Germany 1,969 N/A 981 516 4,214 460 737 3,566 Poland 433 N/A 157 390 1,125 58 183 634 Czechoslovakia 392 N/A 109 27 632 18 217 256 Austria 297 N/A 86 102 721 40 104 604 Hungary 197 N/A 74 48 577 33 70 415 Yugoslavia 73 N/A 31 21 222 28 31 201 USSR 275 N/A 77 63 931 13 98 555 Lithuania 118 N/A 12 61 154 4 30 120 Finland 88 N/A 55 4 166 9 66 129 Rumania 29 N/A 11 4 151 4 12 92 Greece 135 N/A 28 36 221 4 71 216 Italy 983 N/A 264 149 1,814 70 299 1,178 Portugal 57 N/A 4 4 43 0 12 74 Other European Countries 181 N/A 50 52 382 8 83 318 Asia 217 N/A 21 46 726 7 70 279 Canada 1,583 N/A 665 365 4,087 400 665 3,147 Mexico 46 N/A 26 0 167 4 4 33 Other North American Countries 533 N/A 1,194 79 2,115 61 139 508 Other 163 N/A 33 27 185 4 95 81 Unknown 74 N/A 117 16 489 16 71 334 Male Population by Marital Status Single 7,306 322 4,528 3,726 18,536 1,120 3,924 7,981 Married 28,357 1,125 15,250 11,960 66,364 5,148 13,327 33,219 Married, but Separated 587 76 372 545 1,967 108 491 990 Widowed 914 64 965 780 2,772 419 650 2,397 Divorced 960 36 448 444 2,189 177 345 1,230 Female Population by Marital Status Single 4,355 242 2,825 3,199 13,670 850 2,501 7,463 Married 28,245 1,072 14,909 1,304 66,413 5,155 12,350 33,699 Married, but Separated 664 52 371 781 2,394 135 656 1,357 Widowed 2,924 165 2,947 2,871 11,093 1,275 2,128 8,398 Divorced 1,017 28 494 584 3,038 178 442 1,974 Veteran Population by War or Conflict Total 178,181 491 6,962 5,615 35,621 2,555 6,478 18,002 Korean War 3,987 28 863 820 6,248 294 954 2,274 Korean War and World War II 1,529 32 233 204 2,485 136 454 605 World War II 9,091 293 3,420 3,068 18,672 1,105 3,488 8,857 World War I 1,389 33 1,552 832 4,014 611 800 4,269 Other Services 1,822 105 894 691 4,202 409 782 1,997 Population by Work Transportation Method Private Automobile 33,840 1,038 13,369 12,143 73,302 3,999 14,640 28,467 Railroad or Subway 17 N/A 13 4 13 N/A 8 70 Bus or Streetcar 542 18 71 64 4,505 42 70 1,510 Walking 3,022 144 1,859 2,081 7,529 617 1,689 4,002 Other Means 1,543 224 1,785 1,655 5,327 328 1,464 2,295 Working from Home 816 113 526 1,112 2,384 338 518 2,120 Not Reported 1,541 109 819 571 3,701 325 439 2085 Education Brevard County Flagler County Lake County Marion County Orange County Osceola County Seminole County Volusia County Population by School Enrollment Kindergarten 944 9 232 268 1,252 21 275 571 Public Kindergarten 317 5 129 111 558 11 172 370 Elementary (1-8 Years) 18,421 789 8,805 9,288 42,850 2,771 9,801 16,565 Public Elementary (1-8 Years) 17,139 785 8,708 9,078 40,071 2,739 9,026 15,728 High School (1-4 Years) 5,195 125 2,846 3,179 13,018 865 2,782 6,484 Public High School (1-4 Years) 5,005 125 2,755 3,155 12,091 850 2,528 6,204 College 494 16 111 402 1,936 25 162 2,412 Male Population by School Completion No School Completed 342 60 333 617 1,073 137 453 520 1-4 Years of Elementary School 1,583 251 1,808 2,008 5,133 476 1,402 2,372 5-6 Years of Elementary School 1,510 71 2,008 1,331 5,362 619 1,136 2,490 7 Years of Elementary School 1,262 86 1,164 822 3,617 548 750 2,035 8 Years of Elementary School 3,572 194 2,589 1,990 9,061 1,141 1,686 6,482 1-3 Years of High School 5,463 218 3,274 2,291 13,015 1,120 2,503 6,953 4 Years of High School 7,911 242 3,094 2,318 16,949 1,002 3,277 8,929 1-3 Years of College 3,804 56 1,236 898 8,107 366 1,519 3,681 4 Years of College 4,353 29 1,556 868 8,213 332 1,153 3,972 Female Population by School Completion No School Completed 180 30 179 378 742 79 224 384 1-4 Years of Elementary School 946 196 910 1,575 3,201 308 1,019 1,920 5-6 Years of Elementary School 1,439 112 1,569 1,413 4,499 441 1,157 2,243 7 Years of Elementary School 1,355 85 952 1,057 3,396 398 847 1,850 8 Years of Elementary School 3,199 158 2,613 1,894 9,234 1,370 1,645 6,566 1-3 Years of High School 5,829 270 3,615 3,237 15,859 1,496 3,306 9,149 4 Years of High School 10,140 277 4,317 3,353 23,559 1,449 4,282 13,131 1-3 Years of College 3,423 70 1,892 1,173 8,443 475 1,386 486 4 Years of College 2,047 25 1,249 815 5,536 307 830 3,404 Labor Brevard County Flagler County Lake County Marion County Orange County Osceola County Seminole County Volusia County Male Population in Labor Force Total 31,421 1,243 14,506 12,168 70,773 4,158 14,005 27,526 Civilian Labor Force 28,918 1,243 14,482 12,148 64,546 4,041 11,892 27,425 Armed Forces 2,505 N/A 24 20 6,227 117 2,113 101 Employed 27,957 1,208 13,391 11,662 61,565 3,901 11,232 26,188 Unemployed 961 35 1,091 486 2,981 140 660 1,237 Not in Labor Force 6,257 305 6,683 4,742 19,083 2,706 4,241 17,261 Female Population in Labor Force Total 12,608 499 6,105 6,840 33,714 1,965 6,458 16,457 Employed 11,865 473 5,689 6,411 31,725 1,867 6,127 15,474 Unemployed 727 26 414 429 1,881 98 331 979 Not in Labor Force 23,981 1,008 15,074 12,118 60,497 5,493 12,143 35,117 Employment by Industry Agriculture 1,118 299 3,913 2,400 6,685 626 2,216 1,591 Forestry and Fishery 74 55 46 97 31 27 69 129 Mining 28 9 29 214 54 5 4 21 Construction 4,223 109 1,912 1,542 9,669 783 2,139 4,502 Manufacturing 9,782 367 1,714 1,889 15,701 808 1,976 3,860 Furniture, Lumber, and Wood Products Manufacturing 100 147 235 689 500 217 126 401 Primary Metal Manufacturing 12 N/A 7 N/A 52 4 N/A 53 Fabricated Metal 3,570 N/A 146 56 6,987 266 522 235 Machinery, Except Electrical, Manufacturing 339 4 61 19 570 17 69 199 Electrical Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing 4,141 5 25 49 896 24 146 283 Motor Vehicle Manufacturing 16 N/A 4 12 68 18 4 34 Transportation Equipment, Except Motor Vehicle, Manufacturing 582 N/A 71 74 224 33 51 247 Durable Goods Manufacturing 228 200 294 92 890 47 220 857 Food and Kindred Products Manufacturing 402 N/A 625 524 3,379 74 308 553 Textile Mill Manufacturing 12 N/A 4 5 47 N/A 8 17 Apparel Manufacturing 36 N/A 8 124 195 N/A 154 190 Printing and Publishing 242 11 100 179 1,060 65 244 638 Chemical 35 N/A 102 36 475 22 88 49 Other Non-Durable Goods Manufacturing 67 N/A 31 30 358 21 36 104 Railroad and Railways Services 102 15 106 214 180 39 351 603 Trucking Services and Warehouse 191 36 139 180 1,118 50 242 261 Other Transportation 288 4 110 116 633 47 126 307 Communication 447 N/A 247 228 1,576 28 260 609 Utilities and Sanitary Services 515 18 157 218 1,231 93 327 764 Wholesale and Trade 702 51 1,315 597 4,605 187 706 1,030 Food and Dairy Product 930 50 587 568 2,505 194 349 1,382 Eating and Drinking Establishments 1,397 85 619 915 2,622 213 446 2,121 Other Retail Services 3,345 118 2,213 2,326 10,799 640 1,988 5,783 Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 1,134 41 675 638 5,258 183 855 1,969 Business Services 3,603 N/A 156 112 1,345 20 157 601 Repair Services 379 14 282 235 1,574 61 297 797 Private Households 1,661 62 936 1,189 4,803 358 986 2,496 Other Personal Services 1,394 94 670 896 3,519 262 635 3,329 Entertainment and Recreation Service 238 4 96 234 922 34 232 647 Hospital 350 29 298 224 1,866 103 270 749 Education Services with the Government 1,306 41 644 826 2,581 257 542 1,431 Education Services with the Private Sector 358 9 134 80 1,115 28 202 911 Welfare and Non-Profit Organizations 295 13 331 210 1,248 85 177 584 Other Professional Services 871 17 439 364 3,184 104 396 1,332 Public Administration 3,322 40 594 827 4,317 237 870 1,707 Industry Not Reported 1,769 101 716 734 4,147 298 541 2,146 Male Population by Employment Technical and Kindred Workers 6,078 61 820 744 7,109 283 956 387 Engineers and Technical Workers 2,107 5 70 65 2,045 39 149 273 Medical and Other Health-Related Salaried Workers 52 N/A 56 38 278 14 32 109 Medical and Other Health-Related Self-Employed Workers 136 N/A 63 54 424 24 48 169 Teachers 251 4 149 133 414 52 139 259 Farmers and Farm Managers 159 53 462 660 663 132 257 348 Managers and Official Workers 3,934 172 1,970 1,788 9,023 490 1,708 4,711 Managers and Official Salaried Workers 2,467 89 1,054 902 5,362 267 944 2,296 Self-Employed Retail Trade Workers 541 45 363 370 1,360 99 304 920 Other Retail Workers 926 38 553 516 2,301 124 460 1,495 Clerical and Kindred Workers 1,894 30 472 487 3,741 171 581 1,226 Sales Workers 1,004 31 757 754 5,234 169 836 2,238 Retail Sales Workers 455 24 375 346 1,930 96 370 983 Sales Other Than Retail Workers 549 7 382 408 3,304 73 466 1,255 Craftsmen and Foremen 6,668 223 2,355 2,019 12,301 868 2,571 5,839 Construction Craftsmen 2,689 73 1,052 854 4,846 448 1,159 2,560 Foremen 841 26 308 191 1,487 79 241 457 Mechanics and Repair Men 1,837 88 644 577 2,949 180 600 1,538 Metal Craftsmen 295 13 53 66 630 49 52 214 Other Craftsmen 1,006 23 278 331 2,389 112 519 1,070 Operative Workers 2,744 196 1,967 2,047 8,192 595 1,537 2,969 Drivers and Deliverymen Workers 976 94 923 870 3,668 288 656 1,289 Private Household Workers 44 N/A 30 39 157 7 11 87 Service Workers 1,543 47 476 609 2,993 205 427 1,942 Protective Services Workers 531 14 148 144 659 61 132 497 Waiters, Bartenders, and Cooks 255 4 114 115 500 16 76 483 Other Service Workers 757 29 214 350 1,834 128 219 962 Farm Laborer and Farm Foremen 468 144 2,384 937 3,734 311 983 615 Laborers, Except Farm and Mine 1,802 185 1,160 1,095 5,175 440 966 2,212 Construction Laborers 713 24 313 271 1,775 172 401 713 Manufacturing Laborers 96 73 170 284 515 105 88 190 Other Industry Laborers 993 88 677 540 2,885 163 477 1,309 Occupation Not Reported 1,619 66 558 483 3,243 230 399 1,614 Female Population by Employment Technical and Kindred Workers 1,495 37 685 693 3,940 241 667 1,883 Medical and Other Health-Related Salaried Workers 245 8 197 111 981 46 152 471 Medical and Other Health-Related Self-Employed Workers 24 N/A 28 4 230 21 12 71 Teachers 690 20 321 326 1,533 112 308 672 Farmers and Farm Managers 12 N/A 37 49 61 16 16 44 Managers and Official Workers 816 41 401 426 1,473 95 344 1,209 Managers and Official Salaried Workers 438 33 165 204 898 44 201 512 Self-Employed Retail Trade Workers 210 8 151 121 322 21 96 318 Self-Employed Other Than Retail Manager Workers 168 N/A 85 101 253 30 47 379 Clerical and Kindred Workers 4,022 54 1,267 1,189 9,493 309 1,468 3,468 Secretaries, Stenographers, and Typists 1,805 4 337 365 3,525 98 515 1,057 Other Clerical Workers 2,217 50 930 824 5,968 211 953 2,411 Sales Workers 818 27 467 517 2,371 141 419 1,396 Retail Sales Workers 678 22 409 455 1,931 126 334 1,191 Sales Other Than Retail Workers 140 5 58 62 440 15 85 205 Craftsmen and Foremen 97 N/A 16 54 294 27 41 145 Private Household Workers 1,481 52 765 1,606 4,064 305 911 2,019 Service Workers 1,665 118 878 1,195 4,376 439 728 3,097 Waiters, Bartenders, and Cooks 902 45 375 571 1,763 220 323 1,268 Other Service Workers 761 73 503 624 2,613 219 405 1,829 Farm Laborer and Farm Foremen 21 48 277 306 772 25 619 174 Laborers 43 25 64 152 11 64 52 Occupation Not Reported 691 47 274 399 1,778 124 263 943 African Americans agriculture Amerindians Anglo Americans apparel Armed Forces Asian Americans Austrian Americans automobiles bars bartenders Brevard County British Americans bus buses business services Canadian Americans cars Caucasian Americans census Census of 1960 Central Americans chemical Chinese Americans civilian labor clerical college education communication construction cooks crafts craftsman craftsmen Czech Americans Czechoslovakian Americans dairy Danish Americans deliverymen deliverywomen divorced domestic services drinking establishments drivers durable goods Dutch Americans eating establishments education educations electrical equipment electrical machinery elementary education employees engineers English Americans entertainment European Americans fabricated metal farm managers farmers females Filipino Americans finance Finnish Americans fishery Flagler County food food products foreman foremen forestry forewoman forewomen French Americans furniture German Americans government Greek Americans health care high school education Hispanic Americans hospitals Hungarian Americans immigrants immigration Indians insurance Irish Americans Italian Americans Japanese Americans kindergarten kindred products Korean War labor labor force laborers Lake County Latin Americans Latinas Latinos Lithuanian Americans lumber machinery males managers manufacturing Marion County marital status married mechanics medical Mexican Americans mining motor vehicles Native Americans non-durable goods non-profit organizations North Americans Norwegian Americans officials operative orange county Osceola County pedestrians personal services Polish Americans population Portuguese Americans primary education primary metal printing professionals protective services public administration public education public transportation publishing railroad services railroads railway services real estate recreation repair restaurants retail Romanian Americans Russian Americans salaried sales sanitary services Scandinavian Americans schools secondary education self-employed Seminole County separated single Slovakian Americans Soviet Americans streetcars subways Swedish Americans Swiss Americans teachers technicak technicians textile mills trade transportation transportation equipment trucking services U.S. Census unemployment university education utilities veterans Volusia County waiters waitresses walking warehouses warehousing welfare wholesale widowed wood products workers World War I World War II WWI WWII Yugoslavian Americans https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka/files/original/a7d8519a5cfcc6f86fc02ecc0498a2ec.jpg 3d767678891393a5630a9771d2e217e8 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title U.S. Census Collection Alternative Title Census Collection Subject Census--United States Population--United States Orange County (Fla.) Marion County (Fla.) Brevard County (Fla.) St. Lucie County (Fla.) Seminole County (Fla.) Volusia County (Fla.) Flagler County (Fla.) Lake County (Fla.) Osceola County (Fla.) Description Collection of United States Census population records for various counties in Central Florida from 1840 to 2000. The Census Act of 1840 was signed into law on March 3, 1839 and later amended on February 26, 1840. This piece of legislation established a centralized census office during each enumeration. Congress designated the census questionnaire designs to the Secretary of State. However, each household received inquiries regarding "the pursuits, industry, education, and resources of the country" and included questions related to school attendance, literacy, and vocation. In March of 1849, Congress pass legislation that established a census board consisting of the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Postmaster General. The board was responsible for preparing and printing forms and schedules for enumeration related to population, mining, agriculture, commerce, manufacturing, education, etc. The 1850 Census also increased population inquiries to include every free person's name (as opposed to just the head of the household), as well as information on taxes, schools, crime, wages, estate values, etc. The Census Act of 1850 authorized the U.S. Census of 1860 and stipulated that its provisions be adhered to for all future decennial censuses should no new legislation be passed by the first of the year of said census. In May of 1865, the U.S. Census Office was abolished and many superintending clerks were transferred to the General Land Office. Although the 1870 Census was conducted under the provisions of the Census Act of 1850, a new act was passed on May 6, 1870. The new census legislation required two changes in procedures related to questionnaire return submission dates. Moreover, penalties for refusing to reply to inquires were expanded to apply to all questions and questionnaires. The questionnaires themselves had to be redesigned due to the end of the "slave questionnaire", as slavery had been formally abolished slavery nationwide via the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This left five schedules for the census: General Population, Mortality, Agriculture, Products of Industry, and Social Statistics. In addition, the use of a Charles W. Seaton, a U.S. Census Office chief clerk and later superintendent, invited a rudimentary tallying machine that partially alleviated the difficulties of tallying and tabulating questionnaire responses. Finally, the new superintendent for the Ninth Census, General Francis A. Walker, introduced employment examinations to test the qualifications of applicants to the Census Office, allowing for increased efficiency in the process of collecting census data. The newest act authorizing the Census of 1880 provided for supervision of enumeration by "supervisors of the census", selected exclusively for the collection of census data. All supervisors, as well as the superintendent, were to appointed by the U.S. President and approved by the Senate. Census enumerators were required to personally visit each household and family within his subdivision. The new census act also allowed for the collection of data related to the condition and operation of railroad corporations, incorporated express companies, and telegraph companies, as well as data related to the condition and operation of life, fire, and marine insurance companies. Corporations who refused to provide the census with "true and complete" answers were subject to fines. In addition, the census superintendent was required to collect and publish data on the population, industries and resources of the District of Alaska. Finally, the 1880 Census consisted of five schedules: Population, Mortality, Agriculture, Social Statistics, and Manufacturing. The Census of 1890 was authorized by an act modeled after the 1880 enumeration and signed into law on March 1, 1889. The 1890 Census was supervised by 175 employees and enumerators were required to collect all information by personally visiting each household. The 1890 Census included essentially the same inquires from the 1880 Census, with some notable additions, such as questions about home and farm ownership and indebtedness; and the names, units, length of service, and residences of former Union soldiers and sailors, as well as the names of the widows of those who were no longer alive. Racial categorization was expanded to include "Japanese", along with "Chinese", "Negro", "mulatto", "quadroon", "octoroon", and "White". Herman Hollerith, a former employee of the U.S. Census Office, invited the electric tabulating system, which was widely used in the 1890 Census, allowing data to be processed faster and more efficiently. On October 3, 1893, Congress passed a law that transferred census-related work to the direction of the commissioner of labor. Congress passed another act on March 2, 1895, effectively abolishing the U.S. Census Office and transferring the remaining responsibilities to the Office of the Secretary of the Interior. Congress limited the Census of 1900 to content related to population, mortality, agriculture, and manufacturing. Special census agents were authorized to collect statistics related to incidents of deafness, blindness, insanity, and juvenile delinquency; as well as data on religious bodies, utilities, mining, and transportation. The act authorizing the 1900 Census designated the enumeration of military personally to the U.S. Department of War and the U.S. Department of the Navy, while Indiana Territory was to be enumerated by the commissioner of Indian Affairs. Annexed in 1898, Hawaii was included in the census for the first time. In 1902, the U.S. Census Office was officially established as a permanent organization within the U.S. Department of the Interior. The office became the U.S. Census Bureau in 1903 and was transferred to the Department of Commerce and Labor. The Census of 1910 was approved by legislation introduced in December of 1907 and enacted in July of 1909. The delay was the result of a disagreement over the appointment of enumerators. President Theodore Roosevelt supported the hiring of enumerators via the civil service system, while Congress supported enumerators as positions of patronage. President Roosevelt successfully won the debate. This census act also changed Census Day from the traditional date of June 1st to April 15th. Additional questions regarding the nationality and native language of foreign-born persons and their parents. Funds for the U.S. Census Bureau were also increased to expand the Census' permanent workforce and created several new full-time positions, including a geographer, a chief statistician, and an assistant director. The assistant director was to be appointed by the President and approved by the Senate, while all other census employees were hired on the basis of open, competitive examinations administered by the Civil Service Commission. Despite the use of automatic counting machinery, issues with the tabulation process persisted. Finally, with the United States' entrance into World War I in 1917, the U.S. Census Bureau became a source of even more valuable purpose: the Census was able to use population and economic data to report on the populations of draft-age men, as well as information regarding each state's industrial capabilities. The Census of 1920 changed the date of Census Day from April 15th to January 1st, as requested by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which argued that farmers' memories and harvest information would be more accurate on this day. The U.S. Census Bureau was also authorized to hire additional employees at its headquarters in Washington, D.C. and to create a special field force to collect census data. The legislation authorizing the 1920 Census also allowed for a census of manufacturing to be conducted in 1921, and for such a census to be repeated every two years thereafter, as opposed to the traditional five-year census cycle. Furthermore, a census of agriculture and livestock was to be conducted in 1925 and to be repeated every ten years thereafter. In addition, penalties for those who refused to supply information or those who supplied false information were strengthened. As a result of these changes, census of population, manufacturing, and agriculture and livestock became increasingly independent of one another. The "usual place of abode", the location where residents regularly slept, instead of where they worked or were visiting, became the new basis for enumeration in the 1920 Census. Those with no permanent or regular residence were listed as residents of the location that they were enumerated at. Enumeration related to institutional inmates and dependent, defective, and delinquent classes were also modified. Unlike the previous census, the 1920 Census did not have inquires related to unemployment, to Union or Confederate Army or Navy service, to the number of children born, or to the length of time that a couple had been married. The Census of 1920, however, did include four additional questions: one regarding year of naturalization and three regarding native languages. Issues also arose as a result of changes in international boundaries following World War I, particularly for persons declaring birth or parental birth in Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia, or Turkey. In response, enumerators were required to ask said persons for their province, state, or region of birth. Enumerators were not required to ask individuals how to spell their names, nor were respondents required to provide proof of various pieces of information. Race was determined by the enumerator's impressions. The act authorizing the 1930 Census was approved on June 18, 1929, allowing for a census of population, agriculture, irrigation, draining, distribution, unemployment, and mining. For the first time, specific questions for inquiry were left to the discretion of the Director of the Census. The Census encompassed each state, as well as the District of Columbia, Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. The Governors of Guam, American Samoa, the Virginia Islands, and the Panama Canal Zone were responsible for conducting censuses in their territory. Between the date that the census act was passed and Census Day (April 1st), the stock market crashed, plunging the entire country into the Great Depression. In response, there were public and academic requests for access to unemployment data collected in the 1930 Census; however, the U.S. Census Bureau was unable to meet this demands and the bureau was accused of present unreliable data. Congress required a special unemployment census for January 1931, which ultimately confirmed the severity of the economic crisis. Another unemployment census was conducted in 1937, as mandated by Congress. Because this special census was voluntary, it allowed the Census Bureau to experiment with statistical sampling. Only two percent of households received a special census questionnaire. Congress authorized the 1940 Census in August 1939, providing the Director of the Census the additional authority to conduct a national census of housing in each state, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Alaska. The housing census was conducted separately, though enumerators often collection housing information at the same time that they collected population information. The Census of 1940 was the first time that the U.S. Census Bureau used advanced statistical techniques. In particular, the census used probably sampling, which had only previously been tested in a trial census of unemployment conducted the Civil Works Administration during 1933-1934, in surveys of retail stores in the 1930s, and in an official sample survey of unemployment conducted amongst two percent of American households in 1937. Probability sampling allowed for the inclusion of additional demographic questions without increasing the burden on the collection process or on data processing. Moreover, sampling the U.S. Census Bureau was able to publish preliminary returns eight months before tabulations were completed. Likewise, the census increased its number of published tables, and also was able to complete data processing with higher quality and more efficiency. New census questions focused on employment, unemployment, internal migration, and incomes—reflecting on the concerns of the Great Depression, the country's housing stock, and the need for public housing programs. The Census of 1950 encompassed every state, Alaska, Hawaii, American Samoa, the Panama Canal Zone, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and other small American territories. For the first time, the U.S. Census Bureau enumerate American living abroad to account for members of the U.S. Armed Forces, vessel crew members, and government employees residing in foreign countries. The U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Maritime Administration, and several other federal agencies were responsible for distributing and collecting census questionnaires in a cooperative effort. Persons living abroad for reasons other than what is listed above had their census information reported by families or neighbors residing in the United States, but such data was criticized as unreliable and were not published in official statistics. The 1950 Census also included a new survey on residential financing collected separately on a sample basis from owners of owner-occupied properties, rental properties, and mortgage lenders. The accuracy of the new census was increased by improved enumerator training, the use of detailed street maps for enumerators, the publication of "Missed Person" forms in local newspapers, and the designation of a specific night to conduct a special enumeration of transient individuals. Moreover, a post-enumeration survey was conducted to further verify the accuracy of the original enumeration. A sample of approximately 3,500 small areas was compared to the original census data to identify households that may have been omitted initially. Likewise, a sample of approximately 22,000 households were re-interviewed to identify persons omitted in the original enumeration count. Though not used for the 1950 Census, the UNIVersal Automatic Computer I (UNIVAC I), the first non-military computer, was used to tabulate some of the statistics for the 1954 census of economy. In August of 1954, Congress codified various census statutes, such as the Fifteenth Census Act of 1929, authorizing the decennial census and other census. The Census of 1960 was the first to be mailed to respondents. The U.S. Postal Service delivered census questionnaires to households, the head of household was required to complete the questionnaire, and an enumerator was to pick it up. The enumeration process was divided into two stages: first, select data for each person and dwelling unit was collected; and second, more detailed economic and social data was collected from a sample of households and dwelling units. The census questionnaires for the second stage were hand-delivered by enumerators as they were collecting data from the first stage. Households receiving the second census questionnaire were to complete the form and mail it to their local census office. Twenty-five percent of the population was giving additional sample questions. Because of the increased use of sampling, less populated areas were prone to sampling variation; however, this did not significantly decrease the usefulness of census statistics gathered. Moreover, increased use of sampling reduced data processing costs. Additional questions included in the 1960 Census were related to places of works and means of transportation to work. By 1960, nearly all census data was processed using computers. The U.S. Census Bureau used a Film Optical Sensing Device for Input to Computer (FOSDIC) for the first time, thus decreasing the amount of time and money required for data input. In 1966, the U.S. Census Bureau sought suggestions from advisory committees and from the public, resulting in numerous proposals for additional inquiries related to the scope and structure of the census, as well as in public interest for the publication of additional census data. Researchers also concluded that the 1950 Census and the 1960 Census had undercounted certain segments of the population. Moreover, they noted a growing distrust of government activity and increased resistance to responding to the census. Simultaneously, both the public and private sectors expressed need for accurate information. The U.S. Census Bureau decreased its number of questions from 66 to 23 in an effort to simplify its products. A register for densely populated areas was also created to ensure that all housing units were accounted for. A Spanish-language questionnaire was also enclosed with census questionnaires in areas with a significant amount of Spanish-speaking households. Additionally, a question on Hispanic origins or descent was asked independently from race, but only on a five-percent sample. Only five questions were given to all individuals: relationship to household head, sex, race, age, and marital status. Additional questions were asked in smaller sample groups. This was also the first census in which respondents of urban areas were asked to mail their forms to the Census Bureau, rather than to hold questionnaires for enumerators. Address Coding Guides were used to assign census geographic codes to questionnaires. Counts, a series of computer tape files, were an additional innovation used to increase the accuracy of census data. Count 1 consisted of complete count data for block groups and/or enumeration districts. Count 2 contained census tracts and minor civil/census county divisions, while Count 3 consisted of census blocks. Counts 4-6 provided sample census data for geographic areas of various population sizes. The Census Bureau also produced six Public Use Microdata Sample files, each of which contained complete information for a sample of approximately two million people. Finally, the Census Bureau developed the Summary Tape Processing Center Program, which was a group of organizations, both public and private, that processed census data from computer tapes. For the 1990 Census, the U.S. Census Bureau utilized extensive user consultation prior to enumeration in order to refine both long and short form census questionnaires. The short form consisted of 13 questions and was given to the entire population. The long form asked 45 questions and was given to a 20 percent sample. The long form included topics related to marital history, carpooling, residence, residential elevators, and energy usage. Unlike the 1980 Census, the new census eliminated questions regarding air conditioning, the number of bathrooms in a residence, and the type of heating equipment used. A vast advertising campaign was marketed to increase public awareness of the census via public television, radio, and print media. Like the previous census, the Census of 1990 made a special effort to enumerate groups that have historically been undercounted in previous censuses called "S-Night": individuals in homeless shelters, soup kitchens, bus and railway stations, and dormitories (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "M-Night"); and permanent residents in hotels and motels (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "T-Night"). Following legal issues filed in response to the 1980 Census regarding statistical readjustment of undercounted areas, the Census Bureau initiated a post-enumeration survey (PES), in which a contemporaneous survey of households would be conducted and compare to the census results from the official census. In a partial resolution of a 1989 lawsuit filed by New York plaintiffs, the U.S. Department of Commerce agreed to use the PES to produce population data that had been adjusted for the projected undercount and that said data would be judged against the unadjusted data by the Secretary of Commerce's Special Advisory Panel (SAP). The Census of 1990 also introduced the U.S. to the Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing System (TIGER), which was developed by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Census Bureau. TIGER used computerized representations of various map features to geographically code addresses into appropriate census geographic areas. It also produced different maps required for census data collection and tabulation. Five years earlier, the Census Bureau became the first government agency to publish information on CD-ROM. For the 1990 Census, the bureau made detailed census data, which had previously been only available to organizations with large mainframe computers, accessible to any individual with a personal computer. Census data was also available in print, on computer tape, and on microfiche. Using two online service vendors, DIALOG and CompuServe, the Census Bureau also published select census data online. As with previous censuses, the 1990 Census undercounted the national population, and again, the African-American population had an estimated net undercount rate that was significantly higher than the rate for other races. In July of 1991, the Secretary of Commerce announced that he did not find evidence in favor of using adjusted counts compelling—despite SAP's split vote on the issue—and chose to use unadjusted totals for the official census results. In response, the New York plaintiffs resumed the lawsuit against the Department of Commerce. A federal district court divided in favor of the DOC in April of 1993. The U.S. Court of Appeals, however, rejected the previous court ruling and ordered that the case be reheard by the federal district court. In March of 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court finally ruled in favor of the Secretary of Commerce's decision to use the unadjusted census date, but did not rule on the legality or constitutionality of the use of statistical adjustment in producing apportionment counts. For the 1990 Census, the U.S. Census Bureau utilized extensive user consultation prior to enumeration in order to refine both long and short form census questionnaires. The short form consisted of 13 questions and was given to the entire population. The long form asked 45 questions and was given to a 20 percent sample. The long form included topics related to marital history, carpooling, residence, residential elevators, and energy usage. Unlike the 1980 Census, the new census eliminated questions regarding air conditioning, the number of bathrooms in a residence, and the type of heating equipment used. A vast advertising campaign was marketed to increase public awareness of the census via public television, radio, and print media. Like the previous census, the Census of 1990 made a special effort to enumerate groups that have historically been undercounted in previous censuses called "S-Night": individuals in homeless shelters, soup kitchens, bus and railway stations, and dormitories (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "M-Night"); and permanent residents in hotels and motels (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "T-Night"). Following legal issues filed in response to the 1980 Census regarding statistical readjustment of undercounted areas, the Census Bureau initiated a post-enumeration survey (PES), in which a contemporaneous survey of households would be conducted and compare to the census results from the official census. In a partial resolution of a 1989 lawsuit filed by New York plaintiffs, the U.S. Department of Commerce agreed to use the PES to produce population data that had been adjusted for the projected undercount and that said data would be judged against the unadjusted data by the Secretary of Commerce's Special Advisory Panel (SAP). The Census of 1990 also introduced the U.S. to the Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing System (TIGER), which was developed by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Census Bureau. TIGER used computerized representations of various map features to geographically code addresses into appropriate census geographic areas. It also produced different maps required for census data collection and tabulation. Five years earlier, the Census Bureau became the first government agency to publish information on CD-ROM. For the 1990 Census, the bureau made detailed census data, which had previously been only available to organizations with large mainframe computers, accessible to any individual with a personal computer. Census data was also available in print, on computer tape, and on microfiche. Using two online service vendors, DIALOG and CompuServe, the Census Bureau also published select census data online. As with previous censuses, the 1990 Census undercounted the national population, and again, the African-American population had an estimated net undercount rate that was significantly higher than the rate for other races. In July of 1991, the Secretary of Commerce announced that he did not find evidence in favor of using adjusted counts compelling—despite SAP's split vote on the issue—and chose to use unadjusted totals for the official census results. In response, the New York plaintiffs resumed the lawsuit against the Department of Commerce. A federal district court divided in favor of the DOC in April of 1993. The U.S. Court of Appeals, however, rejected the previous court ruling and ordered that the case be reheard by the federal district court. In March of 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court finally ruled in favor of the Secretary of Commerce's decision to use the unadjusted census date, but did not rule on the legality or constitutionality of the use of statistical adjustment in producing apportionment counts. For the Census of 2000, the short form consisted of only seven questions, while the long form consisted of 52 questions and used for a 17 percent sample of the population. For the first time, race questions were not limited to a single category; rather, respondents were able to check multiple boxes. A new question related to grandparents as caregivers was also mandated by legislation passed in 1996. Disability questions were expanded to including hearing and vision impairments, as well as learning, memory, and concentration disabilities. The 2000 Census also eliminated questions related to children born, water sources, sewage disposal, and condominium status. In addition, the 2000 Census was the first in which the Internet was used as the principal medium for the dissemination of census information. Summary Files were available for download immediately upon release and individual tables could be viewed via American FactFinder, the Census Bureau's online database. Files were also available for purchase on CD-Rom and DVD. Due to declining questionnaire mail-back rates, the U.S. Census Bureau marketed a $167 million national and local print, television, and public advertising campaign in 17 different languages. The campaign successfully brought the mail-back rate up to 67 percent. Additionally, respondents receiving the short form were given the option of responding via the Internet. Telephone questionnaire assistance centers available in 6 languages also took responses via the phone. Statistical sampling techniques were utilized in two ways: first, to alter the traditional 100 percent personal visit of non-responding households during the non-response follow-up (NRFU) process by instead following up on a smaller sample basis; second, the sampling of 750,000 housing units matched to housing unit questionnaires obtained from mail and telephone responses, as well as from personal visits. The goal of the latter was to develop adjustment factors for individuals estimated to have been missed or duplicated and to correct the census counts to produce one set of numbers. This "one-number census" would correct for net coverage errors called Integrated Coverage Measurement (ICM). Both of these measures were taken in an attempt to avoid repetition of the litigation costs generated by the 1980 Census and the 1990 Census. Despite these efforts, two lawsuits—one filed by the U.S. House of Representatives—were filed in February 1998 challenging the constitutionality and legality of the planned uses of sampling to produce apportionment counts. Both cases were decided in favor of the plaintiffs in federal district courts, but the U.S. Department of Commerce made appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court. Known as the U.S. Department of Commerce v. the U.S. House of Representatives, the Court ruled that the Census Bureau's plans to use statistical sampling for purposes of congressional apportionments violated the Census Act. The bureau revised its plan, stating that it would produce statistically adjusted data for non-apportionment uses of census data information, such as redistricting. However, in March of 2001, the Census Bureau recommended against the use of adjusted census data for redistricting due to accuracy concerns; the Secretary of Commerce determined that the unadjusted data would be released as the bureau's official redistricting data. The Director of the Census Bureau also rejected to the use of adjusted data for non-redistricting purposes in October of that same year. Language eng Type Collection Coverage Mosquito County, Florida Brevard County, Florida Flagler County, Florida Lake County, Florida Marion County, Florida Orange County, Florida Osceola County, Florida Seminole County, Florida Volusia County, Florida Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Contributor Gibson, Ella Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a>. Rights Holder This resource is not subject to copyright in the United States and there are no copyright restrictions on reproduction, derivative works, distribution, performance, or display of the work. Anyone may, without restriction under U.S. copyright laws: <ul class="one_column_bullet"><li>reproduce the work in print or digital form</li> <li>create derivative works</li> <li>perform the work publicly</li> <li>display the work</li> <li>distribute copies or digitally transfer the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.</li> </ul>This resources is provided here by <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> for educational purposes only. For more information on copyright, please refer to <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#105" target="_blank">Section 5</a> of <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html" target="_blank">Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code</a>. Source Repository <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> External Reference United States. <a href="https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf" target="_blank">Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970</a>. Washington: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1975. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/histstats-colonial-1970.pdf. United States, and Carroll D. Wright. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/166662" target="_blank">The History and Growth of the United States Census</a>. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1900. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf. "<a href="https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/" target="_blank">Through the Decades</a>." United States Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce. https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/. Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Original Format 1 table Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title U.S. Census for Central Florida, 1950 Alternative Title Census, 1950 Subject Census--United States Orange County (Fla.) Marion County (Fla.) Brevard County (Fla.) St. Lucie County (Fla.) Seminole County (Fla.) Volusia County (Fla.) Flagler County (Fla.) Lake County (Fla.) Osceola County (Fla.) Population--United States Description The Seventeenth United States Census records for Brevard County, Flagler County, Lake County, Marion County, Orange County, Osceola County, Seminole County, and Volusia County, Florida, for 1950. The census divides the population by gender, race ("white" and "black"), and native-born vs. foreign-born. The census then lists the population categorized by age, marital status, primary and secondary school attendance, and college attendance. The census also collected information on agriculture, on unemployment, and on labor. The Census of 1950 encompassed every state, Alaska, Hawaii, American Samoa, the Panama Canal Zone, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and other small American territories. For the first time, the U.S. Census Bureau enumerated Americans living abroad to account for members of the Armed Forces, vessel crew members, and government employees residing in foreign countries. The Department of Defense (DOD), the Department of State (DOS), the Maritime Administration (MARAD), and several other federal agencies were responsible for distributing and collecting census questionnaires in a cooperative effort. Persons living abroad for reasons other than what is listed above had their census information reported by families or neighbors residing in the United States, but such data was criticized as unreliable and were not published in official statistics. The 1950 Census also included a new survey on residential financing collected separately on a sample basis from owners of owner-occupied properties, rental properties, and mortgage lenders. The accuracy of the new census was increased by improved enumerator training, the use of detailed street maps for enumerators, the publication of "Missed Person" forms in local newspapers, and the designation of a specific night to conduct a special enumeration of transient individuals. Moreover, a post-enumeration survey was conducted to further verify the accuracy of the original enumeration. A sample of approximately 3,500 small areas was compared to the original census data to identify households that may have been omitted initially. Likewise, a sample of approximately 22,000 households were re-interviewed to identify persons omitted in the original enumeration count. Though not used for the 1950 Census, the UNIVersal Automatic Computer I (UNIVAC I), the first non-military computer, was used to tabulate some of the statistics for the 1954 census of economy. In August of 1954, Congress codified various census statutes, such as the Fifteenth Census Act of 1929, authorizing the decennial census and other census. Type Dataset Source Original census data collected by the <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Bureau</a>, 1950. Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/104" target="_blank">U.S. Census Collection</a>, RICHES of Central Florida. Is Format Of Digital reproduction of original census data collected by the <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Bureau</a>, 1950. Coverage Brevard County, Florida Flagler County, Florida Lake County, Florida Marion County, Florida Orange County, Florida Osceola County, Florida Seminole County, Florida Volusia County, Florida Creator <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Bureau</a> Publisher <a href="http://www.commerce.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Department of Commerce</a> Contributor <a href="http://www.defense.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Department of Defense</a> <a href="http://www.state.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Department of State</a> <a href="http://www.marad.dot.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Maritime Administration</a> Gibson, Ella Date Created ca. 1950-04-01 Format image/jpg Extent 1.59 MB Medium 1 table Language eng Mediator History Teacher Economics Teacher Civics/Government Teacher Geography Teacher Provenance Originally collected by the <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Bureau</a> and published by the <a href="http://www.commerce.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Department of Commerce</a>. Rights Holder This resource is not subject to copyright in the United States and there are no copyright restrictions on reproduction, derivative works, distribution, performance, or display of the work. Anyone may, without restriction under U.S. copyright laws: <ul class="one_column_bullet"><li>reproduce the work in print or digital form;</li> <li>create derivative works;</li> <li>perform the work publicly;</li> <li>display the work;</li> <li>distribute copies or digitally transfer the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.</li> </ul> This resources is provided here by <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> for educational purposes only. For more information on copyright, please refer to <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#105" target="_blank">Section 5</a> of <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html" target="_blank">Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code</a>. Accrual Method Item Creation Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> External Reference "<a href="https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/overview/1950.html" target="_blank">1950 Overview</a>." U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/overview/1950.html. United States. <a href="https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf" target="_blank">Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970</a>. Washington: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1975. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/histstats-colonial-1970.pdf. United States, and Carroll D. Wright. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/166662" target="_blank">The History and Growth of the United States Census</a>. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1950. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf. Office of the Assistant Director for Statistical Standards, Statistical Reports Division. <a href="http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1950/proceduralHistory/1950proceduralhistory.zip" target="_blank">The 1950 Censuses How They Were Taken</a>. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1955. Transcript U.S. Census of 1950 Population Brevard County Flagler County Lake County Marion County Orange County Osceola County Seminole County Volusia County Population Total 23,653 3,367 36,340 38,187 114,950 11,406 26,883 74,229 Males 11,830 1,757 17,876 18,648 55,112 5,496 13,129 35,474 Females 11,823 1,610 18,464 19,539 59,838 5,910 13,754 38,755 White Population Total 17,652 1,833 27,798 23,593 92,184 9,914 14,943 57,844 Males 8,849 942 13,631 11,643 43,937 4,748 7,383 27,653 Females 8,803 891 14,167 11,950 48,247 5,166 7,560 30,191 Native-Born Population Males 8,397 85 13,176 11,366 42,144 4,544 7,105 25,983 Females 8,352 826 13,698 11,680 46,263 4,947 7,309 28,455 Foreign-Born Population Males 452 92 455 277 1,793 204 278 1,670 Females 451 65 469 270 1,984 219 251 1,736 Black Population Males 2,972 813 4,240 7,002 11,156 746 5,742 7,799 Females 3,012 718 4,293 7,587 11,575 742 6,193 8,550 Other Race Population Males 9 2 5 3 19 2 4 22 Females 8 1 4 2 16 2 1 14 Population by Marital Status, Aged 14+ Total 17,999 2,445 26,993 27,532 87,882 9,044 19,692 58,330 Single 3,145 414 4,711 5,214 15,291 1,362 3,822 10,445 Married 12,738 1,759 19,245 18,945 62,061 6,249 13,472 39,786 Widowed or Divorced 2,116 272 3,037 3,373 10,530 1,433 2,398 8,099 Male Population by Marital Status, Aged 15+ Total 8,992 1,308 13,249 13,237 41,526 4,311 9,441 27,509 Single 1,967 288 2,702 2,901 8,054 780 2,186 5,566 Married 6,379 901 9,665 9,395 30,748 3,101 6,577 19,819 Widowed or Divorced 646 119 882 941 2,724 430 678 2,104 Female Population by Marital Status, Aged 15+ Total 9,007 1,137 13,744 14,295 46,356 4,733 10,251 30,821 Single 1,178 126 2,009 2,313 7,237 582 1,636 4,859 Married 6,359 858 9,580 9,550 31,313 3,148 6,895 19,967 Widowed or Divorced 1,470 153 2,155 2,432 7,806 1,003 1,720 5,995 Education Brevard County Flagler County Lake County Marion County Orange County Osceola County Seminole County Volusia County Population by School Completion No School Completed 310 90 500 750 1,085 175 595 1,120 At Least Some Elementary 5,985 1,090 9,610 10,855 27,050 3,685 7,665 17,065 1-4 Years of Elementary 1,555 480 2,730 3,380 6,255 695 2,890 3,795 5-6 Years 1,380 285 2,450 2,750 6,340 890 1,970 3,635 7 Years 900 85 1,295 1,375 4,460 610 970 2,330 8 Years 2,150 240 3,135 3,350 9,995 1,490 1,835 7,305 At Least Some High School 5,585 390 7,510 6,915 28,585 2,445 4,390 18,655 1-3 Years of High School 2,545 215 3,595 3,445 12,440 1,235 2,210 8,400 4 Years of High School 3,040 175 3,915 3,470 16,145 121 2,180 10,255 At Least Some College 2,115 165 3,345 2,300 12,960 995 1,760 8,765 1-3 Years of College 1,125 90 1,795 1,315 7,010 650 995 4,890 4 Years of College 990 75 1,550 985 5,950 345 765 3,875 Unknown Years 840 60 565 570 1,790 250 440 1,235 Agriculture Brevard County Flagler County Lake County Marion County Orange County Osceola County Seminole County Volusia County Farms by Race Total 705 111 1,711 1,906 1,780 399 541 1,066 White 686 111 1,669 1,348 1,740 397 521 1,038 Non-White 19 0 42 558 40 2 20 28 Acreage of Farms Total 277,842 170,435 249,815 621,134 354,080 766,899 155,595 210,933 Farms by Tenure Livestock-Share Tenants 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 Croppers 1 0 4 12 3 0 0 1 Other and Unspecified Tenants 15 4 24 54 20 9 7 19 Other Tenants 9 3 5 20 3 1 1 0 Unspecified Tenants 6 1 19 34 17 8 6 19 All Tenants 22 5 42 116 39 11 17 32 Cash Tenants 4 1 10 37 12 1 8 8 Share-Cash Tenants 1 0 0 5 4 1 1 1 Farms of Full Owners Total 617 89 1,500 1,433 1,585 344 446 919 Tenants with Landlord Living on Farm Total 2 2 9 31 6 1 2 8 Farm Acreage by Ownership and Management Full Owners 94,958 78,912 161,135 255,841 182,321 191,967 92,919 114,807 Part Owners 72,157 70,244 61,915 139,905 112,627 357,850 54,985 50,729 Land Managers 109,430 17,900 24,588 207,067 45,699 213,813 7,362 43,335 Operated by Owner 150,373 106,563 197,473 351,029 268,274 445,689 130,590 136,635 Rented by Farm Operator 18,133 48,555 32,498 71,612 53,907 113,192 17,646 34,672 Managed by Farm Operator 109,945 17,900 24,588 210,715 54,258 213,813 7,442 43,335 Rented Out by Farm Operator 609 2,583 4,744 12,222 22,359 5,795 83 3,709 Farms by Acreage Less than 3 45 5 100 34 124 6 18 51 3-9 140 8 232 194 428 51 113 224 Less than 10 185 13 332 228 552 57 131 275 10-29 214 21 477 415 517 103 178 366 30-49 83 12 266 328 210 56 72 133 50-69 48 8 139 144 107 23 34 66 100-139 34 3 103 129 76 21 31 39 140-179 26 5 52 94 41 13 15 19 180-219 16 5 36 63 20 7 6 23 220-499 8 2 26 47 17 2 3 6 260-499 23 10 62 111 51 23 14 28 500-999 16 7 42 61 39 20 9 20 1,000+ 20 17 48 76 52 50 15 28 Value of All Farm Products Sold Total $4,464,184 $1,789,539 $17,744,044 $6,952,360 $26,072,891 $2,150,345 $9,812,180 $6,618,609 Value of All Crops Sold Total $3,818,351 $1,193,522 $16,777,487 $4,256,057 $23,135,632 $898,137 $9,204,491 $4,854,773 Field Crops, Other Than Vegetables $12,387 $835,574 $56,427 $222,924 $40,197 $8,394 $45,592 $20,241 Vegetables $60,813 $306,610 $691,211 $1,250,620 $1,715,864 $35,666 $6,786,987 $186,424 Fruits and Nuts $3,672,443 $50,858 $15,097,477 $2,738,300 $19,527,596 $853,082 $1,530,597 $3,389,325 Horticultural Specialties $72,708 $480 $932,372 $44,213 $1,851,975 $995 $841,315 $1,258,783 Labor Population in Labor Force Total 9,232 1,317 13,948 142,833 45,869 3,535 10,530 27,998 Civilian Labor Force 8,679 1,316 13,924 14,267 45,750 3,526 10,520 27,944 Armed Forces 553 1 24 16 119 9 10 54 Employed 8,270 1,295 13,486 13,791 43,635 3,333 10,178 26,659 Unemployed 409 21 438 476 2,115 193 342 1,285 Not in Labor Force 8,767 1,128 13,045 13,249 42,013 5,509 9,162 30,332 Male Population in Labor Force Total 6,502 1,009 9,946 10,027 31,191 2,558 6,972 18,757 Civilian Labor Force 5,956 1,008 9,925 10,011 31,085 2,550 6,965 18,705 Armed Forces 546 1 21 16 106 8 7 52 Employed 5,688 996 9,650 9,722 29,651 2,414 6,736 17,870 Unemployed 268 12 275 289 1,434 136 229 835 Not in Labor Force 2,490 299 3,303 3,210 10,335 1,753 2,469 8,752 Female Population in Labor Force Total 2,730 308 4,002 4,256 14,678 977 3,558 9,241 Civilian Labor Force 2,723 308 3,999 4,256 14,665 976 3,555 9,239 Armed Forces 7 0 3 0 13 1 3 2 Employed 2,582 299 3,836 4,069 13,984 919 3,442 8,789 Unemployed 141 9 163 187 681 57 113 450 Not in Labor Force 8,277 829 9,742 10,039 31,678 3,756 6,693 21,580 Population by Sector Private Sector Workers 5,176 937 9,591 9,519 33,124 2,158 7,946 18,466 Government Workers 1,022 98 965 1,182 3,495 379 626 2,489 Self-Employed 1,973 233 2,800 2,850 6,727 772 1,537 5,419 Unpaid Family Works 99 27 130 240 289 24 69 285 Male Population by Sector Private Sector Workers 3,396 730 6,706 6,571 22,041 1,515 5,088 12,037 Government Workers 699 59 580 641 2,127 248 351 1,581 Self-Employed 1,569 198 2,320 2,397 5,426 648 1,266 4,177 Unpaid Family Works 24 9 44 113 57 3 31 75 Female Population by Sector Private Sector Workers 1,780 207 2,885 2,948 11,083 643 2,858 6,429 Government Workers 323 39 385 541 1,368 131 275 908 Self-Employed 404 35 480 453 1,301 124 271 1,242 Unpaid Family Works 75 18 86 127 232 21 38 210 Population by Industry Professional/Technical/Kindred Workers 535 62 866 941 3,780 263 607 2,502 Managers/Proprietors 1,558 236 2,399 2,667 6,189 569 1,304 4,639 Clerical/Kindred Workers 654 29 843 996 4,466 222 658 2,357 Sales Workers 516 34 795 944 4,425 269 557 2,216 Craftsmen/Foremen/Kindred Workers 999 107 1,363 1,446 5,404 431 963 3,584 Operative Workers 933 184 1,955 1,873 5,887 477 1,677 2,816 Private Household Workers 533 22 716 720 2,641 122 408 1,690 Service Workers 737 89 766 1,062 3,685 310 513 3,172 Laborers, Except Mine 1,679 510 3,469 3,011 6,542 592 3,247 3,297 Occupation Not Reported 126 22 314 131 616 78 244 386 Male Population by Industry Professional/Technical/Kindred Workers 309 39 473 469 2,068 140 319 1,451 Managers/Proprietors 1,249 207 2,080 2,341 5,253 482 1,114 3,665 Clerical/Kindred Workers 223 12 271 348 1,436 86 235 772 Sales Workers 319 14 500 591 3,148 156 404 1,424 Craftsmen/Foremen/Kindred Workers 984 106 1,334 1,416 5,273 421 942 3,510 Operative Workers 655 160 1,416 1,516 4,384 387 1,081 2,232 Private Household Workers 26 3 36 23 140 8 14 116 Service Workers 290 23 288 451 1,588 118 237 1,406 Laborers, Except Mine 1,543 418 3,068 2,480 5,957 565 2,245 3,036 Occupation Not Reported 90 14 184 87 404 51 145 258 Female Population by Industry Professional/Technical/Kindred Workers 226 23 393 472 1,712 123 288 1,051 Managers/Proprietors 309 29 319 326 936 87 190 974 Clerical/Kindred Workers 431 17 572 648 3,030 136 423 1,585 Sales Workers 197 20 295 353 1,277 113 153 792 Craftsmen/Foremen/Kindred Workers 15 1 29 30 131 10 21 74 Operative Workers 278 24 539 357 1,503 90 596 584 Private Household Workers 507 19 680 697 2,501 114 394 1,574 Service Workers 447 66 478 611 2,097 192 276 1,766 Laborers, Except Mine 136 92 401 531 585 27 1,002 261 Occupation Not Reported 36 8 130 44 212 27 99 128 African Americans agriculture Anglo Americans Armed Forces Brevard County Caucasian Americans census Census of 1950 civilian labor clerical colleges craftsman craftsmen crops divorced domestic service education employees European Americans farm operators farm products farmland farms females field crops Flagler County foreman foremen forewoman forewomen fruits government horticultural specialties kindred labor labor force laborers Lake County land managers landlords livestock males managers Marion County marital status married nuts operative orange county Osceola County population primary education private household private sector professionals proprietors public sector sales schools secondary education Seminole County service industry sharecroppers sharecropping single technical tenant farmers tenant farming tenants U.S. Census unemployment universities university vegetables Volusia County widowed workers https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka/files/original/3bee9bb2e9e2f39ea2b9ec6fd93d25b3.jpg ce2af4d58276e348032e8c08d8bf1102 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title U.S. Census Collection Alternative Title Census Collection Subject Census--United States Population--United States Orange County (Fla.) Marion County (Fla.) Brevard County (Fla.) St. Lucie County (Fla.) Seminole County (Fla.) Volusia County (Fla.) Flagler County (Fla.) Lake County (Fla.) Osceola County (Fla.) Description Collection of United States Census population records for various counties in Central Florida from 1840 to 2000. The Census Act of 1840 was signed into law on March 3, 1839 and later amended on February 26, 1840. This piece of legislation established a centralized census office during each enumeration. Congress designated the census questionnaire designs to the Secretary of State. However, each household received inquiries regarding "the pursuits, industry, education, and resources of the country" and included questions related to school attendance, literacy, and vocation. In March of 1849, Congress pass legislation that established a census board consisting of the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Postmaster General. The board was responsible for preparing and printing forms and schedules for enumeration related to population, mining, agriculture, commerce, manufacturing, education, etc. The 1850 Census also increased population inquiries to include every free person's name (as opposed to just the head of the household), as well as information on taxes, schools, crime, wages, estate values, etc. The Census Act of 1850 authorized the U.S. Census of 1860 and stipulated that its provisions be adhered to for all future decennial censuses should no new legislation be passed by the first of the year of said census. In May of 1865, the U.S. Census Office was abolished and many superintending clerks were transferred to the General Land Office. Although the 1870 Census was conducted under the provisions of the Census Act of 1850, a new act was passed on May 6, 1870. The new census legislation required two changes in procedures related to questionnaire return submission dates. Moreover, penalties for refusing to reply to inquires were expanded to apply to all questions and questionnaires. The questionnaires themselves had to be redesigned due to the end of the "slave questionnaire", as slavery had been formally abolished slavery nationwide via the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This left five schedules for the census: General Population, Mortality, Agriculture, Products of Industry, and Social Statistics. In addition, the use of a Charles W. Seaton, a U.S. Census Office chief clerk and later superintendent, invited a rudimentary tallying machine that partially alleviated the difficulties of tallying and tabulating questionnaire responses. Finally, the new superintendent for the Ninth Census, General Francis A. Walker, introduced employment examinations to test the qualifications of applicants to the Census Office, allowing for increased efficiency in the process of collecting census data. The newest act authorizing the Census of 1880 provided for supervision of enumeration by "supervisors of the census", selected exclusively for the collection of census data. All supervisors, as well as the superintendent, were to appointed by the U.S. President and approved by the Senate. Census enumerators were required to personally visit each household and family within his subdivision. The new census act also allowed for the collection of data related to the condition and operation of railroad corporations, incorporated express companies, and telegraph companies, as well as data related to the condition and operation of life, fire, and marine insurance companies. Corporations who refused to provide the census with "true and complete" answers were subject to fines. In addition, the census superintendent was required to collect and publish data on the population, industries and resources of the District of Alaska. Finally, the 1880 Census consisted of five schedules: Population, Mortality, Agriculture, Social Statistics, and Manufacturing. The Census of 1890 was authorized by an act modeled after the 1880 enumeration and signed into law on March 1, 1889. The 1890 Census was supervised by 175 employees and enumerators were required to collect all information by personally visiting each household. The 1890 Census included essentially the same inquires from the 1880 Census, with some notable additions, such as questions about home and farm ownership and indebtedness; and the names, units, length of service, and residences of former Union soldiers and sailors, as well as the names of the widows of those who were no longer alive. Racial categorization was expanded to include "Japanese", along with "Chinese", "Negro", "mulatto", "quadroon", "octoroon", and "White". Herman Hollerith, a former employee of the U.S. Census Office, invited the electric tabulating system, which was widely used in the 1890 Census, allowing data to be processed faster and more efficiently. On October 3, 1893, Congress passed a law that transferred census-related work to the direction of the commissioner of labor. Congress passed another act on March 2, 1895, effectively abolishing the U.S. Census Office and transferring the remaining responsibilities to the Office of the Secretary of the Interior. Congress limited the Census of 1900 to content related to population, mortality, agriculture, and manufacturing. Special census agents were authorized to collect statistics related to incidents of deafness, blindness, insanity, and juvenile delinquency; as well as data on religious bodies, utilities, mining, and transportation. The act authorizing the 1900 Census designated the enumeration of military personally to the U.S. Department of War and the U.S. Department of the Navy, while Indiana Territory was to be enumerated by the commissioner of Indian Affairs. Annexed in 1898, Hawaii was included in the census for the first time. In 1902, the U.S. Census Office was officially established as a permanent organization within the U.S. Department of the Interior. The office became the U.S. Census Bureau in 1903 and was transferred to the Department of Commerce and Labor. The Census of 1910 was approved by legislation introduced in December of 1907 and enacted in July of 1909. The delay was the result of a disagreement over the appointment of enumerators. President Theodore Roosevelt supported the hiring of enumerators via the civil service system, while Congress supported enumerators as positions of patronage. President Roosevelt successfully won the debate. This census act also changed Census Day from the traditional date of June 1st to April 15th. Additional questions regarding the nationality and native language of foreign-born persons and their parents. Funds for the U.S. Census Bureau were also increased to expand the Census' permanent workforce and created several new full-time positions, including a geographer, a chief statistician, and an assistant director. The assistant director was to be appointed by the President and approved by the Senate, while all other census employees were hired on the basis of open, competitive examinations administered by the Civil Service Commission. Despite the use of automatic counting machinery, issues with the tabulation process persisted. Finally, with the United States' entrance into World War I in 1917, the U.S. Census Bureau became a source of even more valuable purpose: the Census was able to use population and economic data to report on the populations of draft-age men, as well as information regarding each state's industrial capabilities. The Census of 1920 changed the date of Census Day from April 15th to January 1st, as requested by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which argued that farmers' memories and harvest information would be more accurate on this day. The U.S. Census Bureau was also authorized to hire additional employees at its headquarters in Washington, D.C. and to create a special field force to collect census data. The legislation authorizing the 1920 Census also allowed for a census of manufacturing to be conducted in 1921, and for such a census to be repeated every two years thereafter, as opposed to the traditional five-year census cycle. Furthermore, a census of agriculture and livestock was to be conducted in 1925 and to be repeated every ten years thereafter. In addition, penalties for those who refused to supply information or those who supplied false information were strengthened. As a result of these changes, census of population, manufacturing, and agriculture and livestock became increasingly independent of one another. The "usual place of abode", the location where residents regularly slept, instead of where they worked or were visiting, became the new basis for enumeration in the 1920 Census. Those with no permanent or regular residence were listed as residents of the location that they were enumerated at. Enumeration related to institutional inmates and dependent, defective, and delinquent classes were also modified. Unlike the previous census, the 1920 Census did not have inquires related to unemployment, to Union or Confederate Army or Navy service, to the number of children born, or to the length of time that a couple had been married. The Census of 1920, however, did include four additional questions: one regarding year of naturalization and three regarding native languages. Issues also arose as a result of changes in international boundaries following World War I, particularly for persons declaring birth or parental birth in Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia, or Turkey. In response, enumerators were required to ask said persons for their province, state, or region of birth. Enumerators were not required to ask individuals how to spell their names, nor were respondents required to provide proof of various pieces of information. Race was determined by the enumerator's impressions. The act authorizing the 1930 Census was approved on June 18, 1929, allowing for a census of population, agriculture, irrigation, draining, distribution, unemployment, and mining. For the first time, specific questions for inquiry were left to the discretion of the Director of the Census. The Census encompassed each state, as well as the District of Columbia, Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. The Governors of Guam, American Samoa, the Virginia Islands, and the Panama Canal Zone were responsible for conducting censuses in their territory. Between the date that the census act was passed and Census Day (April 1st), the stock market crashed, plunging the entire country into the Great Depression. In response, there were public and academic requests for access to unemployment data collected in the 1930 Census; however, the U.S. Census Bureau was unable to meet this demands and the bureau was accused of present unreliable data. Congress required a special unemployment census for January 1931, which ultimately confirmed the severity of the economic crisis. Another unemployment census was conducted in 1937, as mandated by Congress. Because this special census was voluntary, it allowed the Census Bureau to experiment with statistical sampling. Only two percent of households received a special census questionnaire. Congress authorized the 1940 Census in August 1939, providing the Director of the Census the additional authority to conduct a national census of housing in each state, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Alaska. The housing census was conducted separately, though enumerators often collection housing information at the same time that they collected population information. The Census of 1940 was the first time that the U.S. Census Bureau used advanced statistical techniques. In particular, the census used probably sampling, which had only previously been tested in a trial census of unemployment conducted the Civil Works Administration during 1933-1934, in surveys of retail stores in the 1930s, and in an official sample survey of unemployment conducted amongst two percent of American households in 1937. Probability sampling allowed for the inclusion of additional demographic questions without increasing the burden on the collection process or on data processing. Moreover, sampling the U.S. Census Bureau was able to publish preliminary returns eight months before tabulations were completed. Likewise, the census increased its number of published tables, and also was able to complete data processing with higher quality and more efficiency. New census questions focused on employment, unemployment, internal migration, and incomes—reflecting on the concerns of the Great Depression, the country's housing stock, and the need for public housing programs. The Census of 1950 encompassed every state, Alaska, Hawaii, American Samoa, the Panama Canal Zone, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and other small American territories. For the first time, the U.S. Census Bureau enumerate American living abroad to account for members of the U.S. Armed Forces, vessel crew members, and government employees residing in foreign countries. The U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Maritime Administration, and several other federal agencies were responsible for distributing and collecting census questionnaires in a cooperative effort. Persons living abroad for reasons other than what is listed above had their census information reported by families or neighbors residing in the United States, but such data was criticized as unreliable and were not published in official statistics. The 1950 Census also included a new survey on residential financing collected separately on a sample basis from owners of owner-occupied properties, rental properties, and mortgage lenders. The accuracy of the new census was increased by improved enumerator training, the use of detailed street maps for enumerators, the publication of "Missed Person" forms in local newspapers, and the designation of a specific night to conduct a special enumeration of transient individuals. Moreover, a post-enumeration survey was conducted to further verify the accuracy of the original enumeration. A sample of approximately 3,500 small areas was compared to the original census data to identify households that may have been omitted initially. Likewise, a sample of approximately 22,000 households were re-interviewed to identify persons omitted in the original enumeration count. Though not used for the 1950 Census, the UNIVersal Automatic Computer I (UNIVAC I), the first non-military computer, was used to tabulate some of the statistics for the 1954 census of economy. In August of 1954, Congress codified various census statutes, such as the Fifteenth Census Act of 1929, authorizing the decennial census and other census. The Census of 1960 was the first to be mailed to respondents. The U.S. Postal Service delivered census questionnaires to households, the head of household was required to complete the questionnaire, and an enumerator was to pick it up. The enumeration process was divided into two stages: first, select data for each person and dwelling unit was collected; and second, more detailed economic and social data was collected from a sample of households and dwelling units. The census questionnaires for the second stage were hand-delivered by enumerators as they were collecting data from the first stage. Households receiving the second census questionnaire were to complete the form and mail it to their local census office. Twenty-five percent of the population was giving additional sample questions. Because of the increased use of sampling, less populated areas were prone to sampling variation; however, this did not significantly decrease the usefulness of census statistics gathered. Moreover, increased use of sampling reduced data processing costs. Additional questions included in the 1960 Census were related to places of works and means of transportation to work. By 1960, nearly all census data was processed using computers. The U.S. Census Bureau used a Film Optical Sensing Device for Input to Computer (FOSDIC) for the first time, thus decreasing the amount of time and money required for data input. In 1966, the U.S. Census Bureau sought suggestions from advisory committees and from the public, resulting in numerous proposals for additional inquiries related to the scope and structure of the census, as well as in public interest for the publication of additional census data. Researchers also concluded that the 1950 Census and the 1960 Census had undercounted certain segments of the population. Moreover, they noted a growing distrust of government activity and increased resistance to responding to the census. Simultaneously, both the public and private sectors expressed need for accurate information. The U.S. Census Bureau decreased its number of questions from 66 to 23 in an effort to simplify its products. A register for densely populated areas was also created to ensure that all housing units were accounted for. A Spanish-language questionnaire was also enclosed with census questionnaires in areas with a significant amount of Spanish-speaking households. Additionally, a question on Hispanic origins or descent was asked independently from race, but only on a five-percent sample. Only five questions were given to all individuals: relationship to household head, sex, race, age, and marital status. Additional questions were asked in smaller sample groups. This was also the first census in which respondents of urban areas were asked to mail their forms to the Census Bureau, rather than to hold questionnaires for enumerators. Address Coding Guides were used to assign census geographic codes to questionnaires. Counts, a series of computer tape files, were an additional innovation used to increase the accuracy of census data. Count 1 consisted of complete count data for block groups and/or enumeration districts. Count 2 contained census tracts and minor civil/census county divisions, while Count 3 consisted of census blocks. Counts 4-6 provided sample census data for geographic areas of various population sizes. The Census Bureau also produced six Public Use Microdata Sample files, each of which contained complete information for a sample of approximately two million people. Finally, the Census Bureau developed the Summary Tape Processing Center Program, which was a group of organizations, both public and private, that processed census data from computer tapes. For the 1990 Census, the U.S. Census Bureau utilized extensive user consultation prior to enumeration in order to refine both long and short form census questionnaires. The short form consisted of 13 questions and was given to the entire population. The long form asked 45 questions and was given to a 20 percent sample. The long form included topics related to marital history, carpooling, residence, residential elevators, and energy usage. Unlike the 1980 Census, the new census eliminated questions regarding air conditioning, the number of bathrooms in a residence, and the type of heating equipment used. A vast advertising campaign was marketed to increase public awareness of the census via public television, radio, and print media. Like the previous census, the Census of 1990 made a special effort to enumerate groups that have historically been undercounted in previous censuses called "S-Night": individuals in homeless shelters, soup kitchens, bus and railway stations, and dormitories (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "M-Night"); and permanent residents in hotels and motels (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "T-Night"). Following legal issues filed in response to the 1980 Census regarding statistical readjustment of undercounted areas, the Census Bureau initiated a post-enumeration survey (PES), in which a contemporaneous survey of households would be conducted and compare to the census results from the official census. In a partial resolution of a 1989 lawsuit filed by New York plaintiffs, the U.S. Department of Commerce agreed to use the PES to produce population data that had been adjusted for the projected undercount and that said data would be judged against the unadjusted data by the Secretary of Commerce's Special Advisory Panel (SAP). The Census of 1990 also introduced the U.S. to the Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing System (TIGER), which was developed by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Census Bureau. TIGER used computerized representations of various map features to geographically code addresses into appropriate census geographic areas. It also produced different maps required for census data collection and tabulation. Five years earlier, the Census Bureau became the first government agency to publish information on CD-ROM. For the 1990 Census, the bureau made detailed census data, which had previously been only available to organizations with large mainframe computers, accessible to any individual with a personal computer. Census data was also available in print, on computer tape, and on microfiche. Using two online service vendors, DIALOG and CompuServe, the Census Bureau also published select census data online. As with previous censuses, the 1990 Census undercounted the national population, and again, the African-American population had an estimated net undercount rate that was significantly higher than the rate for other races. In July of 1991, the Secretary of Commerce announced that he did not find evidence in favor of using adjusted counts compelling—despite SAP's split vote on the issue—and chose to use unadjusted totals for the official census results. In response, the New York plaintiffs resumed the lawsuit against the Department of Commerce. A federal district court divided in favor of the DOC in April of 1993. The U.S. Court of Appeals, however, rejected the previous court ruling and ordered that the case be reheard by the federal district court. In March of 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court finally ruled in favor of the Secretary of Commerce's decision to use the unadjusted census date, but did not rule on the legality or constitutionality of the use of statistical adjustment in producing apportionment counts. For the 1990 Census, the U.S. Census Bureau utilized extensive user consultation prior to enumeration in order to refine both long and short form census questionnaires. The short form consisted of 13 questions and was given to the entire population. The long form asked 45 questions and was given to a 20 percent sample. The long form included topics related to marital history, carpooling, residence, residential elevators, and energy usage. Unlike the 1980 Census, the new census eliminated questions regarding air conditioning, the number of bathrooms in a residence, and the type of heating equipment used. A vast advertising campaign was marketed to increase public awareness of the census via public television, radio, and print media. Like the previous census, the Census of 1990 made a special effort to enumerate groups that have historically been undercounted in previous censuses called "S-Night": individuals in homeless shelters, soup kitchens, bus and railway stations, and dormitories (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "M-Night"); and permanent residents in hotels and motels (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "T-Night"). Following legal issues filed in response to the 1980 Census regarding statistical readjustment of undercounted areas, the Census Bureau initiated a post-enumeration survey (PES), in which a contemporaneous survey of households would be conducted and compare to the census results from the official census. In a partial resolution of a 1989 lawsuit filed by New York plaintiffs, the U.S. Department of Commerce agreed to use the PES to produce population data that had been adjusted for the projected undercount and that said data would be judged against the unadjusted data by the Secretary of Commerce's Special Advisory Panel (SAP). The Census of 1990 also introduced the U.S. to the Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing System (TIGER), which was developed by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Census Bureau. TIGER used computerized representations of various map features to geographically code addresses into appropriate census geographic areas. It also produced different maps required for census data collection and tabulation. Five years earlier, the Census Bureau became the first government agency to publish information on CD-ROM. For the 1990 Census, the bureau made detailed census data, which had previously been only available to organizations with large mainframe computers, accessible to any individual with a personal computer. Census data was also available in print, on computer tape, and on microfiche. Using two online service vendors, DIALOG and CompuServe, the Census Bureau also published select census data online. As with previous censuses, the 1990 Census undercounted the national population, and again, the African-American population had an estimated net undercount rate that was significantly higher than the rate for other races. In July of 1991, the Secretary of Commerce announced that he did not find evidence in favor of using adjusted counts compelling—despite SAP's split vote on the issue—and chose to use unadjusted totals for the official census results. In response, the New York plaintiffs resumed the lawsuit against the Department of Commerce. A federal district court divided in favor of the DOC in April of 1993. The U.S. Court of Appeals, however, rejected the previous court ruling and ordered that the case be reheard by the federal district court. In March of 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court finally ruled in favor of the Secretary of Commerce's decision to use the unadjusted census date, but did not rule on the legality or constitutionality of the use of statistical adjustment in producing apportionment counts. For the Census of 2000, the short form consisted of only seven questions, while the long form consisted of 52 questions and used for a 17 percent sample of the population. For the first time, race questions were not limited to a single category; rather, respondents were able to check multiple boxes. A new question related to grandparents as caregivers was also mandated by legislation passed in 1996. Disability questions were expanded to including hearing and vision impairments, as well as learning, memory, and concentration disabilities. The 2000 Census also eliminated questions related to children born, water sources, sewage disposal, and condominium status. In addition, the 2000 Census was the first in which the Internet was used as the principal medium for the dissemination of census information. Summary Files were available for download immediately upon release and individual tables could be viewed via American FactFinder, the Census Bureau's online database. Files were also available for purchase on CD-Rom and DVD. Due to declining questionnaire mail-back rates, the U.S. Census Bureau marketed a $167 million national and local print, television, and public advertising campaign in 17 different languages. The campaign successfully brought the mail-back rate up to 67 percent. Additionally, respondents receiving the short form were given the option of responding via the Internet. Telephone questionnaire assistance centers available in 6 languages also took responses via the phone. Statistical sampling techniques were utilized in two ways: first, to alter the traditional 100 percent personal visit of non-responding households during the non-response follow-up (NRFU) process by instead following up on a smaller sample basis; second, the sampling of 750,000 housing units matched to housing unit questionnaires obtained from mail and telephone responses, as well as from personal visits. The goal of the latter was to develop adjustment factors for individuals estimated to have been missed or duplicated and to correct the census counts to produce one set of numbers. This "one-number census" would correct for net coverage errors called Integrated Coverage Measurement (ICM). Both of these measures were taken in an attempt to avoid repetition of the litigation costs generated by the 1980 Census and the 1990 Census. Despite these efforts, two lawsuits—one filed by the U.S. House of Representatives—were filed in February 1998 challenging the constitutionality and legality of the planned uses of sampling to produce apportionment counts. Both cases were decided in favor of the plaintiffs in federal district courts, but the U.S. Department of Commerce made appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court. Known as the U.S. Department of Commerce v. the U.S. House of Representatives, the Court ruled that the Census Bureau's plans to use statistical sampling for purposes of congressional apportionments violated the Census Act. The bureau revised its plan, stating that it would produce statistically adjusted data for non-apportionment uses of census data information, such as redistricting. However, in March of 2001, the Census Bureau recommended against the use of adjusted census data for redistricting due to accuracy concerns; the Secretary of Commerce determined that the unadjusted data would be released as the bureau's official redistricting data. The Director of the Census Bureau also rejected to the use of adjusted data for non-redistricting purposes in October of that same year. Language eng Type Collection Coverage Mosquito County, Florida Brevard County, Florida Flagler County, Florida Lake County, Florida Marion County, Florida Orange County, Florida Osceola County, Florida Seminole County, Florida Volusia County, Florida Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Contributor Gibson, Ella Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a>. Rights Holder This resource is not subject to copyright in the United States and there are no copyright restrictions on reproduction, derivative works, distribution, performance, or display of the work. Anyone may, without restriction under U.S. copyright laws: <ul class="one_column_bullet"><li>reproduce the work in print or digital form</li> <li>create derivative works</li> <li>perform the work publicly</li> <li>display the work</li> <li>distribute copies or digitally transfer the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.</li> </ul>This resources is provided here by <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> for educational purposes only. For more information on copyright, please refer to <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#105" target="_blank">Section 5</a> of <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html" target="_blank">Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code</a>. Source Repository <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> External Reference United States. <a href="https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf" target="_blank">Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970</a>. Washington: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1975. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/histstats-colonial-1970.pdf. United States, and Carroll D. Wright. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/166662" target="_blank">The History and Growth of the United States Census</a>. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1900. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf. "<a href="https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/" target="_blank">Through the Decades</a>." United States Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce. https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/. Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Original Format 1 table Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title U.S. Census for Central Florida, 1940 Alternative Title Census, 1940 Subject Census--United States Orange County (Fla.) Marion County (Fla.) Brevard County (Fla.) St. Lucie County (Fla.) Seminole County (Fla.) Volusia County (Fla.) Flagler County (Fla.) Lake County (Fla.) Osceola County (Fla.) Population--United States Description The Sixteenth United States Census records for Brevard County, Flagler County, Lake County, Marion County, Orange County, Osceola County, Seminole County, and Volusia County, Florida for 1940. The census divides the population by gender, race ("white" and "black"), and native-born vs. foreign-born. Those who were foreign born were further divided by country of origin. The census then lists the population categorized by age, primary and secondary school attendance, and college attendance. The census also collected information on agriculture, on manufacturing, on commerce, on unemployment, and on labor. Congress authorized the 1940 Census in August 1939, providing the Director of the Census the additional authority to conduct a national census of housing in each state, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Alaska. The housing census was conducted separately, though enumerators often collection housing information at the same time that they collected population information. The Census of 1940 was the first time that the U.S. Census Bureau used advanced statistical techniques. In particular, the census used probablity sampling, which had only previously been tested in a trial census of unemployment conducted the Civil Works Administration during 1933-1934, in surveys of retail stores in the 1930s, and in an official sample survey of unemployment conducted amongst two percent of American households in 1937. Probability sampling allowed for the inclusion of additional demographic questions without increasing the burden on the collection process or on data processing. Moreover, sampling the U.S. Census Bureau was able to publish preliminary returns eight months before tabulations were completed. Likewise, the census increased its number of published tables, and was also able to complete data processing with higher quality and more efficiency. New census questions focused on employment, unemployment, internal migration, and incomes—reflecting on the concerns of the Great Depression, the country's housing stock, and the need for public housing programs. Type Dataset Source Original census data collected by the <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Bureau</a>, 1940. Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/104" target="_blank">U.S. Census Collection</a>, RICHES of Central Florida. Is Format Of Digital reproduction of original census data collected by the <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Bureau</a>, 1940. Coverage Brevard County, Florida Flagler County, Florida Lake County, Florida Marion County, Florida Orange County, Florida Osceola County, Florida Seminole County, Florida Volusia County, Florida Creator <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Bureau</a> Publisher <a href="http://www.commerce.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Department of Commerce</a> Contributor Gibson, Ella Date Created ca. 1940-04-01 Format image/jpg Extent 2.05 MB Medium 1 table Language eng Mediator History Teacher Economics Teacher Civics/Government Teacher Geography Teacher Provenance Originally collected by the <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Bureau</a> and published by the <a href="http://www.commerce.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Department of Commerce</a>. Rights Holder This resource is not subject to copyright in the United States and there are no copyright restrictions on reproduction, derivative works, distribution, performance, or display of the work. Anyone may, without restriction under U.S. copyright laws: <ul class="one_column_bullet"><li>reproduce the work in print or digital form;</li> <li>create derivative works;</li> <li>perform the work publicly;</li> <li>display the work;</li> <li>distribute copies or digitally transfer the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.</li> </ul> This resources is provided here by <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> for educational purposes only. For more information on copyright, please refer to <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#105" target="_blank">Section 5</a> of <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html" target="_blank">Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code</a>. Accrual Method Item Creation Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> External Reference "<a href="https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/overview/1940.html" target="_blank">1940 Overview</a>." U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/overview/1940.html. United States. <a href="https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf" target="_blank">Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970</a>. Washington: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1975. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/histstats-colonial-1970.pdf. United States, and Carroll D. Wright. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/166662" target="_blank">The History and Growth of the United States Census</a>. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1940. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf. "<a href="http://www.census.gov/1940census/" target="_blank">Taking You Back to the 1940s</a>." U.S. Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/1940census/. Transcript U.S. Census of 1940 Population Brevard County Flagler County Lake County Marion County Orange County Osceola County Seminole County Volusia County Population Total 16,142 3,008 27,255 31,243 70,074 10,119 22,304 53,710 Males 8,175 1,631 13,553 15,574 33,901 5,118 11,234 25,899 Females 7,967 1,377 13,702 15,669 36,173 5,001 11,070 27,811 Black Population Total 5,256 1,334 7,602 13,671 16,940 2,061 10,751 14,787 Other Race Population Total 15 5 0 0 2 12 3 18 Native-Born Population Total 10,421 1,561 19,039 17,220 50,977 7,777 11,182 36,813 Males 7,912 1,569 13,224 15,374 32,841 4,967 11,024 24,890 Females 7,753 1,329 13,411 15,511 35,059 4,878 10,898 26,692 Foreign-Born Population Total 450 108 614 352 2,155 269 368 2,092 Males 263 62 329 200 1,060 151 210 1,009 Females 214 48 291 158 1,114 123 172 1,119 Foreign-Born Population by Country of Origin Latvia 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 Finland 4 0 28 1 2 1 3 18 Rumania 0 0 1 3 15 0 10 7 Bulgaria 0 0 3 0 2 0 8 2 Greece 5 0 4 4 29 1 9 34 Italy 28 1 25 11 80 8 10 51 Lithuania 2 4 3 0 3 1 0 5 U.S.S.R. (Russia) 4 3 13 6 86 0 10 58 Yugoslavia 4 0 2 0 7 1 0 25 Hungary 3 6 14 2 33 4 8 36 Austria 16 4 12 6 59 14 4 40 Czechoslovakia 29 3 3 1 47 0 29 6 Belgium 1 0 4 0 10 0 1 8 Netherlands 15 1 7 8 22 3 2 32 Denmark 22 0 10 4 27 4 3 33 Sweden 13 5 73 13 107 12 31 107 Norway 11 1 11 4 38 2 2 23 Irish Free State 19 1 11 9 44 18 8 43 Northern Ireland 1 0 6 4 18 2 4 23 Wales 7 0 4 0 16 4 0 13 Scotland 8 5 25 20 69 11 20 81 England 71 18 102 73 372 48 57 489 Poland 5 34 22 17 40 1 2 43 Germany 91 8 73 60 266 54 44 267 France 12 6 6 11 46 3 9 33 Switzerland 3 0 10 3 27 4 9 24 Spain 1 0 1 0 6 1 2 5 Portugal 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 9 Azores 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 Australia 0 1 5 1 7 0 0 7 Central and South America 1 0 6 1 12 0 4 12 Cuba and Other West Indies 5 0 6 3 44 2 4 27 Mexico 1 0 1 0 5 1 1 1 Canada, Other 61 5 102 57 481 59 56 441 French Canada 2 1 9 4 34 6 2 33 Asian Countries 0 0 6 0 21 1 2 9 Turkey (Asia) 1 0 0 1 28 1 4 3 Palestine and Syria 0 1 0 22 22 1 5 27 Other European Countries 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 2 Luxemburg 2 0 0 1 2 1 5 0 Education Brevard County Flagler County Lake County Marion County Orange County Osceola County Seminole County Volusia County Population Attending School by Age 5-6 188 29 279 323 650 76 239 493 7-13 1,830 329 3,008 4,001 7,671 1,011 2,592 5,559 14-15 505 81 836 1,131 2,071 298 677 1,705 16-17 373 44 592 848 1,597 207 482 1,259 18-20 199 21 354 422 906 86 276 845 21-24 37 10 81 91 227 29 68 184 Years of School Completed for Males 0 181 112 431 669 688 176 429 639 1-4 847 286 1,367 1,715 3,008 456 1,501 2,054 5-6 650 130 1,103 1,286 2,356 499 1,019 1,946 7-8 1,313 208 2,065 1,932 4,810 1,062 1,377 4,283 Years of High School Completed for Males 1-3 619 101 941 1,133 2,861 389 727 2,181 4 639 54 958 834 3,231 359 650 2,260 Years of College Completed for Males 1-3 308 33 500 346 1,505 139 322 1,091 4+ 255 19 489 307 1,602 127 224 1,165 Males with School Completion Not Reported Total 55 11 64 188 257 13 34 81 Years of School Completed for Females 0 133 50 224 467 493 90 265 447 1-4 575 178 940 1,309 2,141 294 1,138 1,596 5-6 577 116 983 1,249 2,414 384 1,024 1,828 7-8 1,199 157 1,912 1,981 4,999 1,026 1,248 4,536 Years of High School Completed for Females 1-3 689 100 1,197 1,357 3,529 523 852 3,005 4 887 77 1,339 1,102 4,939 546 891 3,678 Years of College Completed for Females 1-3 389 31 670 477 1,849 163 420 1,547 4+ 200 14 437 295 1,334 98 237 1,016 Females with School Completion Not Reported Total 26 5 44 46 191 1 12 74 Agriculture Brevard County Flagler County Lake County Marion County Orange County Osceola County Seminole County Volusia County Number of Farms by Race White 715 104 1,966 1,324 2,337 432 706 1,454 Non-White 49 3 51 822 62 10 54 64 Acreage of Farms by Race White 169,671 30,726 111,511 188,138 207,353 488,471 64,934 261,864 Non-White 1,268 60 2,013 31,912 2,482 117 810 1,422 Farms by Ownership and Management Full Owners 649 88 1,767 1,399 1,399 355 583 1,292 Part Owners 25 12 50 334 334 25 68 80 Manager-Operated 60 2 117 69 69 15 39 34 Farms by Tenure Total 30 5 83 344 107 47 70 112 Share Tenants and Croppers 0 0 11 62 12 3 9 12 Share-Cash Tenants 0 0 0 8 1 0 1 2 Cash Tenant-Operated 9 4 34 171 53 30 45 63 Other Tenant-Operated 21 1 38 103 41 14 15 37 Farm Acreage by Ownership and Management Full Owners 8,750 3,175 32,704 34,004 33,942 3,409 7,140 12,749 Part Owners 292 1,446 2,384 16,380 1,586 198 1,917 1,862 Manager-Operated 28,717 N/A 17,453 34,549 41,939 62,552 4,211 70,395 Acres of Land in Farms of Full Owners Total 28,438 8,868 83,123 123,333 135,783 189,299 41,437 65,959 Acres of Land in Farms of Part Owners Total 112,463 18,743 8,080 36,018 28,108 143,323 18,300 118,971 Owned Land 31,403 1,233 3,468 21,809 4,996 14,542 11,861 9,179 Farm Acreage by Tenure Total 1,321 61 4,868 26,150 4,005 93,414 1,796 7,961 Share Tenants and Croppers 0 N/A 369 4,255 N/A 138 N/A 5,257 Share-Cash Tenants 0 61 0 379 518 0 308 0 Cash Tenants 236 N/A 2,191 15,049 1,377 92,716 661 1,235 Other Tenants 1,085 N/A 2,308 6,467 2,110 560 827 1,469 Farms by Acreage 3-9 162 6 327 216 567 84 211 381 10-19 274 26 819 559 898 138 267 568 20-29 174 13 523 306 585 91 169 375 30-49 126 28 336 431 371 80 100 205 50-69 47 12 141 190 143 23 56 86 70-99 43 8 145 256 138 29 29 74 100-139 30 4 93 125 85 15 31 52 140-179 26 9 36 112 50 11 10 23 175-179 0 2 3 5 2 0 1 2 180-219 9 3 29 68 30 3 9 14 220-259 4 0 2 38 16 3 1 14 260-379 7 3 21 61 22 9 1 20 380-499 4 1 12 26 11 3 5 5 500-699 3 1 9 23 10 3 4 4 700-999 7 1 6 13 10 2 1 3 1,000+ 14 5 10 24 9 36 7 24 Acres of Cropland Harvested on Farms of Managers Total 2,935 N/A 9,271 8,325 11,386 931 2,944 2,844 Acres of Cropland Harvested on Farms of Tenants Total 560 26 1,911 8,442 528 313 555 506 Share Tenants and Croppers 0 N/A 125 2,023 N/A 81 N/A 71 Share-Cash Tenants 0 26 0 112 150 0 162 0 Cash Tenants 31 N/A 450 4,160 143 106 307 305 Other Tenants 529 N/A 1,336 2,147 235 126 86 130 Value of Farms Under 10 Acres Total $170 $6 $340 $220 $606 $87 $239 $423 Value of Farm Buildings on Tenant Farms Total $57,580 $800 $49,350 $176,635 $77,100 $39,475 $61,275 $124,190 Share Tenants and Croppers $0 $0 $4,950 $27,655 $17,700 $6,100 $21,300 $17,100 Share-Cash Tenants $0 $0 $0 $3,710 $0 $0 N/A $0 Cash Tenants $13,450 N/A $29,850 $98,250 $35,250 $23,450 $33,425 $70,750 Other Tenants $44,130 N/A $14,550 $47,020 $24,150 $9,925 $5,550 $36,340 Value of Farm Land Buildings By Ownership and Management Full Owners $6,524,000 $468,000 $14,608,732 $4,220,440 $20,378,911 $2,041,470 $4,986,379 $8,333,465 Part Owners $490,700 $153,500 $642,155 $1,160,466 $1,037,610 $345,313 $1,465,319 $1,031,531 Manager-Operated $2,179,500 N/A $3,940,936 $2,136,970 $6,052,604 $320,880 $1,363,018 $1,820,022 Value of Farm Land Buildings on Tenant Farms Total $480,200 $4,150 $234,380 $624,360 $472,190 $449,085 $382,550 $342,185 Share Tenants and Croppers $0 N/A $16,995 $93,490 N/A $28,000 N/A $51,200 Share-Cash Tenants $0 $4,150 $0 $10,465 $139,200 $0 $95,600 $0 Cash Tenants $24,400 N/A $87,745 $341,600 $143,020 $357,335 $226,550 $188,325 Other Tenants $455,800 N/A $129,640 $178,805 $189,970 $63,750 $60,400 $102,660 Value of Farm Land Buildings by Race White $9,373,800 $686,850 $19,282,088 $7,485,731 $7,485,731 $3,139,498 $8,104,051 $11,357,438 Non-White $300,600 $5,000 $144,115 $656,505 $656,505 $17,250 $93,215 $169,765 Value of Farm Implements and Machinery by Ownership and Operation Full Owners $1,250,220 $145,775 $2,398,955 $1,444,823 $3,787,109 $470,435 $1,209,070 $2,139,500 Part Owners $47,600 $25,325 $96,645 $365,566 $157,250 $30,650 $220,675 $199,935 Manager-Operated $218,500 N/A $196,090 $192,015 $444,016 $37,651 $139,524 $148,894 Value of Farm Implements and Machinery on Tenant Farms Total $9,575 $800 $16,610 $89,513 $13,085 $9,873 $27,177 $30,840 Share Tenants and Croppers $0 $0 $1,975 $13,255 $2,440 $1,970 $11,117 $2,535 Share-Cash Tenants $0 $0 $0 $1,165 N/A $0 N/A $0 Cash Tenants $6,250 N/A $14,080 $54,562 $8,550 $6,040 $14,650 $23,975 Other Tenants $3,325 N/A $555 $20,531 $2,070 $1,863 $1,210 $4,330 Value of Farm Implements and Machinery by Ownership and Operation Full Owners $260,622 $80,526 $333,441 $380,938 $510,070 $81,756 $332,728 $345,871 Part Owners $30,540 $42,717 $41,220 $159,302 $59,630 $7,890 $133,112 $58,115 Manager-Operated $62,470 N/A $178,375 $113,821 $145,223 $10,400 $53,052 $59,095 Value of All Crops Harvested Total $1,038,148 $501,412 $2,922,914 $1,410,710 $3,796,758 $307,552 $3,083,712 $1,401,807 Vegetables (for sale and for farm households) $39,560 $78,230 $239,125 $392,898 $219,593 $26,705 $2,325,406 $81,734 Fruits and Nuts $942,134 $2,429 $2,393,123 $486,945 $3,350,438 $271,885 $406,025 $809,119 Horticultural Specialties $52,249 N/A $238,247 $25,111 $197,802 $2,127 $298,859 $470,353 All Other Crops $878 N/A $2,932 $17,901 $807 $877 $95 $1,459 Irish and Sweet Potatoes $2,688 $367,580 $10,344 $24,872 $2,903 $3,244 $20,856 $17,578 Cereals N/A $28,406 $7,927 $165,793 $2,500 $631 $27,304 $8,604 Corn (harvested for grain) N/A $28,406 $7,909 $164,222 $2,448 $610 $27,304 $8,572 Other Grains and Seeds $24 $290 $5,264 $120,720 $362 $570 $71 $2,151 Hay and Forage $99 $23,572 $9,705 $145,127 $22,353 $1,513 $4,853 $10,809 Forest Products Sold Total 755 N/A 5,263 36,190 1,421 3,133 2,322 18,088 Manufacturing and Labor Brevard County Flagler County Lake County Marion County Orange County Osceola County Seminole County Volusia County Manufacturing Establishments Total 15 7 30 39 71 12 16 59 Wages Paid in Manufacturing Total $71,590 $4,073 $471,766 $382,112 $842,257 $371,217 $162,698 $467,223 Value of Products of Manufacturing Establishments Total $329 $93 $1,923 $2,447 $5,991 $1,020 $1,488 $2,451 Cost of Materials, Supplies, Fuels, Purchased Electrical Energy Total $120 $64 $872 $1,208 $2,964 $367 $792 $1,021 Wholesale Business Establishments Total 31 5 53 36 146 9 16 69 Active Proprietors of Unincorporated Wholesale Business Establishments Total 22 3 37 27 75 9 23 55 Number of Employees of Wholesale Business Establishments Total 495 4 1,285 356 3,284 90 744 479 Service Business Establishments Total 89 7 107 66 369 37 125 270 Active Proprietors of Unincorporated Service Business Establishments Total 89 5 104 64 366 42 131 274 Retail Stores Total 409 59 442 362 1,192 146 411 1,083 Amount of Retail Sales Total $5,366 $478 $7,010 $7,734 $31,510 $2,144 $5,189 $19,364 Active Proprietors of Unincorporated Retail Businesses Total 381 48 407 306 1,046 143 357 977 Persons in the Labor Force Males 4,908 1,059 7,909 9,021 20,740 2,776 6,842 14,854 Females 1,835 187 2,634 3,111 10,132 851 3,081 6,907 Employed Persons Males 4,385 1,016 6,941 8,090 18,408 2,424 6,293 12,236 Females 1,615 164 2,294 2,603 8,864 690 2,841 6,076 Employed Clerical, Sales, and Kindred Workers Males 352 26 609 648 2,860 180 488 1,562 Females 230 15 384 390 1,879 113 291 1,100 Employed Craftsmen, Foremen, and Kindred Workers Males 429 68 632 675 2,396 301 561 1,685 Females 6 0 5 8 66 4 9 27 Employed Operatives and Kindred Workers Males 543 83 766 992 2,461 307 1,128 1,513 Females 165 1 267 158 999 78 592 330 Employed Domestic Service Workers Males 67 7 121 80 457 8 51 338 Females 623 56 769 903 2,971 176 627 2,134 Employed Service Workers, Except Domestic Males 234 33 310 351 1,343 104 227 1,208 Females 221 12 240 278 1,145 127 183 1,129 Employed Proprietors, Managers and Officials Males 601 92 745 790 2,545 262 665 1,978 Females 128 12 144 148 441 66 85 424 Employed Professional Workers Males 149 18 248 257 835 84 167 669 Females 136 12 311 314 1,025 85 191 693 Employed Semiprofessional Workers Males 38 2 50 36 175 15 30 151 Females 9 0 12 3 57 9 6 34 Employed Farm Laborers, Unpaid Family Workers Males 15 11 40 186 39 21 46 38 Females 2 1 8 55 9 3 16 51 Employed Laborers, Except Farm Males 758 419 995 1,093 2,007 664 689 1,656 Females 4 2 13 35 31 3 49 18 Employed Farmers and Farm Managers Males 345 84 675 1,518 767 228 480 596 Females 43 2 43 68 69 13 37 46 Employed Female Farm Laborers and Foremen (Wage Workers) Total 20 50 73 222 116 3 826 52 Registered Emergency Workers Total 248 56 310 463 653 192 344 693 White Males 90 31 165 234 302 110 101 311 White Females 61 19 69 58 173 40 77 118 Black Males 80 6 54 136 118 30 139 245 Black Females 17 0 22 35 60 12 27 19 Persons Employed in Public Emergency Workers Males 217 21 315 411 723 147 243 1,106 Females 89 17 132 146 367 76 130 252 Employed Persons, Occupation Not Reported Males 35 6 79 46 139 19 31 73 Females 28 1 25 21 56 10 11 38 Totally Unemployed Persons, Registered Total 529 39 629 1,290 1,952 405 809 1,956 White Males 146 24 269 360 780 208 199 586 White Females 75 10 156 186 506 114 90 332 Black Males 107 4 103 352 346 37 336 499 Black Females 201 1 101 392 317 46 184 537 Partially Unemployed Persons, Registered Total 606 43 723 1,090 1,736 322 810 1,724 White Males 179 24 368 356 905 159 196 682 White Females 48 5 64 47 204 70 35 114 Black Males 233 13 208 512 424 54 410 646 Black Females 126 1 82 174 201 39 169 281 Persons Seeking Work Males 306 22 653 520 1,609 205 306 1,512 Females 131 6 208 362 901 85 110 579 New Persons Workers Seeking Work Males 26 2 24 32 68 8 12 97 Females 9 1 11 28 65 7 5 53 African Americans agriculture Asian Americans Australian Americans Azorean Americans Belgian Americans Brevard County British Americans Bulgarian Americans Canadian Americans Caribbean Americans Caucasian Americans census Census of 1940 Central Americans cereals clerical college corn crop cropland Cuban Americans Czech Americans Czechoslovakian Americans Danish Americans domestic service Dutch Americans education electricity emergency workers employees employment energy English Americans European Americans farm laborers farm managers farm workers farming farming implements farms females Finnish Americans Flagler County forage forest products forestry French Americans fruits fuel German Americans grain Greek Americans hay Hispanic Americans horticultural specialties horticulture Hungarian Americans Irish Americans Irish potatoes Italian Americans kindred labor laborers Lake County Latin Americans Latinas Latinos Latvian Americans Lithuanian Americans Luxembourger Americans machinery males managers manufacturing Marion County Mexican Americans Northern Irish Americans Norwegian Americans nuts officials operatives orange county Osceola County Palestinian Americans Polish Americans population Portuguese Americans potatoes primary education professionals proprietors public emergency workers retail Romanian Americans Russian Americans sales Scandinavian Americans school Scotch Americans Scottish Americans secondary education seeds Seminole County semiprofessionals service industry sharecroppers sharecropping Slovakian Americans South Americans Soviet Americans Spanish Americans stores Swedish Americans sweet potatoes Swiss Americans Syrian Americans tenant farmers tenant farming tenants Turkish Americans U.S. Census unemployment university vegetables Volusia County wages Welsh Americans West Indian Americans wholesale workers Yugoslavian Americans https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka/files/original/ee509e0bf2aa8f9ca179841ea5393069.jpg ae7185ec1a3e743ab87b32dd6dd4c446 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title U.S. Census Collection Alternative Title Census Collection Subject Census--United States Population--United States Orange County (Fla.) Marion County (Fla.) Brevard County (Fla.) St. Lucie County (Fla.) Seminole County (Fla.) Volusia County (Fla.) Flagler County (Fla.) Lake County (Fla.) Osceola County (Fla.) Description Collection of United States Census population records for various counties in Central Florida from 1840 to 2000. The Census Act of 1840 was signed into law on March 3, 1839 and later amended on February 26, 1840. This piece of legislation established a centralized census office during each enumeration. Congress designated the census questionnaire designs to the Secretary of State. However, each household received inquiries regarding "the pursuits, industry, education, and resources of the country" and included questions related to school attendance, literacy, and vocation. In March of 1849, Congress pass legislation that established a census board consisting of the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Postmaster General. The board was responsible for preparing and printing forms and schedules for enumeration related to population, mining, agriculture, commerce, manufacturing, education, etc. The 1850 Census also increased population inquiries to include every free person's name (as opposed to just the head of the household), as well as information on taxes, schools, crime, wages, estate values, etc. The Census Act of 1850 authorized the U.S. Census of 1860 and stipulated that its provisions be adhered to for all future decennial censuses should no new legislation be passed by the first of the year of said census. In May of 1865, the U.S. Census Office was abolished and many superintending clerks were transferred to the General Land Office. Although the 1870 Census was conducted under the provisions of the Census Act of 1850, a new act was passed on May 6, 1870. The new census legislation required two changes in procedures related to questionnaire return submission dates. Moreover, penalties for refusing to reply to inquires were expanded to apply to all questions and questionnaires. The questionnaires themselves had to be redesigned due to the end of the "slave questionnaire", as slavery had been formally abolished slavery nationwide via the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This left five schedules for the census: General Population, Mortality, Agriculture, Products of Industry, and Social Statistics. In addition, the use of a Charles W. Seaton, a U.S. Census Office chief clerk and later superintendent, invited a rudimentary tallying machine that partially alleviated the difficulties of tallying and tabulating questionnaire responses. Finally, the new superintendent for the Ninth Census, General Francis A. Walker, introduced employment examinations to test the qualifications of applicants to the Census Office, allowing for increased efficiency in the process of collecting census data. The newest act authorizing the Census of 1880 provided for supervision of enumeration by "supervisors of the census", selected exclusively for the collection of census data. All supervisors, as well as the superintendent, were to appointed by the U.S. President and approved by the Senate. Census enumerators were required to personally visit each household and family within his subdivision. The new census act also allowed for the collection of data related to the condition and operation of railroad corporations, incorporated express companies, and telegraph companies, as well as data related to the condition and operation of life, fire, and marine insurance companies. Corporations who refused to provide the census with "true and complete" answers were subject to fines. In addition, the census superintendent was required to collect and publish data on the population, industries and resources of the District of Alaska. Finally, the 1880 Census consisted of five schedules: Population, Mortality, Agriculture, Social Statistics, and Manufacturing. The Census of 1890 was authorized by an act modeled after the 1880 enumeration and signed into law on March 1, 1889. The 1890 Census was supervised by 175 employees and enumerators were required to collect all information by personally visiting each household. The 1890 Census included essentially the same inquires from the 1880 Census, with some notable additions, such as questions about home and farm ownership and indebtedness; and the names, units, length of service, and residences of former Union soldiers and sailors, as well as the names of the widows of those who were no longer alive. Racial categorization was expanded to include "Japanese", along with "Chinese", "Negro", "mulatto", "quadroon", "octoroon", and "White". Herman Hollerith, a former employee of the U.S. Census Office, invited the electric tabulating system, which was widely used in the 1890 Census, allowing data to be processed faster and more efficiently. On October 3, 1893, Congress passed a law that transferred census-related work to the direction of the commissioner of labor. Congress passed another act on March 2, 1895, effectively abolishing the U.S. Census Office and transferring the remaining responsibilities to the Office of the Secretary of the Interior. Congress limited the Census of 1900 to content related to population, mortality, agriculture, and manufacturing. Special census agents were authorized to collect statistics related to incidents of deafness, blindness, insanity, and juvenile delinquency; as well as data on religious bodies, utilities, mining, and transportation. The act authorizing the 1900 Census designated the enumeration of military personally to the U.S. Department of War and the U.S. Department of the Navy, while Indiana Territory was to be enumerated by the commissioner of Indian Affairs. Annexed in 1898, Hawaii was included in the census for the first time. In 1902, the U.S. Census Office was officially established as a permanent organization within the U.S. Department of the Interior. The office became the U.S. Census Bureau in 1903 and was transferred to the Department of Commerce and Labor. The Census of 1910 was approved by legislation introduced in December of 1907 and enacted in July of 1909. The delay was the result of a disagreement over the appointment of enumerators. President Theodore Roosevelt supported the hiring of enumerators via the civil service system, while Congress supported enumerators as positions of patronage. President Roosevelt successfully won the debate. This census act also changed Census Day from the traditional date of June 1st to April 15th. Additional questions regarding the nationality and native language of foreign-born persons and their parents. Funds for the U.S. Census Bureau were also increased to expand the Census' permanent workforce and created several new full-time positions, including a geographer, a chief statistician, and an assistant director. The assistant director was to be appointed by the President and approved by the Senate, while all other census employees were hired on the basis of open, competitive examinations administered by the Civil Service Commission. Despite the use of automatic counting machinery, issues with the tabulation process persisted. Finally, with the United States' entrance into World War I in 1917, the U.S. Census Bureau became a source of even more valuable purpose: the Census was able to use population and economic data to report on the populations of draft-age men, as well as information regarding each state's industrial capabilities. The Census of 1920 changed the date of Census Day from April 15th to January 1st, as requested by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which argued that farmers' memories and harvest information would be more accurate on this day. The U.S. Census Bureau was also authorized to hire additional employees at its headquarters in Washington, D.C. and to create a special field force to collect census data. The legislation authorizing the 1920 Census also allowed for a census of manufacturing to be conducted in 1921, and for such a census to be repeated every two years thereafter, as opposed to the traditional five-year census cycle. Furthermore, a census of agriculture and livestock was to be conducted in 1925 and to be repeated every ten years thereafter. In addition, penalties for those who refused to supply information or those who supplied false information were strengthened. As a result of these changes, census of population, manufacturing, and agriculture and livestock became increasingly independent of one another. The "usual place of abode", the location where residents regularly slept, instead of where they worked or were visiting, became the new basis for enumeration in the 1920 Census. Those with no permanent or regular residence were listed as residents of the location that they were enumerated at. Enumeration related to institutional inmates and dependent, defective, and delinquent classes were also modified. Unlike the previous census, the 1920 Census did not have inquires related to unemployment, to Union or Confederate Army or Navy service, to the number of children born, or to the length of time that a couple had been married. The Census of 1920, however, did include four additional questions: one regarding year of naturalization and three regarding native languages. Issues also arose as a result of changes in international boundaries following World War I, particularly for persons declaring birth or parental birth in Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia, or Turkey. In response, enumerators were required to ask said persons for their province, state, or region of birth. Enumerators were not required to ask individuals how to spell their names, nor were respondents required to provide proof of various pieces of information. Race was determined by the enumerator's impressions. The act authorizing the 1930 Census was approved on June 18, 1929, allowing for a census of population, agriculture, irrigation, draining, distribution, unemployment, and mining. For the first time, specific questions for inquiry were left to the discretion of the Director of the Census. The Census encompassed each state, as well as the District of Columbia, Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. The Governors of Guam, American Samoa, the Virginia Islands, and the Panama Canal Zone were responsible for conducting censuses in their territory. Between the date that the census act was passed and Census Day (April 1st), the stock market crashed, plunging the entire country into the Great Depression. In response, there were public and academic requests for access to unemployment data collected in the 1930 Census; however, the U.S. Census Bureau was unable to meet this demands and the bureau was accused of present unreliable data. Congress required a special unemployment census for January 1931, which ultimately confirmed the severity of the economic crisis. Another unemployment census was conducted in 1937, as mandated by Congress. Because this special census was voluntary, it allowed the Census Bureau to experiment with statistical sampling. Only two percent of households received a special census questionnaire. Congress authorized the 1940 Census in August 1939, providing the Director of the Census the additional authority to conduct a national census of housing in each state, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Alaska. The housing census was conducted separately, though enumerators often collection housing information at the same time that they collected population information. The Census of 1940 was the first time that the U.S. Census Bureau used advanced statistical techniques. In particular, the census used probably sampling, which had only previously been tested in a trial census of unemployment conducted the Civil Works Administration during 1933-1934, in surveys of retail stores in the 1930s, and in an official sample survey of unemployment conducted amongst two percent of American households in 1937. Probability sampling allowed for the inclusion of additional demographic questions without increasing the burden on the collection process or on data processing. Moreover, sampling the U.S. Census Bureau was able to publish preliminary returns eight months before tabulations were completed. Likewise, the census increased its number of published tables, and also was able to complete data processing with higher quality and more efficiency. New census questions focused on employment, unemployment, internal migration, and incomes—reflecting on the concerns of the Great Depression, the country's housing stock, and the need for public housing programs. The Census of 1950 encompassed every state, Alaska, Hawaii, American Samoa, the Panama Canal Zone, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and other small American territories. For the first time, the U.S. Census Bureau enumerate American living abroad to account for members of the U.S. Armed Forces, vessel crew members, and government employees residing in foreign countries. The U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Maritime Administration, and several other federal agencies were responsible for distributing and collecting census questionnaires in a cooperative effort. Persons living abroad for reasons other than what is listed above had their census information reported by families or neighbors residing in the United States, but such data was criticized as unreliable and were not published in official statistics. The 1950 Census also included a new survey on residential financing collected separately on a sample basis from owners of owner-occupied properties, rental properties, and mortgage lenders. The accuracy of the new census was increased by improved enumerator training, the use of detailed street maps for enumerators, the publication of "Missed Person" forms in local newspapers, and the designation of a specific night to conduct a special enumeration of transient individuals. Moreover, a post-enumeration survey was conducted to further verify the accuracy of the original enumeration. A sample of approximately 3,500 small areas was compared to the original census data to identify households that may have been omitted initially. Likewise, a sample of approximately 22,000 households were re-interviewed to identify persons omitted in the original enumeration count. Though not used for the 1950 Census, the UNIVersal Automatic Computer I (UNIVAC I), the first non-military computer, was used to tabulate some of the statistics for the 1954 census of economy. In August of 1954, Congress codified various census statutes, such as the Fifteenth Census Act of 1929, authorizing the decennial census and other census. The Census of 1960 was the first to be mailed to respondents. The U.S. Postal Service delivered census questionnaires to households, the head of household was required to complete the questionnaire, and an enumerator was to pick it up. The enumeration process was divided into two stages: first, select data for each person and dwelling unit was collected; and second, more detailed economic and social data was collected from a sample of households and dwelling units. The census questionnaires for the second stage were hand-delivered by enumerators as they were collecting data from the first stage. Households receiving the second census questionnaire were to complete the form and mail it to their local census office. Twenty-five percent of the population was giving additional sample questions. Because of the increased use of sampling, less populated areas were prone to sampling variation; however, this did not significantly decrease the usefulness of census statistics gathered. Moreover, increased use of sampling reduced data processing costs. Additional questions included in the 1960 Census were related to places of works and means of transportation to work. By 1960, nearly all census data was processed using computers. The U.S. Census Bureau used a Film Optical Sensing Device for Input to Computer (FOSDIC) for the first time, thus decreasing the amount of time and money required for data input. In 1966, the U.S. Census Bureau sought suggestions from advisory committees and from the public, resulting in numerous proposals for additional inquiries related to the scope and structure of the census, as well as in public interest for the publication of additional census data. Researchers also concluded that the 1950 Census and the 1960 Census had undercounted certain segments of the population. Moreover, they noted a growing distrust of government activity and increased resistance to responding to the census. Simultaneously, both the public and private sectors expressed need for accurate information. The U.S. Census Bureau decreased its number of questions from 66 to 23 in an effort to simplify its products. A register for densely populated areas was also created to ensure that all housing units were accounted for. A Spanish-language questionnaire was also enclosed with census questionnaires in areas with a significant amount of Spanish-speaking households. Additionally, a question on Hispanic origins or descent was asked independently from race, but only on a five-percent sample. Only five questions were given to all individuals: relationship to household head, sex, race, age, and marital status. Additional questions were asked in smaller sample groups. This was also the first census in which respondents of urban areas were asked to mail their forms to the Census Bureau, rather than to hold questionnaires for enumerators. Address Coding Guides were used to assign census geographic codes to questionnaires. Counts, a series of computer tape files, were an additional innovation used to increase the accuracy of census data. Count 1 consisted of complete count data for block groups and/or enumeration districts. Count 2 contained census tracts and minor civil/census county divisions, while Count 3 consisted of census blocks. Counts 4-6 provided sample census data for geographic areas of various population sizes. The Census Bureau also produced six Public Use Microdata Sample files, each of which contained complete information for a sample of approximately two million people. Finally, the Census Bureau developed the Summary Tape Processing Center Program, which was a group of organizations, both public and private, that processed census data from computer tapes. For the 1990 Census, the U.S. Census Bureau utilized extensive user consultation prior to enumeration in order to refine both long and short form census questionnaires. The short form consisted of 13 questions and was given to the entire population. The long form asked 45 questions and was given to a 20 percent sample. The long form included topics related to marital history, carpooling, residence, residential elevators, and energy usage. Unlike the 1980 Census, the new census eliminated questions regarding air conditioning, the number of bathrooms in a residence, and the type of heating equipment used. A vast advertising campaign was marketed to increase public awareness of the census via public television, radio, and print media. Like the previous census, the Census of 1990 made a special effort to enumerate groups that have historically been undercounted in previous censuses called "S-Night": individuals in homeless shelters, soup kitchens, bus and railway stations, and dormitories (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "M-Night"); and permanent residents in hotels and motels (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "T-Night"). Following legal issues filed in response to the 1980 Census regarding statistical readjustment of undercounted areas, the Census Bureau initiated a post-enumeration survey (PES), in which a contemporaneous survey of households would be conducted and compare to the census results from the official census. In a partial resolution of a 1989 lawsuit filed by New York plaintiffs, the U.S. Department of Commerce agreed to use the PES to produce population data that had been adjusted for the projected undercount and that said data would be judged against the unadjusted data by the Secretary of Commerce's Special Advisory Panel (SAP). The Census of 1990 also introduced the U.S. to the Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing System (TIGER), which was developed by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Census Bureau. TIGER used computerized representations of various map features to geographically code addresses into appropriate census geographic areas. It also produced different maps required for census data collection and tabulation. Five years earlier, the Census Bureau became the first government agency to publish information on CD-ROM. For the 1990 Census, the bureau made detailed census data, which had previously been only available to organizations with large mainframe computers, accessible to any individual with a personal computer. Census data was also available in print, on computer tape, and on microfiche. Using two online service vendors, DIALOG and CompuServe, the Census Bureau also published select census data online. As with previous censuses, the 1990 Census undercounted the national population, and again, the African-American population had an estimated net undercount rate that was significantly higher than the rate for other races. In July of 1991, the Secretary of Commerce announced that he did not find evidence in favor of using adjusted counts compelling—despite SAP's split vote on the issue—and chose to use unadjusted totals for the official census results. In response, the New York plaintiffs resumed the lawsuit against the Department of Commerce. A federal district court divided in favor of the DOC in April of 1993. The U.S. Court of Appeals, however, rejected the previous court ruling and ordered that the case be reheard by the federal district court. In March of 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court finally ruled in favor of the Secretary of Commerce's decision to use the unadjusted census date, but did not rule on the legality or constitutionality of the use of statistical adjustment in producing apportionment counts. For the 1990 Census, the U.S. Census Bureau utilized extensive user consultation prior to enumeration in order to refine both long and short form census questionnaires. The short form consisted of 13 questions and was given to the entire population. The long form asked 45 questions and was given to a 20 percent sample. The long form included topics related to marital history, carpooling, residence, residential elevators, and energy usage. Unlike the 1980 Census, the new census eliminated questions regarding air conditioning, the number of bathrooms in a residence, and the type of heating equipment used. A vast advertising campaign was marketed to increase public awareness of the census via public television, radio, and print media. Like the previous census, the Census of 1990 made a special effort to enumerate groups that have historically been undercounted in previous censuses called "S-Night": individuals in homeless shelters, soup kitchens, bus and railway stations, and dormitories (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "M-Night"); and permanent residents in hotels and motels (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "T-Night"). Following legal issues filed in response to the 1980 Census regarding statistical readjustment of undercounted areas, the Census Bureau initiated a post-enumeration survey (PES), in which a contemporaneous survey of households would be conducted and compare to the census results from the official census. In a partial resolution of a 1989 lawsuit filed by New York plaintiffs, the U.S. Department of Commerce agreed to use the PES to produce population data that had been adjusted for the projected undercount and that said data would be judged against the unadjusted data by the Secretary of Commerce's Special Advisory Panel (SAP). The Census of 1990 also introduced the U.S. to the Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing System (TIGER), which was developed by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Census Bureau. TIGER used computerized representations of various map features to geographically code addresses into appropriate census geographic areas. It also produced different maps required for census data collection and tabulation. Five years earlier, the Census Bureau became the first government agency to publish information on CD-ROM. For the 1990 Census, the bureau made detailed census data, which had previously been only available to organizations with large mainframe computers, accessible to any individual with a personal computer. Census data was also available in print, on computer tape, and on microfiche. Using two online service vendors, DIALOG and CompuServe, the Census Bureau also published select census data online. As with previous censuses, the 1990 Census undercounted the national population, and again, the African-American population had an estimated net undercount rate that was significantly higher than the rate for other races. In July of 1991, the Secretary of Commerce announced that he did not find evidence in favor of using adjusted counts compelling—despite SAP's split vote on the issue—and chose to use unadjusted totals for the official census results. In response, the New York plaintiffs resumed the lawsuit against the Department of Commerce. A federal district court divided in favor of the DOC in April of 1993. The U.S. Court of Appeals, however, rejected the previous court ruling and ordered that the case be reheard by the federal district court. In March of 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court finally ruled in favor of the Secretary of Commerce's decision to use the unadjusted census date, but did not rule on the legality or constitutionality of the use of statistical adjustment in producing apportionment counts. For the Census of 2000, the short form consisted of only seven questions, while the long form consisted of 52 questions and used for a 17 percent sample of the population. For the first time, race questions were not limited to a single category; rather, respondents were able to check multiple boxes. A new question related to grandparents as caregivers was also mandated by legislation passed in 1996. Disability questions were expanded to including hearing and vision impairments, as well as learning, memory, and concentration disabilities. The 2000 Census also eliminated questions related to children born, water sources, sewage disposal, and condominium status. In addition, the 2000 Census was the first in which the Internet was used as the principal medium for the dissemination of census information. Summary Files were available for download immediately upon release and individual tables could be viewed via American FactFinder, the Census Bureau's online database. Files were also available for purchase on CD-Rom and DVD. Due to declining questionnaire mail-back rates, the U.S. Census Bureau marketed a $167 million national and local print, television, and public advertising campaign in 17 different languages. The campaign successfully brought the mail-back rate up to 67 percent. Additionally, respondents receiving the short form were given the option of responding via the Internet. Telephone questionnaire assistance centers available in 6 languages also took responses via the phone. Statistical sampling techniques were utilized in two ways: first, to alter the traditional 100 percent personal visit of non-responding households during the non-response follow-up (NRFU) process by instead following up on a smaller sample basis; second, the sampling of 750,000 housing units matched to housing unit questionnaires obtained from mail and telephone responses, as well as from personal visits. The goal of the latter was to develop adjustment factors for individuals estimated to have been missed or duplicated and to correct the census counts to produce one set of numbers. This "one-number census" would correct for net coverage errors called Integrated Coverage Measurement (ICM). Both of these measures were taken in an attempt to avoid repetition of the litigation costs generated by the 1980 Census and the 1990 Census. Despite these efforts, two lawsuits—one filed by the U.S. House of Representatives—were filed in February 1998 challenging the constitutionality and legality of the planned uses of sampling to produce apportionment counts. Both cases were decided in favor of the plaintiffs in federal district courts, but the U.S. Department of Commerce made appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court. Known as the U.S. Department of Commerce v. the U.S. House of Representatives, the Court ruled that the Census Bureau's plans to use statistical sampling for purposes of congressional apportionments violated the Census Act. The bureau revised its plan, stating that it would produce statistically adjusted data for non-apportionment uses of census data information, such as redistricting. However, in March of 2001, the Census Bureau recommended against the use of adjusted census data for redistricting due to accuracy concerns; the Secretary of Commerce determined that the unadjusted data would be released as the bureau's official redistricting data. The Director of the Census Bureau also rejected to the use of adjusted data for non-redistricting purposes in October of that same year. Language eng Type Collection Coverage Mosquito County, Florida Brevard County, Florida Flagler County, Florida Lake County, Florida Marion County, Florida Orange County, Florida Osceola County, Florida Seminole County, Florida Volusia County, Florida Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Contributor Gibson, Ella Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a>. Rights Holder This resource is not subject to copyright in the United States and there are no copyright restrictions on reproduction, derivative works, distribution, performance, or display of the work. Anyone may, without restriction under U.S. copyright laws: <ul class="one_column_bullet"><li>reproduce the work in print or digital form</li> <li>create derivative works</li> <li>perform the work publicly</li> <li>display the work</li> <li>distribute copies or digitally transfer the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.</li> </ul>This resources is provided here by <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> for educational purposes only. For more information on copyright, please refer to <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#105" target="_blank">Section 5</a> of <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html" target="_blank">Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code</a>. Source Repository <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> External Reference United States. <a href="https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf" target="_blank">Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970</a>. Washington: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1975. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/histstats-colonial-1970.pdf. United States, and Carroll D. Wright. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/166662" target="_blank">The History and Growth of the United States Census</a>. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1900. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf. "<a href="https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/" target="_blank">Through the Decades</a>." United States Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce. https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/. Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Original Format 1 table Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title U.S. Census for Central Florida, 1930 Alternative Title Census, 1930 Subject Census--United States Orange County (Fla.) Marion County (Fla.) Brevard County (Fla.) St. Lucie County (Fla.) Seminole County (Fla.) Volusia County (Fla.) Flagler County (Fla.) Lake County (Fla.) Osceola County (Fla.) Population--United States Description The Fifteenth United States Census records for Brevard County, Flagler County, Lake County, Marion County, Orange County, Osceola County, Seminole County, and Volusia County, Florida, for 1930. The census divides the population by gender, race ("white" and "black"), and native-born vs. foreign-born. Those who are foreign born are further divided by country of origin. The census then lists the population categorized by age, family size (as well as rural families vs. urban families), family radio ownership, marital status, school attendance, and literacy. The census also collected information on agriculture, on manufacturing, and on unemployment. The act authorizing the 1930 Census was approved on June 18, 1929, allowing for censuses of population, agriculture, irrigation, draining, distribution, unemployment, and mining. For the first time, specific questions for inquiry were left to the discretion of the Director of the Census. The Census encompassed each state, as well as the District of Columbia, Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. The Governors of Guam, American Samoa, the Virginia Islands, and the Panama Canal Zone were responsible for conducting censuses in their respective territories. Between the date that the census act was passed and Census Day (April 1st), the stock market crashed, plunging the entire country into the Great Depression. In response, there were public and academic requests for access to unemployment data collected in the 1930 Census; however, the U.S. Census Bureau was unable to meet this demand and the bureau was accused of presenting unreliable data. Congress required a special unemployment census for January 1931, which ultimately confirmed the severity of the economic crisis. Another unemployment census was conducted in 1937, as mandated by Congress. Because this special census was voluntary, it allowed the Census Bureau to experiment with statistical sampling. Only two percent of households received a special census questionnaire. Type Dataset Source Original census data collected by the <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Bureau</a>, 1930. Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/104" target="_blank">U.S. Census Collection</a>, RICHES of Central Florida. Is Format Of Digital reproduction of original census data collected by the <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Bureau</a>, 1930. Coverage Brevard County, Florida Flagler County, Florida Lake County, Florida Marion County, Florida Orange County, Florida Osceola County, Florida Seminole County, Florida Volusia County, Florida Creator <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Bureau</a> Publisher <a href="http://www.commerce.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Department of Commerce</a> Contributor Gibson, Ella Date Created ca. 1930-04-01 Format image/jpg Extent 1.99 MB Medium 1 table Language eng Mediator History Teacher Economics Teacher Geography Teacher Provenance Originally collected by the <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Bureau</a> and published by the <a href="http://www.commerce.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Department of Commerce</a>. Rights Holder This resource is not subject to copyright in the United States and there are no copyright restrictions on reproduction, derivative works, distribution, performance, or display of the work. Anyone may, without restriction under U.S. copyright laws: <ul class="one_column_bullet"><li>reproduce the work in print or digital form;</li> <li>create derivative works;</li> <li>perform the work publicly;</li> <li>display the work;</li> <li>distribute copies or digitally transfer the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.</li> </ul> This resources is provided here by <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> for educational purposes only. For more information on copyright, please refer to <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#105" target="_blank">Section 5</a> of <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html" target="_blank">Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code</a>. Accrual Method Item Creation Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> External Reference "<a href="https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/overview/1930.html" target="_blank">1930 Overview</a>." U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/overview/1930.html. United States. <a href="https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf" target="_blank">Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970</a>. Washington: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1975. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/histstats-colonial-1970.pdf. United States, and Carroll D. Wright. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/166662" target="_blank">The History and Growth of the United States Census</a>. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1930. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf. Transcript U.S. Census of 1930 Population Brevard County Flagler County Lake County Marion County Orange County Osceola County Seminole County Volusia County Population Total 13,283 2,466 23,161 29,578 49,737 10,699 18,735 42,757 Males 6,766 1,355 11,673 14,970 24,034 5,500 9,467 20,850 Females 6,517 1,111 11,488 14,608 25,703 5,199 9,268 21,907 White Population Total 9,062 1,613 16,717 15,065 37,495 7,610 10,302 30,205 Males 4,642 874 8,346 7,664 18,260 3,773 5,228 14,746 Females 4,420 739 8,371 7,401 19,235 3,837 5,074 15,459 Native-Born Population Total 8,593 1,491 16,068 14,645 35,498 7,316 9,875 28,379 Males 4,390 802 7,992 7,439 17,270 3,608 4,984 13,829 Females 4,203 689 8,076 7,206 18,228 3,708 4,891 14,549 Foreign-Born Population Total 469 122 649 420 1,997 294 427 1,827 Males 252 72 354 225 990 165 244 917 Females 217 50 295 195 1,007 129 183 910 Black Population Total 4,199 852 6,442 14,513 12,226 3,056 8,431 12,537 Males 2,112 480 3,235 7,306 5,764 1,710 4,238 6,093 Females 2,087 372 3,117 7,207 6,462 1,346 4,193 6,444 Other Race Population Total 22 1 2 0 16 33 2 15 Males 12 1 2 0 10 17 1 11 Females 10 0 0 0 6 16 1 4 Population by Age Under 1 205 49 393 523 785 180 338 648 1-4 1,028 196 1,894 2,345 3,558 761 1,474 2,938 5-9 1,336 264 2,349 3,126 4,709 1,000 1,911 4,001 10-14 1,230 238 2,109 3,022 4,353 929 1,846 3,729 15-19 1,117 220 2,114 3,092 4,433 933 1,883 3,435 20-24 1,159 235 1,992 2,874 4,486 888 1,753 3,524 25-29 1,068 214 1,826 2,298 4,349 852 1,689 3,471 30-34 981 184 1,656 1,905 3,826 691 1,488 3,132 35-44 1,826 343 3,047 3,653 7,036 1,331 2,703 6,141 45-54 1,452 250 2,326 3,081 5,344 1,100 1,861 4,700 55-64 1,030 162 1,721 2,065 3,711 917 1,022 3,665 65-74 615 79 1,219 1,105 2,184 623 549 2,266 75+ 224 31 498 457 924 470 214 1,033 Age Unknown 12 1 17 32 39 24 4 74 Number of Families Total 3,761 653 6,460 7,483 13,852 3,198 5,043 12,444 Farm 462 131 1,506 2,559 1,308 451 781 892 Rural Farm 454 131 1,468 2,557 1,257 433 722 876 Urban Farm 8 0 38 2 51 18 59 16 Non-Farm 3,299 522 4,954 4,924 12,544 2,747 4,262 11,552 Rural Non-Farm 2,523 522 3,106 3,028 3,775 1,898 1,590 3,887 Urban Non-Farm 776 0 1,848 1,896 8,769 849 2,672 7,665 Number of Families by Size 1 Person 597 91 912 968 1,654 593 611 1,905 2 Persons 1,078 186 1,814 1,778 4,030 984 1,288 3,855 3 Persons 715 123 1,225 1,412 2,895 548 1,052 2,368 4 Persons 514 84 955 1,144 2,117 447 814 1,734 5 Persons 359 60 639 779 1,383 246 516 1,127 6 Persons 196 39 392 530 837 160 319 666 7 Persons 116 33 221 348 422 96 192 378 8 Persons 82 23 144 224 238 65 121 189 9 Persons 52 10 81 135 130 30 67 116 10 Persons 19 3 29 76 84 18 33 60 11 Persons 18 0 19 45 32 7 18 27 12+ Persons 15 1 29 44 30 4 12 19 Radio Ownership Families Reporting Radios 783 57 1,072 680 2,638 323 729 2,164 Urban Families Reporting Radios 165 0 434 319 1,850 140 491 1,526 Rural Families Reporting Radios 618 57 638 361 786 183 238 638 Families Without Radios 2,978 596 5,388 6,803 11,216 2,875 4,314 10,280 Urban Families Without Radios 619 0 1,452 1,579 6,970 727 2,240 6,155 Rural Families Without Radios 2,359 596 3,936 5,224 4,246 2,148 2,074 4,125 Population by Marital Status, Aged 15+ Total 9,484 1,719 16,416 20,562 36,332 7,829 13,166 31,441 Single 2,352 427 4,010 5,432 8,705 1,754 3,094 7,221 Married 6,127 1,170 10,540 12,562 23,568 4,894 8,821 20,237 Widowed 898 104 1,603 2,141 3,404 1,091 1,059 3,388 Divorced 105 18 241 404 474 83 183 539 Unknown Marital Status 2 0 22 23 181 7 9 56 Male Population by Marital Status, Aged 15+ Total 4,850 963 8,306 10,465 17,303 4,080 6,633 15,090 Single 1,442 308 2,407 3,217 4,634 1,138 1,814 3,993 Married 3,060 601 5,252 6,294 11,615 2,454 4,371 10,007 Widowed 299 43 512 747 833 449 348 829 Divorced 49 11 122 193 171 34 94 231 Unknown Marital Status 0 0 13 14 50 5 6 30 Female Population by Marital Status, Aged 15+ Total 4,634 756 8,110 10,097 19,029 3,749 6,533 16,351 Single 910 119 1,603 2,215 4,071 616 1,280 3,228 Married 306 569 5,288 6,268 11,953 2,440 4,450 10,230 Widowed 599 61 1,091 1,394 2,571 642 711 2,559 Divorced 56 7 119 211 303 49 89 308 Unknown Marital Status 2 0 9 9 131 2 3 26 Foreign-Born Population by Country of Origin Austria 18 5 11 7 40 14 1 27 Canada 84 9 140 80 486 62 79 399 Cuba 2 0 0 4 7 3 2 8 Czechoslovakia 27 4 9 2 52 3 28 16 Denmark 6 2 15 8 24 5 3 31 England 76 20 132 101 361 67 62 438 France 8 1 12 11 35 5 10 47 Germany 96 15 59 59 273 50 51 233 Greece 6 0 7 4 58 0 11 36 Irish (free state) 16 0 12 6 51 12 9 50 Italy 17 0 27 15 48 11 12 30 Northern Ireland 2 2 3 7 18 2 2 13 Norway 11 1 9 2 20 1 7 24 Palestine and Syria 0 1 0 18 28 1 4 28 Poland 5 30 8 8 22 0 5 32 Rumania 5 0 3 0 20 1 21 9 Russia 2 8 11 12 83 1 11 32 Scotland 18 6 29 29 68 8 23 61 Spain 0 0 0 2 2 2 1 5 Sweden 17 4 81 18 124 24 40 106 Switzerland 8 2 10 9 23 4 15 24 West Indies 4 0 3 5 13 3 2 14 West Indies, Others 6 0 3 1 6 0 0 6 Other Countries 41 12 68 17 147 18 30 172 Education Brevard County Flagler County Lake County Marion County Orange County Osceola County Seminole County Volusia County Population, Aged 7-20 Total 3,387 646 6,029 8,598 12,507 2,646 5,221 10,252 Population Attending School, Aged 7-20 Total 2,589 441 4,295 6,304 9,178 1,894 3,764 7,924 Ages 7-13 1,765 297 2,871 4,167 6,043 1,250 2,514 5,285 Ages 14-15 424 81 709 1,049 1,493 320 618 1,288 Ages 16-17 259 43 458 751 1,057 221 426 872 Ages 18-20 141 20 257 367 585 103 206 479 Population Not Attending School, Aged 7-20 Total 798 205 1,734 2,294 3,329 752 1,457 2,328 Ages 7-13 34 32 206 181 274 94 126 159 Ages 14-15 64 19 131 176 265 46 133 144 Ages 16-17 184 42 380 513 725 196 320 523 Ages 18-20 516 112 1,017 1,424 2,065 416 878 1,502 Population, Aged 10+ Total 10,714 1,957 18,525 23,584 40,685 8,758 15,012 35,170 White 7,365 1,266 13,493 12,047 30,806 6,262 8,311 24,894 Black 3,334 690 5,030 11,537 9,865 2,472 6,699 10,262 Other 15 1 2 0 14 24 2 14 Illiterate Population, Aged 10+ Total 503 182 1,089 2,216 1,738 547 1,280 1,749 White 35 13 158 145 257 86 59 161 Black 463 169 931 2,071 1,479 444 1,220 1,585 Other 5 0 0 0 2 17 1 3 Literate Population, Aged 10+ Total 10,211 1,775 17,436 21,368 38,947 8,211 13,732 33,421 White 7,330 1,253 13,335 11,902 30,549 6,176 8,252 24,733 Black 2,871 521 4,099 9,466 8,386 2,028 5,479 8,677 Other 10 1 2 0 12 7 1 11 Agriculture Brevard County Flagler County Lake County Marion County Orange County Osceola County Seminole County Volusia County Number of Farms by Race Total 633 144 1,981 2,175 1,608 497 780 1,013 White 39 3 109 955 56 10 40 49 Colored 594 141 1,872 1,220 1,552 487 740 964 Acreage of Farms by Race Total 25,608 13,463 127,027 204,467 102,347 75,608 34,471 76,681 White 24,825 13,418 124,578 169,229 100,982 75,501 33,834 75,363 Colored 783 45 2,449 35,238 1,365 107 637 1,318 Farms by Ownership, Tenure, and Management Full Owners 501 105 1,468 1,451 1,380 416 615 900 Part Owners 7 11 66 351 38 21 53 34 Manager-Operated 97 9 285 78 110 22 61 25 Tenant-Operated 28 19 162 295 80 38 51 54 Cash Tenant-Operated 13 16 54 114 48 16 35 31 Other Tenant-Operated 15 3 108 181 32 22 16 23 Farm Acreage by Ownership, Tenure, and Management Full Owners 25,608 13,463 127,027 204,467 102,347 75,608 34,471 76,681 Part Owners 18,856 10,976 70,810 118,675 54,674 23,426 20,430 61,131 Manager-Operated 505 1,015 6,660 33,026 3,982 2,787 1,573 2,753 Tenant-Operated 5,334 345 38,524 32,722 18,419 48,614 10,690 11,441 Cash Tenant-Operated 913 1,127 11,033 20,044 25,272 781 1,778 1,356 Other Tenant-Operated 516 1,043 4,721 7,667 24,182 381 1,392 766 Farms by Acreage Less than 3 15 0 88 16 87 31 36 47 3-9 137 5 391 166 342 92 180 206 10-19 169 17 487 343 416 115 221 251 20-49 183 67 547 793 455 150 237 265 50-99 57 33 234 406 168 60 57 117 100-174 52 12 136 225 71 21 30 69 175-259 13 2 43 94 27 7 9 22 260-499 3 5 32 76 17 7 4 14 500-999 4 1 10 34 16 8 3 8 1,000-4,999 0 2 11 20 7 4 2 14 5,000+ 0 0 2 2 2 2 1 0 Value of Farms Total $12,560,869 $1,152,345 $34,719,355 $14,108,455 $32,468,362 $4,352,981 $13,207,921 $17,052,127 Farmland $9,974,127 $645,100 $28,863,318 $9,560,832 $24,961,455 $3,067,920 $9,712,100 $12,293,764 Buildings $1,402,675 $282,025 $3,100,276 $2,397,812 $4,063,348 $691,705 $1,774,708 $2,600,511 Farmers' Dwellings $982,800 $143,450 $235,270 $1,573,405 $2,866,942 $463,220 $1,241,200 $1,752,640 Farming Implements and Machinery $201,267 $81,770 $405,491 $576,406 $576,617 $130,136 $479,913 $405,212 Value of All Crops Total $2,024,972 $560,114 $3,896,294 $2,489,061 $4,330,237 $434,275 $3,761,321 $1,840,084 Cereal $164 $32,327 $16,425 $293,916 $9,133 $5,830 $36,218 $14,457 Other Grains and Seeds $481 $2,801 $5,359 $85,029 $2,706 $1,859 $50 $4,129 Hay and Forage $145 $10,124 $9,207 $64,930 $19,444 $3,035 $16,658 $12,075 Vegetables $101,832 $496,606 $472,268 $973,677 $395,621 $60,768 $2,904,857 $203,665 Fruits and Nuts $1,910,835 $6,253 $3,356,253 $931,117 $3,878,778 $351,429 $774,298 $1,576,158 All Other Crops $0 $2,213 $8,048 $53,978 $1,576 $2,132 $0 $3,594 Garden Vegetables $11,515 $9,790 $28,734 $86,414 $22,979 $9,222 $29,240 $26,006 Manufacturing Manufacturing Establishments Total 20 12 35 52 62 19 21 60 Average Number of Wage Earners in Manufacturing Total 257 413 619 913 716 1,202 611 781 Annual Wages in Manufacturing Total $194,907 $195,277 $568,133 $515,673 $741,979 $686,476 $602,100 $681,583 Value of Products of Manufacturing Establishments Total $640,042 $4,359,445 $1,789,513 $2,027,539 $3,695,845 $2,144,695 $3,034,534 $2,613,996 Wholesale Establishments Total 24 5 35 36 62 9 30 46 Number of Employees of Wholesale Establishments Total 91 6 588 106 1,902 15 335 236 Males 78 6 529 96 1,429 14 251 198 Females 13 0 59 10 473 1 84 38 Salaries and Wages Paid in Wholesale Establishments Total $134,450 $13,672 $425,507 $306,370 $1,177,251 $42,041 $394,430 $306,052 Retail Distribution Stores Total 317 68 368 444 799 149 295 801 Number of Retail Distribution Proprietors and Firm Members Total 282 63 351 423 725 137 265 687 Full-time Employees of Retail Stores Total 361 43 560 732 1945 188 393 1427 Labor Force (Gainful Workers, Unemployed, and Lay-off) Total 5,644 1,037 9,382 12,206 22,751 4,373 8,429 18,154 Unemployed (Out of job, Able to work, and Looking for a job) Total 223 8 476 220 1,733 199 224 942 Males 173 7 361 153 1,172 154 162 710 Females 50 1 115 67 561 45 62 232 Registered Fully Unemployed Persons Total 529 39 629 1,290 1,952 405 809 1,956 White 221 34 425 546 1,286 322 289 918 White Males 146 24 269 360 780 208 199 586 White Females 75 10 156 186 506 114 90 332 Black 308 5 204 744 663 83 520 1,036 Black Males 107 4 103 352 346 37 336 499 Black Females 201 1 101 392 317 46 184 537 African Americans agriculture Anglo Americans Austrian Americans Brevard County British Americans Canadian Americans Caribbean Americans Caucasian Americans census Census of 1930 cereals crops Cuban Americans Czech Americans Czechoslovakian Americans Danish Americans distribution divorced dwellings education employees English Americans European Americans families farm farmers farming farming implements farmland farms females firm members Flagler County forage French Americans fruits gainful workers garden vegetables German Americans grains Greek Americans hay Hispanic Americans illiteracy Irish Americans Italian Americans labor laborers Lake County Latin Americans Latinas Latinos lay-offs literacy machinery males manufacturing Marion County marital status married Middle Eastern Americans Northern Irish Americans Norwegian Americans nuts orange county Osceola County Palestinian Americans Polish Americans population proprietors radios retail Romanian Americans rural Russian Americans Scandinavian Americans school Scotch Americans Scottish Americans seeds Seminole County single Slovakian Americans Spanish Americans stores Swedish Americans Swiss Americans Syrian Americans tenant farmers tenant farming tenants U.S. Census unemployment urban vegetables Volusia County wages West Indian Americans wholesale widowed workers https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka/files/original/12393dba254f2ac70d22b9a23a09c12d.jpg 8137091dfcd240d36abc411d790e6f51 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title U.S. Census Collection Alternative Title Census Collection Subject Census--United States Population--United States Orange County (Fla.) Marion County (Fla.) Brevard County (Fla.) St. Lucie County (Fla.) Seminole County (Fla.) Volusia County (Fla.) Flagler County (Fla.) Lake County (Fla.) Osceola County (Fla.) Description Collection of United States Census population records for various counties in Central Florida from 1840 to 2000. The Census Act of 1840 was signed into law on March 3, 1839 and later amended on February 26, 1840. This piece of legislation established a centralized census office during each enumeration. Congress designated the census questionnaire designs to the Secretary of State. However, each household received inquiries regarding "the pursuits, industry, education, and resources of the country" and included questions related to school attendance, literacy, and vocation. In March of 1849, Congress pass legislation that established a census board consisting of the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Postmaster General. The board was responsible for preparing and printing forms and schedules for enumeration related to population, mining, agriculture, commerce, manufacturing, education, etc. The 1850 Census also increased population inquiries to include every free person's name (as opposed to just the head of the household), as well as information on taxes, schools, crime, wages, estate values, etc. The Census Act of 1850 authorized the U.S. Census of 1860 and stipulated that its provisions be adhered to for all future decennial censuses should no new legislation be passed by the first of the year of said census. In May of 1865, the U.S. Census Office was abolished and many superintending clerks were transferred to the General Land Office. Although the 1870 Census was conducted under the provisions of the Census Act of 1850, a new act was passed on May 6, 1870. The new census legislation required two changes in procedures related to questionnaire return submission dates. Moreover, penalties for refusing to reply to inquires were expanded to apply to all questions and questionnaires. The questionnaires themselves had to be redesigned due to the end of the "slave questionnaire", as slavery had been formally abolished slavery nationwide via the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This left five schedules for the census: General Population, Mortality, Agriculture, Products of Industry, and Social Statistics. In addition, the use of a Charles W. Seaton, a U.S. Census Office chief clerk and later superintendent, invited a rudimentary tallying machine that partially alleviated the difficulties of tallying and tabulating questionnaire responses. Finally, the new superintendent for the Ninth Census, General Francis A. Walker, introduced employment examinations to test the qualifications of applicants to the Census Office, allowing for increased efficiency in the process of collecting census data. The newest act authorizing the Census of 1880 provided for supervision of enumeration by "supervisors of the census", selected exclusively for the collection of census data. All supervisors, as well as the superintendent, were to appointed by the U.S. President and approved by the Senate. Census enumerators were required to personally visit each household and family within his subdivision. The new census act also allowed for the collection of data related to the condition and operation of railroad corporations, incorporated express companies, and telegraph companies, as well as data related to the condition and operation of life, fire, and marine insurance companies. Corporations who refused to provide the census with "true and complete" answers were subject to fines. In addition, the census superintendent was required to collect and publish data on the population, industries and resources of the District of Alaska. Finally, the 1880 Census consisted of five schedules: Population, Mortality, Agriculture, Social Statistics, and Manufacturing. The Census of 1890 was authorized by an act modeled after the 1880 enumeration and signed into law on March 1, 1889. The 1890 Census was supervised by 175 employees and enumerators were required to collect all information by personally visiting each household. The 1890 Census included essentially the same inquires from the 1880 Census, with some notable additions, such as questions about home and farm ownership and indebtedness; and the names, units, length of service, and residences of former Union soldiers and sailors, as well as the names of the widows of those who were no longer alive. Racial categorization was expanded to include "Japanese", along with "Chinese", "Negro", "mulatto", "quadroon", "octoroon", and "White". Herman Hollerith, a former employee of the U.S. Census Office, invited the electric tabulating system, which was widely used in the 1890 Census, allowing data to be processed faster and more efficiently. On October 3, 1893, Congress passed a law that transferred census-related work to the direction of the commissioner of labor. Congress passed another act on March 2, 1895, effectively abolishing the U.S. Census Office and transferring the remaining responsibilities to the Office of the Secretary of the Interior. Congress limited the Census of 1900 to content related to population, mortality, agriculture, and manufacturing. Special census agents were authorized to collect statistics related to incidents of deafness, blindness, insanity, and juvenile delinquency; as well as data on religious bodies, utilities, mining, and transportation. The act authorizing the 1900 Census designated the enumeration of military personally to the U.S. Department of War and the U.S. Department of the Navy, while Indiana Territory was to be enumerated by the commissioner of Indian Affairs. Annexed in 1898, Hawaii was included in the census for the first time. In 1902, the U.S. Census Office was officially established as a permanent organization within the U.S. Department of the Interior. The office became the U.S. Census Bureau in 1903 and was transferred to the Department of Commerce and Labor. The Census of 1910 was approved by legislation introduced in December of 1907 and enacted in July of 1909. The delay was the result of a disagreement over the appointment of enumerators. President Theodore Roosevelt supported the hiring of enumerators via the civil service system, while Congress supported enumerators as positions of patronage. President Roosevelt successfully won the debate. This census act also changed Census Day from the traditional date of June 1st to April 15th. Additional questions regarding the nationality and native language of foreign-born persons and their parents. Funds for the U.S. Census Bureau were also increased to expand the Census' permanent workforce and created several new full-time positions, including a geographer, a chief statistician, and an assistant director. The assistant director was to be appointed by the President and approved by the Senate, while all other census employees were hired on the basis of open, competitive examinations administered by the Civil Service Commission. Despite the use of automatic counting machinery, issues with the tabulation process persisted. Finally, with the United States' entrance into World War I in 1917, the U.S. Census Bureau became a source of even more valuable purpose: the Census was able to use population and economic data to report on the populations of draft-age men, as well as information regarding each state's industrial capabilities. The Census of 1920 changed the date of Census Day from April 15th to January 1st, as requested by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which argued that farmers' memories and harvest information would be more accurate on this day. The U.S. Census Bureau was also authorized to hire additional employees at its headquarters in Washington, D.C. and to create a special field force to collect census data. The legislation authorizing the 1920 Census also allowed for a census of manufacturing to be conducted in 1921, and for such a census to be repeated every two years thereafter, as opposed to the traditional five-year census cycle. Furthermore, a census of agriculture and livestock was to be conducted in 1925 and to be repeated every ten years thereafter. In addition, penalties for those who refused to supply information or those who supplied false information were strengthened. As a result of these changes, census of population, manufacturing, and agriculture and livestock became increasingly independent of one another. The "usual place of abode", the location where residents regularly slept, instead of where they worked or were visiting, became the new basis for enumeration in the 1920 Census. Those with no permanent or regular residence were listed as residents of the location that they were enumerated at. Enumeration related to institutional inmates and dependent, defective, and delinquent classes were also modified. Unlike the previous census, the 1920 Census did not have inquires related to unemployment, to Union or Confederate Army or Navy service, to the number of children born, or to the length of time that a couple had been married. The Census of 1920, however, did include four additional questions: one regarding year of naturalization and three regarding native languages. Issues also arose as a result of changes in international boundaries following World War I, particularly for persons declaring birth or parental birth in Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia, or Turkey. In response, enumerators were required to ask said persons for their province, state, or region of birth. Enumerators were not required to ask individuals how to spell their names, nor were respondents required to provide proof of various pieces of information. Race was determined by the enumerator's impressions. The act authorizing the 1930 Census was approved on June 18, 1929, allowing for a census of population, agriculture, irrigation, draining, distribution, unemployment, and mining. For the first time, specific questions for inquiry were left to the discretion of the Director of the Census. The Census encompassed each state, as well as the District of Columbia, Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. The Governors of Guam, American Samoa, the Virginia Islands, and the Panama Canal Zone were responsible for conducting censuses in their territory. Between the date that the census act was passed and Census Day (April 1st), the stock market crashed, plunging the entire country into the Great Depression. In response, there were public and academic requests for access to unemployment data collected in the 1930 Census; however, the U.S. Census Bureau was unable to meet this demands and the bureau was accused of present unreliable data. Congress required a special unemployment census for January 1931, which ultimately confirmed the severity of the economic crisis. Another unemployment census was conducted in 1937, as mandated by Congress. Because this special census was voluntary, it allowed the Census Bureau to experiment with statistical sampling. Only two percent of households received a special census questionnaire. Congress authorized the 1940 Census in August 1939, providing the Director of the Census the additional authority to conduct a national census of housing in each state, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Alaska. The housing census was conducted separately, though enumerators often collection housing information at the same time that they collected population information. The Census of 1940 was the first time that the U.S. Census Bureau used advanced statistical techniques. In particular, the census used probably sampling, which had only previously been tested in a trial census of unemployment conducted the Civil Works Administration during 1933-1934, in surveys of retail stores in the 1930s, and in an official sample survey of unemployment conducted amongst two percent of American households in 1937. Probability sampling allowed for the inclusion of additional demographic questions without increasing the burden on the collection process or on data processing. Moreover, sampling the U.S. Census Bureau was able to publish preliminary returns eight months before tabulations were completed. Likewise, the census increased its number of published tables, and also was able to complete data processing with higher quality and more efficiency. New census questions focused on employment, unemployment, internal migration, and incomes—reflecting on the concerns of the Great Depression, the country's housing stock, and the need for public housing programs. The Census of 1950 encompassed every state, Alaska, Hawaii, American Samoa, the Panama Canal Zone, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and other small American territories. For the first time, the U.S. Census Bureau enumerate American living abroad to account for members of the U.S. Armed Forces, vessel crew members, and government employees residing in foreign countries. The U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Maritime Administration, and several other federal agencies were responsible for distributing and collecting census questionnaires in a cooperative effort. Persons living abroad for reasons other than what is listed above had their census information reported by families or neighbors residing in the United States, but such data was criticized as unreliable and were not published in official statistics. The 1950 Census also included a new survey on residential financing collected separately on a sample basis from owners of owner-occupied properties, rental properties, and mortgage lenders. The accuracy of the new census was increased by improved enumerator training, the use of detailed street maps for enumerators, the publication of "Missed Person" forms in local newspapers, and the designation of a specific night to conduct a special enumeration of transient individuals. Moreover, a post-enumeration survey was conducted to further verify the accuracy of the original enumeration. A sample of approximately 3,500 small areas was compared to the original census data to identify households that may have been omitted initially. Likewise, a sample of approximately 22,000 households were re-interviewed to identify persons omitted in the original enumeration count. Though not used for the 1950 Census, the UNIVersal Automatic Computer I (UNIVAC I), the first non-military computer, was used to tabulate some of the statistics for the 1954 census of economy. In August of 1954, Congress codified various census statutes, such as the Fifteenth Census Act of 1929, authorizing the decennial census and other census. The Census of 1960 was the first to be mailed to respondents. The U.S. Postal Service delivered census questionnaires to households, the head of household was required to complete the questionnaire, and an enumerator was to pick it up. The enumeration process was divided into two stages: first, select data for each person and dwelling unit was collected; and second, more detailed economic and social data was collected from a sample of households and dwelling units. The census questionnaires for the second stage were hand-delivered by enumerators as they were collecting data from the first stage. Households receiving the second census questionnaire were to complete the form and mail it to their local census office. Twenty-five percent of the population was giving additional sample questions. Because of the increased use of sampling, less populated areas were prone to sampling variation; however, this did not significantly decrease the usefulness of census statistics gathered. Moreover, increased use of sampling reduced data processing costs. Additional questions included in the 1960 Census were related to places of works and means of transportation to work. By 1960, nearly all census data was processed using computers. The U.S. Census Bureau used a Film Optical Sensing Device for Input to Computer (FOSDIC) for the first time, thus decreasing the amount of time and money required for data input. In 1966, the U.S. Census Bureau sought suggestions from advisory committees and from the public, resulting in numerous proposals for additional inquiries related to the scope and structure of the census, as well as in public interest for the publication of additional census data. Researchers also concluded that the 1950 Census and the 1960 Census had undercounted certain segments of the population. Moreover, they noted a growing distrust of government activity and increased resistance to responding to the census. Simultaneously, both the public and private sectors expressed need for accurate information. The U.S. Census Bureau decreased its number of questions from 66 to 23 in an effort to simplify its products. A register for densely populated areas was also created to ensure that all housing units were accounted for. A Spanish-language questionnaire was also enclosed with census questionnaires in areas with a significant amount of Spanish-speaking households. Additionally, a question on Hispanic origins or descent was asked independently from race, but only on a five-percent sample. Only five questions were given to all individuals: relationship to household head, sex, race, age, and marital status. Additional questions were asked in smaller sample groups. This was also the first census in which respondents of urban areas were asked to mail their forms to the Census Bureau, rather than to hold questionnaires for enumerators. Address Coding Guides were used to assign census geographic codes to questionnaires. Counts, a series of computer tape files, were an additional innovation used to increase the accuracy of census data. Count 1 consisted of complete count data for block groups and/or enumeration districts. Count 2 contained census tracts and minor civil/census county divisions, while Count 3 consisted of census blocks. Counts 4-6 provided sample census data for geographic areas of various population sizes. The Census Bureau also produced six Public Use Microdata Sample files, each of which contained complete information for a sample of approximately two million people. Finally, the Census Bureau developed the Summary Tape Processing Center Program, which was a group of organizations, both public and private, that processed census data from computer tapes. For the 1990 Census, the U.S. Census Bureau utilized extensive user consultation prior to enumeration in order to refine both long and short form census questionnaires. The short form consisted of 13 questions and was given to the entire population. The long form asked 45 questions and was given to a 20 percent sample. The long form included topics related to marital history, carpooling, residence, residential elevators, and energy usage. Unlike the 1980 Census, the new census eliminated questions regarding air conditioning, the number of bathrooms in a residence, and the type of heating equipment used. A vast advertising campaign was marketed to increase public awareness of the census via public television, radio, and print media. Like the previous census, the Census of 1990 made a special effort to enumerate groups that have historically been undercounted in previous censuses called "S-Night": individuals in homeless shelters, soup kitchens, bus and railway stations, and dormitories (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "M-Night"); and permanent residents in hotels and motels (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "T-Night"). Following legal issues filed in response to the 1980 Census regarding statistical readjustment of undercounted areas, the Census Bureau initiated a post-enumeration survey (PES), in which a contemporaneous survey of households would be conducted and compare to the census results from the official census. In a partial resolution of a 1989 lawsuit filed by New York plaintiffs, the U.S. Department of Commerce agreed to use the PES to produce population data that had been adjusted for the projected undercount and that said data would be judged against the unadjusted data by the Secretary of Commerce's Special Advisory Panel (SAP). The Census of 1990 also introduced the U.S. to the Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing System (TIGER), which was developed by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Census Bureau. TIGER used computerized representations of various map features to geographically code addresses into appropriate census geographic areas. It also produced different maps required for census data collection and tabulation. Five years earlier, the Census Bureau became the first government agency to publish information on CD-ROM. For the 1990 Census, the bureau made detailed census data, which had previously been only available to organizations with large mainframe computers, accessible to any individual with a personal computer. Census data was also available in print, on computer tape, and on microfiche. Using two online service vendors, DIALOG and CompuServe, the Census Bureau also published select census data online. As with previous censuses, the 1990 Census undercounted the national population, and again, the African-American population had an estimated net undercount rate that was significantly higher than the rate for other races. In July of 1991, the Secretary of Commerce announced that he did not find evidence in favor of using adjusted counts compelling—despite SAP's split vote on the issue—and chose to use unadjusted totals for the official census results. In response, the New York plaintiffs resumed the lawsuit against the Department of Commerce. A federal district court divided in favor of the DOC in April of 1993. The U.S. Court of Appeals, however, rejected the previous court ruling and ordered that the case be reheard by the federal district court. In March of 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court finally ruled in favor of the Secretary of Commerce's decision to use the unadjusted census date, but did not rule on the legality or constitutionality of the use of statistical adjustment in producing apportionment counts. For the 1990 Census, the U.S. Census Bureau utilized extensive user consultation prior to enumeration in order to refine both long and short form census questionnaires. The short form consisted of 13 questions and was given to the entire population. The long form asked 45 questions and was given to a 20 percent sample. The long form included topics related to marital history, carpooling, residence, residential elevators, and energy usage. Unlike the 1980 Census, the new census eliminated questions regarding air conditioning, the number of bathrooms in a residence, and the type of heating equipment used. A vast advertising campaign was marketed to increase public awareness of the census via public television, radio, and print media. Like the previous census, the Census of 1990 made a special effort to enumerate groups that have historically been undercounted in previous censuses called "S-Night": individuals in homeless shelters, soup kitchens, bus and railway stations, and dormitories (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "M-Night"); and permanent residents in hotels and motels (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "T-Night"). Following legal issues filed in response to the 1980 Census regarding statistical readjustment of undercounted areas, the Census Bureau initiated a post-enumeration survey (PES), in which a contemporaneous survey of households would be conducted and compare to the census results from the official census. In a partial resolution of a 1989 lawsuit filed by New York plaintiffs, the U.S. Department of Commerce agreed to use the PES to produce population data that had been adjusted for the projected undercount and that said data would be judged against the unadjusted data by the Secretary of Commerce's Special Advisory Panel (SAP). The Census of 1990 also introduced the U.S. to the Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing System (TIGER), which was developed by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Census Bureau. TIGER used computerized representations of various map features to geographically code addresses into appropriate census geographic areas. It also produced different maps required for census data collection and tabulation. Five years earlier, the Census Bureau became the first government agency to publish information on CD-ROM. For the 1990 Census, the bureau made detailed census data, which had previously been only available to organizations with large mainframe computers, accessible to any individual with a personal computer. Census data was also available in print, on computer tape, and on microfiche. Using two online service vendors, DIALOG and CompuServe, the Census Bureau also published select census data online. As with previous censuses, the 1990 Census undercounted the national population, and again, the African-American population had an estimated net undercount rate that was significantly higher than the rate for other races. In July of 1991, the Secretary of Commerce announced that he did not find evidence in favor of using adjusted counts compelling—despite SAP's split vote on the issue—and chose to use unadjusted totals for the official census results. In response, the New York plaintiffs resumed the lawsuit against the Department of Commerce. A federal district court divided in favor of the DOC in April of 1993. The U.S. Court of Appeals, however, rejected the previous court ruling and ordered that the case be reheard by the federal district court. In March of 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court finally ruled in favor of the Secretary of Commerce's decision to use the unadjusted census date, but did not rule on the legality or constitutionality of the use of statistical adjustment in producing apportionment counts. For the Census of 2000, the short form consisted of only seven questions, while the long form consisted of 52 questions and used for a 17 percent sample of the population. For the first time, race questions were not limited to a single category; rather, respondents were able to check multiple boxes. A new question related to grandparents as caregivers was also mandated by legislation passed in 1996. Disability questions were expanded to including hearing and vision impairments, as well as learning, memory, and concentration disabilities. The 2000 Census also eliminated questions related to children born, water sources, sewage disposal, and condominium status. In addition, the 2000 Census was the first in which the Internet was used as the principal medium for the dissemination of census information. Summary Files were available for download immediately upon release and individual tables could be viewed via American FactFinder, the Census Bureau's online database. Files were also available for purchase on CD-Rom and DVD. Due to declining questionnaire mail-back rates, the U.S. Census Bureau marketed a $167 million national and local print, television, and public advertising campaign in 17 different languages. The campaign successfully brought the mail-back rate up to 67 percent. Additionally, respondents receiving the short form were given the option of responding via the Internet. Telephone questionnaire assistance centers available in 6 languages also took responses via the phone. Statistical sampling techniques were utilized in two ways: first, to alter the traditional 100 percent personal visit of non-responding households during the non-response follow-up (NRFU) process by instead following up on a smaller sample basis; second, the sampling of 750,000 housing units matched to housing unit questionnaires obtained from mail and telephone responses, as well as from personal visits. The goal of the latter was to develop adjustment factors for individuals estimated to have been missed or duplicated and to correct the census counts to produce one set of numbers. This "one-number census" would correct for net coverage errors called Integrated Coverage Measurement (ICM). Both of these measures were taken in an attempt to avoid repetition of the litigation costs generated by the 1980 Census and the 1990 Census. Despite these efforts, two lawsuits—one filed by the U.S. House of Representatives—were filed in February 1998 challenging the constitutionality and legality of the planned uses of sampling to produce apportionment counts. Both cases were decided in favor of the plaintiffs in federal district courts, but the U.S. Department of Commerce made appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court. Known as the U.S. Department of Commerce v. the U.S. House of Representatives, the Court ruled that the Census Bureau's plans to use statistical sampling for purposes of congressional apportionments violated the Census Act. The bureau revised its plan, stating that it would produce statistically adjusted data for non-apportionment uses of census data information, such as redistricting. However, in March of 2001, the Census Bureau recommended against the use of adjusted census data for redistricting due to accuracy concerns; the Secretary of Commerce determined that the unadjusted data would be released as the bureau's official redistricting data. The Director of the Census Bureau also rejected to the use of adjusted data for non-redistricting purposes in October of that same year. Language eng Type Collection Coverage Mosquito County, Florida Brevard County, Florida Flagler County, Florida Lake County, Florida Marion County, Florida Orange County, Florida Osceola County, Florida Seminole County, Florida Volusia County, Florida Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Contributor Gibson, Ella Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a>. Rights Holder This resource is not subject to copyright in the United States and there are no copyright restrictions on reproduction, derivative works, distribution, performance, or display of the work. Anyone may, without restriction under U.S. copyright laws: <ul class="one_column_bullet"><li>reproduce the work in print or digital form</li> <li>create derivative works</li> <li>perform the work publicly</li> <li>display the work</li> <li>distribute copies or digitally transfer the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.</li> </ul>This resources is provided here by <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> for educational purposes only. For more information on copyright, please refer to <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#105" target="_blank">Section 5</a> of <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html" target="_blank">Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code</a>. Source Repository <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> External Reference United States. <a href="https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf" target="_blank">Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970</a>. Washington: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1975. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/histstats-colonial-1970.pdf. United States, and Carroll D. Wright. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/166662" target="_blank">The History and Growth of the United States Census</a>. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1900. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf. "<a href="https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/" target="_blank">Through the Decades</a>." United States Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce. https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/. Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Original Format 1 table Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title U.S. Census for Central Florida, 1920 Alternative Title Census, 1920 Subject Census--United States Orange County (Fla.) Marion County (Fla.) Brevard County (Fla.) St. Lucie County (Fla.) Seminole County (Fla.) Volusia County (Fla.) Flagler County (Fla.) Lake County (Fla.) Osceola County (Fla.) Population--United States Description The Fourteenth United States Census records for Brevard County, Flagler County, Lake County, Marion County, Orange County, Osceola County, Seminole County, and Volusia County, Florida for 1920. The census divides the population by gender, race ("white" and "black"), and native-born vs. foreign-born. Those who are foreign born are further divided by country of origin. The census then lists the population categorized by age, school attendance, race, and literacy. The census also collected information on agriculture and on manufacturing. The Census of 1920 changed the date of Census Day from April 15th to January 1st, as requested by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which argued that farmers' memories and harvest information would be more accurate on this day. The U.S. Census Bureau was also authorized to hire additional employees at its headquarters in Washington, D.C., and to create a special field force to collect census data. The legislation authorizing the 1920 Census also allowed for a census of manufacturing to be conducted in 1921, and for such a census to be repeated every two years thereafter, as opposed to the traditional five-year census cycle. Furthermore, a census of agriculture and livestock was to be conducted in 1925 and to be repeated every 10 years thereafter. In addition, penalties for those who refused to supply information or those who supplied false information were strengthened. As a result of these changes, the censuses of population, manufacturing, and agriculture and livestock became increasingly independent of one another. The "usual place of abode," the location where residents regularly slept, instead of where they worked or were visiting, became the new basis for enumeration in the 1920 Census. Those with no permanent or regular residence were listed as residents of the location that they were enumerated at. Enumeration related to institutional inmates, and dependent, defective, and delinquent classes were also modified. Unlike the previous census, the 1920 Census did not have inquiries related to unemployment, to Union or Confederate Army or Navy service, to the number of children born, or to the length of time that a couple had been married. The Census of 1920, however, did include four additional questions: one regarding year of naturalization and three regarding native languages. Issues also arose as a result of changes in international boundaries following World War I, particularly for persons declaring birth or parental birth in Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia, or Turkey. In response, enumerators were required to ask said persons for their province, state, or region of birth. Enumerators were not required to ask individuals how to spell their names, nor were respondents required to provide proof of various pieces of information. Race was determined by the enumerator's impressions. Type Dataset Source Original census data collected by the <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Bureau</a>, 1920. Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/104" target="_blank">U.S. Census Collection</a>, RICHES of Central Florida. Is Format Of Digital reproduction of original census data collected by the <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Bureau</a>, 1920. Coverage Brevard County, Florida Flagler County, Florida Lake County, Florida Marion County, Florida Orange County, Florida Osceola County, Florida Seminole County, Florida Volusia County, Florida Creator <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Bureau</a> Publisher <a href="http://www.commerce.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Department of Commerce</a> Contributor Gibson, Ella Date Created ca. 1920-01-01 Format image/jpg Extent 1.39 MB Medium 1 table Language eng Mediator History Teacher Economics Teacher Geography Teacher Provenance Originally collected by the <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Bureau</a> and published by the <a href="http://www.commerce.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Department of Commerce</a>. Rights Holder This resource is not subject to copyright in the United States and there are no copyright restrictions on reproduction, derivative works, distribution, performance, or display of the work. Anyone may, without restriction under U.S. copyright laws: <ul class="one_column_bullet"><li>reproduce the work in print or digital form;</li> <li>create derivative works;</li> <li>perform the work publicly;</li> <li>display the work;</li> <li>distribute copies or digitally transfer the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.</li> </ul> This resources is provided here by <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> for educational purposes only. For more information on copyright, please refer to <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#105" target="_blank">Section 5</a> of <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html" target="_blank">Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code</a>. Accrual Method Item Creation Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> External Reference "<a href="https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/overview/1920.html" target="_blank">1920 Overview</a>." U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/overview/1920.html. United States. <a href="https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf" target="_blank">Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970</a>. Washington: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1975. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/histstats-colonial-1970.pdf. United States, and Carroll D. Wright. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/166662" target="_blank">The History and Growth of the United States Census</a>. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1920. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf. Transcript U.S. Census of 1920 Population Brevard County Flagler County Lake County Marion County Orange County Osceola County Seminole County Volusia County Population Total 8,505 2,442 12,744 23,968 19,890 7,195 10,986 23,374 Males 4,483 1,439 6,612 12,048 10,042 3,662 5,695 11,663 Females 4,022 1,003 6,132 11,920 9,848 3,563 5,291 11,711 White Population Total 6,006 1,481 8,927 11,080 14,423 6,072 5,933 15,159 Males 3,139 833 4,590 5,599 7,22 3,054 3,095 7,435 Females 2,867 648 4,337 5,481 7,201 3,018 2,838 7,724 Black Population Total 2,483 958 3,817 12,887 5,464 1,122 5,044 8,199 Males 1,335 605 2,022 6,448 2,817 578 2,594 4,216 Females 1,148 353 1,795 6,439 2,647 544 2,450 3,983 Native-Born Population Total 5,615 1,317 8,486 10,698 13,609 5,771 5,559 14,070 Males 29,919 730 4,353 5,397 6,786 2,884 2,879 6,897 Females 2,696 587 4,133 5,301 6,823 2,887 2,680 7,173 Foreign-Born Population Total 391 164 441 382 814 301 374 1,089 Males 220 103 237 202 436 170 216 538 Females 171 61 204 180 378 131 158 551 Under Age 7 1,213 347 1,744 3,725 2,485 836 1,532 2,766 Aged 7-13 1,139 347 1,834 4,118 2,589 908 1,628 3,059 Aged 14-15 300 92 484 1,098 653 240 416 786 Aged 16-17 283 91 472 1,037 681 215 368 739 Aged 18-20 434 129 635 1,261 1,039 341 592 1,264 Aged 21-44 3,053 945 4,340 7,501 7,011 1,987 4,282 8,349 Aged 45+ 2,083 491 3,235 5,228 5,432 2,668 2,168 6,411 Foreign-Born Population by Country of Origin Canada 52 23 76 63 130 74 53 228 Austria 13 7 5 4 11 11 5 25 Cuba 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 6 Denmark 13 3 7 4 15 3 3 14 England 74 34 111 86 157 64 51 247 France 7 2 8 14 12 3 12 24 Germany 75 22 51 61 166 66 61 139 Greece 5 2 0 8 3 0 3 14 Holland and the Netherlands 15 3 2 5 13 3 0 9 Born in Hungary 6 1 1 6 10 5 29 9 Ireland 15 4 17 14 37 17 19 57 Italy 11 0 10 20 17 4 22 16 Norway 10 3 6 5 4 4 2 18 Poland 5 35 6 3 13 1 0 19 Romania 2 0 0 0 11 0 8 0 Russia 5 0 2 6 45 5 6 25 Scotland 11 8 24 22 26 9 17 63 Spain 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 1 Sweden 14 3 50 15 61 11 44 93 Switzerland 5 0 6 7 7 12 8 13 Syria 0 0 0 25 8 0 4 6 West Indies 9 0 0 3 5 0 0 11 Other Countries 44 14 59 11 61 9 24 58 Education Brevard County Flagler County Lake County Marion County Orange County Osceola County Seminole County Volusia County Population Attending School Total 1,499 393 2,191 5,297 3,523 1,268 2,212 3,969 Ages 7-13 1,025 294 1,481 3,635 2,391 831 1,520 2,708 Ages 14-15 266 61 380 916 587 216 376 665 Ages 16-17 148 29 227 560 375 137 208 384 Ages 18-20 60 9 103 186 170 84 108 212 Population Not Attending School Total 657 266 1,234 2,217 1,439 436 792 1,879 Ages 7-13 114 53 353 483 198 77 108 351 Ages 14-15 34 31 104 182 66 24 40 121 Ages 16-17 135 62 245 477 306 78 160 355 Ages 18-20 374 120 532 1,075 869 257 484 1,052 Illiterate Population, Aged 10+ Total 236 319 759 1,685 743 256 713 1,241 White 57 29 91 143 123 68 73 74 Black 179 290 668 1,541 620 188 640 1,167 Other 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Literate Population, Aged 10+ Total 6,555 1,633 9,428 16,823 15,535 5,700 8,091 18,134 White 4,770 1,136 7,089 8,549 11,739 4,993 4,671 12,572 Black 1,776 495 2,339 8,274 3,793 706 3,339 5,549 Other 9 2 0 0 3 1 9 13 Population, Aged 21+ Total 5,136 1,436 7,575 12,729 12,443 4,655 6,450 14,760 Illiterate Population, Aged 21+ Total 211 249 602 1,449 685 233 625 1,157 Males 126 160 334 718 386 122 333 672 Females 85 89 268 731 299 111 292 485 Literate Population, Aged 21+ Total 4,925 1,187 6,973 11,280 11,758 4,422 5,825 13,603 Males 2,675 755 3,603 5,865 5,945 2,256 3,138 6,714 Females 2,250 432 3,370 5,415 5,813 2,166 2,687 6,889 Agriculture Brevard County Flagler County Lake County Marion County Orange County Osceola County Seminole County Volusia County Number of Farms by Race Ownership Total 672 187 876 2,215 10,093 304 573 998 White-Owned 628 179 826 1,143 1,013 292 510 899 Black-Owned and Other Non-White-Owned 110 8 50 1,072 80 12 63 99 Farms by Acreage Less than 3 15 0 14 5 7 8 19 31 3-9 110 8 65 153 180 34 138 241 10-19 116 37 135 323 234 64 134 219 20-49 169 86 297 770 309 96 139 282 50-99 80 31 160 448 181 47 63 119 100-174 130 21 114 255 100 20 50 54 175-259 22 1 34 110 30 6 14 27 260-499 19 1 40 96 34 7 3 15 500-999 4 1 10 34 7 13 3 3 1,000+ 7 1 7 21 11 9 10 7 Owner-Operated Farms Total 587 152 733 1,802 988 274 463 803 Owners Owning Entire Farm Total 574 139 707 1,458 927 263 418 798 Owners Hiring Additional Land Total 13 13 26 344 61 11 45 5 Farms by Tenure Total 7 25 69 382 41 9 63 48 Share Tenants 2 2 24 123 12 2 11 7 Share-Cash Tenants 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 Share-Cropper Tenants 0 0 21 116 7 3 8 11 Stand-In Renters 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cash Tenants 4 20 24 113 16 2 38 26 Tenants, Tenure Not Specified 1 3 0 29 6 2 4 3 Farm Ownership and Management by Race White 551 148 703 971 914 263 409 726 Black/Non-White 36 4 30 831 74 11 54 77 Tenant Farmers by Race White 7 22 54 143 36 9 56 40 Black/Non-White 0 3 15 239 5 0 7 8 Acres of Land in Farms Improved Land 10,945 4,070 32,917 105,471 70,572 6,304 11,795 18,258 Unimproved Land 47,625 6,547 55,422 119,577 171,871 60,614 53,671 51,365 Acres of Land in Farms by Ownership, Tenure, and Management Total 58,570 10,617 88,339 225,048 242,443 66,918 65,466 69,623 Operated by Owners 50,963 7,289 64,190 182,244 114,688 56,622 50,272 44,706 Operated by Tenants 451 741 6,390 18,093 1,414 191 11,752 1,836 Operated by Managers 7,156 2,587 17,759 24,711 126,341 10,105 3,442 23,081 Value of All Farm Property Total 8,351,940 1,103,571 10,148,325 9,490,125 16,322,344 3,349,955 7,202,407 7,677,096 Land $6,179,710 743,250 7,544,815 5,771,755 12,329,463 2,084,905 4,982,110 4,733,950 Buildings $1,628,265 166,750 1,607,360 1,618,814 2,569,440 485,100 1,265,235 1,742,930 Farming Implements and Machinery $263,303 65,083 512,813 462,004 663,834 121,052 429,834 272,770 Livestock $280,662 128,488 483,337 1,637,552 760,433 658,898 525,228 927,448 Value of All Crops Total 1,459,327 390,476 1,731,903 23,156,002 3,254,302 518,552 3,231,896 1,312,882 Cereal 6,012 10,390 75,515 663,888 90,784 29,382 50,085 78,907 Other Grains and Seeds 1,869 327 10,580 205,601 2,409 7,636 2,287 3,695 Hay and Forage 18,347 20,300 77,736 146,957 96,155 20,536 24,449 34,967 Vegetables 112,003 344,267 374,821 657,611 608,884 88,695 2,559,886 307,790 Fruits and Nuts 1,319,907 7,688 1,148,708 473,202 2,448,047 367,217 586,161 $865,762 All Other Crops 1,189 7,504 44,543 168,343 8,023 5,086 9,028 $21,761 Manufacturing Manufacturing Establishments Total 32 16 34 53 51 15 25 63 Average Number of Wage Earners in Manufacturing Total 343 212 517 1,173 521 186 560 1,218 Manufacturing Costs Total 520,298 240,385 790,364 1,764,111 1,491,813 288,603 1,533,377 2,152,679 Wages 313,365 146,611 468,808 770,684 410,203 146,663 600,842 981,679 Rents and Taxes 30,919 6,412 10,913 70,415 38,732 12,034 64,289 62,799 Materials 176,014 87,362 340,643 923,012 1,042,876 129,099 868,246 1,108,836 Value of Products of Manufacturing Establishments Total 735,535 330,664 1,343,070 2,568,991 1,938,183 459,099 1,799,142 3,020,521 Primary Horsepower in Manufacturing Establishments, Rated Capacity of Engines, Motors, etc. Total 1,519 575 1,739 2,523 1,519 260 1,541 2,616 African Americans Anglo Americans Austrian Americans Brevard County British Americans Canadian Americans Caribbean Americans Caucasian Americans census Census of 1920 cereals crops Cuban Americans Dutch Americans education employees English Americans European Americans farm managers farming implements farmland farms females Flagler County forage French Americans fruits German Americans grains Greek Americans hay Hispanic Americans horsepower Hungarian Americans illiteracy Irish Americans Italian Americans labor laborers Lake County Latin Americans Latinas Latinos literacy machinery males manufacturing Marion County Middle Eastern Americans Norwegian Americans nuts orange county Osceola County Polish Americans population Romanian Americans Russian Americans Scandinavian Americans Scotch Americans Scottish Americans seeds Seminole County sharecroppers sharecropping students Swedish Americans Swiss Americans Syrian Americans taxes tenant farmers tenant farming tenants U.S. Census vegetables Volusia County wages West Indian Americans workers https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka/files/original/cc6b425dabe82c1220ad4d78ffbed86d.jpg 25cb585b15e648c5491b115826cf333f Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title U.S. Census Collection Alternative Title Census Collection Subject Census--United States Population--United States Orange County (Fla.) Marion County (Fla.) Brevard County (Fla.) St. Lucie County (Fla.) Seminole County (Fla.) Volusia County (Fla.) Flagler County (Fla.) Lake County (Fla.) Osceola County (Fla.) Description Collection of United States Census population records for various counties in Central Florida from 1840 to 2000. The Census Act of 1840 was signed into law on March 3, 1839 and later amended on February 26, 1840. This piece of legislation established a centralized census office during each enumeration. Congress designated the census questionnaire designs to the Secretary of State. However, each household received inquiries regarding "the pursuits, industry, education, and resources of the country" and included questions related to school attendance, literacy, and vocation. In March of 1849, Congress pass legislation that established a census board consisting of the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Postmaster General. The board was responsible for preparing and printing forms and schedules for enumeration related to population, mining, agriculture, commerce, manufacturing, education, etc. The 1850 Census also increased population inquiries to include every free person's name (as opposed to just the head of the household), as well as information on taxes, schools, crime, wages, estate values, etc. The Census Act of 1850 authorized the U.S. Census of 1860 and stipulated that its provisions be adhered to for all future decennial censuses should no new legislation be passed by the first of the year of said census. In May of 1865, the U.S. Census Office was abolished and many superintending clerks were transferred to the General Land Office. Although the 1870 Census was conducted under the provisions of the Census Act of 1850, a new act was passed on May 6, 1870. The new census legislation required two changes in procedures related to questionnaire return submission dates. Moreover, penalties for refusing to reply to inquires were expanded to apply to all questions and questionnaires. The questionnaires themselves had to be redesigned due to the end of the "slave questionnaire", as slavery had been formally abolished slavery nationwide via the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This left five schedules for the census: General Population, Mortality, Agriculture, Products of Industry, and Social Statistics. In addition, the use of a Charles W. Seaton, a U.S. Census Office chief clerk and later superintendent, invited a rudimentary tallying machine that partially alleviated the difficulties of tallying and tabulating questionnaire responses. Finally, the new superintendent for the Ninth Census, General Francis A. Walker, introduced employment examinations to test the qualifications of applicants to the Census Office, allowing for increased efficiency in the process of collecting census data. The newest act authorizing the Census of 1880 provided for supervision of enumeration by "supervisors of the census", selected exclusively for the collection of census data. All supervisors, as well as the superintendent, were to appointed by the U.S. President and approved by the Senate. Census enumerators were required to personally visit each household and family within his subdivision. The new census act also allowed for the collection of data related to the condition and operation of railroad corporations, incorporated express companies, and telegraph companies, as well as data related to the condition and operation of life, fire, and marine insurance companies. Corporations who refused to provide the census with "true and complete" answers were subject to fines. In addition, the census superintendent was required to collect and publish data on the population, industries and resources of the District of Alaska. Finally, the 1880 Census consisted of five schedules: Population, Mortality, Agriculture, Social Statistics, and Manufacturing. The Census of 1890 was authorized by an act modeled after the 1880 enumeration and signed into law on March 1, 1889. The 1890 Census was supervised by 175 employees and enumerators were required to collect all information by personally visiting each household. The 1890 Census included essentially the same inquires from the 1880 Census, with some notable additions, such as questions about home and farm ownership and indebtedness; and the names, units, length of service, and residences of former Union soldiers and sailors, as well as the names of the widows of those who were no longer alive. Racial categorization was expanded to include "Japanese", along with "Chinese", "Negro", "mulatto", "quadroon", "octoroon", and "White". Herman Hollerith, a former employee of the U.S. Census Office, invited the electric tabulating system, which was widely used in the 1890 Census, allowing data to be processed faster and more efficiently. On October 3, 1893, Congress passed a law that transferred census-related work to the direction of the commissioner of labor. Congress passed another act on March 2, 1895, effectively abolishing the U.S. Census Office and transferring the remaining responsibilities to the Office of the Secretary of the Interior. Congress limited the Census of 1900 to content related to population, mortality, agriculture, and manufacturing. Special census agents were authorized to collect statistics related to incidents of deafness, blindness, insanity, and juvenile delinquency; as well as data on religious bodies, utilities, mining, and transportation. The act authorizing the 1900 Census designated the enumeration of military personally to the U.S. Department of War and the U.S. Department of the Navy, while Indiana Territory was to be enumerated by the commissioner of Indian Affairs. Annexed in 1898, Hawaii was included in the census for the first time. In 1902, the U.S. Census Office was officially established as a permanent organization within the U.S. Department of the Interior. The office became the U.S. Census Bureau in 1903 and was transferred to the Department of Commerce and Labor. The Census of 1910 was approved by legislation introduced in December of 1907 and enacted in July of 1909. The delay was the result of a disagreement over the appointment of enumerators. President Theodore Roosevelt supported the hiring of enumerators via the civil service system, while Congress supported enumerators as positions of patronage. President Roosevelt successfully won the debate. This census act also changed Census Day from the traditional date of June 1st to April 15th. Additional questions regarding the nationality and native language of foreign-born persons and their parents. Funds for the U.S. Census Bureau were also increased to expand the Census' permanent workforce and created several new full-time positions, including a geographer, a chief statistician, and an assistant director. The assistant director was to be appointed by the President and approved by the Senate, while all other census employees were hired on the basis of open, competitive examinations administered by the Civil Service Commission. Despite the use of automatic counting machinery, issues with the tabulation process persisted. Finally, with the United States' entrance into World War I in 1917, the U.S. Census Bureau became a source of even more valuable purpose: the Census was able to use population and economic data to report on the populations of draft-age men, as well as information regarding each state's industrial capabilities. The Census of 1920 changed the date of Census Day from April 15th to January 1st, as requested by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which argued that farmers' memories and harvest information would be more accurate on this day. The U.S. Census Bureau was also authorized to hire additional employees at its headquarters in Washington, D.C. and to create a special field force to collect census data. The legislation authorizing the 1920 Census also allowed for a census of manufacturing to be conducted in 1921, and for such a census to be repeated every two years thereafter, as opposed to the traditional five-year census cycle. Furthermore, a census of agriculture and livestock was to be conducted in 1925 and to be repeated every ten years thereafter. In addition, penalties for those who refused to supply information or those who supplied false information were strengthened. As a result of these changes, census of population, manufacturing, and agriculture and livestock became increasingly independent of one another. The "usual place of abode", the location where residents regularly slept, instead of where they worked or were visiting, became the new basis for enumeration in the 1920 Census. Those with no permanent or regular residence were listed as residents of the location that they were enumerated at. Enumeration related to institutional inmates and dependent, defective, and delinquent classes were also modified. Unlike the previous census, the 1920 Census did not have inquires related to unemployment, to Union or Confederate Army or Navy service, to the number of children born, or to the length of time that a couple had been married. The Census of 1920, however, did include four additional questions: one regarding year of naturalization and three regarding native languages. Issues also arose as a result of changes in international boundaries following World War I, particularly for persons declaring birth or parental birth in Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia, or Turkey. In response, enumerators were required to ask said persons for their province, state, or region of birth. Enumerators were not required to ask individuals how to spell their names, nor were respondents required to provide proof of various pieces of information. Race was determined by the enumerator's impressions. The act authorizing the 1930 Census was approved on June 18, 1929, allowing for a census of population, agriculture, irrigation, draining, distribution, unemployment, and mining. For the first time, specific questions for inquiry were left to the discretion of the Director of the Census. The Census encompassed each state, as well as the District of Columbia, Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. The Governors of Guam, American Samoa, the Virginia Islands, and the Panama Canal Zone were responsible for conducting censuses in their territory. Between the date that the census act was passed and Census Day (April 1st), the stock market crashed, plunging the entire country into the Great Depression. In response, there were public and academic requests for access to unemployment data collected in the 1930 Census; however, the U.S. Census Bureau was unable to meet this demands and the bureau was accused of present unreliable data. Congress required a special unemployment census for January 1931, which ultimately confirmed the severity of the economic crisis. Another unemployment census was conducted in 1937, as mandated by Congress. Because this special census was voluntary, it allowed the Census Bureau to experiment with statistical sampling. Only two percent of households received a special census questionnaire. Congress authorized the 1940 Census in August 1939, providing the Director of the Census the additional authority to conduct a national census of housing in each state, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Alaska. The housing census was conducted separately, though enumerators often collection housing information at the same time that they collected population information. The Census of 1940 was the first time that the U.S. Census Bureau used advanced statistical techniques. In particular, the census used probably sampling, which had only previously been tested in a trial census of unemployment conducted the Civil Works Administration during 1933-1934, in surveys of retail stores in the 1930s, and in an official sample survey of unemployment conducted amongst two percent of American households in 1937. Probability sampling allowed for the inclusion of additional demographic questions without increasing the burden on the collection process or on data processing. Moreover, sampling the U.S. Census Bureau was able to publish preliminary returns eight months before tabulations were completed. Likewise, the census increased its number of published tables, and also was able to complete data processing with higher quality and more efficiency. New census questions focused on employment, unemployment, internal migration, and incomes—reflecting on the concerns of the Great Depression, the country's housing stock, and the need for public housing programs. The Census of 1950 encompassed every state, Alaska, Hawaii, American Samoa, the Panama Canal Zone, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and other small American territories. For the first time, the U.S. Census Bureau enumerate American living abroad to account for members of the U.S. Armed Forces, vessel crew members, and government employees residing in foreign countries. The U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Maritime Administration, and several other federal agencies were responsible for distributing and collecting census questionnaires in a cooperative effort. Persons living abroad for reasons other than what is listed above had their census information reported by families or neighbors residing in the United States, but such data was criticized as unreliable and were not published in official statistics. The 1950 Census also included a new survey on residential financing collected separately on a sample basis from owners of owner-occupied properties, rental properties, and mortgage lenders. The accuracy of the new census was increased by improved enumerator training, the use of detailed street maps for enumerators, the publication of "Missed Person" forms in local newspapers, and the designation of a specific night to conduct a special enumeration of transient individuals. Moreover, a post-enumeration survey was conducted to further verify the accuracy of the original enumeration. A sample of approximately 3,500 small areas was compared to the original census data to identify households that may have been omitted initially. Likewise, a sample of approximately 22,000 households were re-interviewed to identify persons omitted in the original enumeration count. Though not used for the 1950 Census, the UNIVersal Automatic Computer I (UNIVAC I), the first non-military computer, was used to tabulate some of the statistics for the 1954 census of economy. In August of 1954, Congress codified various census statutes, such as the Fifteenth Census Act of 1929, authorizing the decennial census and other census. The Census of 1960 was the first to be mailed to respondents. The U.S. Postal Service delivered census questionnaires to households, the head of household was required to complete the questionnaire, and an enumerator was to pick it up. The enumeration process was divided into two stages: first, select data for each person and dwelling unit was collected; and second, more detailed economic and social data was collected from a sample of households and dwelling units. The census questionnaires for the second stage were hand-delivered by enumerators as they were collecting data from the first stage. Households receiving the second census questionnaire were to complete the form and mail it to their local census office. Twenty-five percent of the population was giving additional sample questions. Because of the increased use of sampling, less populated areas were prone to sampling variation; however, this did not significantly decrease the usefulness of census statistics gathered. Moreover, increased use of sampling reduced data processing costs. Additional questions included in the 1960 Census were related to places of works and means of transportation to work. By 1960, nearly all census data was processed using computers. The U.S. Census Bureau used a Film Optical Sensing Device for Input to Computer (FOSDIC) for the first time, thus decreasing the amount of time and money required for data input. In 1966, the U.S. Census Bureau sought suggestions from advisory committees and from the public, resulting in numerous proposals for additional inquiries related to the scope and structure of the census, as well as in public interest for the publication of additional census data. Researchers also concluded that the 1950 Census and the 1960 Census had undercounted certain segments of the population. Moreover, they noted a growing distrust of government activity and increased resistance to responding to the census. Simultaneously, both the public and private sectors expressed need for accurate information. The U.S. Census Bureau decreased its number of questions from 66 to 23 in an effort to simplify its products. A register for densely populated areas was also created to ensure that all housing units were accounted for. A Spanish-language questionnaire was also enclosed with census questionnaires in areas with a significant amount of Spanish-speaking households. Additionally, a question on Hispanic origins or descent was asked independently from race, but only on a five-percent sample. Only five questions were given to all individuals: relationship to household head, sex, race, age, and marital status. Additional questions were asked in smaller sample groups. This was also the first census in which respondents of urban areas were asked to mail their forms to the Census Bureau, rather than to hold questionnaires for enumerators. Address Coding Guides were used to assign census geographic codes to questionnaires. Counts, a series of computer tape files, were an additional innovation used to increase the accuracy of census data. Count 1 consisted of complete count data for block groups and/or enumeration districts. Count 2 contained census tracts and minor civil/census county divisions, while Count 3 consisted of census blocks. Counts 4-6 provided sample census data for geographic areas of various population sizes. The Census Bureau also produced six Public Use Microdata Sample files, each of which contained complete information for a sample of approximately two million people. Finally, the Census Bureau developed the Summary Tape Processing Center Program, which was a group of organizations, both public and private, that processed census data from computer tapes. For the 1990 Census, the U.S. Census Bureau utilized extensive user consultation prior to enumeration in order to refine both long and short form census questionnaires. The short form consisted of 13 questions and was given to the entire population. The long form asked 45 questions and was given to a 20 percent sample. The long form included topics related to marital history, carpooling, residence, residential elevators, and energy usage. Unlike the 1980 Census, the new census eliminated questions regarding air conditioning, the number of bathrooms in a residence, and the type of heating equipment used. A vast advertising campaign was marketed to increase public awareness of the census via public television, radio, and print media. Like the previous census, the Census of 1990 made a special effort to enumerate groups that have historically been undercounted in previous censuses called "S-Night": individuals in homeless shelters, soup kitchens, bus and railway stations, and dormitories (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "M-Night"); and permanent residents in hotels and motels (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "T-Night"). Following legal issues filed in response to the 1980 Census regarding statistical readjustment of undercounted areas, the Census Bureau initiated a post-enumeration survey (PES), in which a contemporaneous survey of households would be conducted and compare to the census results from the official census. In a partial resolution of a 1989 lawsuit filed by New York plaintiffs, the U.S. Department of Commerce agreed to use the PES to produce population data that had been adjusted for the projected undercount and that said data would be judged against the unadjusted data by the Secretary of Commerce's Special Advisory Panel (SAP). The Census of 1990 also introduced the U.S. to the Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing System (TIGER), which was developed by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Census Bureau. TIGER used computerized representations of various map features to geographically code addresses into appropriate census geographic areas. It also produced different maps required for census data collection and tabulation. Five years earlier, the Census Bureau became the first government agency to publish information on CD-ROM. For the 1990 Census, the bureau made detailed census data, which had previously been only available to organizations with large mainframe computers, accessible to any individual with a personal computer. Census data was also available in print, on computer tape, and on microfiche. Using two online service vendors, DIALOG and CompuServe, the Census Bureau also published select census data online. As with previous censuses, the 1990 Census undercounted the national population, and again, the African-American population had an estimated net undercount rate that was significantly higher than the rate for other races. In July of 1991, the Secretary of Commerce announced that he did not find evidence in favor of using adjusted counts compelling—despite SAP's split vote on the issue—and chose to use unadjusted totals for the official census results. In response, the New York plaintiffs resumed the lawsuit against the Department of Commerce. A federal district court divided in favor of the DOC in April of 1993. The U.S. Court of Appeals, however, rejected the previous court ruling and ordered that the case be reheard by the federal district court. In March of 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court finally ruled in favor of the Secretary of Commerce's decision to use the unadjusted census date, but did not rule on the legality or constitutionality of the use of statistical adjustment in producing apportionment counts. For the 1990 Census, the U.S. Census Bureau utilized extensive user consultation prior to enumeration in order to refine both long and short form census questionnaires. The short form consisted of 13 questions and was given to the entire population. The long form asked 45 questions and was given to a 20 percent sample. The long form included topics related to marital history, carpooling, residence, residential elevators, and energy usage. Unlike the 1980 Census, the new census eliminated questions regarding air conditioning, the number of bathrooms in a residence, and the type of heating equipment used. A vast advertising campaign was marketed to increase public awareness of the census via public television, radio, and print media. Like the previous census, the Census of 1990 made a special effort to enumerate groups that have historically been undercounted in previous censuses called "S-Night": individuals in homeless shelters, soup kitchens, bus and railway stations, and dormitories (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "M-Night"); and permanent residents in hotels and motels (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "T-Night"). Following legal issues filed in response to the 1980 Census regarding statistical readjustment of undercounted areas, the Census Bureau initiated a post-enumeration survey (PES), in which a contemporaneous survey of households would be conducted and compare to the census results from the official census. In a partial resolution of a 1989 lawsuit filed by New York plaintiffs, the U.S. Department of Commerce agreed to use the PES to produce population data that had been adjusted for the projected undercount and that said data would be judged against the unadjusted data by the Secretary of Commerce's Special Advisory Panel (SAP). The Census of 1990 also introduced the U.S. to the Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing System (TIGER), which was developed by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Census Bureau. TIGER used computerized representations of various map features to geographically code addresses into appropriate census geographic areas. It also produced different maps required for census data collection and tabulation. Five years earlier, the Census Bureau became the first government agency to publish information on CD-ROM. For the 1990 Census, the bureau made detailed census data, which had previously been only available to organizations with large mainframe computers, accessible to any individual with a personal computer. Census data was also available in print, on computer tape, and on microfiche. Using two online service vendors, DIALOG and CompuServe, the Census Bureau also published select census data online. As with previous censuses, the 1990 Census undercounted the national population, and again, the African-American population had an estimated net undercount rate that was significantly higher than the rate for other races. In July of 1991, the Secretary of Commerce announced that he did not find evidence in favor of using adjusted counts compelling—despite SAP's split vote on the issue—and chose to use unadjusted totals for the official census results. In response, the New York plaintiffs resumed the lawsuit against the Department of Commerce. A federal district court divided in favor of the DOC in April of 1993. The U.S. Court of Appeals, however, rejected the previous court ruling and ordered that the case be reheard by the federal district court. In March of 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court finally ruled in favor of the Secretary of Commerce's decision to use the unadjusted census date, but did not rule on the legality or constitutionality of the use of statistical adjustment in producing apportionment counts. For the Census of 2000, the short form consisted of only seven questions, while the long form consisted of 52 questions and used for a 17 percent sample of the population. For the first time, race questions were not limited to a single category; rather, respondents were able to check multiple boxes. A new question related to grandparents as caregivers was also mandated by legislation passed in 1996. Disability questions were expanded to including hearing and vision impairments, as well as learning, memory, and concentration disabilities. The 2000 Census also eliminated questions related to children born, water sources, sewage disposal, and condominium status. In addition, the 2000 Census was the first in which the Internet was used as the principal medium for the dissemination of census information. Summary Files were available for download immediately upon release and individual tables could be viewed via American FactFinder, the Census Bureau's online database. Files were also available for purchase on CD-Rom and DVD. Due to declining questionnaire mail-back rates, the U.S. Census Bureau marketed a $167 million national and local print, television, and public advertising campaign in 17 different languages. The campaign successfully brought the mail-back rate up to 67 percent. Additionally, respondents receiving the short form were given the option of responding via the Internet. Telephone questionnaire assistance centers available in 6 languages also took responses via the phone. Statistical sampling techniques were utilized in two ways: first, to alter the traditional 100 percent personal visit of non-responding households during the non-response follow-up (NRFU) process by instead following up on a smaller sample basis; second, the sampling of 750,000 housing units matched to housing unit questionnaires obtained from mail and telephone responses, as well as from personal visits. The goal of the latter was to develop adjustment factors for individuals estimated to have been missed or duplicated and to correct the census counts to produce one set of numbers. This "one-number census" would correct for net coverage errors called Integrated Coverage Measurement (ICM). Both of these measures were taken in an attempt to avoid repetition of the litigation costs generated by the 1980 Census and the 1990 Census. Despite these efforts, two lawsuits—one filed by the U.S. House of Representatives—were filed in February 1998 challenging the constitutionality and legality of the planned uses of sampling to produce apportionment counts. Both cases were decided in favor of the plaintiffs in federal district courts, but the U.S. Department of Commerce made appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court. Known as the U.S. Department of Commerce v. the U.S. House of Representatives, the Court ruled that the Census Bureau's plans to use statistical sampling for purposes of congressional apportionments violated the Census Act. The bureau revised its plan, stating that it would produce statistically adjusted data for non-apportionment uses of census data information, such as redistricting. However, in March of 2001, the Census Bureau recommended against the use of adjusted census data for redistricting due to accuracy concerns; the Secretary of Commerce determined that the unadjusted data would be released as the bureau's official redistricting data. The Director of the Census Bureau also rejected to the use of adjusted data for non-redistricting purposes in October of that same year. Language eng Type Collection Coverage Mosquito County, Florida Brevard County, Florida Flagler County, Florida Lake County, Florida Marion County, Florida Orange County, Florida Osceola County, Florida Seminole County, Florida Volusia County, Florida Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Contributor Gibson, Ella Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a>. Rights Holder This resource is not subject to copyright in the United States and there are no copyright restrictions on reproduction, derivative works, distribution, performance, or display of the work. Anyone may, without restriction under U.S. copyright laws: <ul class="one_column_bullet"><li>reproduce the work in print or digital form</li> <li>create derivative works</li> <li>perform the work publicly</li> <li>display the work</li> <li>distribute copies or digitally transfer the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.</li> </ul>This resources is provided here by <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> for educational purposes only. For more information on copyright, please refer to <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#105" target="_blank">Section 5</a> of <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html" target="_blank">Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code</a>. Source Repository <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> External Reference United States. <a href="https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf" target="_blank">Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970</a>. Washington: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1975. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/histstats-colonial-1970.pdf. United States, and Carroll D. Wright. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/166662" target="_blank">The History and Growth of the United States Census</a>. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1900. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf. "<a href="https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/" target="_blank">Through the Decades</a>." United States Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce. https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/. Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Original Format 1 table Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title U.S. Census for Central Florida, 1910 Alternative Title Census, 1910 Subject Census--United States Orange County (Fla.) Marion County (Fla.) Brevard County (Fla.) Volusia County (Fla.) Lake County (Fla.) Osceola County (Fla.) Population--United States Description The Thirteenth United States Census records for Brevard County, Lake County, Marion County, Orange County (including present-day Seminole County), Osceola County, and Volusia County (including present-day Flagler County), Florida, for 1910. The census divides the population by gender, race ("white" and "black"), and native-born vs. foreign-born. Those who are foreign born are further divided by country of origin. The census then lists the illiterate population categorized by age, race, gender, and school attendance. The census also collected information on agriculture. The Census of 1910 was approved by legislation introduced in December of 1907 and enacted in July of 1909. The delay was the result of a disagreement over the appointment of enumerators. President Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919) supported the hiring of enumerators via the civil service system, while Congress supported enumerators as positions of patronage. President Roosevelt successfully won the debate. This census act also changed Census Day from the traditional date of June 1st to April 15th. Additional questions regarding the nationality and native language of foreign-born persons and their parents. Funds for the U.S. Census Bureau were also increased to expand the Census' permanent workforce and created several new full-time positions, including a geographer, a chief statistician, and an assistant director. The assistant director was to be appointed by the President and approved by the Senate, while all other census employees were hired on the basis of open, competitive examinations administered by the Civil Service Commission. Despite the use of automatic counting machinery, issues with the tabulation process persisted. Finally, with the United States' entrance into World War I in 1917, the U.S. Census Bureau became a source of even more valuable purpose: the Census was able to use population and economic data to report on the populations of draft-age men, as well as information regarding each state's industrial capabilities. Type Dataset Source Original census data collected by the <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Bureau</a>, 1910. Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/104" target="_blank">U.S. Census Collection</a>, RICHES of Central Florida. Is Format Of Digital reproduction of original census data collected by the <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Bureau</a>, 1910. Coverage Brevard County, Florida Lake County, Florida Marion County, Florida Orange County, Florida Osceola County, Florida Volusia County, Florida Creator <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Bureau</a> Publisher <a href="http://www.commerce.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Department of Commerce</a> Contributor Gibson, Ella Date Created ca. 1910-04-15 Format image/jpg Extent 874 KB Medium 1 table Language eng Mediator History Teacher Economics Teacher Geography Teacher Provenance Originally collected by the <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Bureau</a> and published by the <a href="http://www.commerce.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Department of Commerce</a>. Rights Holder This resource is not subject to copyright in the United States and there are no copyright restrictions on reproduction, derivative works, distribution, performance, or display of the work. Anyone may, without restriction under U.S. copyright laws: <ul class="one_column_bullet"><li>reproduce the work in print or digital form;</li> <li>create derivative works;</li> <li>perform the work publicly;</li> <li>display the work;</li> <li>distribute copies or digitally transfer the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.</li> </ul> This resources is provided here by <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> for educational purposes only. For more information on copyright, please refer to <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#105" target="_blank">Section 5</a> of <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html" target="_blank">Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code</a>. Accrual Method Item Creation Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> External Reference "<a href="https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/overview/1910.html" target="_blank">1910 Overview</a>." U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/overview/1910.html. United States. <a href="https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf" target="_blank">Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970</a>. Washington: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1975. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/histstats-colonial-1970.pdf. United States, and Carroll D. Wright. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/166662" target="_blank">The History and Growth of the United States Census</a>. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1910. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf. Transcript U.S. Census of 1910 Population Brevard County* Lake County Marion County Orange County** Osceola County Volusia County*** Population Total 5,158 7,467 24,403 11,374 3,444 10,003 Males 2,842 3,959 12,918 5,767 1,783 5,153 Females 2,316 3,508 11,485 5,607 1,661 4,850 White Population Total 4,003 4,829 9,356 7,347 3,013 6,538 Males 2,188 2,474 4,927 3,698 1,547 3,323 Females 1,815 2,355 4,429 3,649 1,466 3,215 Black Population Total 1,074 2,636 15,047 4,027 431 3,464 Males 613 1,484 7,991 2,069 236 1,829 Females 461 1,152 7,056 1,958 195 1,635 Native-Born Population Total 4,796 7,220 24,058 10,769 3,369 9,538 Males 2,608 3,816 12,704 5,432 1,732 4,904 Females 2,188 3,404 11,354 5,337 1,637 4,634 Foreign-Born Population Total 362 247 345 605 75 465 Males 234 143 214 335 51 249 Females 128 104 131 270 24 216 Foreign-Born Population by Country of Origin English Canada 31 43 44 42 3 68 Cuba 1 1 23 0 0 0 Denmark 57 4 4 3 2 1 England 96 112 84 184 38 131 France 3 4 18 11 1 4 Germany 58 31 57 117 6 96 Ireland 30 8 13 31 8 30 Italy 4 0 22 14 4 0 Norway 15 1 1 3 0 2 Russia 3 3 5 4 0 1 Scotland 18 22 13 31 7 15 Spain 0 0 2 0 1 0 Sweden 18 10 8 115 0 72 West Indies 13 18 2 0 11 Other Countries 17 8 33 48 5 34 Education Brevard County* Lake County Marion County Orange County** Osceola County Volusia County*** Illiterate Population, Aged 10+ Total 265 765 3,937 993 315 899 White 50 132 180 257 183 149 Colored 206 633 3,757 736 132 750 Total 149 631 9,757 736 132 750 Male Population, Aged 21+ Illiterate 109 354 1,797 377 119 386 Literate 1,590 1,833 4,955 2,808 714 2,441 Agriculture Brevard County* Lake County Marion County Orange County** Osceola County Volusia County*** Farms Total 615 848 2,520 1,218 354 430 Farmers by Ownership, Management, and Tenure Full Owners 479 576 1,824 779 312 362 Part Owners 11 116 228 79 7 22 Owners and Tenants 2 1 19 2 0 0 Farm Managers 99 102 85 279 1 32 Cash Tenants 12 40 228 58 26 10 Share Tenants 12 13 136 21 8 4 White Farmers by Ownership, Management, and Tenure Total 579 784 1,246 1,132 351 399 Full Owners 458 542 894 732 309 338 Part Owners 7 106 98 69 7 19 Owners and Tenants 2 0 12 2 0 0 Farm Managers 89 91 78 271 1 31 Cash Tenants 11 33 103 40 26 7 Share Tenants 12 12 60 18 8 4 Colored Farmers by Ownership, Management, and Tenure Total 36 64 1,274 86 3 31 Full Owners 21 34 930 47 3 24 Part Owners 4 10 130 10 0 3 Owners and Tenants 0 1 6 0 0 0 Farm Managers 10 11 7 8 0 1 Cash Tenants 1 7 125 18 0 3 Share Tenants 0 1 76 3 0 0 Acres of Farm Land Improved Farm Land 7,290 22,171 72,755 20,790 5,251 10,741 Unimproved Farm Land 30,823 65,928 128,717 64,719 48,875 36,017 Farms by Acreage 1-2 19 24 15 51 99 3 3-9 104 64 216 180 21 41 10-19 140 115 403 202 21 60 20-49 166 245 784 359 111 140 50-99 80 177 556 204 50 69 100-174 65 127 322 145 20 65 175-259 20 52 117 36 9 21 260-499 13 28 76 31 8 16 500-999 5 11 22 7 7 5 1,000+ 3 5 9 3 8 10 Acres of Farm Land Improved Farm Land 7,290 22,171 72,755 20,790 5,251 10,741 Unimproved Farm Land 30,823 65,928 128,717 64,719 48,875 36,017 Value of Land and Buildings on Farms Farm Buildings $483,590 $400,610 $704,230 $659,570 $66,130 $316,640 Farm Implements and Machinery $26,440 $46,840 $112,030 $71,580 $11,030 $32,330 Farm Products $207,942 $227,451 $227,451 $355,891 $229,068 $178,869 Livestock $160,625 $176,259 $176,259 $362,058 $783,030 $220,568 "*Includes present-day St, Lucie County **Includes present-day Seminole County ***Includes present-day Flagler County" African Americans agriculture Brevard County British Americans Canadian Americans Caribbean Americans Caucasian Americans census Census of 1910 Cuban Americans Danish Americans education English Americans European Americans farm managers farming implements farmland farms females French Americans German Americans illiteracy Irish Americans Italian Americans Lake County Latin Americans literacy livestock machinery males Marion County Norwegian Americans orange county Osceola County population Russian Americans Scandinavian Americans Scotch Americans Scottish Americans sharecropping Spanish Americans Swedish Americans tenant farmers tenant farming U.S. Census Volusia County West Indian Americans https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka/files/original/8cd9ed4bdc90b01922a119368548b64b.jpg 0944b913e80e3709b97682bb699514b7 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title U.S. Census Collection Alternative Title Census Collection Subject Census--United States Population--United States Orange County (Fla.) Marion County (Fla.) Brevard County (Fla.) St. Lucie County (Fla.) Seminole County (Fla.) Volusia County (Fla.) Flagler County (Fla.) Lake County (Fla.) Osceola County (Fla.) Description Collection of United States Census population records for various counties in Central Florida from 1840 to 2000. The Census Act of 1840 was signed into law on March 3, 1839 and later amended on February 26, 1840. This piece of legislation established a centralized census office during each enumeration. Congress designated the census questionnaire designs to the Secretary of State. However, each household received inquiries regarding "the pursuits, industry, education, and resources of the country" and included questions related to school attendance, literacy, and vocation. In March of 1849, Congress pass legislation that established a census board consisting of the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Postmaster General. The board was responsible for preparing and printing forms and schedules for enumeration related to population, mining, agriculture, commerce, manufacturing, education, etc. The 1850 Census also increased population inquiries to include every free person's name (as opposed to just the head of the household), as well as information on taxes, schools, crime, wages, estate values, etc. The Census Act of 1850 authorized the U.S. Census of 1860 and stipulated that its provisions be adhered to for all future decennial censuses should no new legislation be passed by the first of the year of said census. In May of 1865, the U.S. Census Office was abolished and many superintending clerks were transferred to the General Land Office. Although the 1870 Census was conducted under the provisions of the Census Act of 1850, a new act was passed on May 6, 1870. The new census legislation required two changes in procedures related to questionnaire return submission dates. Moreover, penalties for refusing to reply to inquires were expanded to apply to all questions and questionnaires. The questionnaires themselves had to be redesigned due to the end of the "slave questionnaire", as slavery had been formally abolished slavery nationwide via the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This left five schedules for the census: General Population, Mortality, Agriculture, Products of Industry, and Social Statistics. In addition, the use of a Charles W. Seaton, a U.S. Census Office chief clerk and later superintendent, invited a rudimentary tallying machine that partially alleviated the difficulties of tallying and tabulating questionnaire responses. Finally, the new superintendent for the Ninth Census, General Francis A. Walker, introduced employment examinations to test the qualifications of applicants to the Census Office, allowing for increased efficiency in the process of collecting census data. The newest act authorizing the Census of 1880 provided for supervision of enumeration by "supervisors of the census", selected exclusively for the collection of census data. All supervisors, as well as the superintendent, were to appointed by the U.S. President and approved by the Senate. Census enumerators were required to personally visit each household and family within his subdivision. The new census act also allowed for the collection of data related to the condition and operation of railroad corporations, incorporated express companies, and telegraph companies, as well as data related to the condition and operation of life, fire, and marine insurance companies. Corporations who refused to provide the census with "true and complete" answers were subject to fines. In addition, the census superintendent was required to collect and publish data on the population, industries and resources of the District of Alaska. Finally, the 1880 Census consisted of five schedules: Population, Mortality, Agriculture, Social Statistics, and Manufacturing. The Census of 1890 was authorized by an act modeled after the 1880 enumeration and signed into law on March 1, 1889. The 1890 Census was supervised by 175 employees and enumerators were required to collect all information by personally visiting each household. The 1890 Census included essentially the same inquires from the 1880 Census, with some notable additions, such as questions about home and farm ownership and indebtedness; and the names, units, length of service, and residences of former Union soldiers and sailors, as well as the names of the widows of those who were no longer alive. Racial categorization was expanded to include "Japanese", along with "Chinese", "Negro", "mulatto", "quadroon", "octoroon", and "White". Herman Hollerith, a former employee of the U.S. Census Office, invited the electric tabulating system, which was widely used in the 1890 Census, allowing data to be processed faster and more efficiently. On October 3, 1893, Congress passed a law that transferred census-related work to the direction of the commissioner of labor. Congress passed another act on March 2, 1895, effectively abolishing the U.S. Census Office and transferring the remaining responsibilities to the Office of the Secretary of the Interior. Congress limited the Census of 1900 to content related to population, mortality, agriculture, and manufacturing. Special census agents were authorized to collect statistics related to incidents of deafness, blindness, insanity, and juvenile delinquency; as well as data on religious bodies, utilities, mining, and transportation. The act authorizing the 1900 Census designated the enumeration of military personally to the U.S. Department of War and the U.S. Department of the Navy, while Indiana Territory was to be enumerated by the commissioner of Indian Affairs. Annexed in 1898, Hawaii was included in the census for the first time. In 1902, the U.S. Census Office was officially established as a permanent organization within the U.S. Department of the Interior. The office became the U.S. Census Bureau in 1903 and was transferred to the Department of Commerce and Labor. The Census of 1910 was approved by legislation introduced in December of 1907 and enacted in July of 1909. The delay was the result of a disagreement over the appointment of enumerators. President Theodore Roosevelt supported the hiring of enumerators via the civil service system, while Congress supported enumerators as positions of patronage. President Roosevelt successfully won the debate. This census act also changed Census Day from the traditional date of June 1st to April 15th. Additional questions regarding the nationality and native language of foreign-born persons and their parents. Funds for the U.S. Census Bureau were also increased to expand the Census' permanent workforce and created several new full-time positions, including a geographer, a chief statistician, and an assistant director. The assistant director was to be appointed by the President and approved by the Senate, while all other census employees were hired on the basis of open, competitive examinations administered by the Civil Service Commission. Despite the use of automatic counting machinery, issues with the tabulation process persisted. Finally, with the United States' entrance into World War I in 1917, the U.S. Census Bureau became a source of even more valuable purpose: the Census was able to use population and economic data to report on the populations of draft-age men, as well as information regarding each state's industrial capabilities. The Census of 1920 changed the date of Census Day from April 15th to January 1st, as requested by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which argued that farmers' memories and harvest information would be more accurate on this day. The U.S. Census Bureau was also authorized to hire additional employees at its headquarters in Washington, D.C. and to create a special field force to collect census data. The legislation authorizing the 1920 Census also allowed for a census of manufacturing to be conducted in 1921, and for such a census to be repeated every two years thereafter, as opposed to the traditional five-year census cycle. Furthermore, a census of agriculture and livestock was to be conducted in 1925 and to be repeated every ten years thereafter. In addition, penalties for those who refused to supply information or those who supplied false information were strengthened. As a result of these changes, census of population, manufacturing, and agriculture and livestock became increasingly independent of one another. The "usual place of abode", the location where residents regularly slept, instead of where they worked or were visiting, became the new basis for enumeration in the 1920 Census. Those with no permanent or regular residence were listed as residents of the location that they were enumerated at. Enumeration related to institutional inmates and dependent, defective, and delinquent classes were also modified. Unlike the previous census, the 1920 Census did not have inquires related to unemployment, to Union or Confederate Army or Navy service, to the number of children born, or to the length of time that a couple had been married. The Census of 1920, however, did include four additional questions: one regarding year of naturalization and three regarding native languages. Issues also arose as a result of changes in international boundaries following World War I, particularly for persons declaring birth or parental birth in Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia, or Turkey. In response, enumerators were required to ask said persons for their province, state, or region of birth. Enumerators were not required to ask individuals how to spell their names, nor were respondents required to provide proof of various pieces of information. Race was determined by the enumerator's impressions. The act authorizing the 1930 Census was approved on June 18, 1929, allowing for a census of population, agriculture, irrigation, draining, distribution, unemployment, and mining. For the first time, specific questions for inquiry were left to the discretion of the Director of the Census. The Census encompassed each state, as well as the District of Columbia, Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. The Governors of Guam, American Samoa, the Virginia Islands, and the Panama Canal Zone were responsible for conducting censuses in their territory. Between the date that the census act was passed and Census Day (April 1st), the stock market crashed, plunging the entire country into the Great Depression. In response, there were public and academic requests for access to unemployment data collected in the 1930 Census; however, the U.S. Census Bureau was unable to meet this demands and the bureau was accused of present unreliable data. Congress required a special unemployment census for January 1931, which ultimately confirmed the severity of the economic crisis. Another unemployment census was conducted in 1937, as mandated by Congress. Because this special census was voluntary, it allowed the Census Bureau to experiment with statistical sampling. Only two percent of households received a special census questionnaire. Congress authorized the 1940 Census in August 1939, providing the Director of the Census the additional authority to conduct a national census of housing in each state, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Alaska. The housing census was conducted separately, though enumerators often collection housing information at the same time that they collected population information. The Census of 1940 was the first time that the U.S. Census Bureau used advanced statistical techniques. In particular, the census used probably sampling, which had only previously been tested in a trial census of unemployment conducted the Civil Works Administration during 1933-1934, in surveys of retail stores in the 1930s, and in an official sample survey of unemployment conducted amongst two percent of American households in 1937. Probability sampling allowed for the inclusion of additional demographic questions without increasing the burden on the collection process or on data processing. Moreover, sampling the U.S. Census Bureau was able to publish preliminary returns eight months before tabulations were completed. Likewise, the census increased its number of published tables, and also was able to complete data processing with higher quality and more efficiency. New census questions focused on employment, unemployment, internal migration, and incomes—reflecting on the concerns of the Great Depression, the country's housing stock, and the need for public housing programs. The Census of 1950 encompassed every state, Alaska, Hawaii, American Samoa, the Panama Canal Zone, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and other small American territories. For the first time, the U.S. Census Bureau enumerate American living abroad to account for members of the U.S. Armed Forces, vessel crew members, and government employees residing in foreign countries. The U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Maritime Administration, and several other federal agencies were responsible for distributing and collecting census questionnaires in a cooperative effort. Persons living abroad for reasons other than what is listed above had their census information reported by families or neighbors residing in the United States, but such data was criticized as unreliable and were not published in official statistics. The 1950 Census also included a new survey on residential financing collected separately on a sample basis from owners of owner-occupied properties, rental properties, and mortgage lenders. The accuracy of the new census was increased by improved enumerator training, the use of detailed street maps for enumerators, the publication of "Missed Person" forms in local newspapers, and the designation of a specific night to conduct a special enumeration of transient individuals. Moreover, a post-enumeration survey was conducted to further verify the accuracy of the original enumeration. A sample of approximately 3,500 small areas was compared to the original census data to identify households that may have been omitted initially. Likewise, a sample of approximately 22,000 households were re-interviewed to identify persons omitted in the original enumeration count. Though not used for the 1950 Census, the UNIVersal Automatic Computer I (UNIVAC I), the first non-military computer, was used to tabulate some of the statistics for the 1954 census of economy. In August of 1954, Congress codified various census statutes, such as the Fifteenth Census Act of 1929, authorizing the decennial census and other census. The Census of 1960 was the first to be mailed to respondents. The U.S. Postal Service delivered census questionnaires to households, the head of household was required to complete the questionnaire, and an enumerator was to pick it up. The enumeration process was divided into two stages: first, select data for each person and dwelling unit was collected; and second, more detailed economic and social data was collected from a sample of households and dwelling units. The census questionnaires for the second stage were hand-delivered by enumerators as they were collecting data from the first stage. Households receiving the second census questionnaire were to complete the form and mail it to their local census office. Twenty-five percent of the population was giving additional sample questions. Because of the increased use of sampling, less populated areas were prone to sampling variation; however, this did not significantly decrease the usefulness of census statistics gathered. Moreover, increased use of sampling reduced data processing costs. Additional questions included in the 1960 Census were related to places of works and means of transportation to work. By 1960, nearly all census data was processed using computers. The U.S. Census Bureau used a Film Optical Sensing Device for Input to Computer (FOSDIC) for the first time, thus decreasing the amount of time and money required for data input. In 1966, the U.S. Census Bureau sought suggestions from advisory committees and from the public, resulting in numerous proposals for additional inquiries related to the scope and structure of the census, as well as in public interest for the publication of additional census data. Researchers also concluded that the 1950 Census and the 1960 Census had undercounted certain segments of the population. Moreover, they noted a growing distrust of government activity and increased resistance to responding to the census. Simultaneously, both the public and private sectors expressed need for accurate information. The U.S. Census Bureau decreased its number of questions from 66 to 23 in an effort to simplify its products. A register for densely populated areas was also created to ensure that all housing units were accounted for. A Spanish-language questionnaire was also enclosed with census questionnaires in areas with a significant amount of Spanish-speaking households. Additionally, a question on Hispanic origins or descent was asked independently from race, but only on a five-percent sample. Only five questions were given to all individuals: relationship to household head, sex, race, age, and marital status. Additional questions were asked in smaller sample groups. This was also the first census in which respondents of urban areas were asked to mail their forms to the Census Bureau, rather than to hold questionnaires for enumerators. Address Coding Guides were used to assign census geographic codes to questionnaires. Counts, a series of computer tape files, were an additional innovation used to increase the accuracy of census data. Count 1 consisted of complete count data for block groups and/or enumeration districts. Count 2 contained census tracts and minor civil/census county divisions, while Count 3 consisted of census blocks. Counts 4-6 provided sample census data for geographic areas of various population sizes. The Census Bureau also produced six Public Use Microdata Sample files, each of which contained complete information for a sample of approximately two million people. Finally, the Census Bureau developed the Summary Tape Processing Center Program, which was a group of organizations, both public and private, that processed census data from computer tapes. For the 1990 Census, the U.S. Census Bureau utilized extensive user consultation prior to enumeration in order to refine both long and short form census questionnaires. The short form consisted of 13 questions and was given to the entire population. The long form asked 45 questions and was given to a 20 percent sample. The long form included topics related to marital history, carpooling, residence, residential elevators, and energy usage. Unlike the 1980 Census, the new census eliminated questions regarding air conditioning, the number of bathrooms in a residence, and the type of heating equipment used. A vast advertising campaign was marketed to increase public awareness of the census via public television, radio, and print media. Like the previous census, the Census of 1990 made a special effort to enumerate groups that have historically been undercounted in previous censuses called "S-Night": individuals in homeless shelters, soup kitchens, bus and railway stations, and dormitories (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "M-Night"); and permanent residents in hotels and motels (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "T-Night"). Following legal issues filed in response to the 1980 Census regarding statistical readjustment of undercounted areas, the Census Bureau initiated a post-enumeration survey (PES), in which a contemporaneous survey of households would be conducted and compare to the census results from the official census. In a partial resolution of a 1989 lawsuit filed by New York plaintiffs, the U.S. Department of Commerce agreed to use the PES to produce population data that had been adjusted for the projected undercount and that said data would be judged against the unadjusted data by the Secretary of Commerce's Special Advisory Panel (SAP). The Census of 1990 also introduced the U.S. to the Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing System (TIGER), which was developed by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Census Bureau. TIGER used computerized representations of various map features to geographically code addresses into appropriate census geographic areas. It also produced different maps required for census data collection and tabulation. Five years earlier, the Census Bureau became the first government agency to publish information on CD-ROM. For the 1990 Census, the bureau made detailed census data, which had previously been only available to organizations with large mainframe computers, accessible to any individual with a personal computer. Census data was also available in print, on computer tape, and on microfiche. Using two online service vendors, DIALOG and CompuServe, the Census Bureau also published select census data online. As with previous censuses, the 1990 Census undercounted the national population, and again, the African-American population had an estimated net undercount rate that was significantly higher than the rate for other races. In July of 1991, the Secretary of Commerce announced that he did not find evidence in favor of using adjusted counts compelling—despite SAP's split vote on the issue—and chose to use unadjusted totals for the official census results. In response, the New York plaintiffs resumed the lawsuit against the Department of Commerce. A federal district court divided in favor of the DOC in April of 1993. The U.S. Court of Appeals, however, rejected the previous court ruling and ordered that the case be reheard by the federal district court. In March of 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court finally ruled in favor of the Secretary of Commerce's decision to use the unadjusted census date, but did not rule on the legality or constitutionality of the use of statistical adjustment in producing apportionment counts. For the 1990 Census, the U.S. Census Bureau utilized extensive user consultation prior to enumeration in order to refine both long and short form census questionnaires. The short form consisted of 13 questions and was given to the entire population. The long form asked 45 questions and was given to a 20 percent sample. The long form included topics related to marital history, carpooling, residence, residential elevators, and energy usage. Unlike the 1980 Census, the new census eliminated questions regarding air conditioning, the number of bathrooms in a residence, and the type of heating equipment used. A vast advertising campaign was marketed to increase public awareness of the census via public television, radio, and print media. Like the previous census, the Census of 1990 made a special effort to enumerate groups that have historically been undercounted in previous censuses called "S-Night": individuals in homeless shelters, soup kitchens, bus and railway stations, and dormitories (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "M-Night"); and permanent residents in hotels and motels (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "T-Night"). Following legal issues filed in response to the 1980 Census regarding statistical readjustment of undercounted areas, the Census Bureau initiated a post-enumeration survey (PES), in which a contemporaneous survey of households would be conducted and compare to the census results from the official census. In a partial resolution of a 1989 lawsuit filed by New York plaintiffs, the U.S. Department of Commerce agreed to use the PES to produce population data that had been adjusted for the projected undercount and that said data would be judged against the unadjusted data by the Secretary of Commerce's Special Advisory Panel (SAP). The Census of 1990 also introduced the U.S. to the Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing System (TIGER), which was developed by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Census Bureau. TIGER used computerized representations of various map features to geographically code addresses into appropriate census geographic areas. It also produced different maps required for census data collection and tabulation. Five years earlier, the Census Bureau became the first government agency to publish information on CD-ROM. For the 1990 Census, the bureau made detailed census data, which had previously been only available to organizations with large mainframe computers, accessible to any individual with a personal computer. Census data was also available in print, on computer tape, and on microfiche. Using two online service vendors, DIALOG and CompuServe, the Census Bureau also published select census data online. As with previous censuses, the 1990 Census undercounted the national population, and again, the African-American population had an estimated net undercount rate that was significantly higher than the rate for other races. In July of 1991, the Secretary of Commerce announced that he did not find evidence in favor of using adjusted counts compelling—despite SAP's split vote on the issue—and chose to use unadjusted totals for the official census results. In response, the New York plaintiffs resumed the lawsuit against the Department of Commerce. A federal district court divided in favor of the DOC in April of 1993. The U.S. Court of Appeals, however, rejected the previous court ruling and ordered that the case be reheard by the federal district court. In March of 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court finally ruled in favor of the Secretary of Commerce's decision to use the unadjusted census date, but did not rule on the legality or constitutionality of the use of statistical adjustment in producing apportionment counts. For the Census of 2000, the short form consisted of only seven questions, while the long form consisted of 52 questions and used for a 17 percent sample of the population. For the first time, race questions were not limited to a single category; rather, respondents were able to check multiple boxes. A new question related to grandparents as caregivers was also mandated by legislation passed in 1996. Disability questions were expanded to including hearing and vision impairments, as well as learning, memory, and concentration disabilities. The 2000 Census also eliminated questions related to children born, water sources, sewage disposal, and condominium status. In addition, the 2000 Census was the first in which the Internet was used as the principal medium for the dissemination of census information. Summary Files were available for download immediately upon release and individual tables could be viewed via American FactFinder, the Census Bureau's online database. Files were also available for purchase on CD-Rom and DVD. Due to declining questionnaire mail-back rates, the U.S. Census Bureau marketed a $167 million national and local print, television, and public advertising campaign in 17 different languages. The campaign successfully brought the mail-back rate up to 67 percent. Additionally, respondents receiving the short form were given the option of responding via the Internet. Telephone questionnaire assistance centers available in 6 languages also took responses via the phone. Statistical sampling techniques were utilized in two ways: first, to alter the traditional 100 percent personal visit of non-responding households during the non-response follow-up (NRFU) process by instead following up on a smaller sample basis; second, the sampling of 750,000 housing units matched to housing unit questionnaires obtained from mail and telephone responses, as well as from personal visits. The goal of the latter was to develop adjustment factors for individuals estimated to have been missed or duplicated and to correct the census counts to produce one set of numbers. This "one-number census" would correct for net coverage errors called Integrated Coverage Measurement (ICM). Both of these measures were taken in an attempt to avoid repetition of the litigation costs generated by the 1980 Census and the 1990 Census. Despite these efforts, two lawsuits—one filed by the U.S. House of Representatives—were filed in February 1998 challenging the constitutionality and legality of the planned uses of sampling to produce apportionment counts. Both cases were decided in favor of the plaintiffs in federal district courts, but the U.S. Department of Commerce made appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court. Known as the U.S. Department of Commerce v. the U.S. House of Representatives, the Court ruled that the Census Bureau's plans to use statistical sampling for purposes of congressional apportionments violated the Census Act. The bureau revised its plan, stating that it would produce statistically adjusted data for non-apportionment uses of census data information, such as redistricting. However, in March of 2001, the Census Bureau recommended against the use of adjusted census data for redistricting due to accuracy concerns; the Secretary of Commerce determined that the unadjusted data would be released as the bureau's official redistricting data. The Director of the Census Bureau also rejected to the use of adjusted data for non-redistricting purposes in October of that same year. Language eng Type Collection Coverage Mosquito County, Florida Brevard County, Florida Flagler County, Florida Lake County, Florida Marion County, Florida Orange County, Florida Osceola County, Florida Seminole County, Florida Volusia County, Florida Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Contributor Gibson, Ella Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a>. Rights Holder This resource is not subject to copyright in the United States and there are no copyright restrictions on reproduction, derivative works, distribution, performance, or display of the work. Anyone may, without restriction under U.S. copyright laws: <ul class="one_column_bullet"><li>reproduce the work in print or digital form</li> <li>create derivative works</li> <li>perform the work publicly</li> <li>display the work</li> <li>distribute copies or digitally transfer the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.</li> </ul>This resources is provided here by <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> for educational purposes only. For more information on copyright, please refer to <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#105" target="_blank">Section 5</a> of <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html" target="_blank">Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code</a>. Source Repository <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> External Reference United States. <a href="https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf" target="_blank">Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970</a>. Washington: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1975. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/histstats-colonial-1970.pdf. United States, and Carroll D. Wright. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/166662" target="_blank">The History and Growth of the United States Census</a>. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1900. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf. "<a href="https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/" target="_blank">Through the Decades</a>." United States Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce. https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/. Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Original Format 1 table Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title U.S. Census for Central Florida, 1900 Alternative Title Census, 1900 Subject Census--United States Orange County (Fla.) Marion County (Fla.) Brevard County (Fla.) Volusia County (Fla.) Lake County (Fla.) Osceola County (Fla.) Population--United States Description The Twelfth United States Census records for Brevard County, Lake County, Marion County, Orange County (including present-day Seminole County), Osceola County, and Volusia County (including present-day Flagler County), Florida, for 1900. The census divides the population by gender, race ("white" and "black"), and native-born vs. foreign-born. Those who are foreign born are further divided by country of origin. The census then lists the illiterate population categorized by age, race, and gender. The census also collected information on agriculture and on manufacturing. Congress limited the Census of 1900 to content related to population, mortality, agriculture, and manufacturing. Special census agents were authorized to collect statistics related to incidents of deafness, blindness, insanity, and juvenile delinquency; as well as data on religious bodies, utilities, mining, and transportation. The act authorizing the 1900 Census designated the enumeration of military personally to the U.S. Department of War and the U.S. Department of the Navy, while Indiana Territory was to be enumerated by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. Annexed in 1898, Hawaii was included in the census for the first time. In 1902, the U.S. Census Office was officially established as a permanent organization within the U.S. Department of the Interior. The office became the U.S. Census Bureau in 1903 and was transferred to the Department of Commerce and Labor. Type Dataset Source Original census data collected by the <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Office</a> and the <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Bureau</a>, 1900. Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/104" target="_blank">U.S. Census Collection</a>, RICHES of Central Florida. Is Format Of Digital reproduction of original census data collected by the <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Office</a> and the <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Bureau</a>, 1900. Coverage Brevard County, Florida Lake County, Florida Marion County, Florida Orange County, Florida Osceola County, Florida Volusia County, Florida Creator <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Office</a> <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Bureau</a> Publisher <a href="http://www.doi.gov/index.cfm/" target="_blank">U.S. Department of the Interior</a> <a href="https://www.commerce.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Department of Commerce and Labor</a> Contributor Gibson, Ella Date Created ca. 1900-06-01 Format image/jpg Extent 787 KB Medium 1 table Language eng Mediator History Teacher Economics Teacher Geography Teacher Provenance Originally collected by the <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Office</a> and the <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Bureau</a>, and published by the <a href="http://www.doi.gov/index.cfm/" target="_blank">U.S. Department of the Interior</a> and the <a href="https://www.commerce.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Department of Commerce and Labor</a>. Rights Holder This resource is not subject to copyright in the United States and there are no copyright restrictions on reproduction, derivative works, distribution, performance, or display of the work. Anyone may, without restriction under U.S. copyright laws: <ul class="one_column_bullet"><li>reproduce the work in print or digital form;</li> <li>create derivative works;</li> <li>perform the work publicly;</li> <li>display the work;</li> <li>distribute copies or digitally transfer the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.</li> </ul> This resources is provided here by <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> for educational purposes only. For more information on copyright, please refer to <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#105" target="_blank">Section 5</a> of <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html" target="_blank">Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code</a>. Accrual Method Item Creation Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Source Repository <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> External Reference "<a href="https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/overview/1900.html" target="_blank">1900 Overview</a>." U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/overview/1900.html. United States. <a href="https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf" target="_blank">Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970</a>. Washington: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1975. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/histstats-colonial-1970.pdf. United States, and Carroll D. Wright. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/166662" target="_blank">The History and Growth of the United States Census</a>. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1900. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf. Transcript U.S. Census of 1900 Population Brevard County* Lake County Marion County Orange County** Osceola County Volusia County*** Population Total 5,158 7,467 24,403 11,374 3,44 10,003 Males 2,842 3,959 12,918 5,767 1,783 5,153 Females 2,316 3,508 11,485 5,607 1,611 4,850 White Population Total 4,003 4,829 9,356 7,347 3,013 6,538 Males 2,188 2,474 4,927 3,698 1,547 3,323 Females 1,815 2,355 4,429 3,649 1,466 3,215 Black Population Total 1,074 2,636 15,047 4,027 431 3,464 Males 613 1,484 7,991 2,069 236 1,829 Females 461 1,152 7,056 1,958 195 1,635 Native-Born Population Total 4,796 7,220 24,058 10,769 3,369 9,538 Males 2,608 3,816 12,704 5,432 1,732 4,904 Females 2,188 3,404 11,354 5,337 1,637 4,634 Foreign-Born Population Total 362 247 345 605 75 465 Males 234 143 214 335 51 249 Females 128 104 131 270 24 216 Foreign-Born Population by Country of Origin English Canada 31 43 44 42 3 68 Cuba 1 1 23 0 0 0 Denmark 57 4 4 3 2 1 England 96 112 84 184 38 131 France 3 4 18 11 1 4 Germany 58 31 57 117 6 96 Ireland 30 8 13 31 8 30 Italy 4 0 22 14 4 0 Norway 15 1 1 3 0 2 Russia 3 3 5 4 0 1 Scotland 18 22 13 31 7 15 Spain 0 0 2 0 1 0 West Indies 13 0 18 2 0 11 Other Countries 17 8 33 48 5 34 Illiteracy Brevard County* Lake County Marion County Orange County** Osceola County Volusia County*** Illiterate Population, Aged 10+ Total 265 765 3,937 993 315 899 White 50 132 180 257 183 149 Colored 206 633 3,757 736 132 750 Black 149 631 9,757 736 132 750 Males, Aged 21+ Illiterate 109 354 1,797 377 119 386 Literate 1,590 1,833 4,955 2,808 714 2,441 Agriculture Brevard County* Lake County Marion County Orange County** Osceola County Volusia County*** Farms by Acreage Total 615 848 2,520 1,218 354 430 1-2 19 24 15 51 99 3 3-9 104 64 216 180 21 41 10-19 140 115 403 202 21 60 20-49 166 245 784 359 111 140 50-99 80 177 556 204 50 69 100-174 65 127 322 145 20 65 175-259 20 52 117 36 9 21 260-499 13 28 76 31 8 16 500-999 5 11 22 7 7 5 1,000+ 3 5 9 3 8 10 Farm Owners Full Owners 479 576 1,824 779 312 362 Part-Owners 11 116 228 79 7 22 Owners and Tenants of Farms Total 2 1 19 2 0 0 Farm Managers Total 99 102 85 279 1 32 Tenants Cash Tenants 12 40 228 58 26 10 Share Tenants 12 13 136 21 8 4 White Farmers Total 579 784 1,246 1,132 351 39 Farm Owners 458 542 894 732 309 338 Part-Owners of Farms 7 106 98 69 7 19 Owners and Tenants of Farms 2 0 12 2 0 0 Farm Managers 89 91 78 271 1 31 Cash Tenants 11 33 103 40 26 7 Share Tenants 12 12 60 18 8 4 Colored Farmers Total 36 64 1,274 86 3 31 Farm Owners 21 34 930 47 3 24 Part-Owners of Farms 4 10 130 10 0 3 Owners and Tenants of Farms 0 1 6 0 0 0 Farm Managers 10 11 7 8 0 1 Cash Tenants 1 7 125 18 0 3 Share Tenants 0 1 76 3 0 0 Acres Land on Farms Improved Land 2,311 22,219 65,315 24,561 1,803 16,185 Unimproved Land 15,544 101,317 144,702 82,711 4,963 48,402 Present Cash Value of Farming Implements and Machinery Total $4,170 $60,060 $92,940 $82,070 $2,910 $42,010 Value of Livestock Total $36,360 $153,910 $487,460 $214,490 $47,930 $231,640 Bushels of Agricultural Products Produced Total N/A $27,811 $217,941 $12,702 $4,192 $10,611 Indian Corn N/A $26,338 $166,481 11,870 $4,192 $10,611 Oats N/A $1,381 $41,820 $832 $0 $0 Rye N/A $84 $9,640 $0 $0 $0 Manufacturing Brevard County* Lake County Marion County Orange County** Osceola County Volusia County*** Manufacturing Establishments Total 17 47 97 57 11 51 Capital Invested in Manufacturing Total $124,209 $331,703 $1,300,901 $726,223 $38,755 $390,364 Capital Invested in Plant Land of Manufacturing Establishments Plant Land $5,500 134,482 $596,203 $168,731 $16,700 $120,457 Building of Manufacturing Establishments $22,050 $27,507 $85,330 $79,582 $1,310 $32,627 Machinery, Tools, and Equipment $67,357 $72,542 $321,929 $276,081 $7,995 $138,120 Cash and Sundries $29,302 $97,172 $297,439 $201,829 $12,750 $99,160 "*Includes present-day St, Lucie County **Includes present-day Seminole County ***Includes present-day Flagler County African Americans agriculture Brevard County British Americans Canadian Americans capital Caribbean Americans census Census of 1900 corn Cuban Americans Danish Americans English Americans European Americans farm managers farmers farming implements farmings farmland females French Americans German Americans Hispanic Americans illiteracy Indian corn investments Irish Americans Italian Americans Lake County Latin Americans Latinas Latinos literacy livestock machinery males manufacturing Marion County Norwegian Americans oats orange county Osceola County population Russian Americans rye Scandinavian Americans Scotch Americans Scottish Americans Spanish Americans sundries tenant farming tenants U.S. Census Volusia County West Indian Americans https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka/files/original/06986ab371e1b80c8cc662cca7f2fd46.jpg c924774d8aff6d620459ed7d9ea3eeb7 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title U.S. Census Collection Alternative Title Census Collection Subject Census--United States Population--United States Orange County (Fla.) Marion County (Fla.) Brevard County (Fla.) St. Lucie County (Fla.) Seminole County (Fla.) Volusia County (Fla.) Flagler County (Fla.) Lake County (Fla.) Osceola County (Fla.) Description Collection of United States Census population records for various counties in Central Florida from 1840 to 2000. The Census Act of 1840 was signed into law on March 3, 1839 and later amended on February 26, 1840. This piece of legislation established a centralized census office during each enumeration. Congress designated the census questionnaire designs to the Secretary of State. However, each household received inquiries regarding "the pursuits, industry, education, and resources of the country" and included questions related to school attendance, literacy, and vocation. In March of 1849, Congress pass legislation that established a census board consisting of the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Postmaster General. The board was responsible for preparing and printing forms and schedules for enumeration related to population, mining, agriculture, commerce, manufacturing, education, etc. The 1850 Census also increased population inquiries to include every free person's name (as opposed to just the head of the household), as well as information on taxes, schools, crime, wages, estate values, etc. The Census Act of 1850 authorized the U.S. Census of 1860 and stipulated that its provisions be adhered to for all future decennial censuses should no new legislation be passed by the first of the year of said census. In May of 1865, the U.S. Census Office was abolished and many superintending clerks were transferred to the General Land Office. Although the 1870 Census was conducted under the provisions of the Census Act of 1850, a new act was passed on May 6, 1870. The new census legislation required two changes in procedures related to questionnaire return submission dates. Moreover, penalties for refusing to reply to inquires were expanded to apply to all questions and questionnaires. The questionnaires themselves had to be redesigned due to the end of the "slave questionnaire", as slavery had been formally abolished slavery nationwide via the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This left five schedules for the census: General Population, Mortality, Agriculture, Products of Industry, and Social Statistics. In addition, the use of a Charles W. Seaton, a U.S. Census Office chief clerk and later superintendent, invited a rudimentary tallying machine that partially alleviated the difficulties of tallying and tabulating questionnaire responses. Finally, the new superintendent for the Ninth Census, General Francis A. Walker, introduced employment examinations to test the qualifications of applicants to the Census Office, allowing for increased efficiency in the process of collecting census data. The newest act authorizing the Census of 1880 provided for supervision of enumeration by "supervisors of the census", selected exclusively for the collection of census data. All supervisors, as well as the superintendent, were to appointed by the U.S. President and approved by the Senate. Census enumerators were required to personally visit each household and family within his subdivision. The new census act also allowed for the collection of data related to the condition and operation of railroad corporations, incorporated express companies, and telegraph companies, as well as data related to the condition and operation of life, fire, and marine insurance companies. Corporations who refused to provide the census with "true and complete" answers were subject to fines. In addition, the census superintendent was required to collect and publish data on the population, industries and resources of the District of Alaska. Finally, the 1880 Census consisted of five schedules: Population, Mortality, Agriculture, Social Statistics, and Manufacturing. The Census of 1890 was authorized by an act modeled after the 1880 enumeration and signed into law on March 1, 1889. The 1890 Census was supervised by 175 employees and enumerators were required to collect all information by personally visiting each household. The 1890 Census included essentially the same inquires from the 1880 Census, with some notable additions, such as questions about home and farm ownership and indebtedness; and the names, units, length of service, and residences of former Union soldiers and sailors, as well as the names of the widows of those who were no longer alive. Racial categorization was expanded to include "Japanese", along with "Chinese", "Negro", "mulatto", "quadroon", "octoroon", and "White". Herman Hollerith, a former employee of the U.S. Census Office, invited the electric tabulating system, which was widely used in the 1890 Census, allowing data to be processed faster and more efficiently. On October 3, 1893, Congress passed a law that transferred census-related work to the direction of the commissioner of labor. Congress passed another act on March 2, 1895, effectively abolishing the U.S. Census Office and transferring the remaining responsibilities to the Office of the Secretary of the Interior. Congress limited the Census of 1900 to content related to population, mortality, agriculture, and manufacturing. Special census agents were authorized to collect statistics related to incidents of deafness, blindness, insanity, and juvenile delinquency; as well as data on religious bodies, utilities, mining, and transportation. The act authorizing the 1900 Census designated the enumeration of military personally to the U.S. Department of War and the U.S. Department of the Navy, while Indiana Territory was to be enumerated by the commissioner of Indian Affairs. Annexed in 1898, Hawaii was included in the census for the first time. In 1902, the U.S. Census Office was officially established as a permanent organization within the U.S. Department of the Interior. The office became the U.S. Census Bureau in 1903 and was transferred to the Department of Commerce and Labor. The Census of 1910 was approved by legislation introduced in December of 1907 and enacted in July of 1909. The delay was the result of a disagreement over the appointment of enumerators. President Theodore Roosevelt supported the hiring of enumerators via the civil service system, while Congress supported enumerators as positions of patronage. President Roosevelt successfully won the debate. This census act also changed Census Day from the traditional date of June 1st to April 15th. Additional questions regarding the nationality and native language of foreign-born persons and their parents. Funds for the U.S. Census Bureau were also increased to expand the Census' permanent workforce and created several new full-time positions, including a geographer, a chief statistician, and an assistant director. The assistant director was to be appointed by the President and approved by the Senate, while all other census employees were hired on the basis of open, competitive examinations administered by the Civil Service Commission. Despite the use of automatic counting machinery, issues with the tabulation process persisted. Finally, with the United States' entrance into World War I in 1917, the U.S. Census Bureau became a source of even more valuable purpose: the Census was able to use population and economic data to report on the populations of draft-age men, as well as information regarding each state's industrial capabilities. The Census of 1920 changed the date of Census Day from April 15th to January 1st, as requested by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which argued that farmers' memories and harvest information would be more accurate on this day. The U.S. Census Bureau was also authorized to hire additional employees at its headquarters in Washington, D.C. and to create a special field force to collect census data. The legislation authorizing the 1920 Census also allowed for a census of manufacturing to be conducted in 1921, and for such a census to be repeated every two years thereafter, as opposed to the traditional five-year census cycle. Furthermore, a census of agriculture and livestock was to be conducted in 1925 and to be repeated every ten years thereafter. In addition, penalties for those who refused to supply information or those who supplied false information were strengthened. As a result of these changes, census of population, manufacturing, and agriculture and livestock became increasingly independent of one another. The "usual place of abode", the location where residents regularly slept, instead of where they worked or were visiting, became the new basis for enumeration in the 1920 Census. Those with no permanent or regular residence were listed as residents of the location that they were enumerated at. Enumeration related to institutional inmates and dependent, defective, and delinquent classes were also modified. Unlike the previous census, the 1920 Census did not have inquires related to unemployment, to Union or Confederate Army or Navy service, to the number of children born, or to the length of time that a couple had been married. The Census of 1920, however, did include four additional questions: one regarding year of naturalization and three regarding native languages. Issues also arose as a result of changes in international boundaries following World War I, particularly for persons declaring birth or parental birth in Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia, or Turkey. In response, enumerators were required to ask said persons for their province, state, or region of birth. Enumerators were not required to ask individuals how to spell their names, nor were respondents required to provide proof of various pieces of information. Race was determined by the enumerator's impressions. The act authorizing the 1930 Census was approved on June 18, 1929, allowing for a census of population, agriculture, irrigation, draining, distribution, unemployment, and mining. For the first time, specific questions for inquiry were left to the discretion of the Director of the Census. The Census encompassed each state, as well as the District of Columbia, Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. The Governors of Guam, American Samoa, the Virginia Islands, and the Panama Canal Zone were responsible for conducting censuses in their territory. Between the date that the census act was passed and Census Day (April 1st), the stock market crashed, plunging the entire country into the Great Depression. In response, there were public and academic requests for access to unemployment data collected in the 1930 Census; however, the U.S. Census Bureau was unable to meet this demands and the bureau was accused of present unreliable data. Congress required a special unemployment census for January 1931, which ultimately confirmed the severity of the economic crisis. Another unemployment census was conducted in 1937, as mandated by Congress. Because this special census was voluntary, it allowed the Census Bureau to experiment with statistical sampling. Only two percent of households received a special census questionnaire. Congress authorized the 1940 Census in August 1939, providing the Director of the Census the additional authority to conduct a national census of housing in each state, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Alaska. The housing census was conducted separately, though enumerators often collection housing information at the same time that they collected population information. The Census of 1940 was the first time that the U.S. Census Bureau used advanced statistical techniques. In particular, the census used probably sampling, which had only previously been tested in a trial census of unemployment conducted the Civil Works Administration during 1933-1934, in surveys of retail stores in the 1930s, and in an official sample survey of unemployment conducted amongst two percent of American households in 1937. Probability sampling allowed for the inclusion of additional demographic questions without increasing the burden on the collection process or on data processing. Moreover, sampling the U.S. Census Bureau was able to publish preliminary returns eight months before tabulations were completed. Likewise, the census increased its number of published tables, and also was able to complete data processing with higher quality and more efficiency. New census questions focused on employment, unemployment, internal migration, and incomes—reflecting on the concerns of the Great Depression, the country's housing stock, and the need for public housing programs. The Census of 1950 encompassed every state, Alaska, Hawaii, American Samoa, the Panama Canal Zone, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and other small American territories. For the first time, the U.S. Census Bureau enumerate American living abroad to account for members of the U.S. Armed Forces, vessel crew members, and government employees residing in foreign countries. The U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Maritime Administration, and several other federal agencies were responsible for distributing and collecting census questionnaires in a cooperative effort. Persons living abroad for reasons other than what is listed above had their census information reported by families or neighbors residing in the United States, but such data was criticized as unreliable and were not published in official statistics. The 1950 Census also included a new survey on residential financing collected separately on a sample basis from owners of owner-occupied properties, rental properties, and mortgage lenders. The accuracy of the new census was increased by improved enumerator training, the use of detailed street maps for enumerators, the publication of "Missed Person" forms in local newspapers, and the designation of a specific night to conduct a special enumeration of transient individuals. Moreover, a post-enumeration survey was conducted to further verify the accuracy of the original enumeration. A sample of approximately 3,500 small areas was compared to the original census data to identify households that may have been omitted initially. Likewise, a sample of approximately 22,000 households were re-interviewed to identify persons omitted in the original enumeration count. Though not used for the 1950 Census, the UNIVersal Automatic Computer I (UNIVAC I), the first non-military computer, was used to tabulate some of the statistics for the 1954 census of economy. In August of 1954, Congress codified various census statutes, such as the Fifteenth Census Act of 1929, authorizing the decennial census and other census. The Census of 1960 was the first to be mailed to respondents. The U.S. Postal Service delivered census questionnaires to households, the head of household was required to complete the questionnaire, and an enumerator was to pick it up. The enumeration process was divided into two stages: first, select data for each person and dwelling unit was collected; and second, more detailed economic and social data was collected from a sample of households and dwelling units. The census questionnaires for the second stage were hand-delivered by enumerators as they were collecting data from the first stage. Households receiving the second census questionnaire were to complete the form and mail it to their local census office. Twenty-five percent of the population was giving additional sample questions. Because of the increased use of sampling, less populated areas were prone to sampling variation; however, this did not significantly decrease the usefulness of census statistics gathered. Moreover, increased use of sampling reduced data processing costs. Additional questions included in the 1960 Census were related to places of works and means of transportation to work. By 1960, nearly all census data was processed using computers. The U.S. Census Bureau used a Film Optical Sensing Device for Input to Computer (FOSDIC) for the first time, thus decreasing the amount of time and money required for data input. In 1966, the U.S. Census Bureau sought suggestions from advisory committees and from the public, resulting in numerous proposals for additional inquiries related to the scope and structure of the census, as well as in public interest for the publication of additional census data. Researchers also concluded that the 1950 Census and the 1960 Census had undercounted certain segments of the population. Moreover, they noted a growing distrust of government activity and increased resistance to responding to the census. Simultaneously, both the public and private sectors expressed need for accurate information. The U.S. Census Bureau decreased its number of questions from 66 to 23 in an effort to simplify its products. A register for densely populated areas was also created to ensure that all housing units were accounted for. A Spanish-language questionnaire was also enclosed with census questionnaires in areas with a significant amount of Spanish-speaking households. Additionally, a question on Hispanic origins or descent was asked independently from race, but only on a five-percent sample. Only five questions were given to all individuals: relationship to household head, sex, race, age, and marital status. Additional questions were asked in smaller sample groups. This was also the first census in which respondents of urban areas were asked to mail their forms to the Census Bureau, rather than to hold questionnaires for enumerators. Address Coding Guides were used to assign census geographic codes to questionnaires. Counts, a series of computer tape files, were an additional innovation used to increase the accuracy of census data. Count 1 consisted of complete count data for block groups and/or enumeration districts. Count 2 contained census tracts and minor civil/census county divisions, while Count 3 consisted of census blocks. Counts 4-6 provided sample census data for geographic areas of various population sizes. The Census Bureau also produced six Public Use Microdata Sample files, each of which contained complete information for a sample of approximately two million people. Finally, the Census Bureau developed the Summary Tape Processing Center Program, which was a group of organizations, both public and private, that processed census data from computer tapes. For the 1990 Census, the U.S. Census Bureau utilized extensive user consultation prior to enumeration in order to refine both long and short form census questionnaires. The short form consisted of 13 questions and was given to the entire population. The long form asked 45 questions and was given to a 20 percent sample. The long form included topics related to marital history, carpooling, residence, residential elevators, and energy usage. Unlike the 1980 Census, the new census eliminated questions regarding air conditioning, the number of bathrooms in a residence, and the type of heating equipment used. A vast advertising campaign was marketed to increase public awareness of the census via public television, radio, and print media. Like the previous census, the Census of 1990 made a special effort to enumerate groups that have historically been undercounted in previous censuses called "S-Night": individuals in homeless shelters, soup kitchens, bus and railway stations, and dormitories (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "M-Night"); and permanent residents in hotels and motels (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "T-Night"). Following legal issues filed in response to the 1980 Census regarding statistical readjustment of undercounted areas, the Census Bureau initiated a post-enumeration survey (PES), in which a contemporaneous survey of households would be conducted and compare to the census results from the official census. In a partial resolution of a 1989 lawsuit filed by New York plaintiffs, the U.S. Department of Commerce agreed to use the PES to produce population data that had been adjusted for the projected undercount and that said data would be judged against the unadjusted data by the Secretary of Commerce's Special Advisory Panel (SAP). The Census of 1990 also introduced the U.S. to the Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing System (TIGER), which was developed by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Census Bureau. TIGER used computerized representations of various map features to geographically code addresses into appropriate census geographic areas. It also produced different maps required for census data collection and tabulation. Five years earlier, the Census Bureau became the first government agency to publish information on CD-ROM. For the 1990 Census, the bureau made detailed census data, which had previously been only available to organizations with large mainframe computers, accessible to any individual with a personal computer. Census data was also available in print, on computer tape, and on microfiche. Using two online service vendors, DIALOG and CompuServe, the Census Bureau also published select census data online. As with previous censuses, the 1990 Census undercounted the national population, and again, the African-American population had an estimated net undercount rate that was significantly higher than the rate for other races. In July of 1991, the Secretary of Commerce announced that he did not find evidence in favor of using adjusted counts compelling—despite SAP's split vote on the issue—and chose to use unadjusted totals for the official census results. In response, the New York plaintiffs resumed the lawsuit against the Department of Commerce. A federal district court divided in favor of the DOC in April of 1993. The U.S. Court of Appeals, however, rejected the previous court ruling and ordered that the case be reheard by the federal district court. In March of 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court finally ruled in favor of the Secretary of Commerce's decision to use the unadjusted census date, but did not rule on the legality or constitutionality of the use of statistical adjustment in producing apportionment counts. For the 1990 Census, the U.S. Census Bureau utilized extensive user consultation prior to enumeration in order to refine both long and short form census questionnaires. The short form consisted of 13 questions and was given to the entire population. The long form asked 45 questions and was given to a 20 percent sample. The long form included topics related to marital history, carpooling, residence, residential elevators, and energy usage. Unlike the 1980 Census, the new census eliminated questions regarding air conditioning, the number of bathrooms in a residence, and the type of heating equipment used. A vast advertising campaign was marketed to increase public awareness of the census via public television, radio, and print media. Like the previous census, the Census of 1990 made a special effort to enumerate groups that have historically been undercounted in previous censuses called "S-Night": individuals in homeless shelters, soup kitchens, bus and railway stations, and dormitories (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "M-Night"); and permanent residents in hotels and motels (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "T-Night"). Following legal issues filed in response to the 1980 Census regarding statistical readjustment of undercounted areas, the Census Bureau initiated a post-enumeration survey (PES), in which a contemporaneous survey of households would be conducted and compare to the census results from the official census. In a partial resolution of a 1989 lawsuit filed by New York plaintiffs, the U.S. Department of Commerce agreed to use the PES to produce population data that had been adjusted for the projected undercount and that said data would be judged against the unadjusted data by the Secretary of Commerce's Special Advisory Panel (SAP). The Census of 1990 also introduced the U.S. to the Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing System (TIGER), which was developed by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Census Bureau. TIGER used computerized representations of various map features to geographically code addresses into appropriate census geographic areas. It also produced different maps required for census data collection and tabulation. Five years earlier, the Census Bureau became the first government agency to publish information on CD-ROM. For the 1990 Census, the bureau made detailed census data, which had previously been only available to organizations with large mainframe computers, accessible to any individual with a personal computer. Census data was also available in print, on computer tape, and on microfiche. Using two online service vendors, DIALOG and CompuServe, the Census Bureau also published select census data online. As with previous censuses, the 1990 Census undercounted the national population, and again, the African-American population had an estimated net undercount rate that was significantly higher than the rate for other races. In July of 1991, the Secretary of Commerce announced that he did not find evidence in favor of using adjusted counts compelling—despite SAP's split vote on the issue—and chose to use unadjusted totals for the official census results. In response, the New York plaintiffs resumed the lawsuit against the Department of Commerce. A federal district court divided in favor of the DOC in April of 1993. The U.S. Court of Appeals, however, rejected the previous court ruling and ordered that the case be reheard by the federal district court. In March of 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court finally ruled in favor of the Secretary of Commerce's decision to use the unadjusted census date, but did not rule on the legality or constitutionality of the use of statistical adjustment in producing apportionment counts. For the Census of 2000, the short form consisted of only seven questions, while the long form consisted of 52 questions and used for a 17 percent sample of the population. For the first time, race questions were not limited to a single category; rather, respondents were able to check multiple boxes. A new question related to grandparents as caregivers was also mandated by legislation passed in 1996. Disability questions were expanded to including hearing and vision impairments, as well as learning, memory, and concentration disabilities. The 2000 Census also eliminated questions related to children born, water sources, sewage disposal, and condominium status. In addition, the 2000 Census was the first in which the Internet was used as the principal medium for the dissemination of census information. Summary Files were available for download immediately upon release and individual tables could be viewed via American FactFinder, the Census Bureau's online database. Files were also available for purchase on CD-Rom and DVD. Due to declining questionnaire mail-back rates, the U.S. Census Bureau marketed a $167 million national and local print, television, and public advertising campaign in 17 different languages. The campaign successfully brought the mail-back rate up to 67 percent. Additionally, respondents receiving the short form were given the option of responding via the Internet. Telephone questionnaire assistance centers available in 6 languages also took responses via the phone. Statistical sampling techniques were utilized in two ways: first, to alter the traditional 100 percent personal visit of non-responding households during the non-response follow-up (NRFU) process by instead following up on a smaller sample basis; second, the sampling of 750,000 housing units matched to housing unit questionnaires obtained from mail and telephone responses, as well as from personal visits. The goal of the latter was to develop adjustment factors for individuals estimated to have been missed or duplicated and to correct the census counts to produce one set of numbers. This "one-number census" would correct for net coverage errors called Integrated Coverage Measurement (ICM). Both of these measures were taken in an attempt to avoid repetition of the litigation costs generated by the 1980 Census and the 1990 Census. Despite these efforts, two lawsuits—one filed by the U.S. House of Representatives—were filed in February 1998 challenging the constitutionality and legality of the planned uses of sampling to produce apportionment counts. Both cases were decided in favor of the plaintiffs in federal district courts, but the U.S. Department of Commerce made appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court. Known as the U.S. Department of Commerce v. the U.S. House of Representatives, the Court ruled that the Census Bureau's plans to use statistical sampling for purposes of congressional apportionments violated the Census Act. The bureau revised its plan, stating that it would produce statistically adjusted data for non-apportionment uses of census data information, such as redistricting. However, in March of 2001, the Census Bureau recommended against the use of adjusted census data for redistricting due to accuracy concerns; the Secretary of Commerce determined that the unadjusted data would be released as the bureau's official redistricting data. The Director of the Census Bureau also rejected to the use of adjusted data for non-redistricting purposes in October of that same year. Language eng Type Collection Coverage Mosquito County, Florida Brevard County, Florida Flagler County, Florida Lake County, Florida Marion County, Florida Orange County, Florida Osceola County, Florida Seminole County, Florida Volusia County, Florida Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Contributor Gibson, Ella Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a>. Rights Holder This resource is not subject to copyright in the United States and there are no copyright restrictions on reproduction, derivative works, distribution, performance, or display of the work. Anyone may, without restriction under U.S. copyright laws: <ul class="one_column_bullet"><li>reproduce the work in print or digital form</li> <li>create derivative works</li> <li>perform the work publicly</li> <li>display the work</li> <li>distribute copies or digitally transfer the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.</li> </ul>This resources is provided here by <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> for educational purposes only. For more information on copyright, please refer to <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#105" target="_blank">Section 5</a> of <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html" target="_blank">Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code</a>. Source Repository <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> External Reference United States. <a href="https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf" target="_blank">Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970</a>. Washington: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1975. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/histstats-colonial-1970.pdf. United States, and Carroll D. Wright. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/166662" target="_blank">The History and Growth of the United States Census</a>. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1900. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf. "<a href="https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/" target="_blank">Through the Decades</a>." United States Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce. https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/. Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Original Format 1 table Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title U.S. Census for Central Florida, 1880 Alternative Title Census, 1880 Subject Census--United States Orange County (Fla.) Marion County (Fla.) Brevard County (Fla.) Volusia County (Fla.) Population--United States Description The Tenth United States Census records for Brevard County (including present-day St. Lucie County), Marion County, Orange County (including present-day Seminole County and parts of present-day Lake County, Osceola County, and Volusia County), and Volusia County (including present-day Flagler County), Florida, for 1880. The census divides the population by gender, race ("white", "colored", and "Indian"), and native-born vs. foreign-born. Those born outside of Florida are then divided by state or country of origin. The census also collected information on agriculture and on manufacturing. The newest act authorizing the Census of 1880 provided for supervision of enumeration by "supervisors of the census," selected exclusively for the collection of census data. All supervisors, as well as the superintendent, were to appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. Census enumerators were required to personally visit each household and family within his subdivision. The new census act also allowed for the collection of data related to the condition and operation of railroad corporations, incorporated express companies, and telegraph companies, as well as data related to the condition and operation of life, fire, and marine insurance companies. Corporations who refused to provide the census with "true and complete" answers were subject to fines. In addition, the census superintendent was required to collect and publish data on the population, industries and resources of the District of Alaska. Finally, the 1880 Census consisted of five schedules: Population, Mortality, Agriculture, Social Statistics, and Manufacturing. Type Dataset Source Original census data collected by the <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Office</a>, 1880. Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/104" target="_blank">U.S. Census Collection</a>, RICHES of Central Florida. Is Format Of Digital reproduction of original census data collected by the <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Office</a>, 1880. Coverage Brevard County, Florida Orange County, Florida Marion County, Florida Volusia County, Florida Creator <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Office</a> Publisher <a href="http://www.doi.gov/index.cfm/" target="_blank">U.S. Department of the Interior</a> Contributor Gibson, Ella Date Created ca. 1880-06-01 Format image/jpg Extent 589 KB Medium 1 table Language eng Mediator History Teacher Economics Teacher Geography Teacher Provenance Originally collected by the <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Office</a> and published by the <a href="http://www.doi.gov/index.cfm/" target="_blank">U.S. Department of the Interior</a>. Rights Holder This resource is not subject to copyright in the United States and there are no copyright restrictions on reproduction, derivative works, distribution, performance, or display of the work. Anyone may, without restriction under U.S. copyright laws: <ul class="one_column_bullet"><li>reproduce the work in print or digital form</li> <li>create derivative works</li> <li>perform the work publicly</li> <li>display the work</li> <li>distribute copies or digitally transfer the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.</li> </ul> This resources is provided here by <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> for educational purposes only. For more information on copyright, please refer to <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#105" target="_blank">Section 5</a> of <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html" target="_blank">Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code</a>. Accrual Method Item Creation Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Source Repository <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> External Reference "<a href="https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/overview/1880.html" target="_blank">1880 Overview</a>." U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/overview/1880.html. United States. <a href="https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf" target="_blank">Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970</a>. Washington: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1975. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/histstats-colonial-1970.pdf. United States, and Carroll D. Wright. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/166662" target="_blank">The History and Growth of the United States Census</a>. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1900. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf. Transcript U.S. Census of 1880 Population Brevard County* Marion County Orange County** Volusia County*** Population Total 1,478 13,046 6,618 3,294 Males 819 6,580 3,863 1,796 Females 659 6,466 2,755 1,498 Population by Race White 1,379 4,471 5,595 2,756 Colored 84 8,305 1,023 538 Indian 15 0 0 0 Native-Born Population Total 1,421 12,958 6,315 3,167 Native-Born Population by State of Origin Alabama 38 337 164 31 Georgia 242 949 1,331 461 Massachusetts 9 27 95 58 New York 46 117 187 140 North Carolina 18 181 162 72 Pennsylvania 14 9 55 55 South Carolina 74 2,797 282 209 Tennessee 8 70 73 13 Virginia 5 101 133 23 Foreign-Born Population by Country of Origin Total 57 88 303 127 British America 5 13 44 20 Cuba 0 1 0 0 England and Wales 14 15 40 35 France 0 2 27 0 German Empire 13 14 38 11 Ireland 11 13 20 13 Scotland 6 3 7 11 Sweden and Norway 0 13 99 21 West Indies 2 1 2 9 Other Foreign Places 6 13 26 6 Agriculture Brevard County* Marion County Orange County** Volusia County*** Farms by Ownership and Tenure Total 231 1,434 893 244 Owner-Operated 228 1,170 875 240 Rented for Fixed Money 3 142 8 1 Rented for Shares of Products 0 122 10 3 Farms by Acreage Less than 3 11 0 0 0 3-9 44 79 39 6 10-19 23 129 71 20 20-49 46 240 162 45 50-99 33 465 135 52 100-499 69 467 460 109 500-999 3 34 19 9 1000+ 2 20 7 3 Acres of Land in Farms Improved Land 1,956 52,888 19,024 6,108 Unimproved Land 20,070 163,650 123,241 36,316 Value of Farms Farmland, Fences, and Buildings $309,055 $1,294,066 $3,245,510 $745,910 Farming Machinery and Implements $6,823 $44,391 $30,512 $9,994 Livestock $204,051 $293,360 $174,228 $47,894 Cost of Buildings and Repairing Fences Total $3,442 $34,533 $11,890 $5,542 Bushels of Crops Produced Barley $0 $90 $0 $0 Indian Corn $6,186 186,917 26,727 12,672 Oats $100 $15,629 $1,412 $375 Rye $0 $21 $160 $10 Manufacturing Brevard County* Marion County Orange County** Volusia County*** Manufacturing Establishments Total 1 15 12 4 Average Males Aged 16+ Employed in Manufacturing Total 2 38 50 9 Value of Products in Manufacturing Total $1,800 $46,381 $62,000 $21,944 Capital Invested in Manufacturing Total $1,000 $66,200 $24,500 $15,100 Value of Raw Materials in Manufacturing Total $1,025 $27,900 $33,175 $12,100 Annual Wages Paid in Manufacturing Total $300 $7,582 $8,740 $2,050 "*Includes present-day St, Lucie County **Includes present-day Seminole County and parts of present-day Lake and Osceola counties ***Includes present-day Flagler County" African Americans Amerindians Anglo Americans barley Brevard County British Americans capital census Census of 1880 corn crops Cuban Americans employees employment English Americans European Americans farming implements farmland farms females French Americans German Americans Indian corn Indians investments Irish Americans labor laborers livestock machinery males manufacturing Marion County Native Americans Norwegian Americans oats orange county population raw materials rye Scandinavian Americans Scotch Americans Scottish Americans Swedish Americans U.S. Census Volusia County wages Welsh Americans West Indian Americans https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka/files/original/eba79a2268eb5f407da13bc844c868e6.jpg 09bca50dad90ed5d7b3a667b96d18d1e Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title U.S. Census Collection Alternative Title Census Collection Subject Census--United States Population--United States Orange County (Fla.) Marion County (Fla.) Brevard County (Fla.) St. Lucie County (Fla.) Seminole County (Fla.) Volusia County (Fla.) Flagler County (Fla.) Lake County (Fla.) Osceola County (Fla.) Description Collection of United States Census population records for various counties in Central Florida from 1840 to 2000. The Census Act of 1840 was signed into law on March 3, 1839 and later amended on February 26, 1840. This piece of legislation established a centralized census office during each enumeration. Congress designated the census questionnaire designs to the Secretary of State. However, each household received inquiries regarding "the pursuits, industry, education, and resources of the country" and included questions related to school attendance, literacy, and vocation. In March of 1849, Congress pass legislation that established a census board consisting of the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Postmaster General. The board was responsible for preparing and printing forms and schedules for enumeration related to population, mining, agriculture, commerce, manufacturing, education, etc. The 1850 Census also increased population inquiries to include every free person's name (as opposed to just the head of the household), as well as information on taxes, schools, crime, wages, estate values, etc. The Census Act of 1850 authorized the U.S. Census of 1860 and stipulated that its provisions be adhered to for all future decennial censuses should no new legislation be passed by the first of the year of said census. In May of 1865, the U.S. Census Office was abolished and many superintending clerks were transferred to the General Land Office. Although the 1870 Census was conducted under the provisions of the Census Act of 1850, a new act was passed on May 6, 1870. The new census legislation required two changes in procedures related to questionnaire return submission dates. Moreover, penalties for refusing to reply to inquires were expanded to apply to all questions and questionnaires. The questionnaires themselves had to be redesigned due to the end of the "slave questionnaire", as slavery had been formally abolished slavery nationwide via the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This left five schedules for the census: General Population, Mortality, Agriculture, Products of Industry, and Social Statistics. In addition, the use of a Charles W. Seaton, a U.S. Census Office chief clerk and later superintendent, invited a rudimentary tallying machine that partially alleviated the difficulties of tallying and tabulating questionnaire responses. Finally, the new superintendent for the Ninth Census, General Francis A. Walker, introduced employment examinations to test the qualifications of applicants to the Census Office, allowing for increased efficiency in the process of collecting census data. The newest act authorizing the Census of 1880 provided for supervision of enumeration by "supervisors of the census", selected exclusively for the collection of census data. All supervisors, as well as the superintendent, were to appointed by the U.S. President and approved by the Senate. Census enumerators were required to personally visit each household and family within his subdivision. The new census act also allowed for the collection of data related to the condition and operation of railroad corporations, incorporated express companies, and telegraph companies, as well as data related to the condition and operation of life, fire, and marine insurance companies. Corporations who refused to provide the census with "true and complete" answers were subject to fines. In addition, the census superintendent was required to collect and publish data on the population, industries and resources of the District of Alaska. Finally, the 1880 Census consisted of five schedules: Population, Mortality, Agriculture, Social Statistics, and Manufacturing. The Census of 1890 was authorized by an act modeled after the 1880 enumeration and signed into law on March 1, 1889. The 1890 Census was supervised by 175 employees and enumerators were required to collect all information by personally visiting each household. The 1890 Census included essentially the same inquires from the 1880 Census, with some notable additions, such as questions about home and farm ownership and indebtedness; and the names, units, length of service, and residences of former Union soldiers and sailors, as well as the names of the widows of those who were no longer alive. Racial categorization was expanded to include "Japanese", along with "Chinese", "Negro", "mulatto", "quadroon", "octoroon", and "White". Herman Hollerith, a former employee of the U.S. Census Office, invited the electric tabulating system, which was widely used in the 1890 Census, allowing data to be processed faster and more efficiently. On October 3, 1893, Congress passed a law that transferred census-related work to the direction of the commissioner of labor. Congress passed another act on March 2, 1895, effectively abolishing the U.S. Census Office and transferring the remaining responsibilities to the Office of the Secretary of the Interior. Congress limited the Census of 1900 to content related to population, mortality, agriculture, and manufacturing. Special census agents were authorized to collect statistics related to incidents of deafness, blindness, insanity, and juvenile delinquency; as well as data on religious bodies, utilities, mining, and transportation. The act authorizing the 1900 Census designated the enumeration of military personally to the U.S. Department of War and the U.S. Department of the Navy, while Indiana Territory was to be enumerated by the commissioner of Indian Affairs. Annexed in 1898, Hawaii was included in the census for the first time. In 1902, the U.S. Census Office was officially established as a permanent organization within the U.S. Department of the Interior. The office became the U.S. Census Bureau in 1903 and was transferred to the Department of Commerce and Labor. The Census of 1910 was approved by legislation introduced in December of 1907 and enacted in July of 1909. The delay was the result of a disagreement over the appointment of enumerators. President Theodore Roosevelt supported the hiring of enumerators via the civil service system, while Congress supported enumerators as positions of patronage. President Roosevelt successfully won the debate. This census act also changed Census Day from the traditional date of June 1st to April 15th. Additional questions regarding the nationality and native language of foreign-born persons and their parents. Funds for the U.S. Census Bureau were also increased to expand the Census' permanent workforce and created several new full-time positions, including a geographer, a chief statistician, and an assistant director. The assistant director was to be appointed by the President and approved by the Senate, while all other census employees were hired on the basis of open, competitive examinations administered by the Civil Service Commission. Despite the use of automatic counting machinery, issues with the tabulation process persisted. Finally, with the United States' entrance into World War I in 1917, the U.S. Census Bureau became a source of even more valuable purpose: the Census was able to use population and economic data to report on the populations of draft-age men, as well as information regarding each state's industrial capabilities. The Census of 1920 changed the date of Census Day from April 15th to January 1st, as requested by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which argued that farmers' memories and harvest information would be more accurate on this day. The U.S. Census Bureau was also authorized to hire additional employees at its headquarters in Washington, D.C. and to create a special field force to collect census data. The legislation authorizing the 1920 Census also allowed for a census of manufacturing to be conducted in 1921, and for such a census to be repeated every two years thereafter, as opposed to the traditional five-year census cycle. Furthermore, a census of agriculture and livestock was to be conducted in 1925 and to be repeated every ten years thereafter. In addition, penalties for those who refused to supply information or those who supplied false information were strengthened. As a result of these changes, census of population, manufacturing, and agriculture and livestock became increasingly independent of one another. The "usual place of abode", the location where residents regularly slept, instead of where they worked or were visiting, became the new basis for enumeration in the 1920 Census. Those with no permanent or regular residence were listed as residents of the location that they were enumerated at. Enumeration related to institutional inmates and dependent, defective, and delinquent classes were also modified. Unlike the previous census, the 1920 Census did not have inquires related to unemployment, to Union or Confederate Army or Navy service, to the number of children born, or to the length of time that a couple had been married. The Census of 1920, however, did include four additional questions: one regarding year of naturalization and three regarding native languages. Issues also arose as a result of changes in international boundaries following World War I, particularly for persons declaring birth or parental birth in Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia, or Turkey. In response, enumerators were required to ask said persons for their province, state, or region of birth. Enumerators were not required to ask individuals how to spell their names, nor were respondents required to provide proof of various pieces of information. Race was determined by the enumerator's impressions. The act authorizing the 1930 Census was approved on June 18, 1929, allowing for a census of population, agriculture, irrigation, draining, distribution, unemployment, and mining. For the first time, specific questions for inquiry were left to the discretion of the Director of the Census. The Census encompassed each state, as well as the District of Columbia, Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. The Governors of Guam, American Samoa, the Virginia Islands, and the Panama Canal Zone were responsible for conducting censuses in their territory. Between the date that the census act was passed and Census Day (April 1st), the stock market crashed, plunging the entire country into the Great Depression. In response, there were public and academic requests for access to unemployment data collected in the 1930 Census; however, the U.S. Census Bureau was unable to meet this demands and the bureau was accused of present unreliable data. Congress required a special unemployment census for January 1931, which ultimately confirmed the severity of the economic crisis. Another unemployment census was conducted in 1937, as mandated by Congress. Because this special census was voluntary, it allowed the Census Bureau to experiment with statistical sampling. Only two percent of households received a special census questionnaire. Congress authorized the 1940 Census in August 1939, providing the Director of the Census the additional authority to conduct a national census of housing in each state, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Alaska. The housing census was conducted separately, though enumerators often collection housing information at the same time that they collected population information. The Census of 1940 was the first time that the U.S. Census Bureau used advanced statistical techniques. In particular, the census used probably sampling, which had only previously been tested in a trial census of unemployment conducted the Civil Works Administration during 1933-1934, in surveys of retail stores in the 1930s, and in an official sample survey of unemployment conducted amongst two percent of American households in 1937. Probability sampling allowed for the inclusion of additional demographic questions without increasing the burden on the collection process or on data processing. Moreover, sampling the U.S. Census Bureau was able to publish preliminary returns eight months before tabulations were completed. Likewise, the census increased its number of published tables, and also was able to complete data processing with higher quality and more efficiency. New census questions focused on employment, unemployment, internal migration, and incomes—reflecting on the concerns of the Great Depression, the country's housing stock, and the need for public housing programs. The Census of 1950 encompassed every state, Alaska, Hawaii, American Samoa, the Panama Canal Zone, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and other small American territories. For the first time, the U.S. Census Bureau enumerate American living abroad to account for members of the U.S. Armed Forces, vessel crew members, and government employees residing in foreign countries. The U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Maritime Administration, and several other federal agencies were responsible for distributing and collecting census questionnaires in a cooperative effort. Persons living abroad for reasons other than what is listed above had their census information reported by families or neighbors residing in the United States, but such data was criticized as unreliable and were not published in official statistics. The 1950 Census also included a new survey on residential financing collected separately on a sample basis from owners of owner-occupied properties, rental properties, and mortgage lenders. The accuracy of the new census was increased by improved enumerator training, the use of detailed street maps for enumerators, the publication of "Missed Person" forms in local newspapers, and the designation of a specific night to conduct a special enumeration of transient individuals. Moreover, a post-enumeration survey was conducted to further verify the accuracy of the original enumeration. A sample of approximately 3,500 small areas was compared to the original census data to identify households that may have been omitted initially. Likewise, a sample of approximately 22,000 households were re-interviewed to identify persons omitted in the original enumeration count. Though not used for the 1950 Census, the UNIVersal Automatic Computer I (UNIVAC I), the first non-military computer, was used to tabulate some of the statistics for the 1954 census of economy. In August of 1954, Congress codified various census statutes, such as the Fifteenth Census Act of 1929, authorizing the decennial census and other census. The Census of 1960 was the first to be mailed to respondents. The U.S. Postal Service delivered census questionnaires to households, the head of household was required to complete the questionnaire, and an enumerator was to pick it up. The enumeration process was divided into two stages: first, select data for each person and dwelling unit was collected; and second, more detailed economic and social data was collected from a sample of households and dwelling units. The census questionnaires for the second stage were hand-delivered by enumerators as they were collecting data from the first stage. Households receiving the second census questionnaire were to complete the form and mail it to their local census office. Twenty-five percent of the population was giving additional sample questions. Because of the increased use of sampling, less populated areas were prone to sampling variation; however, this did not significantly decrease the usefulness of census statistics gathered. Moreover, increased use of sampling reduced data processing costs. Additional questions included in the 1960 Census were related to places of works and means of transportation to work. By 1960, nearly all census data was processed using computers. The U.S. Census Bureau used a Film Optical Sensing Device for Input to Computer (FOSDIC) for the first time, thus decreasing the amount of time and money required for data input. In 1966, the U.S. Census Bureau sought suggestions from advisory committees and from the public, resulting in numerous proposals for additional inquiries related to the scope and structure of the census, as well as in public interest for the publication of additional census data. Researchers also concluded that the 1950 Census and the 1960 Census had undercounted certain segments of the population. Moreover, they noted a growing distrust of government activity and increased resistance to responding to the census. Simultaneously, both the public and private sectors expressed need for accurate information. The U.S. Census Bureau decreased its number of questions from 66 to 23 in an effort to simplify its products. A register for densely populated areas was also created to ensure that all housing units were accounted for. A Spanish-language questionnaire was also enclosed with census questionnaires in areas with a significant amount of Spanish-speaking households. Additionally, a question on Hispanic origins or descent was asked independently from race, but only on a five-percent sample. Only five questions were given to all individuals: relationship to household head, sex, race, age, and marital status. Additional questions were asked in smaller sample groups. This was also the first census in which respondents of urban areas were asked to mail their forms to the Census Bureau, rather than to hold questionnaires for enumerators. Address Coding Guides were used to assign census geographic codes to questionnaires. Counts, a series of computer tape files, were an additional innovation used to increase the accuracy of census data. Count 1 consisted of complete count data for block groups and/or enumeration districts. Count 2 contained census tracts and minor civil/census county divisions, while Count 3 consisted of census blocks. Counts 4-6 provided sample census data for geographic areas of various population sizes. The Census Bureau also produced six Public Use Microdata Sample files, each of which contained complete information for a sample of approximately two million people. Finally, the Census Bureau developed the Summary Tape Processing Center Program, which was a group of organizations, both public and private, that processed census data from computer tapes. For the 1990 Census, the U.S. Census Bureau utilized extensive user consultation prior to enumeration in order to refine both long and short form census questionnaires. The short form consisted of 13 questions and was given to the entire population. The long form asked 45 questions and was given to a 20 percent sample. The long form included topics related to marital history, carpooling, residence, residential elevators, and energy usage. Unlike the 1980 Census, the new census eliminated questions regarding air conditioning, the number of bathrooms in a residence, and the type of heating equipment used. A vast advertising campaign was marketed to increase public awareness of the census via public television, radio, and print media. Like the previous census, the Census of 1990 made a special effort to enumerate groups that have historically been undercounted in previous censuses called "S-Night": individuals in homeless shelters, soup kitchens, bus and railway stations, and dormitories (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "M-Night"); and permanent residents in hotels and motels (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "T-Night"). Following legal issues filed in response to the 1980 Census regarding statistical readjustment of undercounted areas, the Census Bureau initiated a post-enumeration survey (PES), in which a contemporaneous survey of households would be conducted and compare to the census results from the official census. In a partial resolution of a 1989 lawsuit filed by New York plaintiffs, the U.S. Department of Commerce agreed to use the PES to produce population data that had been adjusted for the projected undercount and that said data would be judged against the unadjusted data by the Secretary of Commerce's Special Advisory Panel (SAP). The Census of 1990 also introduced the U.S. to the Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing System (TIGER), which was developed by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Census Bureau. TIGER used computerized representations of various map features to geographically code addresses into appropriate census geographic areas. It also produced different maps required for census data collection and tabulation. Five years earlier, the Census Bureau became the first government agency to publish information on CD-ROM. For the 1990 Census, the bureau made detailed census data, which had previously been only available to organizations with large mainframe computers, accessible to any individual with a personal computer. Census data was also available in print, on computer tape, and on microfiche. Using two online service vendors, DIALOG and CompuServe, the Census Bureau also published select census data online. As with previous censuses, the 1990 Census undercounted the national population, and again, the African-American population had an estimated net undercount rate that was significantly higher than the rate for other races. In July of 1991, the Secretary of Commerce announced that he did not find evidence in favor of using adjusted counts compelling—despite SAP's split vote on the issue—and chose to use unadjusted totals for the official census results. In response, the New York plaintiffs resumed the lawsuit against the Department of Commerce. A federal district court divided in favor of the DOC in April of 1993. The U.S. Court of Appeals, however, rejected the previous court ruling and ordered that the case be reheard by the federal district court. In March of 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court finally ruled in favor of the Secretary of Commerce's decision to use the unadjusted census date, but did not rule on the legality or constitutionality of the use of statistical adjustment in producing apportionment counts. For the 1990 Census, the U.S. Census Bureau utilized extensive user consultation prior to enumeration in order to refine both long and short form census questionnaires. The short form consisted of 13 questions and was given to the entire population. The long form asked 45 questions and was given to a 20 percent sample. The long form included topics related to marital history, carpooling, residence, residential elevators, and energy usage. Unlike the 1980 Census, the new census eliminated questions regarding air conditioning, the number of bathrooms in a residence, and the type of heating equipment used. A vast advertising campaign was marketed to increase public awareness of the census via public television, radio, and print media. Like the previous census, the Census of 1990 made a special effort to enumerate groups that have historically been undercounted in previous censuses called "S-Night": individuals in homeless shelters, soup kitchens, bus and railway stations, and dormitories (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "M-Night"); and permanent residents in hotels and motels (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "T-Night"). Following legal issues filed in response to the 1980 Census regarding statistical readjustment of undercounted areas, the Census Bureau initiated a post-enumeration survey (PES), in which a contemporaneous survey of households would be conducted and compare to the census results from the official census. In a partial resolution of a 1989 lawsuit filed by New York plaintiffs, the U.S. Department of Commerce agreed to use the PES to produce population data that had been adjusted for the projected undercount and that said data would be judged against the unadjusted data by the Secretary of Commerce's Special Advisory Panel (SAP). The Census of 1990 also introduced the U.S. to the Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing System (TIGER), which was developed by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Census Bureau. TIGER used computerized representations of various map features to geographically code addresses into appropriate census geographic areas. It also produced different maps required for census data collection and tabulation. Five years earlier, the Census Bureau became the first government agency to publish information on CD-ROM. For the 1990 Census, the bureau made detailed census data, which had previously been only available to organizations with large mainframe computers, accessible to any individual with a personal computer. Census data was also available in print, on computer tape, and on microfiche. Using two online service vendors, DIALOG and CompuServe, the Census Bureau also published select census data online. As with previous censuses, the 1990 Census undercounted the national population, and again, the African-American population had an estimated net undercount rate that was significantly higher than the rate for other races. In July of 1991, the Secretary of Commerce announced that he did not find evidence in favor of using adjusted counts compelling—despite SAP's split vote on the issue—and chose to use unadjusted totals for the official census results. In response, the New York plaintiffs resumed the lawsuit against the Department of Commerce. A federal district court divided in favor of the DOC in April of 1993. The U.S. Court of Appeals, however, rejected the previous court ruling and ordered that the case be reheard by the federal district court. In March of 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court finally ruled in favor of the Secretary of Commerce's decision to use the unadjusted census date, but did not rule on the legality or constitutionality of the use of statistical adjustment in producing apportionment counts. For the Census of 2000, the short form consisted of only seven questions, while the long form consisted of 52 questions and used for a 17 percent sample of the population. For the first time, race questions were not limited to a single category; rather, respondents were able to check multiple boxes. A new question related to grandparents as caregivers was also mandated by legislation passed in 1996. Disability questions were expanded to including hearing and vision impairments, as well as learning, memory, and concentration disabilities. The 2000 Census also eliminated questions related to children born, water sources, sewage disposal, and condominium status. In addition, the 2000 Census was the first in which the Internet was used as the principal medium for the dissemination of census information. Summary Files were available for download immediately upon release and individual tables could be viewed via American FactFinder, the Census Bureau's online database. Files were also available for purchase on CD-Rom and DVD. Due to declining questionnaire mail-back rates, the U.S. Census Bureau marketed a $167 million national and local print, television, and public advertising campaign in 17 different languages. The campaign successfully brought the mail-back rate up to 67 percent. Additionally, respondents receiving the short form were given the option of responding via the Internet. Telephone questionnaire assistance centers available in 6 languages also took responses via the phone. Statistical sampling techniques were utilized in two ways: first, to alter the traditional 100 percent personal visit of non-responding households during the non-response follow-up (NRFU) process by instead following up on a smaller sample basis; second, the sampling of 750,000 housing units matched to housing unit questionnaires obtained from mail and telephone responses, as well as from personal visits. The goal of the latter was to develop adjustment factors for individuals estimated to have been missed or duplicated and to correct the census counts to produce one set of numbers. This "one-number census" would correct for net coverage errors called Integrated Coverage Measurement (ICM). Both of these measures were taken in an attempt to avoid repetition of the litigation costs generated by the 1980 Census and the 1990 Census. Despite these efforts, two lawsuits—one filed by the U.S. House of Representatives—were filed in February 1998 challenging the constitutionality and legality of the planned uses of sampling to produce apportionment counts. Both cases were decided in favor of the plaintiffs in federal district courts, but the U.S. Department of Commerce made appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court. Known as the U.S. Department of Commerce v. the U.S. House of Representatives, the Court ruled that the Census Bureau's plans to use statistical sampling for purposes of congressional apportionments violated the Census Act. The bureau revised its plan, stating that it would produce statistically adjusted data for non-apportionment uses of census data information, such as redistricting. However, in March of 2001, the Census Bureau recommended against the use of adjusted census data for redistricting due to accuracy concerns; the Secretary of Commerce determined that the unadjusted data would be released as the bureau's official redistricting data. The Director of the Census Bureau also rejected to the use of adjusted data for non-redistricting purposes in October of that same year. Language eng Type Collection Coverage Mosquito County, Florida Brevard County, Florida Flagler County, Florida Lake County, Florida Marion County, Florida Orange County, Florida Osceola County, Florida Seminole County, Florida Volusia County, Florida Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Contributor Gibson, Ella Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a>. Rights Holder This resource is not subject to copyright in the United States and there are no copyright restrictions on reproduction, derivative works, distribution, performance, or display of the work. Anyone may, without restriction under U.S. copyright laws: <ul class="one_column_bullet"><li>reproduce the work in print or digital form</li> <li>create derivative works</li> <li>perform the work publicly</li> <li>display the work</li> <li>distribute copies or digitally transfer the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.</li> </ul>This resources is provided here by <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> for educational purposes only. For more information on copyright, please refer to <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#105" target="_blank">Section 5</a> of <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html" target="_blank">Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code</a>. Source Repository <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> External Reference United States. <a href="https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf" target="_blank">Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970</a>. Washington: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1975. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/histstats-colonial-1970.pdf. United States, and Carroll D. Wright. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/166662" target="_blank">The History and Growth of the United States Census</a>. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1900. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf. "<a href="https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/" target="_blank">Through the Decades</a>." United States Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce. https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/. Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Original Format 1 table Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title U.S. Census for Central Florida, 1870 Alternative Title Census, 1870 Subject Census--United States Orange County (Fla.) Marion County (Fla.) Brevard County (Fla.) Volusia County (Fla.) Population--United States Description The Ninth United States Census records for Brevard County (including present-day St. Lucie County), Marion County, Orange County (including present-day Seminole County and parts of present-day Lake and Osceola counties), and Volusia County (including present-day Flagler County), Florida, for 1870. The census divides the population by gender, race ("white" and "colored"), native-born vs. foreign-born, and state-born vs. territory-born. Those born outside of Florida are then divided by state or country of origin. This census also collected information on agriculture and on manufacturing. Although the 1870 Census was conducted under the provisions of the Census Act of 1850, a new act was passed on May 6, 1870. The new census legislation required two changes in procedures related to questionnaire return submission dates. Moreover, penalties for refusing to reply to inquires were expanded to apply to all questions and questionnaires. The questionnaires themselves had to be redesigned due to the end of the "slave questionnaire," as slavery had been formally abolished slavery nationwide via the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This left five schedules for the census: General Population, Mortality, Agriculture, Products of Industry, and Social Statistics. In addition, Charles W. Seaton, a U.S. Census Office chief clerk and later superintendent, invented a rudimentary tallying machine that partially alleviated the difficulties of tallying and tabulating questionnaire responses. Finally, the new superintendent for the Ninth Census, General Francis A. Walker (1840-1897), introduced employment examinations to test the qualifications of applicants to the Census Office, allowing for increased efficiency in the process of collecting census data. Type Dataset Source Original census data collected by the <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Office</a>, 1870. Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/104" target="_blank">U.S. Census Collection</a>, RICHES of Central Florida. Is Format Of Digital reproduction of original census data collected by the <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Office</a>, 1870. Coverage Brevard County, Florida Orange County, Florida Marion County, Florida Volusia County, Florida Creator <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Office</a> Publisher <a href="http://www.doi.gov/index.cfm/" target="_blank">U.S. Department of the Interior</a> Contributor Gibson, Ella Date Created ca. 1870-06-01 Format image/jpg Extent 397 KB Medium 1 table Language eng Mediator History Teacher Economics Teacher Geography Teacher Provenance Originally collected by the <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Office</a> and published by the <a href="http://www.doi.gov/index.cfm/" target="_blank">U.S. Department of the Interior</a>. Rights Holder This resource is not subject to copyright in the United States and there are no copyright restrictions on reproduction, derivative works, distribution, performance, or display of the work. Anyone may, without restriction under U.S. copyright laws: <ul class="one_column_bullet"><li>reproduce the work in print or digital form</li> <li>create derivative works</li> <li>perform the work publicly</li> <li>display the work</li> <li>distribute copies or digitally transfer the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.</li> </ul> This resources is provided here by <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> for educational purposes only. For more information on copyright, please refer to <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#105" target="_blank">Section 5</a> of <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html" target="_blank">Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code</a>. Accrual Method Item Creation Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Source Repository <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> External Reference "<a href="https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/overview/1870.html" target="_blank">1870 Overview</a>." U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/overview/1870.html. United States. <a href="https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf" target="_blank">Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970</a>. Washington: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1975. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/histstats-colonial-1970.pdf. United States, and Carroll D. Wright. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/166662" target="_blank">The History and Growth of the United States Census</a>. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1900. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf. Transcript U.S. Census of 1870 Population Brevard County* Marion County Orange County** Volusia County*** Population Total 1,216 10,804 2,195 1,723 Males 703 5,507 984 560 Females 513 5,297 1,211 831 Colored Population Total 19 7,878 198 328 Native-Born Population Total 1,216 10,773 2,174 1,695 Foreign-Born Population Total 0 31 21 28 Population Born by State, Territory or Country of Origin Total 437 5,825 1,127 691 Virginia or West Virginia 14 186 16 14 South Carolina 199 2,828 151 288 Alabama 96 276 52 9 Georgia 452 957 663 558 North Carolina 12 453 94 42 Scotland 0 0 0 1 Italy 0 0 0 3 Ireland 0 7 7 4 Great Britain 0 0 0 0 Germany 0 11 1 1 France 0 0 0 0 West Indies 0 0 1 1 British America 0 0 1 2 Cuba 0 0 0 0 England and Wales 0 3 9 15 Sweden and Norway 0 0 1 0 Africa 0 6 0 0 Agriculture Brevard County* Marion County Orange County** Volusia County*** Farms Total 191 736 220 233 Farms by Acreage Less than 3 0 0 0 0 3-9 0 0 24 75 10-19 90 5 89 77 20-49 70 154 91 71 50-99 23 126 12 7 100-499 8 377 4 3 500-999 0 60 0 0 1000+ 0 14 0 0 Present Cash Value of Farms Farms $21,000 $828,795 $174,900 $146,120 Farming Implements and Machinery $3,895 $87,968 $2,618 $3,450 Agriculture Wages Paid Total $0 $80,897 $4,480 $2,940 Value of Livestock Livestock $386,950 $275,905 $124,845 $87,119 Animals Slaughtered or Sold for Slaughter $48,120 $0 $0 $786 Value of Home Manufactures Total $0 $0 $0 $210 Manufacturing Brevard County* Marion County Orange County** Volusia County*** Manufacturing Establishments Total N/A 7 6 2 Value of Manufacturing Products Total N/A $8,560 $10,240 $1,570 Value of Materials Used in Manufacturing Total N/A $4,650 $8,200 $1,150 Capital Invested in Manufacturing Total N/A $3,950 $8,000 $1,300 Hands Employed in Manufacturing Total N/A 19 12 2 Males, Aged 16+ N/A 13 12 2 Females, Aged 16+ N/A 2 0 0 Youths N/A 4 0 0 "*Includes present-day St, Lucie County **Includes present-day Seminole County and parts of present-day Lake and Osceola counties ***Includes present-day Flagler County" African Americans agriculture Anglo Americans animals Brevard County British Americans capital census Census of 1870 employees employment English Americans European Americans farming implements farms females German Americans investments Irish Americans Italian Americans labor laborers livestock machinery males manufactures manufacturing Marion County Norwegian Americans orange county population Scandinavian Americans Scotch Americans Scottish Americans slaughter Swedish Americans U.S. Census Volusia County Welsh Americans West Indian Americans https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka/files/original/2f2ea119eac56515205242e901f9b1b7.jpg 10197b9be33d1acc880744108368155f Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title U.S. Census Collection Alternative Title Census Collection Subject Census--United States Population--United States Orange County (Fla.) Marion County (Fla.) Brevard County (Fla.) St. Lucie County (Fla.) Seminole County (Fla.) Volusia County (Fla.) Flagler County (Fla.) Lake County (Fla.) Osceola County (Fla.) Description Collection of United States Census population records for various counties in Central Florida from 1840 to 2000. The Census Act of 1840 was signed into law on March 3, 1839 and later amended on February 26, 1840. This piece of legislation established a centralized census office during each enumeration. Congress designated the census questionnaire designs to the Secretary of State. However, each household received inquiries regarding "the pursuits, industry, education, and resources of the country" and included questions related to school attendance, literacy, and vocation. In March of 1849, Congress pass legislation that established a census board consisting of the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Postmaster General. The board was responsible for preparing and printing forms and schedules for enumeration related to population, mining, agriculture, commerce, manufacturing, education, etc. The 1850 Census also increased population inquiries to include every free person's name (as opposed to just the head of the household), as well as information on taxes, schools, crime, wages, estate values, etc. The Census Act of 1850 authorized the U.S. Census of 1860 and stipulated that its provisions be adhered to for all future decennial censuses should no new legislation be passed by the first of the year of said census. In May of 1865, the U.S. Census Office was abolished and many superintending clerks were transferred to the General Land Office. Although the 1870 Census was conducted under the provisions of the Census Act of 1850, a new act was passed on May 6, 1870. The new census legislation required two changes in procedures related to questionnaire return submission dates. Moreover, penalties for refusing to reply to inquires were expanded to apply to all questions and questionnaires. The questionnaires themselves had to be redesigned due to the end of the "slave questionnaire", as slavery had been formally abolished slavery nationwide via the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This left five schedules for the census: General Population, Mortality, Agriculture, Products of Industry, and Social Statistics. In addition, the use of a Charles W. Seaton, a U.S. Census Office chief clerk and later superintendent, invited a rudimentary tallying machine that partially alleviated the difficulties of tallying and tabulating questionnaire responses. Finally, the new superintendent for the Ninth Census, General Francis A. Walker, introduced employment examinations to test the qualifications of applicants to the Census Office, allowing for increased efficiency in the process of collecting census data. The newest act authorizing the Census of 1880 provided for supervision of enumeration by "supervisors of the census", selected exclusively for the collection of census data. All supervisors, as well as the superintendent, were to appointed by the U.S. President and approved by the Senate. Census enumerators were required to personally visit each household and family within his subdivision. The new census act also allowed for the collection of data related to the condition and operation of railroad corporations, incorporated express companies, and telegraph companies, as well as data related to the condition and operation of life, fire, and marine insurance companies. Corporations who refused to provide the census with "true and complete" answers were subject to fines. In addition, the census superintendent was required to collect and publish data on the population, industries and resources of the District of Alaska. Finally, the 1880 Census consisted of five schedules: Population, Mortality, Agriculture, Social Statistics, and Manufacturing. The Census of 1890 was authorized by an act modeled after the 1880 enumeration and signed into law on March 1, 1889. The 1890 Census was supervised by 175 employees and enumerators were required to collect all information by personally visiting each household. The 1890 Census included essentially the same inquires from the 1880 Census, with some notable additions, such as questions about home and farm ownership and indebtedness; and the names, units, length of service, and residences of former Union soldiers and sailors, as well as the names of the widows of those who were no longer alive. Racial categorization was expanded to include "Japanese", along with "Chinese", "Negro", "mulatto", "quadroon", "octoroon", and "White". Herman Hollerith, a former employee of the U.S. Census Office, invited the electric tabulating system, which was widely used in the 1890 Census, allowing data to be processed faster and more efficiently. On October 3, 1893, Congress passed a law that transferred census-related work to the direction of the commissioner of labor. Congress passed another act on March 2, 1895, effectively abolishing the U.S. Census Office and transferring the remaining responsibilities to the Office of the Secretary of the Interior. Congress limited the Census of 1900 to content related to population, mortality, agriculture, and manufacturing. Special census agents were authorized to collect statistics related to incidents of deafness, blindness, insanity, and juvenile delinquency; as well as data on religious bodies, utilities, mining, and transportation. The act authorizing the 1900 Census designated the enumeration of military personally to the U.S. Department of War and the U.S. Department of the Navy, while Indiana Territory was to be enumerated by the commissioner of Indian Affairs. Annexed in 1898, Hawaii was included in the census for the first time. In 1902, the U.S. Census Office was officially established as a permanent organization within the U.S. Department of the Interior. The office became the U.S. Census Bureau in 1903 and was transferred to the Department of Commerce and Labor. The Census of 1910 was approved by legislation introduced in December of 1907 and enacted in July of 1909. The delay was the result of a disagreement over the appointment of enumerators. President Theodore Roosevelt supported the hiring of enumerators via the civil service system, while Congress supported enumerators as positions of patronage. President Roosevelt successfully won the debate. This census act also changed Census Day from the traditional date of June 1st to April 15th. Additional questions regarding the nationality and native language of foreign-born persons and their parents. Funds for the U.S. Census Bureau were also increased to expand the Census' permanent workforce and created several new full-time positions, including a geographer, a chief statistician, and an assistant director. The assistant director was to be appointed by the President and approved by the Senate, while all other census employees were hired on the basis of open, competitive examinations administered by the Civil Service Commission. Despite the use of automatic counting machinery, issues with the tabulation process persisted. Finally, with the United States' entrance into World War I in 1917, the U.S. Census Bureau became a source of even more valuable purpose: the Census was able to use population and economic data to report on the populations of draft-age men, as well as information regarding each state's industrial capabilities. The Census of 1920 changed the date of Census Day from April 15th to January 1st, as requested by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which argued that farmers' memories and harvest information would be more accurate on this day. The U.S. Census Bureau was also authorized to hire additional employees at its headquarters in Washington, D.C. and to create a special field force to collect census data. The legislation authorizing the 1920 Census also allowed for a census of manufacturing to be conducted in 1921, and for such a census to be repeated every two years thereafter, as opposed to the traditional five-year census cycle. Furthermore, a census of agriculture and livestock was to be conducted in 1925 and to be repeated every ten years thereafter. In addition, penalties for those who refused to supply information or those who supplied false information were strengthened. As a result of these changes, census of population, manufacturing, and agriculture and livestock became increasingly independent of one another. The "usual place of abode", the location where residents regularly slept, instead of where they worked or were visiting, became the new basis for enumeration in the 1920 Census. Those with no permanent or regular residence were listed as residents of the location that they were enumerated at. Enumeration related to institutional inmates and dependent, defective, and delinquent classes were also modified. Unlike the previous census, the 1920 Census did not have inquires related to unemployment, to Union or Confederate Army or Navy service, to the number of children born, or to the length of time that a couple had been married. The Census of 1920, however, did include four additional questions: one regarding year of naturalization and three regarding native languages. Issues also arose as a result of changes in international boundaries following World War I, particularly for persons declaring birth or parental birth in Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia, or Turkey. In response, enumerators were required to ask said persons for their province, state, or region of birth. Enumerators were not required to ask individuals how to spell their names, nor were respondents required to provide proof of various pieces of information. Race was determined by the enumerator's impressions. The act authorizing the 1930 Census was approved on June 18, 1929, allowing for a census of population, agriculture, irrigation, draining, distribution, unemployment, and mining. For the first time, specific questions for inquiry were left to the discretion of the Director of the Census. The Census encompassed each state, as well as the District of Columbia, Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. The Governors of Guam, American Samoa, the Virginia Islands, and the Panama Canal Zone were responsible for conducting censuses in their territory. Between the date that the census act was passed and Census Day (April 1st), the stock market crashed, plunging the entire country into the Great Depression. In response, there were public and academic requests for access to unemployment data collected in the 1930 Census; however, the U.S. Census Bureau was unable to meet this demands and the bureau was accused of present unreliable data. Congress required a special unemployment census for January 1931, which ultimately confirmed the severity of the economic crisis. Another unemployment census was conducted in 1937, as mandated by Congress. Because this special census was voluntary, it allowed the Census Bureau to experiment with statistical sampling. Only two percent of households received a special census questionnaire. Congress authorized the 1940 Census in August 1939, providing the Director of the Census the additional authority to conduct a national census of housing in each state, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Alaska. The housing census was conducted separately, though enumerators often collection housing information at the same time that they collected population information. The Census of 1940 was the first time that the U.S. Census Bureau used advanced statistical techniques. In particular, the census used probably sampling, which had only previously been tested in a trial census of unemployment conducted the Civil Works Administration during 1933-1934, in surveys of retail stores in the 1930s, and in an official sample survey of unemployment conducted amongst two percent of American households in 1937. Probability sampling allowed for the inclusion of additional demographic questions without increasing the burden on the collection process or on data processing. Moreover, sampling the U.S. Census Bureau was able to publish preliminary returns eight months before tabulations were completed. Likewise, the census increased its number of published tables, and also was able to complete data processing with higher quality and more efficiency. New census questions focused on employment, unemployment, internal migration, and incomes—reflecting on the concerns of the Great Depression, the country's housing stock, and the need for public housing programs. The Census of 1950 encompassed every state, Alaska, Hawaii, American Samoa, the Panama Canal Zone, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and other small American territories. For the first time, the U.S. Census Bureau enumerate American living abroad to account for members of the U.S. Armed Forces, vessel crew members, and government employees residing in foreign countries. The U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Maritime Administration, and several other federal agencies were responsible for distributing and collecting census questionnaires in a cooperative effort. Persons living abroad for reasons other than what is listed above had their census information reported by families or neighbors residing in the United States, but such data was criticized as unreliable and were not published in official statistics. The 1950 Census also included a new survey on residential financing collected separately on a sample basis from owners of owner-occupied properties, rental properties, and mortgage lenders. The accuracy of the new census was increased by improved enumerator training, the use of detailed street maps for enumerators, the publication of "Missed Person" forms in local newspapers, and the designation of a specific night to conduct a special enumeration of transient individuals. Moreover, a post-enumeration survey was conducted to further verify the accuracy of the original enumeration. A sample of approximately 3,500 small areas was compared to the original census data to identify households that may have been omitted initially. Likewise, a sample of approximately 22,000 households were re-interviewed to identify persons omitted in the original enumeration count. Though not used for the 1950 Census, the UNIVersal Automatic Computer I (UNIVAC I), the first non-military computer, was used to tabulate some of the statistics for the 1954 census of economy. In August of 1954, Congress codified various census statutes, such as the Fifteenth Census Act of 1929, authorizing the decennial census and other census. The Census of 1960 was the first to be mailed to respondents. The U.S. Postal Service delivered census questionnaires to households, the head of household was required to complete the questionnaire, and an enumerator was to pick it up. The enumeration process was divided into two stages: first, select data for each person and dwelling unit was collected; and second, more detailed economic and social data was collected from a sample of households and dwelling units. The census questionnaires for the second stage were hand-delivered by enumerators as they were collecting data from the first stage. Households receiving the second census questionnaire were to complete the form and mail it to their local census office. Twenty-five percent of the population was giving additional sample questions. Because of the increased use of sampling, less populated areas were prone to sampling variation; however, this did not significantly decrease the usefulness of census statistics gathered. Moreover, increased use of sampling reduced data processing costs. Additional questions included in the 1960 Census were related to places of works and means of transportation to work. By 1960, nearly all census data was processed using computers. The U.S. Census Bureau used a Film Optical Sensing Device for Input to Computer (FOSDIC) for the first time, thus decreasing the amount of time and money required for data input. In 1966, the U.S. Census Bureau sought suggestions from advisory committees and from the public, resulting in numerous proposals for additional inquiries related to the scope and structure of the census, as well as in public interest for the publication of additional census data. Researchers also concluded that the 1950 Census and the 1960 Census had undercounted certain segments of the population. Moreover, they noted a growing distrust of government activity and increased resistance to responding to the census. Simultaneously, both the public and private sectors expressed need for accurate information. The U.S. Census Bureau decreased its number of questions from 66 to 23 in an effort to simplify its products. A register for densely populated areas was also created to ensure that all housing units were accounted for. A Spanish-language questionnaire was also enclosed with census questionnaires in areas with a significant amount of Spanish-speaking households. Additionally, a question on Hispanic origins or descent was asked independently from race, but only on a five-percent sample. Only five questions were given to all individuals: relationship to household head, sex, race, age, and marital status. Additional questions were asked in smaller sample groups. This was also the first census in which respondents of urban areas were asked to mail their forms to the Census Bureau, rather than to hold questionnaires for enumerators. Address Coding Guides were used to assign census geographic codes to questionnaires. Counts, a series of computer tape files, were an additional innovation used to increase the accuracy of census data. Count 1 consisted of complete count data for block groups and/or enumeration districts. Count 2 contained census tracts and minor civil/census county divisions, while Count 3 consisted of census blocks. Counts 4-6 provided sample census data for geographic areas of various population sizes. The Census Bureau also produced six Public Use Microdata Sample files, each of which contained complete information for a sample of approximately two million people. Finally, the Census Bureau developed the Summary Tape Processing Center Program, which was a group of organizations, both public and private, that processed census data from computer tapes. For the 1990 Census, the U.S. Census Bureau utilized extensive user consultation prior to enumeration in order to refine both long and short form census questionnaires. The short form consisted of 13 questions and was given to the entire population. The long form asked 45 questions and was given to a 20 percent sample. The long form included topics related to marital history, carpooling, residence, residential elevators, and energy usage. Unlike the 1980 Census, the new census eliminated questions regarding air conditioning, the number of bathrooms in a residence, and the type of heating equipment used. A vast advertising campaign was marketed to increase public awareness of the census via public television, radio, and print media. Like the previous census, the Census of 1990 made a special effort to enumerate groups that have historically been undercounted in previous censuses called "S-Night": individuals in homeless shelters, soup kitchens, bus and railway stations, and dormitories (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "M-Night"); and permanent residents in hotels and motels (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "T-Night"). Following legal issues filed in response to the 1980 Census regarding statistical readjustment of undercounted areas, the Census Bureau initiated a post-enumeration survey (PES), in which a contemporaneous survey of households would be conducted and compare to the census results from the official census. In a partial resolution of a 1989 lawsuit filed by New York plaintiffs, the U.S. Department of Commerce agreed to use the PES to produce population data that had been adjusted for the projected undercount and that said data would be judged against the unadjusted data by the Secretary of Commerce's Special Advisory Panel (SAP). The Census of 1990 also introduced the U.S. to the Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing System (TIGER), which was developed by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Census Bureau. TIGER used computerized representations of various map features to geographically code addresses into appropriate census geographic areas. It also produced different maps required for census data collection and tabulation. Five years earlier, the Census Bureau became the first government agency to publish information on CD-ROM. For the 1990 Census, the bureau made detailed census data, which had previously been only available to organizations with large mainframe computers, accessible to any individual with a personal computer. Census data was also available in print, on computer tape, and on microfiche. Using two online service vendors, DIALOG and CompuServe, the Census Bureau also published select census data online. As with previous censuses, the 1990 Census undercounted the national population, and again, the African-American population had an estimated net undercount rate that was significantly higher than the rate for other races. In July of 1991, the Secretary of Commerce announced that he did not find evidence in favor of using adjusted counts compelling—despite SAP's split vote on the issue—and chose to use unadjusted totals for the official census results. In response, the New York plaintiffs resumed the lawsuit against the Department of Commerce. A federal district court divided in favor of the DOC in April of 1993. The U.S. Court of Appeals, however, rejected the previous court ruling and ordered that the case be reheard by the federal district court. In March of 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court finally ruled in favor of the Secretary of Commerce's decision to use the unadjusted census date, but did not rule on the legality or constitutionality of the use of statistical adjustment in producing apportionment counts. For the 1990 Census, the U.S. Census Bureau utilized extensive user consultation prior to enumeration in order to refine both long and short form census questionnaires. The short form consisted of 13 questions and was given to the entire population. The long form asked 45 questions and was given to a 20 percent sample. The long form included topics related to marital history, carpooling, residence, residential elevators, and energy usage. Unlike the 1980 Census, the new census eliminated questions regarding air conditioning, the number of bathrooms in a residence, and the type of heating equipment used. A vast advertising campaign was marketed to increase public awareness of the census via public television, radio, and print media. Like the previous census, the Census of 1990 made a special effort to enumerate groups that have historically been undercounted in previous censuses called "S-Night": individuals in homeless shelters, soup kitchens, bus and railway stations, and dormitories (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "M-Night"); and permanent residents in hotels and motels (enumerated separately in the 1980 Census on "T-Night"). Following legal issues filed in response to the 1980 Census regarding statistical readjustment of undercounted areas, the Census Bureau initiated a post-enumeration survey (PES), in which a contemporaneous survey of households would be conducted and compare to the census results from the official census. In a partial resolution of a 1989 lawsuit filed by New York plaintiffs, the U.S. Department of Commerce agreed to use the PES to produce population data that had been adjusted for the projected undercount and that said data would be judged against the unadjusted data by the Secretary of Commerce's Special Advisory Panel (SAP). The Census of 1990 also introduced the U.S. to the Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing System (TIGER), which was developed by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Census Bureau. TIGER used computerized representations of various map features to geographically code addresses into appropriate census geographic areas. It also produced different maps required for census data collection and tabulation. Five years earlier, the Census Bureau became the first government agency to publish information on CD-ROM. For the 1990 Census, the bureau made detailed census data, which had previously been only available to organizations with large mainframe computers, accessible to any individual with a personal computer. Census data was also available in print, on computer tape, and on microfiche. Using two online service vendors, DIALOG and CompuServe, the Census Bureau also published select census data online. As with previous censuses, the 1990 Census undercounted the national population, and again, the African-American population had an estimated net undercount rate that was significantly higher than the rate for other races. In July of 1991, the Secretary of Commerce announced that he did not find evidence in favor of using adjusted counts compelling—despite SAP's split vote on the issue—and chose to use unadjusted totals for the official census results. In response, the New York plaintiffs resumed the lawsuit against the Department of Commerce. A federal district court divided in favor of the DOC in April of 1993. The U.S. Court of Appeals, however, rejected the previous court ruling and ordered that the case be reheard by the federal district court. In March of 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court finally ruled in favor of the Secretary of Commerce's decision to use the unadjusted census date, but did not rule on the legality or constitutionality of the use of statistical adjustment in producing apportionment counts. For the Census of 2000, the short form consisted of only seven questions, while the long form consisted of 52 questions and used for a 17 percent sample of the population. For the first time, race questions were not limited to a single category; rather, respondents were able to check multiple boxes. A new question related to grandparents as caregivers was also mandated by legislation passed in 1996. Disability questions were expanded to including hearing and vision impairments, as well as learning, memory, and concentration disabilities. The 2000 Census also eliminated questions related to children born, water sources, sewage disposal, and condominium status. In addition, the 2000 Census was the first in which the Internet was used as the principal medium for the dissemination of census information. Summary Files were available for download immediately upon release and individual tables could be viewed via American FactFinder, the Census Bureau's online database. Files were also available for purchase on CD-Rom and DVD. Due to declining questionnaire mail-back rates, the U.S. Census Bureau marketed a $167 million national and local print, television, and public advertising campaign in 17 different languages. The campaign successfully brought the mail-back rate up to 67 percent. Additionally, respondents receiving the short form were given the option of responding via the Internet. Telephone questionnaire assistance centers available in 6 languages also took responses via the phone. Statistical sampling techniques were utilized in two ways: first, to alter the traditional 100 percent personal visit of non-responding households during the non-response follow-up (NRFU) process by instead following up on a smaller sample basis; second, the sampling of 750,000 housing units matched to housing unit questionnaires obtained from mail and telephone responses, as well as from personal visits. The goal of the latter was to develop adjustment factors for individuals estimated to have been missed or duplicated and to correct the census counts to produce one set of numbers. This "one-number census" would correct for net coverage errors called Integrated Coverage Measurement (ICM). Both of these measures were taken in an attempt to avoid repetition of the litigation costs generated by the 1980 Census and the 1990 Census. Despite these efforts, two lawsuits—one filed by the U.S. House of Representatives—were filed in February 1998 challenging the constitutionality and legality of the planned uses of sampling to produce apportionment counts. Both cases were decided in favor of the plaintiffs in federal district courts, but the U.S. Department of Commerce made appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court. Known as the U.S. Department of Commerce v. the U.S. House of Representatives, the Court ruled that the Census Bureau's plans to use statistical sampling for purposes of congressional apportionments violated the Census Act. The bureau revised its plan, stating that it would produce statistically adjusted data for non-apportionment uses of census data information, such as redistricting. However, in March of 2001, the Census Bureau recommended against the use of adjusted census data for redistricting due to accuracy concerns; the Secretary of Commerce determined that the unadjusted data would be released as the bureau's official redistricting data. The Director of the Census Bureau also rejected to the use of adjusted data for non-redistricting purposes in October of that same year. Language eng Type Collection Coverage Mosquito County, Florida Brevard County, Florida Flagler County, Florida Lake County, Florida Marion County, Florida Orange County, Florida Osceola County, Florida Seminole County, Florida Volusia County, Florida Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Contributor Gibson, Ella Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a>. Rights Holder This resource is not subject to copyright in the United States and there are no copyright restrictions on reproduction, derivative works, distribution, performance, or display of the work. Anyone may, without restriction under U.S. copyright laws: <ul class="one_column_bullet"><li>reproduce the work in print or digital form</li> <li>create derivative works</li> <li>perform the work publicly</li> <li>display the work</li> <li>distribute copies or digitally transfer the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.</li> </ul>This resources is provided here by <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> for educational purposes only. For more information on copyright, please refer to <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#105" target="_blank">Section 5</a> of <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html" target="_blank">Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code</a>. Source Repository <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> External Reference United States. <a href="https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf" target="_blank">Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970</a>. Washington: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1975. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/histstats-colonial-1970.pdf. United States, and Carroll D. Wright. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/166662" target="_blank">The History and Growth of the United States Census</a>. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1900. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf. "<a href="https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/" target="_blank">Through the Decades</a>." United States Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce. https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/. Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Original Format 1 table Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title U.S. Census for Central Florida, 1860 Alternative Title Census, 1860 Subject Census--United States Orange County (Fla.) Marion County (Fla.) Brevard County (Fla.) Volusia County (Fla.) Population--United States Description The Eighth United States Census records for Brevard County (including present-day St. Lucie County), Marion County, Orange County (including present-day Seminole County and parts of present-day Lake and Osceola counties), and Volusia County (including present-day Flagler County), Florida, for 1860. The census divides the population by race ("white" and "colored"), gender, and native-born vs. foreign-born. The census also documented the number of slaves and slaveholders. The census collected information on agriculture and on manufacturing. The Census Act of 1850 authorized the U.S. Census of 1860 and stipulated that its provisions be adhered to for all future decennial censuses should no new legislation be passed by the first of the year of said census. In May of 1865, the U.S. Census Office was abolished and many superintending clerks were transferred to the General Land Office. Type Dataset Source Original census data collected by the <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Office</a> and the <a href="http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en.html" target="_blank">General Land Office</a>, 1860. Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/104" target="_blank">U.S. Census Collection</a>, RICHES of Central Florida. Is Format Of Digital reproduction of original census data collected by the <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Office</a> and the <a href="http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en.html" target="_blank">General Land Office</a>, 1860. Coverage Brevard County, Florida Orange County, Florida Marion County, Florida Volusia County, Florida Creator <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Office</a> <a href="http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en.html" target="_blank">General Land Office</a> Publisher <a href="http://www.doi.gov/index.cfm/" target="_blank">U.S. Department of the Interior</a> Contributor Gibson, Ella Date Created ca. 1860-06-01 Format image/jpg Extent 449 KB Medium 1 table Language eng Mediator History Teacher Economics Teacher Geography Teacher Provenance Originally collected by the <a href="http://www.census.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. Census Office</a> and the <a href="http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en.html" target="_blank">General Land Office</a>, and published by the <a href="http://www.doi.gov/index.cfm/" target="_blank">U.S. Department of the Interior</a>. Rights Holder This resource is not subject to copyright in the United States and there are no copyright restrictions on reproduction, derivative works, distribution, performance, or display of the work. Anyone may, without restriction under U.S. copyright laws: <ul class="one_column_bullet"><li>reproduce the work in print or digital form</li> <li>create derivative works</li> <li>perform the work publicly</li> <li>display the work</li> <li>distribute copies or digitally transfer the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.</li> </ul> This resource is provided here by <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> for educational purposes only. For more information on copyright, please refer to <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#105" target="_blank">Section 5</a> of <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html" target="_blank">Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code</a>. Accrual Method Item Creation Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Source Repository <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> External Reference "<a href="https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/overview/1860.html" target="_blank">1860 Overview</a>." U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/overview/1860.html. United States. <a href="https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf" target="_blank">Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970</a>. Washington: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1975. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/histstats-colonial-1970.pdf. United States, and Carroll D. Wright. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/166662" target="_blank">The History and Growth of the United States Census</a>. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1900. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf. Transcript U.S. Census of 1860 Population Brevard County* Marion County Orange County** Volusia County*** Population Total 246 8,609 987 1,158 White Population Total 224 3,294 823 861 Males 136 1,796 452 467 Females 88 1,498 371 394 Native-Born White Population Total 217 3,260 819 855 Males 129 1,768 449 462 Females 88 1,492 370 393 Free Colored Population Total 1 1 1 0 Males 1 1 1 0 Females 0 0 0 0 Free Foreign-Born Population Total 7 34 4 6 Foreign-Born White Population Total 7 34 4 6 Males 7 28 3 5 Females 0 6 1 1 Free Native-Born Persons Total 218 3,261 820 855 Slave Population Total 21 5,314 163 297 Males 8 2,689 88 158 Females 13 2,625 75 139 Slave Holders Total 4 345 31 38 Agriculture Brevard County* Marion County Orange County** Volusia County*** Farms Total 31 408 87 62 Acres of Land of Farms Improved Land 340 54,546 2,768 3,008 Unimproved Land 11,887 129,376 9,435 11,642 Cash Value of Farms Farms $23,340 $1,887,115 $90,555 $99,810 Farming Implements and Machinery $440 $83,790 $48,681 $9,672 Livestock $155,780 $447,268 $58,295 $113,984 Orchard Products $0 $0 $65 $44,150 Homemade Manufactures $0 $500 $372 $60 Market Garden Products $0 $10 $0 $0 Animals Slaughtered $1,900 $73,107 $9,081 6,550 Farms by Acreage 3-9 20 8 17 1 10-19 7 37 23 14 20-49 3 111 32 37 50-99 1 78 9 6 100-499 0 154 6 3 500-999 0 15 0 0 1000+ 0 5 0 1 Manufacturing Brevard County* Marion County Orange County** Volusia County*** Manufacturing Establishments Total N/A 8 N/A N/A Population Employed in Manufacturing Males N/A 65 N/A N/A Female s N/A 0 N/A N/A Capital Invested in Manufacturing Total N/A $35,500 N/A N/A Annual Costs in Manufacturing Labor N/A $23,220 N/A N/A Products N/A $49,400 N/A N/A "*Includes present-day St, Lucie County **Includes present-day Seminole County and parts of present-day Lake and Osceola counties ***Includes present-day Flagler County" agriculture animals Brevard County capital census Census of 1860 costs employees farming implements farmland farms females freeman freemen gardens labor laborers livestock machinery males manufactures manufacturing Marion County orange county orchards population slaveholders slavemasters slaves U.S. Census Volusia County https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka/files/original/47278ed7997b5394df1ec6a236360242.jpg 6bf8bca3a2f9a1580b119f9ef750738e Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government Collection Alternative Title Lou Frey Institute Collection Subject Frey, Lou, 1934- United States. House of Representatives Republican Party (Fla.) Contributor <a href="http://loufreyinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government</a> Language eng Type Collection Coverage Brevard County, Florida Cape Canaveral, Florida Cocoa, Florida John F. Kennedy Space Center, Titusville, Florida Indian River County, Florida Lake County, Florida Melbourne, Florida Miami, Florida Orange County, Florida Orlando Jetport, McCoy Air Force Base, Orlando, Florida Osceola County, Florida Patrick Air Force Base, Florida Port Canaveral, Florida Seminole County, Florida St. Petersburg, Florida Tampa, Florida Winter Park, Florida New York City, New York Washington, D. C. Rights Holder The Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government holds all rights to the items housed from the institute as well as those items represented digitally on the <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a>. Contact the <a href="http://loufreyinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government</a> for the proper permissions for the use of its items. Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Source Repository <a href="http://loufreyinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government</a> External Reference "<a href="http://loufreyinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute</a>." Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government. http://loufreyinstitute.org/. "<a href="http://loufreyjr.com/" target="_blank">Congressman Lou Frey, Jr. Biography</a>." Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government. http://loufreyjr.com/. "<a href="http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=F000381">FREY, Louis, Jr., (1934 - )</a>." Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, United States Congress. http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=F000381. Frey, Lou, and Aubrey Jewett. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/422763388">Political Rules of the Road: Representatives, Senators, and Presidents Share Their Rules for Success in Congress, Politics, and Life</a>. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2009. Frey, Lou, and Michael T. Hayes. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/45419938">Inside the House: Former Members Reveal How Congress Really Works</a>. Lanham, MD: U.S. Association of Former Members of Congress, 2001. Description Collection of digital images, documents, and other records from the Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government Series descriptions are based on special topics, the majority of which students focused their metadata entries around. Congressman Lou Frey, Jr. (1934-2019) served in the House of Representatives from 1969-1979. He was on several committees during his time in office, including the Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control and the Science and Technology Committee. He was also the chairman of the Young Republicans of Florida. According to its website, "The Lou Frey Institute promotes the development of enlightened, responsible, and actively engaged citizens. The Institute works to accomplish its mission: <ul><li>through civic education programs that encourage thoughtful debate and discussion about current policy issues;</li> <li>through experiential learning programs that encourage the development of civic and political skills;</li> <li>by working to help strengthen the civic education capacity of Florida’s k-12 education system; and</li> <li>through research, policy analysis, and advocacy."</li> </ul> Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a>. Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Original Format 1 newspaper article Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title Return Frey to Congress Description A newspaper article from Florida TODAY endorsing Representative Lou Frey, Jr. (1934-2019) for reelection to the U.S. House of Representatives. Rep. Frey served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1969 to 1979. He was on several committees during his time in office, including the Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control and the Science and Technology Committee. He was also the chairman of the Young Republicans of Florida. The article notably acknowledges that Rep. Frey's difficulty in getting some of his introduced bills passed was more due to the workings of the Congress than the congressman himself. This explanation sheds light on the reasons for the lack of passage of some congressional bills, including several bills introduced by Rep. Frey that would establish a Veterans Administration (VA) hospital in Brevard County. Date Created ca. 1974-10 Coverage Winter Park, Florida Brevard County, Florida Source Original newspaper article: <a href="http://www.floridatoday.com/" target="_blank">Florida TODAY</a>, October 1974: Lou Frey Papers, Digital Shared Files, <a href="http://loufreyinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government</a>, Special Collections and University Archives, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida. Source Repository <a href="http://library.ucf.edu/about/departments/special-collections-university-archives/" target="_blank">University of Central Florida, Special Collections and University Archives</a> Rights Holder Copyright to this resource is held by <a href="http://www.floridatoday.com/" target="_blank">Florida TODAY</a> and is provided here by <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> for educational purposes only. Transcript Last spring, TODAY's congressional correspondent included the following in a review written on the congressman: "...Frey's legislative record is sparse, reflective more of the ways of Congress than of any lack of effort on his part. Legislation introduced by Republicans doesn't get much attention, without the co-sponsorship of Democrats, but Frey has a few major bills that have some chance of really winning passage. Among them is a bill to set up federal standards for the construction of mobile homes, and one to increase passage for veterans of WWI. Frey has also authorized a model state law for the rehabilitation of narcotics addicts, which passed in several states..." (The mobile home bill has since passed.) External Reference "<a href="http://loufreyjr.com/" target="_blank">Congressman Lou Frey, Jr. Biography</a>." Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government. http://loufreyjr.com/. "<a href="http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=F000381">FREY, Louis, Jr., (1934 - )</a>." Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, United States Congress. http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=F000381. Frey, Lou, and Aubrey Jewett. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/422763388">Political Rules of the Road: Representatives, Senators, and Presidents Share Their Rules for Success in Congress, Politics, and Life</a>. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2009. Frey, Lou, and Michael T. Hayes. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/45419938">Inside the House: Former Members Reveal How Congress Really Works</a>. Lanham, MD: U.S. Association of Former Members of Congress, 2001. Alternative Title Return Frey to Congress Subject Frey, Lou, 1934- Winter Park (Fla.) Congress House of Representatives (U.S.) Brevard County (Fla.) Orange County (Fla.) Publisher <a href="http://www.floridatoday.com/" target="_blank">Florida TODAY</a> Date Copyrighted 1974-10 Date Issued 1974-10 Is Format Of Digital reproduction of original newspaper article: <a href="http://www.floridatoday.com/" target="_blank">Florida TODAY</a>, October 1974. Is Part Of Lou Frey Papers, Digital Shared Files, <a href="http://loufreyinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government</a>, Special Collections and University Archives, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida. <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/73" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government Collection</a>, RICHES of Central Florida. Format image/jpg Extent 180 KB Medium 1 newspaper article Language eng Type Text Accrual Method Donation Mediator History Teacher Civics/Government Teacher Provenance Originally published by <a href="http://www.floridatoday.com/" target="_blank">Florida TODAY</a>. Contributing Project <a href="http://loufreyinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government</a> Curator Mayer, Erica Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Airport and Airways Development Act Brevard County campaigns CBP Civil Aeronautics Board Congress drug abuse drugs elections Florida TODAY Ford, Gerald Frey, Lou, Jr. Frey, Louis, Jr. Gerald Rudolph Ford, Jr. Gillooly, Jack International Arrivals Building jetports John F. Kennedy Space Center Kennedy Space Center KSC Leslie Lynch King, Jr. McCoy AFB Meacham, John narcotics orange county Orlando Jetport Page Airways of Florida, Inc. Republican Party Republicans Simon, William U.S. Customs and Border Protection U.S. Department of the Treasury U.S. House of Representatives Van Den Berg, Egerton K. veterans Walt Disney World Winter Park https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka/files/original/1240e783c95d319aee068a05e3da971d.jpg d09633ad465bb2313888daeff2e54f38 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government Collection Alternative Title Lou Frey Institute Collection Subject Frey, Lou, 1934- United States. House of Representatives Republican Party (Fla.) Contributor <a href="http://loufreyinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government</a> Language eng Type Collection Coverage Brevard County, Florida Cape Canaveral, Florida Cocoa, Florida John F. Kennedy Space Center, Titusville, Florida Indian River County, Florida Lake County, Florida Melbourne, Florida Miami, Florida Orange County, Florida Orlando Jetport, McCoy Air Force Base, Orlando, Florida Osceola County, Florida Patrick Air Force Base, Florida Port Canaveral, Florida Seminole County, Florida St. Petersburg, Florida Tampa, Florida Winter Park, Florida New York City, New York Washington, D. C. Rights Holder The Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government holds all rights to the items housed from the institute as well as those items represented digitally on the <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a>. Contact the <a href="http://loufreyinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government</a> for the proper permissions for the use of its items. Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Source Repository <a href="http://loufreyinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government</a> External Reference "<a href="http://loufreyinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute</a>." Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government. http://loufreyinstitute.org/. "<a href="http://loufreyjr.com/" target="_blank">Congressman Lou Frey, Jr. Biography</a>." Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government. http://loufreyjr.com/. "<a href="http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=F000381">FREY, Louis, Jr., (1934 - )</a>." Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, United States Congress. http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=F000381. Frey, Lou, and Aubrey Jewett. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/422763388">Political Rules of the Road: Representatives, Senators, and Presidents Share Their Rules for Success in Congress, Politics, and Life</a>. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2009. Frey, Lou, and Michael T. Hayes. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/45419938">Inside the House: Former Members Reveal How Congress Really Works</a>. Lanham, MD: U.S. Association of Former Members of Congress, 2001. Description Collection of digital images, documents, and other records from the Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government Series descriptions are based on special topics, the majority of which students focused their metadata entries around. Congressman Lou Frey, Jr. (1934-2019) served in the House of Representatives from 1969-1979. He was on several committees during his time in office, including the Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control and the Science and Technology Committee. He was also the chairman of the Young Republicans of Florida. According to its website, "The Lou Frey Institute promotes the development of enlightened, responsible, and actively engaged citizens. The Institute works to accomplish its mission: <ul><li>through civic education programs that encourage thoughtful debate and discussion about current policy issues;</li> <li>through experiential learning programs that encourage the development of civic and political skills;</li> <li>by working to help strengthen the civic education capacity of Florida’s k-12 education system; and</li> <li>through research, policy analysis, and advocacy."</li> </ul> Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a>. Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Original Format 1 newsletter Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title DAV: The Official Voice of the Disabled American Veterans and Auxiliary, October 1974 Description One page of a newsletter published by the organization of Disabled American Veterans (DAV) containing an article about an award given to Representative Louis Frey, Jr. (1934-2019), who served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1969 to 1979. He was on several committees during his time in office, including the Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control and the Science and Technology Committee. He was also the chairman of the Young Republicans of Florida. This award was given for Congressman Frey's legislative efforts in the House of Representatives to advocate for veterans' issues. Some of these issues included World War I veterans' compensation, veterans' education benefits, and pensions. Additionally, Rep. Frey focused his efforts on advancing Central Florida's medical facilities for veterans by introducing several bills into Congress during the 1970s that would have called for the creation of a Veterans' Administration hospital in Brevard County. Date Created ca. 1974-10 Coverage Cocoa, Florida Titusville, Florida Melbourne, Florida Source Photocopy of original newsletter, October 1974: Lou Frey Papers, Clippings Binder, <a href="http://loufreyinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government</a>, Special Collections and University Archives, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida. Source Repository <a href="http://loufreyinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government</a> Rights Holder Copyright to this resource is held by the <a href="http://www.dav.org/" target="_blank">Disabled American Veterans</a> and is provided here by <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> for educational purposes only. Transcript Oct. 74 Issue F.Y.I. DAV The Official Voice of the Disabled American Veterans and Auxillary Congressman Honored... Officers of three DAV chapters in Brevard County, Fla., honor Congressman Lou Frey, Jr., center, "for his services in legislation toward the veterans of the U.S." The officers are, left to right, George J. Lochner, past junior vice commander of Central Brevard Chapter 50; Jack Shouse, commander of Titusville Chapter 109; Frey; Frank P. Vito, commander of J.L. Golightly Chapter 32, Melbourne, Fla., and Charles J. Anderson, past junior vice commander of Chapter 32. The award was made at the installation of new officers for Chapter 32. External Reference "<a href="http://loufreyjr.com/" target="_blank">Congressman Lou Frey, Jr. Biography</a>." Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government. http://loufreyjr.com/. "<a href="http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=F000381">FREY, Louis, Jr., (1934 - )</a>." Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, United States Congress. http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=F000381. Frey, Lou, and Aubrey Jewett. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/422763388">Political Rules of the Road: Representatives, Senators, and Presidents Share Their Rules for Success in Congress, Politics, and Life</a>. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2009. Frey, Lou, and Michael T. Hayes. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/45419938">Inside the House: Former Members Reveal How Congress Really Works</a>. Lanham, MD: U.S. Association of Former Members of Congress, 2001. Alternative Title DAV Newsletter Subject Frey, Lou, 1934- Disabled American Veterans. Auxiliary Brevard County (Fla.) Veterans--Florid Titusville (Fla.) Melbourne (Fla.) Cocoa (Fla.) Publisher <a href="http://www.dav.org/" target="_blank">Disabled American Veterans</a> Date Copyrighted 1974-10 Date Issued 1974-10 Is Format Of Digital reproduction of photocopied newsletter, October 1974. Is Part Of Lou Frey Papers, Clippings Binder, <a href="http://loufreyinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government</a>, Special Collections and University Archives, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida. <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/73" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government Collection</a>, RICHES of Central Florida. Format image/jpg Extent 144 KB Medium 1 newsletter Language eng Type Text Accrual Method Donation Mediator History Teacher Civics/Government Teacher Provenance Originally published by the <a href="http://www.dav.org/" target="_blank">Disabled American Veterans</a>. Contributing Project <a href="http://loufreyinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government</a> Curator Mayer, Erica Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> American Legion Anderson, Charles J. Brevard County Central Brevard Chapter 40 DAV disabilities disability Disabled American Veterans Frey, Lou, Jr. Frey, Louis, Jr. J. L. Golightly Chapter Lochner, George J. Melbourne Shouse Titusville Titusville Chapter 109 veterans Vito, Frank P. https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka/files/original/b8a2f18b295ca4cf39d036cebfa58d78.jpg a677921d920570dd51747867d15d63de Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government Collection Alternative Title Lou Frey Institute Collection Subject Frey, Lou, 1934- United States. House of Representatives Republican Party (Fla.) Contributor <a href="http://loufreyinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government</a> Language eng Type Collection Coverage Brevard County, Florida Cape Canaveral, Florida Cocoa, Florida John F. Kennedy Space Center, Titusville, Florida Indian River County, Florida Lake County, Florida Melbourne, Florida Miami, Florida Orange County, Florida Orlando Jetport, McCoy Air Force Base, Orlando, Florida Osceola County, Florida Patrick Air Force Base, Florida Port Canaveral, Florida Seminole County, Florida St. Petersburg, Florida Tampa, Florida Winter Park, Florida New York City, New York Washington, D. C. Rights Holder The Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government holds all rights to the items housed from the institute as well as those items represented digitally on the <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a>. Contact the <a href="http://loufreyinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government</a> for the proper permissions for the use of its items. Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Source Repository <a href="http://loufreyinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government</a> External Reference "<a href="http://loufreyinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute</a>." Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government. http://loufreyinstitute.org/. "<a href="http://loufreyjr.com/" target="_blank">Congressman Lou Frey, Jr. Biography</a>." Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government. http://loufreyjr.com/. "<a href="http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=F000381">FREY, Louis, Jr., (1934 - )</a>." Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, United States Congress. http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=F000381. Frey, Lou, and Aubrey Jewett. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/422763388">Political Rules of the Road: Representatives, Senators, and Presidents Share Their Rules for Success in Congress, Politics, and Life</a>. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2009. Frey, Lou, and Michael T. Hayes. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/45419938">Inside the House: Former Members Reveal How Congress Really Works</a>. Lanham, MD: U.S. Association of Former Members of Congress, 2001. Description Collection of digital images, documents, and other records from the Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government Series descriptions are based on special topics, the majority of which students focused their metadata entries around. Congressman Lou Frey, Jr. (1934-2019) served in the House of Representatives from 1969-1979. He was on several committees during his time in office, including the Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control and the Science and Technology Committee. He was also the chairman of the Young Republicans of Florida. According to its website, "The Lou Frey Institute promotes the development of enlightened, responsible, and actively engaged citizens. The Institute works to accomplish its mission: <ul><li>through civic education programs that encourage thoughtful debate and discussion about current policy issues;</li> <li>through experiential learning programs that encourage the development of civic and political skills;</li> <li>by working to help strengthen the civic education capacity of Florida’s k-12 education system; and</li> <li>through research, policy analysis, and advocacy."</li> </ul> Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a>. Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Original Format 1 newsletter Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title Florida From the House...To Your Home Newsletter, January 1974 Description One page from the Florida From the House...To Your Home newsletter mailed to citizens of the 9th Congressional District of Florida, represented by Representative Louis Frey, Jr. (1934-2019), who served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1969 to 1979. He was on several committees during his time in office, including the Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control and the Science and Technology Committee. He was also the chairman of the Young Republicans of Florida. The first article discusses federal spending at John F. Kennedy Space Center (KSC) in Merritt Island, Florida. Rep. Frey states that workers at KSC and the Eastern Test Range were profiting from the upgrade of their wage schedules. According to the article, the Economic Adjustment Council, at Rep. Frey's urging, conducted an in-depth study of Brevard County and the adverse effects of federal spending cuts to the national space program. The second article continues by discussing the Brevard Growth Council, which was spawned as a result of the Economic Adjustment Council's study. The growth council focused on "attracting new industry and [o]n moving Brevard from a space-oriented economy to a self-sustaining and diversified economy." The council's actions included a study of the tourist industry in Brevard, a continuing feasibility study of Port Canaveral, and the restoration of the name "Canaveral" to the Cape. The establishment of a Veterans' Administration (VA) outpatient clinic in Orlando is the subject of the third article. Although Central Florida was the home of a large number of veterans, the region did not have a VA hospital and its other medical facilities were also largely outdated. Attempts to obtain approval to build a VA hospital in Central Florida were initially unsuccessful. Politicians like Rep. Frey attempted to pass legislation in order to establish such a hospital. An outpatient clinic was built in Orlando in the early 1970s as the issue of VA medical facilities became more prevalent due to these legislative efforts. The clinic both provided more sufficient medical care for the area's veterans and created new jobs for residents. The final article, which begins on this page and is continued on another page, is about Rep. Frey's efforts to establish a White House Conference on the Handicapped. Date Created ca. 1974-01 Coverage John F. Kennedy Space Center, Titusville, Florida Brevard County, Florida Port Canaveral, Florida Orange County, Florida Orlando, Florida Source Original newsletter: Florida From the House...To Your Home, December 1975: Lou Frey Papers, box 11, <a href="http://loufreyinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government</a>, Special Collections and University Archives, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida. Source Repository <a href="http://library.ucf.edu/about/departments/special-collections-university-archives/" target="_blank">University of Central Florida, Special Collections and University Archives</a> Rights Holder Copyright to this resource is held by the <a href="http://loufreyinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government</a> and is provided here by <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> for educational purposes only. Transcript Outpatient Clinic Our battle to obtain funding for a veterans hospital in the area also paid off to a certain extent in 1973 with the establishment of a Veterans Administration outpatient clinic in Orlando. The clinic, due to open in June, will employ about 40 persons and operate on an annual budget of $1 million with 20,000 patient visits projected for the first year alone. Our district, as well as the entire state, should also share in the benefits of our aquatic weed agreement signed during the fall of 1973.The agreement, an outgrowth of a meeting I called in late 1972, will allow local, state and federal governments to work together and coordinate efforts to combat weeds which choke our scenic rivers and lakes. My federal noxious weed act, an outgrowth of our aquatic weed agreement in Florida, passed the House of Representatives in 1973 and is now pending before the Senate. This bill bans the importation of weeds or plants which might prove harmful to man or his environment. Had this bill been law many years ago, we would not today be battling aquatic weeds in Florida and other states. External Reference "<a href="http://loufreyjr.com/" target="_blank">Congressman Lou Frey, Jr. Biography</a>." Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government. http://loufreyjr.com/. "<a href="http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=F000381">FREY, Louis, Jr., (1934 - )</a>." Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, United States Congress. http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=F000381. Frey, Lou, and Aubrey Jewett. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/422763388">Political Rules of the Road: Representatives, Senators, and Presidents Share Their Rules for Success in Congress, Politics, and Life</a>. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2009. Frey, Lou, and Michael T. Hayes. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/45419938">Inside the House: Former Members Reveal How Congress Really Works</a>. Lanham, MD: U.S. Association of Former Members of Congress, 2001. Alternative Title Florida From the House...To Your Home Newsletter Subject Brevard County (Fla.) Port Canaveral (Fla.) Orange County (Fla.) Orlando (Fla.) Hospitals--Florida Veterans--Florida Air Force National Aeronautics and Space Administration (U.S.) NASA Date Copyrighted 1974-01 Date Issued 1974-01 Is Format Of Digital reproduction of original newsletter: Florida From the House...To Your Home, December 1975. Is Part Of Lou Frey Papers, box 11, <a href="http://loufreyinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government</a>, Special Collections and University Archives, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida. <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/73" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government Collection</a>, RICHES of Central Florida. Format image/jpg Extent 645 KB Medium 1 newsletter Language eng Type Text Accrual Method Donation Mediator History Teacher Civics/Government Teacher Economics Teacher Geography Teacher Contributing Project <a href="http://loufreyinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government</a> Curator Mayer, Erica Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Publisher Frey, Lou, Jr. Provenance Originally published by Lou Frey, Jr. 9th Congressional District Appropriations Committee aquatic weeds Brevard County Brevard Growth Council clinics Congress Eastern Test Range Economic Adjustment Council Frey, Lou, Jr. Frey, Louis, Jr. From the House...To Your Home hospitals House of Representatives John F. Kennedy Space Center Kennedy Space Center KSC Nixon, Richard M. Nixon, Richard Milhous orange county orlando outpatient clinic outpatient clinics Port Canaveral Strategic Air Command U.S. Air Force U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs U.S. House of Representatives U.S. Senate VA veterans Veterans Administration White House Conference of the Handicapped https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka/files/original/eb6dea6349f583f24418c399d2e899ad.jpg fa0ab52922fd059e69645254d369437e Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government Collection Alternative Title Lou Frey Institute Collection Subject Frey, Lou, 1934- United States. House of Representatives Republican Party (Fla.) Contributor <a href="http://loufreyinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government</a> Language eng Type Collection Coverage Brevard County, Florida Cape Canaveral, Florida Cocoa, Florida John F. Kennedy Space Center, Titusville, Florida Indian River County, Florida Lake County, Florida Melbourne, Florida Miami, Florida Orange County, Florida Orlando Jetport, McCoy Air Force Base, Orlando, Florida Osceola County, Florida Patrick Air Force Base, Florida Port Canaveral, Florida Seminole County, Florida St. Petersburg, Florida Tampa, Florida Winter Park, Florida New York City, New York Washington, D. C. Rights Holder The Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government holds all rights to the items housed from the institute as well as those items represented digitally on the <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a>. Contact the <a href="http://loufreyinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government</a> for the proper permissions for the use of its items. Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Source Repository <a href="http://loufreyinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government</a> External Reference "<a href="http://loufreyinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute</a>." Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government. http://loufreyinstitute.org/. "<a href="http://loufreyjr.com/" target="_blank">Congressman Lou Frey, Jr. Biography</a>." Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government. http://loufreyjr.com/. "<a href="http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=F000381">FREY, Louis, Jr., (1934 - )</a>." Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, United States Congress. http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=F000381. Frey, Lou, and Aubrey Jewett. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/422763388">Political Rules of the Road: Representatives, Senators, and Presidents Share Their Rules for Success in Congress, Politics, and Life</a>. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2009. Frey, Lou, and Michael T. Hayes. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/45419938">Inside the House: Former Members Reveal How Congress Really Works</a>. Lanham, MD: U.S. Association of Former Members of Congress, 2001. Description Collection of digital images, documents, and other records from the Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government Series descriptions are based on special topics, the majority of which students focused their metadata entries around. Congressman Lou Frey, Jr. (1934-2019) served in the House of Representatives from 1969-1979. He was on several committees during his time in office, including the Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control and the Science and Technology Committee. He was also the chairman of the Young Republicans of Florida. According to its website, "The Lou Frey Institute promotes the development of enlightened, responsible, and actively engaged citizens. The Institute works to accomplish its mission: <ul><li>through civic education programs that encourage thoughtful debate and discussion about current policy issues;</li> <li>through experiential learning programs that encourage the development of civic and political skills;</li> <li>by working to help strengthen the civic education capacity of Florida’s k-12 education system; and</li> <li>through research, policy analysis, and advocacy."</li> </ul> Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a>. Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Original Format 1-page typewritten form Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title Brevard County Planning Department Summary Proposal Form Description A summary proposal form completed by John W. Hannah of the Brevard County Planning Department. As Brevard County, Florida, began to experience rapid growth, new studies were proposed in order to figure out how best to adjust to accommodate this growth. The growth of the county was partially due to the expanding tourism industry in Central Florida that was the result of the development of attractions like Walt Disney World. Hannah proposed to investigate the development of analysis techniques for utilization of remote sensing data in urban and regional planning. The investigation would include the east Central Florida region of Brevard County, Indian River County, Lake County, Orange County, Osceola County, and Seminoles County. The data would be presented in reconstituted color infrared and computer-compatible digital magnetic tape formats. Date Created ca. 1971-1979 Coverage Brevard County, Florida Indian River County, Florida Lake County, Florida Orange County, Florida Osceola County, Florida Seminole County, Florida Creator Hannah, John W. Source Original summary proposal form by John W. Hannah: Lou Frey Papers, Digital Shared Files, <a href="http://loufreyinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government</a>, Special Collections and University Archives, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida. Source Repository <a href="http://library.ucf.edu/about/departments/special-collections-university-archives/" target="_blank">University of Central Florida, Special Collections and University Archives</a> Rights Holder Copyright to this resource is held by the <a href="http://loufreyinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government</a> and is provided here by <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> for educational purposes only. Transcript ERETS SUMMARY PROPOSAL FORM Organization/Address Brevard County Planning Depart P.O. Box 1496, Titusville, Fla. 32780 Phone Number (305) 269-8362 Investigation Discipline(s) (List all in order of importance) (e.g., Agriculture, Forestry, Geography/Demography/Cartography, Geology, Meteorology, Hydrology, Oceanography, Environmental Quality/Ecology, Interpretation Techniques Development, Sensor Technology) Interpretation Techniques, Development, Geography/Demography/Cartography Purpose of Investigation (Brief Description) Development of analysis techniquest for utilization of remote sensing data in urban and regional planning. Geographical Location **Brevard County, Fla. 7 East Cent. Fla. Region of Brevard,Indian River, Lake, Orange, Osceola 7 Seminole Counties Spacecraft (ERTS/SKYLAB/BOTH) Both Funds Required (Yes/No) $ No Other Funds Required $ No Source(s) N/A Aircraft Data Flights Required (Yes/No) No Source(s) (NASA, DOD, Contractor) N/A Ground Truth Required (Yes/No) No Test Site Location N/A New Instrumentation Required (Yes/No) N/A New Instrumentation To Be Provided By N/A Is Repetitive Satellite Coverage Required (Yes/No) Yes Is Automatic Data Processing Equipment (ADPE) Required (Yes/No) No Other Capital Equipment Required (Yes/No) No Duration of Investigation (Months) 24 Months Format of Data (1) reconstituted color infrared; and (2) computer compatible digital magnetic tape. ** see attached maps External Reference "<a href="http://loufreyjr.com/" target="_blank">Congressman Lou Frey, Jr. Biography</a>." Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government. http://loufreyjr.com/. "<a href="http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=F000381">FREY, Louis, Jr., (1934 - )</a>." Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, United States Congress. http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=F000381. Frey, Lou, and Aubrey Jewett. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/422763388">Political Rules of the Road: Representatives, Senators, and Presidents Share Their Rules for Success in Congress, Politics, and Life</a>. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2009. Frey, Lou, and Michael T. Hayes. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/45419938">Inside the House: Former Members Reveal How Congress Really Works</a>. Lanham, MD: U.S. Association of Former Members of Congress, 2001. Alternative Title Brevard Planning Dept. Proposal Subject Brevard County (Fla.) Titusville (Fla.) Urban planning--United States Regional planning--Florida Indian River County (Fla.) Lake County (Fla.) Orange County (Fla.) Osceola County (Fla.) Seminole County (Fla.) Is Format Of Digital reproduction of original summary proposal form by John W. Hannah. Is Part Of Lou Frey Papers, Digital Shared Files, <a href="http://loufreyinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government</a>, Special Collections and University Archives, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida. <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/73" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government Collection</a>, RICHES of Central Florida. Format image/jpg Extent 117 KB Medium 1-page typrewritten form Language eng Type Text Accrual Method Donation Mediator History Teacher Civics/Government Teacher Geography Teacher Provenance Originally created by John W. Hannah. Contributing Project <a href="http://loufreyinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government</a> Curator Mayer, Erica Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Brevard County Brevard County Planning Department Hannah, John W. Indian River County Lake County orange county Osceola County regional planning remote sensing data Seminole County Titusville urban planning https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka/files/original/e3ef7ac8b0c8a79851d109cc7b242eba.pdf d7a75ea2ef1bd41644440c1610865b79 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government Collection Alternative Title Lou Frey Institute Collection Subject Frey, Lou, 1934- United States. House of Representatives Republican Party (Fla.) Contributor <a href="http://loufreyinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government</a> Language eng Type Collection Coverage Brevard County, Florida Cape Canaveral, Florida Cocoa, Florida John F. Kennedy Space Center, Titusville, Florida Indian River County, Florida Lake County, Florida Melbourne, Florida Miami, Florida Orange County, Florida Orlando Jetport, McCoy Air Force Base, Orlando, Florida Osceola County, Florida Patrick Air Force Base, Florida Port Canaveral, Florida Seminole County, Florida St. Petersburg, Florida Tampa, Florida Winter Park, Florida New York City, New York Washington, D. C. Rights Holder The Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government holds all rights to the items housed from the institute as well as those items represented digitally on the <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a>. Contact the <a href="http://loufreyinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government</a> for the proper permissions for the use of its items. Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Source Repository <a href="http://loufreyinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government</a> External Reference "<a href="http://loufreyinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute</a>." Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government. http://loufreyinstitute.org/. "<a href="http://loufreyjr.com/" target="_blank">Congressman Lou Frey, Jr. Biography</a>." Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government. http://loufreyjr.com/. "<a href="http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=F000381">FREY, Louis, Jr., (1934 - )</a>." Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, United States Congress. http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=F000381. Frey, Lou, and Aubrey Jewett. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/422763388">Political Rules of the Road: Representatives, Senators, and Presidents Share Their Rules for Success in Congress, Politics, and Life</a>. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2009. Frey, Lou, and Michael T. Hayes. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/45419938">Inside the House: Former Members Reveal How Congress Really Works</a>. Lanham, MD: U.S. Association of Former Members of Congress, 2001. Description Collection of digital images, documents, and other records from the Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government Series descriptions are based on special topics, the majority of which students focused their metadata entries around. Congressman Lou Frey, Jr. (1934-2019) served in the House of Representatives from 1969-1979. He was on several committees during his time in office, including the Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control and the Science and Technology Committee. He was also the chairman of the Young Republicans of Florida. According to its website, "The Lou Frey Institute promotes the development of enlightened, responsible, and actively engaged citizens. The Institute works to accomplish its mission: <ul><li>through civic education programs that encourage thoughtful debate and discussion about current policy issues;</li> <li>through experiential learning programs that encourage the development of civic and political skills;</li> <li>by working to help strengthen the civic education capacity of Florida’s k-12 education system; and</li> <li>through research, policy analysis, and advocacy."</li> </ul> Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a>. Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Original Format 3-page typewritten legislative bill Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title U.S. House of Representatives Bill 3231: Veterans Administration Hospital in Brevard County Description A draft of a bill proposal that would call for a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital to be built in Brevard County, Florida. Central Florida didn't have its own VA hospital, so veterans had to travel to other parts of the state in order to receive medical care. Representative Lou Frey, Jr. (1934-2019), who represented the district that included Brevard, often worked to advocate for veterans issues and was the congressman who introduced the bill. Frey served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1969 to 1979. He was on several committees during his time in office, including the Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control and the Science and Technology Committee. He was also the chairman of the Young Republicans of Florida. Source Original U.S. House of Representatives legislative bill by Louis Frey, Jr., February 19, 1975: Lou Frey Papers, box 8, <a href="http://loufreyinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government</a>, Special Collections and University Archives, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida. Date Created ca. 1975-02-19 Coverage Brevard County, Florida Rights Holder This resource is not subject to copyright in the United States and there are no copyright restrictions on reproduction, derivative works, distribution, performance, or display of the work. Anyone may, without restriction under U.S. copyright laws: <ul><li>reproduce the work in print or digital form;</li> <li>create derivative works;</li> <li>perform the work publicly;</li> <li>display the work;</li> <li>distribute copies or digitally transfer the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.</li> </ul> This resources is provided here by <a>RICHES of Central Florida</a> for educational purposes only. For more information on copyright, please refer to <a>Section 5</a> of <a>Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code</a>. Source Repository <a href="http://library.ucf.edu/about/departments/special-collections-university-archives/" target="_blank">University of Central Florida, Special Collections and University Archives</a> External Reference "<a href="%20http%3A//loufreyjr.com/" target="_blank">Congressman Lou Frey, Jr. Biography</a>." Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government. http://loufreyjr.com/. "<a href="http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=F000381" target="_blank">FREY, Louis, Jr., (1934 - )</a>." Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, United States Congress. http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=F000381. Frey, Lou, and Aubrey Jewett. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/422763388">Political Rules of the Road: Representatives, Senators, and Presidents Share Their Rules for Success in Congress, Politics, and Life</a>. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2009. Frey, Lou, and Michael T. Hayes. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/45419938">Inside the House: Former Members Reveal How Congress Really Works</a>. Lanham, MD: U.S. Association of Former Members of Congress, 2001. Transcript Date: February 19, 1975 Committee: Veterans' Affairs Description: VA hospital in Brevard Mr. Frey introduced himself March 4, 1975: Exec comment requested from VA Sept 19, 1975 executive comment received from VA 94TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION H.R. 3231 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES February 19, 1975 Mr.Frey introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs A BILL To provide for a Veterans' Administration hospital in Brevard County, Florida. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs is authorized and directed to construct a five hundred-bed general medical, surgical, and psychiatric Veterans' Administration hospital in Brevard County, Florida. SEC. 2. Such sums as are necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act are authorized to be appropriated. 94TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION H.R. 3231 A BILL To provide for a Veterans' Administration hospital in Brevard County, Florida. By Mr. Frey February 19, 1975 Referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs Alternative Title H.R. 3231: VA Hospital in Brevard County Subject Frey, Lou, 1934- Brevard County (Fla.) Congress Hospitals--Florida U.S. House of Representatives Legislation--Florida Date Copyrighted 1975-02-19 Is Format Of Digital reproduction of original U.S. House of Representatives legislative bill by Louis Frey, Jr., February 19, 1975. Is Part Of Lou Frey Papers, box 8, <a href="http://loufreyinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government</a>, Special Collections and University Archives, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida. <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/73" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government Collection</a>, RICHES of Central Florida. Format application/pdf Extent 228 KB Medium 3-page typewritten legislative bill Language eng Type Text Accrual Method Donation Mediator History Teacher Civics/Government Teacher Provenance Originally created by Lou Frey, Jr. and published by the <a href="http://www.house.gov/" target="_blank">United States House of Representatives</a>. Contributing Project <a href="http://loufreyinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government</a> Curator Mayer, Erica Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> 94th Congress bill Brevard County Committee on Veterans Affairs Congress Frey, Lou, Jr. Frey, Louis, Jr. H.R. 3231 hospital legislation Senate U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs VA Veterans Administration https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka/files/original/6f2816967c34b8d64236e2293b84efe0.pdf 9f23a0277d926f2f709fa7bf787d12c1 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government Collection Alternative Title Lou Frey Institute Collection Subject Frey, Lou, 1934- United States. House of Representatives Republican Party (Fla.) Contributor <a href="http://loufreyinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government</a> Language eng Type Collection Coverage Brevard County, Florida Cape Canaveral, Florida Cocoa, Florida John F. Kennedy Space Center, Titusville, Florida Indian River County, Florida Lake County, Florida Melbourne, Florida Miami, Florida Orange County, Florida Orlando Jetport, McCoy Air Force Base, Orlando, Florida Osceola County, Florida Patrick Air Force Base, Florida Port Canaveral, Florida Seminole County, Florida St. Petersburg, Florida Tampa, Florida Winter Park, Florida New York City, New York Washington, D. C. Rights Holder The Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government holds all rights to the items housed from the institute as well as those items represented digitally on the <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a>. Contact the <a href="http://loufreyinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government</a> for the proper permissions for the use of its items. Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Source Repository <a href="http://loufreyinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government</a> External Reference "<a href="http://loufreyinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute</a>." Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government. http://loufreyinstitute.org/. "<a href="http://loufreyjr.com/" target="_blank">Congressman Lou Frey, Jr. Biography</a>." Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government. http://loufreyjr.com/. "<a href="http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=F000381">FREY, Louis, Jr., (1934 - )</a>." Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, United States Congress. http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=F000381. Frey, Lou, and Aubrey Jewett. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/422763388">Political Rules of the Road: Representatives, Senators, and Presidents Share Their Rules for Success in Congress, Politics, and Life</a>. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2009. Frey, Lou, and Michael T. Hayes. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/45419938">Inside the House: Former Members Reveal How Congress Really Works</a>. Lanham, MD: U.S. Association of Former Members of Congress, 2001. Description Collection of digital images, documents, and other records from the Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government Series descriptions are based on special topics, the majority of which students focused their metadata entries around. Congressman Lou Frey, Jr. (1934-2019) served in the House of Representatives from 1969-1979. He was on several committees during his time in office, including the Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control and the Science and Technology Committee. He was also the chairman of the Young Republicans of Florida. According to its website, "The Lou Frey Institute promotes the development of enlightened, responsible, and actively engaged citizens. The Institute works to accomplish its mission: <ul><li>through civic education programs that encourage thoughtful debate and discussion about current policy issues;</li> <li>through experiential learning programs that encourage the development of civic and political skills;</li> <li>by working to help strengthen the civic education capacity of Florida’s k-12 education system; and</li> <li>through research, policy analysis, and advocacy."</li> </ul> Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a>. Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Original Format 3-page typewritten legislative bill Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title U.S. House of Representatives Bill 13771: Veterans Administration Hospital for Brevard County Description A draft of a bill proposal that would call for a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital to be built in Brevard County, Florida. At the time that the legislation was being drafted, Central Florida did not have its own VA hospital. Veterans had to travel to other parts of the state in order to receive hospital care from the Veterans Administration. Representative Louis Frey, Jr. (1934-2019), who represented the district that included Brevard, worked to advocate for veterans issues and was the congressman who introduced the bill. Rep. Frey served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1969 to 1979. He was on several committees during his time in office, including the Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control and the Science and Technology Committee. He was also the chairman of the Young Republicans of Florida. Source Original legislative bill by Lou Frey, Jr., March 27, 1974: Lou Frey Papers, box 8, <a href="http://loufreyinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government</a>, Special Collections and University Archives, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida. Date Created ca. 1974-03-27 Coverage Brevard County, Florida Rights Holder This resource is not subject to copyright in the United States and there are no copyright restrictions on reproduction, derivative works, distribution, performance, or display of the work. Anyone may, without restriction under U.S. copyright laws: <ul><li>reproduce the work in print or digital form;</li> <li>create derivative works;</li> <li>perform the work publicly;</li> <li>display the work;</li> <li>distribute copies or digitally transfer the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.</li> </ul> This resources is provided here by <a>RICHES of Central Florida</a> for educational purposes only. For more information on copyright, please refer to <a>Section 5</a> of <a>Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code</a>. Source Repository <a href="http://library.ucf.edu/about/departments/special-collections-university-archives/" target="_blank">University of Central Florida, Special Collections and University Archives</a> External Reference "<a href="http://loufreyjr.com/" target="_blank">Congressman Lou Frey, Jr. Biography</a>." Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government. http://loufreyjr.com/. "<a href="http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=F000381" target="_blank">FREY, Louis, Jr., (1934 - )</a>." Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, United States Congress. http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=F000381. Frey, Lou, and Aubrey Jewett. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/422763388">Political Rules of the Road: Representatives, Senators, and Presidents Share Their Rules for Success in Congress, Politics, and Life</a>. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2009. Frey, Lou, and Michael T. Hayes. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/45419938">Inside the House: Former Members Reveal How Congress Really Works</a>. Lanham, MD: U.S. Association of Former Members of Congress, 2001. Transcript H.R. 13771 Date: March 27, 1974 Committee: Veterans' Affairs Description: VA hospital for Brevard County Mr. Frey introduced himself May 1, 1974 - Exec. comment requested from VA 93D CONGRESS 2D SESSION H.R. 13771 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES March 27, 1974 Mr. Frey introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs A BILL To provide for a Veterans' Administration hospital in Brevard County, Florida. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs is is authorized and directed to construct a five hundred-bed general medical, surgical, and psychiatric Veterans' Administration hospital in Brevard County, Florida. Sec. 2. Such sums as are necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act are authorized to be appropriated. 93D CONGRESS 2D SESSION H.R. 13771 A BILL To provide for a Veterans' Administration hospital in Brevard County, Florida. By Mr. Frey March 27, 1974 Referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs Alternative Title H.R. 13771: VA Hospital for Brevard County Subject Frey, Lou, 1934- Brevard County (Fla.) Congress Veterans--Florida Hospitals--Florida U.S. House of Representatives Legislation--Florida Date Issued 1974-03-27 Is Format Of Digital reproduction of original legislative bill by Lou Frey, Jr., March 27, 1974. Is Part Of Lou Frey Papers, box 8, <a href="http://loufreyinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government</a>, Special Collections and University Archives, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida. <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/73" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government Collection</a>, RICHES of Central Florida. Format application/pdf Extent 241 KB Medium 3-page typewritten legislative bill Language eng Type Text Accrual Method Donation Mediator History Teacher Civics/Government Teacher Provenance Originally created by Lou Frey, Jr. and published by the <a href="http://www.house.gov/" target="_blank">U.S. House of Representatives</a>. Contributing Project <a href="http://loufreyinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government</a> Curator Mayer, Erica Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> 93rd Congress bill Brevard County Committee on Veterans Affairs Congress Frey, Lou, Jr. Frey, Louis, Jr. H.R. 13771 hospital legislation U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs U.S. House of Representatives VA veteran Veterans Administration https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka/files/original/374d689017c2302791fcbf0b8b6e864c.jpg 2ba085644cc19a26d3f1b7439f42619a Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government Collection Alternative Title Lou Frey Institute Collection Subject Frey, Lou, 1934- United States. House of Representatives Republican Party (Fla.) Contributor <a href="http://loufreyinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government</a> Language eng Type Collection Coverage Brevard County, Florida Cape Canaveral, Florida Cocoa, Florida John F. Kennedy Space Center, Titusville, Florida Indian River County, Florida Lake County, Florida Melbourne, Florida Miami, Florida Orange County, Florida Orlando Jetport, McCoy Air Force Base, Orlando, Florida Osceola County, Florida Patrick Air Force Base, Florida Port Canaveral, Florida Seminole County, Florida St. Petersburg, Florida Tampa, Florida Winter Park, Florida New York City, New York Washington, D. C. Rights Holder The Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government holds all rights to the items housed from the institute as well as those items represented digitally on the <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a>. Contact the <a href="http://loufreyinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government</a> for the proper permissions for the use of its items. Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Source Repository <a href="http://loufreyinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government</a> External Reference "<a href="http://loufreyinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute</a>." Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government. http://loufreyinstitute.org/. "<a href="http://loufreyjr.com/" target="_blank">Congressman Lou Frey, Jr. Biography</a>." Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government. http://loufreyjr.com/. "<a href="http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=F000381">FREY, Louis, Jr., (1934 - )</a>." Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, United States Congress. http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=F000381. Frey, Lou, and Aubrey Jewett. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/422763388">Political Rules of the Road: Representatives, Senators, and Presidents Share Their Rules for Success in Congress, Politics, and Life</a>. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2009. Frey, Lou, and Michael T. Hayes. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/45419938">Inside the House: Former Members Reveal How Congress Really Works</a>. Lanham, MD: U.S. Association of Former Members of Congress, 2001. Description Collection of digital images, documents, and other records from the Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government Series descriptions are based on special topics, the majority of which students focused their metadata entries around. Congressman Lou Frey, Jr. (1934-2019) served in the House of Representatives from 1969-1979. He was on several committees during his time in office, including the Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control and the Science and Technology Committee. He was also the chairman of the Young Republicans of Florida. According to its website, "The Lou Frey Institute promotes the development of enlightened, responsible, and actively engaged citizens. The Institute works to accomplish its mission: <ul><li>through civic education programs that encourage thoughtful debate and discussion about current policy issues;</li> <li>through experiential learning programs that encourage the development of civic and political skills;</li> <li>by working to help strengthen the civic education capacity of Florida’s k-12 education system; and</li> <li>through research, policy analysis, and advocacy."</li> </ul> Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a>. Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Original Format 1-page typewritten letter Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title Letter Template from Representative Louis Frey, Jr., 1972 Description A draft of a stock response letter from U.S. Representative Louis Frey, Jr. (1934-2019) to constituents who expressed their opinion that Brevard County, Florida, needed a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital. Re. Lou Frey served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1969 to 1979. He was on several committees during his time in office, including the Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control and the Science and Technology Committee. He was also the chairman of the Young Republicans of Florida. During his tenure, Central Florida had a very large veteran population but insufficient VA medical facilities. For example, the closest VA hospital to Brevard County was in St. Petersburg. To more sufficiently care for the needs of veterans in his district, Rep. Frey introduced multiple bills to Congress that would establish a VA hospital in Brevard County, although none of his bills were passed. Source Original letter template from Lou Frey, Jr., 1972: Lou Frey Papers, box 6, <a href="http://loufreyinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government</a>, Special Collections and University Archives, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida. Date Created 1972 Coverage Brevard County, Florida St. Petersburg, Florida Rights Holder Copyright to this resource is held by the <a href="http://loufreyinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government</a> and is provided here by <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> for educational purposes only. Source Repository <a href="http://library.ucf.edu/about/departments/special-collections-university-archives/" target="_blank">University of Central Florida, Special Collections and University Archives</a> External Reference "<a href="%20http%3A//loufreyjr.com/" target="_blank">Congressman Lou Frey, Jr. Biography</a>." Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government. http://loufreyjr.com/. "<a href="http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=F000381" target="_blank">FREY, Louis, Jr., (1934 - )</a>." Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, United States Congress. http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=F000381. Frey, Lou, and Aubrey Jewett. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/422763388">Political Rules of the Road: Representatives, Senators, and Presidents Share Their Rules for Success in Congress, Politics, and Life</a>. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2009. Frey, Lou, and Michael T. Hayes.<a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/45419938">Inside the House: Former Members Reveal How Congress Really Works</a>. Lanham, MD: U.S. Association of Former Members of Congress, 2001. Shaw, Frederick J. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/57007862">Locating Air Force Base Sites: History's Legacy</a>. Washington D.C.: Air Force History and Museums Program, United States Air Force, 2004. Transcript Verterans’ , 1972 Dear : Many thanks for your recent correspondence in regard to your interest in obtaining a veterans’ hospotal in Brevard County. Your interest in this matter is appreciated. I have recently introduced legislation to establish such a hospital in Brevard. As you know, in Brevard there are over 40,000 veterans which doesn’t include veterns in nearby counties, who must travel at least 161 miles to the nearest VA hospital in St. Petersberg. There is an estimated 15,000 veterans in Brevard County now traveling great distances to the four VA hospitals in Florida. Establishment of a VA hospital in Brevard would certainly alleviate this problem. My bill would establish a 500 bed veterans’ hospital which could be staffed by the many qualified professional people available in Brevard. There are also at least five construction sites available for this facility at no cost to the Government. You can be sure I will be working toward and doing all I can to urge prompt consideration of this bill. Thanks again for writing and sharing your comments with me. If I can be of any assistance to you, please let me know. Most sincerely, Lou Frey, Jr. LFJr/kah Alternative Title Letter Template from Rep. Lou Frey (1972) Subject Frey, Lou, 1934- Brevard County (Fla.) Congress Veterans--Florida Hospitals--Florida Creator Frey, Lou, Jr. Is Format Of Digital reproduction of original letter template from Lou Frey, Jr., 1972. Is Part Of Lou Frey Papers, box 6, <a href="http://loufreyinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government</a>, Special Collections and University Archives, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida. <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/73" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government Collection</a>, RICHES of Central Florida. Format image/jpg Extent 116 KB Medium 1-page typewritten letter Language eng Type Text Accrual Method Donation Mediator History Teacher Civics/Government Teacher Provenance Originally created by Lou Frey, Jr. Contributing Project <a href="http://loufreyinstitute.org/" target="_blank">Lou Frey Institute of Politics & Government</a> Curator Mayer, Erica Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> airport Brevard County Congress Department of Veterans Affairs Frey, Lou, Jr. Frey, Louis, Jr. health care hospital representative U.S. House of Representatives VA veteran Veterans Affairs Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A History of Central Florida Collection Alternative Title History of Central Florida Collection Subject Podcasts Documentaries Description A History of Central Florida Podcast series explores Central Florida's history through the artifacts found in local area museums and historical societies. Contributor <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a> Cassanello, Robert Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/70" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries Collection</a>, RICHES of Central Florida. Language eng Type Collection Coverage Altoona, Florida Astor, Florida Brevard County, Florida Bushnell, Florida Clermont, Florida Cocoa Beach, Florida Daytona Beach, Florida DeLand, Florida Disston City, Florida Fort King, Florida Geneva, Florida Goldenrod, Florida Groveland, Florida Holly Hill, Florida Hontoon Island, DeLand, Florida Jacksonville, Florida Kissimmee, Florida Lake Apopka, Florida Lake County, Florida Lake Mary, Florida Marion County, Florida Merritt Island, Florida Miami, Florida Mims, Florida Mount Dora, Florida Newnans Lake, Gainesville, Florida New Smyrna, Florida New Smyrna Beach, Florida Ocala, Florida Ocklawaha River, Florida Orlando, Florida Ormond Beach, Florida Osceola County, Florida Sanford, Florida Silver Springs, Florida St. Augustine, Florida St. Cloud, Florida St. Johns River, Florida St. Petersburg, Florida Tampa, Florida Tavares, Florida Weirsdale, Florida Winter Garden, Florida Winter Park, Florida Ybor City, Tampa, Florida Rights Holder <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES</a> Contributing Project <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a> Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Source Repository <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a> External Reference "<a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a>." RICHES of Central Florida. http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php. Moving Image A series of visual representations that, when shown in succession, impart an impression of motion. Duration 14 minutes and 4 seconds Original Format 1 video podcast Producer Cassanello, Robert Director Ford, Chip Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A History of Central Florida, Episode 1: Windover Burial Site Alternative Title Windover Burial Site Podcast Subject Brevard County (Fla.) Burial--Florida Archaeology--Florida Native Americans--Florida Textiles Description Episode 1 of the second season of A History of Central Florida: Windover Burial Site. RICHES Podcast Documentaries are short form narrative documentaries that explore Central Florida history and are locally produced. These podcasts can involve the participation or cooperation of local area partners. Episode 1 features the Windover Burial Site in Brevard County, Florida. This podcast also includes interviews with Rachel K. Wentz of the Florida Public Archaeology Network, Dr. Jerald T. Milanich of the University of Florida, and Dr. Glen Doran of Florida State University. The Windover Archaeological Site was discovered in 1982 and funding to excavate the pond was awarded in 1984. Windover Pond, along with other sites excavated since 1970, contributed to the major reassessment of Florida's Archaic Period. Type Moving Image Source Original 14-minute and 4-second podcast by Chip Ford, November 19, 2013: "A History of Central Florida, Episode 1: Windover Burial Site." RICHES Podcast Documentaries, Orlando, Florida. Requires <a href="http://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/" target="_blank">Adobe Flash Player</a> <a href="http://java.com/en/download/index.jsp" target="_blank">Java</a> Is Part Of <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a>, Orlando, Florida. <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/137" target="_blank">A History of Central Florida Collection</a>, RICHES Podcast Documentaries Collection, RICHES of Central Florida. Coverage Windover Burial Site, Brevard County, Florida Creator Ford, Chip Publisher <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES</a> Contributor Cassanello, Robert Wentz, Rachel K. Milanich, Jerald T. Doran, Glen Clarke, Bob Gibson, Ella Kelley, Katie <a href="http://www.floridamemory.com/" target="_blank">Florida Memory Project</a> <a href="http://www.flheritage.com/" target="_blank">Florida Department of State Division of Historical Resources</a> <a href="http://thehistorycenter.org/" target="_blank">Orange County Regional History Center</a> Date Created ca. 2013-11-19 Date Issued 2013-11-19 Format video/mp4 Medium 14-minute and 4-second podcast Language eng Mediator History Teacher Geography Teacher Humanities Teacher Provenance Originally created by Chip Ford and published by <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES</a>. Rights Holder <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES</a> Accrual Method Item Creation Contributing Project <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a> Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Source Repository <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a> External Reference "<a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/items/show/3435" target="_blank">A History of Central Florida, Episode 1: Windover Burial Site</a>." RICHES of Central Florida. https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/items/show/3435. Richardson, Joseph L. "<a href="http://www.nbbd.com/godo/history/windover/" target="_blank">The Windover Archaeological Research Project</a>." North Brevard Business Directory. 1997. http://www.nbbd.com/godo/history/windover/. Doran, Glen H. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/48045600" target="_blank">Windover: Multidisciplinary Investigations of an Early Archaic Florida Cemetery</a>. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2002. Wentz, Rachel K. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/815558045" target="_blank">Life and Death at Windover: Excavations of a 7,000-Year-Old Pond Cemetery</a>. Cocoa, Fla: The Florida Historical Society Press, 2012. Milanich, Jerald T. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/48138342" target="_blank">Florida's Indians from Ancient Times to the Present</a>. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 1998. Milanich, Jerald T. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/48138686" target="_blank">Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida</a>. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 1994. Brown, Robin C. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/29255314" target="_blank">Florida's First People: 12,000 Years of Human History</a>. Sarasota, Fla: Pineapple Press, 1994. Click to View (Movie, Podcast, or Website) <a href="http://youtu.be/-UYVBFHo-As" target="_blank">A History of Central Florida, Episode 1: Windover Burial Site</a> Date Copyrighted ca. 2013-11-19 Extent 55.6 MB Is Referenced By "<a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/items/show/3438" target="_blank">A History of Central Florida, Episode 4: Celts</a>." RICHES of Central Florida. https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/items/show/3438. A History of Central Florida Arachaic Indian archaeological site archaeology Archaic Period Brevard County Brevard Museum of History and Natural Science burial burial site cemetery Clarke, Bob documentary Doran, Glen fabric Florida Public Archaeology Network Florida State University Ford, Chip FSU Gibson, Ella Ice Age Kelley, Katie Milanich, Jerald T. mortuary analysis Native American OCRHC Orange County Regional History Center podcast Precolumbian Prehistoric Robert Cassanello textile textile manufacturing Tool UF University of Florida Wentz, Rachel Wentz, Rachel K. wet site Windover Archaeological Site Windover Burial Site Windover Pond wood wood tool woodworking https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka/files/original/72072818d87fd39cd917c308b92b14d9.pdf 76d5129ccf7510959bc8051004d607aa Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title Florida Land Colonization Company Collection Alternative Title FLCC Collection Subject Sanford, Henry Shelton, 1823-1891 Sanford (Fla.) Mackinnon, William, 1823-1893 Polk County (Fla.) Sumter County (Fla.) Hernando County (Fla.) Brevard County (Fla.) Volusia County (Fla.) Manayunk (Philadelphia, Pa.) Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/107" target="_blank">William MacKinnon Collection</a>, Henry Shelton Sanford Papers Collection, RICHES of Central Florida. Language eng Type Collection Coverage Sanford, Florida Manayunk Bank, Manayunk, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania New York City, New York Washington, D.C. Brussels, Belgium Gingelom, Belgium Hombourg, Belgium Berlin, Germany Florida Land and Colonization Company, London, England, United Kingdom Curator Cepero, Laura Fedorka, Drew M. Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Source Repository General Henry S. Sanford Memorial Library, <a href="http://www.sanfordfl.gov/index.aspx?page=456" target="_blank">Sanford Museum</a> External Reference Fry, Joseph A. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/8475473" target="_blank">Henry S. Sanford: Diplomacy and Business in Nineteenth-Century America</a>. Reno, NV: University of Nevada Press, 1982. Tischendorf, Alfred P. "<a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/35894049" target="_blank">Florida and the British Investor: 1880-1914</a>." Florida Historical Quarterly 33, no. 2 (Oct. 1954): 120-129. Amundson, Richard J. "<a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/4894931414" target="_blank">The Florida Land and Colonization Company</a>." Florida Historical Quarterly 44, no. 3 (Jan. 1966): 153-168. Munro, J. Forbes. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/57653564">Maritime Enterprise and Empire: Sir William MacKinnon and His Business Network, 1823-1893</a>. Rochester, NY: Boydell Press, 2003. Kendall, John S. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1836396" target="_blank">History of New Orleans</a>. Chicago: Lewis Publishing Company, 1922. Description The Florida Land and Colonization Company (FLCC) was a joint-stock venture that invested in Florida land development and sales in the 1880s and early 1890s. The company was formed by Henry Shelton Sanford (1823-1891) with help from a group of British investors. The original impetus for the company's formation was Sanford's inability to continue his land acquisition and development efforts in Florida independently. In 1879, faced with financial difficulties, Sanford turned to a trusted associate in the United Kingdom, a Scottish industrialist named Sir William Mackinnon (1823-1893), to help him attract investors. The formation of the company was in large part due to the efforts of MacKinnon, whose reputation and influence helped bring investors on board. Located at 13 Austin Friars, the company was officially registered in London on June 10, 1880. With the formation of the FLCC, all of Henry Sanford's Florida properties were transferred to the company in exchange for a £10,000 cash payment and another £50,000 in company stock. The one-time cash payment was a needed reprieve for Sanford, who faced financial difficulties by the end of the 1870s. The board of directors included Mackinnon, as well as W. C. Gray and Edwyn Sandys Dawes, partners in Gray-Dawes and Company, a London-based banking and investment house. Other directors included Alexander Fraser, Anthony Norris, George A. Thomson, and Eli Lee. Sanford was named President and Chairman of the Board. In 1880, the company owned 26,000 acres scattered across Florida, including in the cities of Jacksonville, St. Augustine, and Sanford, as well as in Alachua County and Marion County. Almost from the outset, there was serious friction between the British board members and Henry Sanford. Disagreements erupted over business strategy, as Sanford frequently proposed initiatives deemed too bold for the cautious British investors. From 1882 to 1892, the company saw steady, if meager, profits. Most of its income came from the sale of lots in the city of Sanford. From 1885 until 1890, the company, while remaining solvent, continued to see declining profits. From 1886 to 1890, the profits were so modest that the company declined to pay dividends on its yearly profits. Needed improvements and developments in the city of Sanford during the late 1880s sapped much of the company's income. Following Henry Sanford's death in 1891, many of the investors lost the motivation to continue. On September 15, 1892, the various directors acted to dissolve the company. Its assets, including roughly 65,000 acres of Florida land, were divided among shareholders. Contributor <a href="http://www.sanfordfl.gov/index.aspx?page=456" target="_blank">Sanford Museum</a> Provenance Collection dontated to the <a href="http://www.chs.org/" target="_blank">Connecticut Historical Society</a> after 1901. Collection loaned to the <a href="http://www.tn.gov/tsla/" target="_blank">Tennessee State Library and Archives</a> for processing until June 1, 1960. Collection acquired by the General Henry S. Sanford Memorial Library, <a href="http://www.sanfordfl.gov/index.aspx?page=456" target="_blank">Sanford Museum</a> in 1960. Rights Holder The displayed collection items are housed at the General Henry S. Sanford Memorial Library, <a href="http://www.sanfordfl.gov/index.aspx?page=456" target="_blank">Sanford Museum</a> in Sanford, Florida. Rights to these items belong to the said institution, and therefore inquiries about items should be directed there. <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> has obtained permission from the <a href="http://www.sanfordfl.gov/index.aspx?page=456" target="_blank">Sanford Museum</a> to display this item for educational purposes only. Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Original Format 2-page handwritten letter and statement Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title Letter and Statement from A. W. Macfarlane to Henry Shelton Sanford (September 29, 1885) Alternative Title Letter and Statement from Macfarlane to Sanford (September 29, 1885) Subject Sanford, Henry Shelton, 1823-1891 Investments, British--United States Sanford (Fla.) Description A letter from A. W. Macfarlane to Henry Shelton Sanford dated September 29, 1885. Macfarlane was the secretary for the Florida Land and Colonization Company (FLCC) from 1884 until its dissolution in 1892. Presumably, he worked in the company's main office, located at 13 Austin Friars in the business district of London, United Kingdom. Attached to this letter is a statement listing the various acreage and book values of the company's property in Florida. The statement noted that as of September 1885 the company owned some 79,632.72 acres valued collectively at £84,262.12. At the time, the company owned land scattered throughout Florida in Alachua, Brevard, Hernando, Hillsboro, Manatee, Marion, Monroe, Orange, Polk, Sumter, and Volusia counties. It also owned settlements named Middleground and Anclote. Lastly, the company owned large tracts of land, including the Powell Grant and Sanford Grant, as well as the entire town of Sanford. At the time, the largest single property was the Sanford Grant at 7,813.42 acres. The county with the most scattered land held by the company was Polk County at 21,661.84 acres. The county with the smallest amount of land owned by the company was Volusia County, with only 79.91 acres. The Florida Land and Colonization Company (FLCC) was a joint-stock venture that invested in Florida land development and sales in the 1880s and early 1890s. The company was formed by Henry Shelton Sanford (1823-1891) with help from a group of British investors. The original impetus for the company's formation was Sanford's inability to continue his land acquisition and development efforts in Florida independently. In 1879, faced with financial difficulties, Sanford turned to a trusted associate in the United Kingdom, a Scottish industrialist named Sir William Mackinnon (1823-1893), to help him attract investors. The formation of the company was in large part due to the efforts of MacKinnon, whose reputation and influence helped bring investors on board. Located at 13 Austin Friars, the company was officially registered in London on June 10, 1880. With the formation of the FLCC, all of Henry Sanford's Florida properties were transferred to the company in exchange for a £10,000 cash payment and another £50,000 in company stock. The one-time cash payment was a needed reprieve for Sanford, who faced financial difficulties by the end of the 1870s. The board of directors included Mackinnon, as well as W. C. Gray and Edwyn Sandys Dawes, partners in Gray-Dawes and Company, a London-based banking and investment house. Other directors included Alexander Fraser, Anthony Norris, George A. Thomson, and Eli Lee. Sanford was named President and Chairman of the Board. In 1880, the company owned 26,000 acres scattered across Florida, including in the cities of Jacksonville, St. Augustine, and Sanford, as well as in Alachua County and Marion County. Almost from the outset, there was serious friction between the British board members and Henry Sanford. Disagreements erupted over business strategy, as Sanford frequently proposed initiatives deemed too bold for the cautious British investors. From 1882 to 1892, the company saw steady, if meager, profits. Most of its income came from the sale of lots in the city of Sanford. From 1885 until 1890, the company, while remaining solvent, continued to see declining profits. From 1886 to 1890, the profits were so modest that the company declined to pay dividends on its yearly profits. Needed improvements and developments in the city of Sanford during the late 1880s sapped much of the company's income. Following Henry Sanford's death in 1891, many of the investors lost the motivation to continue. On September 15, 1892, the various directors acted to dissolve the company. Its assets, including roughly 65,000 acres of Florida land, were divided among shareholders. Type Text Source Original letter and statement from A. W. Macfarlane to Henry Shelton Sanford, September 29, 1885: box 54, folder 1, subfolder 54.1.13, Henry Shelton Sanford Papers, General Henry S. Sanford Memorial Library, <a href="http://www.sanfordfl.gov/index.aspx?page=456" target="_blank">Sanford Museum</a>, Sanford, Florida. Requires <a href="http://www.adobe.com/reader.html" target="_blank">Adobe Acrobat Reader</a> Is Part Of Box 54, folder 1, subfolder 1.13, Henry Shelton Sanford Papers, Henry Shelton Sanford Papers, General Henry S. Sanford Memorial Library, <a href="http://www.sanfordfl.gov/index.aspx?page=456" target="_blank">Sanford Museum</a>, Sanford, Florida. <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/98" target="_blank">Florida Land Colonization Company Collection</a>, Henry Shelton Sanford Papers Collection, RICHES of Central Florida. Is Format Of Digital reproduction of original letter and statement from A. W. Macfarlane to Henry Shelton Sanford, September 29, 1885. Coverage Florida Land and Colonization Company, London, England, United Kingdom Brussels, Belgium Alachua County, Florida Brevard County, Florida Hernando County, Florida Hillsborough County, Florida Manatee County, Florida Marion County, Florida Monroe County, Florida Orange County, Florida Polk County, Florida Sumter County, Florida Volusia County, Florida Creator Macfarlane, A. W. Date Created 1885-09-29 Format application/pdf Extent 242 KB Medium 2-page handwritten letter and statement Language eng Mediator History Teacher Economics Teacher Provenance Originally created by A. W. Macfarlane. Donated to the <a href="http://www.chs.org/" target="_blank">Connecticut Historical Society</a> after 1901. Loaned to the <a href="http://www.tn.gov/tsla/" target="_blank">Tennessee State Library and Archives</a> for processing until June 1, 1960. Acquired by the General Henry S. Sanford Memorial Library, <a href="http://www.sanfordfl.gov/index.aspx?page=456" target="_blank">Sanford Museum</a> in 1960. Rights Holder The displayed collection item is housed at the General Henry S. Sanford Memorial Library, <a href="http://www.sanfordfl.gov/index.aspx?page=456" target="_blank">Sanford Museum</a> in Sanford, Florida. Rights to this item belong to the said institution, and therefore inquiries about the item should be directed there. RICHES of Central Florida has obtained permission from the <a href="http://www.sanfordfl.gov/index.aspx?page=456" target="_blank">Sanford Museum</a> to display this item for educational purposes only. Accrual Method Donation Curator Fedorka, Drew M. Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Source Repository <a href="http://www.sanfordfl.gov/index.aspx?page=456" target="_blank">Sanford Museum</a> External Reference Fry, Joseph A. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/8475473" target="_blank">Diplomacy and Business in Nineteenth-Century America</a>. Reno, NV: University of Nevada Press, 1982. Tischendorf, Alfred P. "<a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/35894049" target="_blank">Florida and the British Investor: 1880-1914</a>." Florida Historical Quarterly 33, no. 2 (Oct. 1954): 120-129. Amundson, Richard J. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/5544058697" target="_blank">"The Florida Land and Colonization Company</a>." Florida Historical Quarterly 44, no. 3 (Jan. 1966): 153-168. Munro, J. Forbes. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/57653564">Maritime Enterprise and Empire: Sir William MacKinnon and His Business Network, 1823-1893</a>. Rochester, NY: Boydell Press, 2003. Alachua County Austin Friars Brevard County FLCC Florida Land and Colonization Company Hernando County Hillsborough County investment Macfarlane, A. W. Manatee County Marion County Middleground, Anclote Monroe County orange county Polk County Powell Grant property real estate Sanford Sanford Grant Sanford, Henry Shelton Sumter County Volusia County https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka/files/original/e5c49d28bc885588581cbcd12eb5a1fb.pdf ddded1bef0567f178f0bf7b2045aff53 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title Florida Land Colonization Company Collection Alternative Title FLCC Collection Subject Sanford, Henry Shelton, 1823-1891 Sanford (Fla.) Mackinnon, William, 1823-1893 Polk County (Fla.) Sumter County (Fla.) Hernando County (Fla.) Brevard County (Fla.) Volusia County (Fla.) Manayunk (Philadelphia, Pa.) Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/107" target="_blank">William MacKinnon Collection</a>, Henry Shelton Sanford Papers Collection, RICHES of Central Florida. Language eng Type Collection Coverage Sanford, Florida Manayunk Bank, Manayunk, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania New York City, New York Washington, D.C. Brussels, Belgium Gingelom, Belgium Hombourg, Belgium Berlin, Germany Florida Land and Colonization Company, London, England, United Kingdom Curator Cepero, Laura Fedorka, Drew M. Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Source Repository General Henry S. Sanford Memorial Library, <a href="http://www.sanfordfl.gov/index.aspx?page=456" target="_blank">Sanford Museum</a> External Reference Fry, Joseph A. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/8475473" target="_blank">Henry S. Sanford: Diplomacy and Business in Nineteenth-Century America</a>. Reno, NV: University of Nevada Press, 1982. Tischendorf, Alfred P. "<a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/35894049" target="_blank">Florida and the British Investor: 1880-1914</a>." Florida Historical Quarterly 33, no. 2 (Oct. 1954): 120-129. Amundson, Richard J. "<a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/4894931414" target="_blank">The Florida Land and Colonization Company</a>." Florida Historical Quarterly 44, no. 3 (Jan. 1966): 153-168. Munro, J. Forbes. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/57653564">Maritime Enterprise and Empire: Sir William MacKinnon and His Business Network, 1823-1893</a>. Rochester, NY: Boydell Press, 2003. Kendall, John S. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1836396" target="_blank">History of New Orleans</a>. Chicago: Lewis Publishing Company, 1922. Description The Florida Land and Colonization Company (FLCC) was a joint-stock venture that invested in Florida land development and sales in the 1880s and early 1890s. The company was formed by Henry Shelton Sanford (1823-1891) with help from a group of British investors. The original impetus for the company's formation was Sanford's inability to continue his land acquisition and development efforts in Florida independently. In 1879, faced with financial difficulties, Sanford turned to a trusted associate in the United Kingdom, a Scottish industrialist named Sir William Mackinnon (1823-1893), to help him attract investors. The formation of the company was in large part due to the efforts of MacKinnon, whose reputation and influence helped bring investors on board. Located at 13 Austin Friars, the company was officially registered in London on June 10, 1880. With the formation of the FLCC, all of Henry Sanford's Florida properties were transferred to the company in exchange for a £10,000 cash payment and another £50,000 in company stock. The one-time cash payment was a needed reprieve for Sanford, who faced financial difficulties by the end of the 1870s. The board of directors included Mackinnon, as well as W. C. Gray and Edwyn Sandys Dawes, partners in Gray-Dawes and Company, a London-based banking and investment house. Other directors included Alexander Fraser, Anthony Norris, George A. Thomson, and Eli Lee. Sanford was named President and Chairman of the Board. In 1880, the company owned 26,000 acres scattered across Florida, including in the cities of Jacksonville, St. Augustine, and Sanford, as well as in Alachua County and Marion County. Almost from the outset, there was serious friction between the British board members and Henry Sanford. Disagreements erupted over business strategy, as Sanford frequently proposed initiatives deemed too bold for the cautious British investors. From 1882 to 1892, the company saw steady, if meager, profits. Most of its income came from the sale of lots in the city of Sanford. From 1885 until 1890, the company, while remaining solvent, continued to see declining profits. From 1886 to 1890, the profits were so modest that the company declined to pay dividends on its yearly profits. Needed improvements and developments in the city of Sanford during the late 1880s sapped much of the company's income. Following Henry Sanford's death in 1891, many of the investors lost the motivation to continue. On September 15, 1892, the various directors acted to dissolve the company. Its assets, including roughly 65,000 acres of Florida land, were divided among shareholders. Contributor <a href="http://www.sanfordfl.gov/index.aspx?page=456" target="_blank">Sanford Museum</a> Provenance Collection dontated to the <a href="http://www.chs.org/" target="_blank">Connecticut Historical Society</a> after 1901. Collection loaned to the <a href="http://www.tn.gov/tsla/" target="_blank">Tennessee State Library and Archives</a> for processing until June 1, 1960. Collection acquired by the General Henry S. Sanford Memorial Library, <a href="http://www.sanfordfl.gov/index.aspx?page=456" target="_blank">Sanford Museum</a> in 1960. Rights Holder The displayed collection items are housed at the General Henry S. Sanford Memorial Library, <a href="http://www.sanfordfl.gov/index.aspx?page=456" target="_blank">Sanford Museum</a> in Sanford, Florida. Rights to these items belong to the said institution, and therefore inquiries about items should be directed there. <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> has obtained permission from the <a href="http://www.sanfordfl.gov/index.aspx?page=456" target="_blank">Sanford Museum</a> to display this item for educational purposes only. Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Original Format 2-page handwritten letter Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title Letter from A. W. Macfarlane to Henry Shelton Sanford (October 3, 1884) Alternative Title Letter from Macfarlane to Sanford (October 3, 1884) Subject Sanford, Henry Shelton, 1823-1891 Investments, British--United States Sanford (Fla.) Polk County (Fla.) Sumter County (Fla.) Hernando County (Fla.) Brevard County (Fla.) Volusia County (Fla.) Description A letter from A. W. Macfarlane to Henry Shelton Sanford dated October 3, 1884. Macfarlane was the secretary for the Florida Land and Colonization Company (FLCC) from 1884 until its dissolution in 1892. Presumably, he worked in the company's main office, located at 13 Austin Friars in the business district of London, United Kingdom. In this letter, Macfarlane discussed the minutes from the previous meeting of the board of directors. Sanford, staying in Belgium at the time, was unable to attend. Perhaps the most important board decision, conveyed by Macfarlane, was the transfer of the power to sign deeds. The board decided that it was in the company's best interest to transfer this power from Henry Sanford to E. R. Trafford and William Beardall. Trafford was the company's agent based in Sanford, Florida, while Beardall was sent to Sanford from London to serve as the Assistant Manager in the FLCC's Sanford office. The action, taken by the board, reflected the strained relations between Henry Sanford and his London-based partners. It represented an effort to limit the powers and influence of Henry Sanford in company decision-making and instead to reallocate these powers to two company-appointed agents. The Florida Land and Colonization Company (FLCC) was a joint-stock venture that invested in Florida land development and sales in the 1880s and early 1890s. The company was formed by Henry Shelton Sanford (1823-1891) with help from a group of British investors. The original impetus for the company's formation was Sanford's inability to continue his land acquisition and development efforts in Florida independently. In 1879, faced with financial difficulties, Sanford turned to a trusted associate in the United Kingdom, a Scottish industrialist named Sir William Mackinnon (1823-1893), to help him attract investors. The formation of the company was in large part due to the efforts of MacKinnon, whose reputation and influence helped bring investors on board. Located at 13 Austin Friars, the company was officially registered in London on June 10, 1880. With the formation of the FLCC, all of Henry Sanford's Florida properties were transferred to the company in exchange for a £10,000 cash payment and another £50,000 in company stock. The one-time cash payment was a needed reprieve for Sanford, who faced financial difficulties by the end of the 1870s. The board of directors included Mackinnon, as well as W. C. Gray and Edwyn Sandys Dawes, partners in Gray-Dawes and Company, a London-based banking and investment house. Other directors included Alexander Fraser, Anthony Norris, George A. Thomson, and Eli Lee. Sanford was named President and Chairman of the Board. In 1880, the company owned 26,000 acres scattered across Florida, including in the cities of Jacksonville, St. Augustine, and Sanford, as well as in Alachua County and Marion County. Almost from the outset, there was serious friction between the British board members and Henry Sanford. Disagreements erupted over business strategy, as Sanford frequently proposed initiatives deemed too bold for the cautious British investors. From 1882 to 1892, the company saw steady, if meager, profits. Most of its income came from the sale of lots in the city of Sanford. From 1885 until 1890, the company, while remaining solvent, continued to see declining profits. From 1886 to 1890, the profits were so modest that the company declined to pay dividends on its yearly profits. Needed improvements and developments in the city of Sanford during the late 1880s sapped much of the company's income. Following Henry Sanford's death in 1891, many of the investors lost the motivation to continue. On September 15, 1892, the various directors acted to dissolve the company. Its assets, including roughly 65,000 acres of Florida land, were divided among shareholders. Type Text Source Original letter from A. W. Macfarlane to Henry Shelton Sanford, October 3, 1884: box 54, folder 1, subfolder 1.3, Henry Shelton Sanford Papers, General Henry S. Sanford Memorial Library, <a href="http://www.sanfordfl.gov/index.aspx?page=456" target="_blank">Sanford Museum</a>, Sanford, Florida. Requires <a href="http://www.adobe.com/reader.html" target="_blank">Adobe Acrobat Reader</a> Is Part Of Box 54, folder 1, subfolder 1.3, Henry Shelton Sanford Papers, Henry Shelton Sanford Papers, General Henry S. Sanford Memorial Library, <a href="http://www.sanfordfl.gov/index.aspx?page=456" target="_blank">Sanford Museum</a>, Sanford, Florida.. <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/98" target="_blank">Florida Land Colonization Company Collection</a>, Henry Shelton Sanford Papers Collection, RICHES of Central Florida. Is Format Of Digital reproduction of original letter from A. W. Macfarlane to Henry Shelton Sanford, October 3, 1884. Coverage Florida Land and Colonization Company, London, England, United Kingdom Gingelom, Belgium Sanford, Florida Polk County, Florida Sumter County, Florida Hernando County, Florida Brevard County, Florida Volusia County, Florida Creator Macfarlane, A. W. Date Created 1884-10-03 Format application/pdf Extent 506 KB Medium 2-page handwritten letter Language eng Mediator History Teacher Economics Teacher Provenance Originally created by A. W. Macfarlane. Donated to the <a href="http://www.chs.org/" target="_blank">Connecticut Historical Society</a> after 1901. Loaned to the <a href="http://www.tn.gov/tsla/" target="_blank">Tennessee State Library and Archives</a> for processing until June 1, 1960. Acquired by the General Henry S. Sanford Memorial Library, <a href="http://www.sanfordfl.gov/index.aspx?page=456" target="_blank">Sanford Museum</a> in 1960. Rights Holder The displayed collection item is housed at the General Henry S. Sanford Memorial Library, <a href="http://www.sanfordfl.gov/index.aspx?page=456" target="_blank">Sanford Museum</a> in Sanford, Florida. Rights to this item belong to the said institution, and therefore inquiries about the item should be directed there. RICHES of Central Florida has obtained permission from the <a href="http://www.sanfordfl.gov/index.aspx?page=456" target="_blank">Sanford Museum</a> to display this item for educational purposes only. Accrual Method Donation Curator Fedorka, Drew M. Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Source Repository <a href="http://www.sanfordfl.gov/index.aspx?page=456" target="_blank">Sanford Museum</a> External Reference Fry, Joseph A. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/8475473" target="_blank">Diplomacy and Business in Nineteenth-Century America</a>. Reno, NV: University of Nevada Press, 1982. Tischendorf, Alfred P. "<a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/35894049" target="_blank">Florida and the British Investor: 1880-1914</a>." Florida Historical Quarterly 33, no. 2 (Oct. 1954): 120-129. Amundson, Richard J. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/5544058697" target="_blank">"The Florida Land and Colonization Company</a>." Florida Historical Quarterly 44, no. 3 (Jan. 1966): 153-168. Munro, J. Forbes. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/57653564">Maritime Enterprise and Empire: Sir William MacKinnon and His Business Network, 1823-1893</a>. Rochester, NY: Boydell Press, 2003. Austin Friars Beardall, William board meeting board of directors Brevard County deed FLCC Florida Land and Colonization Company Gingelom, Belgium Hernando County investment Macfarlane, A. W. Polk County Sanford Sanford, Henry Shelton Sumter County Trafford, E. R. Volusia County https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka/files/original/7a9bb2190e6e752986e48961eb8d94d1.mp3 977524754af52b0775aac7cc753b198f Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title RICHES Podcast Documentaries Collection Alternative Title RICHES Podcast Collection Subject Podcasts Documentaries Description RICHES Podcast Documentaries are short form narrative documentaries that explore Central Florida history and are locally produced. These podcasts can involve the participation or cooperation of local area partners. Contributor <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a> Cassanello, Robert Language eng Type Collection Coverage Altoona, Florida Apopka, Florida Astor, Florida Barberville, Florida Brevard County, Florida Bushnell, Florida Clermont, Florida Cocoa, Florida Cocoa Beach, Florida College Park, Orlando, Florida Coral Gables, Florida Daytona Beach, Florida DeLand, Florida Disston City, Florida Eatonville, Florida Eau Gallie, Melbourne, Florida Fort King, Florida Fort Lauderdale, Florida Geneva, Florida Goldenrod, Florida Groveland, Florida Hannibal Square, Winter Park, Florida Holly Hill, Florida Hontoon Island, DeLand, Florida Indian River, Florida Jacksonville, Florida Key Biscayne, Florida Key West, Florida Kissimmee, Florida Lake Apopka, Florida Lake Buena Vista, Florida Lake County, Florida Lake Mary, Florida Marion County, Florida Merritt Island, Florida Mims, Florida Mount Dora, Florida Newnans Lake, Gainesville, Florida New Smyrna, Florida New Smyrna Beach, Florida Ocala, Florida Ocklawaha River, Florida Ocoee, Florida Orlando, Florida Ormond Beach, Florida Osceola County, Florida Oviedo, Florida Parramore, Orlando, Florida Reedy Creek, Florida Sanford, Florida Silver Springs, Florida St. Augustine, Florida St. Cloud, Florida St. Johns River, Florida St. Petersburg, Florida Tampa, Florida Titusville, Florida Vero Beach, Florida Weirsdale, Florida Winter Garden, Florida Winter Park, Florida Ybor City, Tampa, Florida Contributing Project <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a> Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Source Repository <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a> External Reference "<a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a>." RICHES of Central Florida. http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php. Has Part <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/137" target="_blank">A History of Central Florida Collection</a>, RICHES Podcast Documentaries Collection, RICHES of Central Florida. Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/" target="_blank">RICHES</a>. Rights Holder <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES </a> Sound/Podcast A resource whose content is primarily intended to be rendered as audio. Original Format 1 audio podcast Duration 18 minutes and 1 second Bit Rate/Frequency 128kbps Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title RICHES Podcast Documentaries, Episode 38: The Wells Built Hotel Alternative Title Wells Built Hotel Podcast Subject Podcasts Documentaries Physicians--Florida Segregation--Florida Casinos--United States Hotels--Florida Orlando (Fla.) Description Episode 38 of RICHES Podcast Documentaries: The Wells Built Hotel. RICHES Podcast Documentaries are short form narrative documentaries that explore Central Florida history and are locally produced. These podcasts can involve the participation or cooperation of local area partners. Episode 38 focuses on the Wells' Built Hotel, which was constructed at 511 West South Street in Orlando, Florida in 1921. The hotel was constructed by one of Orlando's first African-American physicians, Dr. William Monroe Wells, to accommodate African-Americans who could not otherwise find welcome lodging due to segregation. Dr. Wells also built the South Street Casino, which was host to a various African-American performers traveling along the Chitlin' Circuit. In 1997, the building was acquired by the Association to Preserve African American Society, History and Tradition, Inc., which sought to restore and preserve the structure. Although the casino no longer remains, the original Wells' Built Hotel was added to the U.S. National Register of Historic Places on February 4, 2000. In June 2009, the hotel reopened as the Wells' Built Museum of African American History and Culture. Abstract Amidst a racially segregated Central Florida, one of Orlando’s first black physicians, Dr. William Monroe Wells, constructed a hotel to accommodate African-Americans who could not otherwise find welcome lodging. Next door, he built the South St. Casino, which in its prime was host a thrilling list of visiting performers from the famous “Chitlin’ Circuit,” as well as other prominent African-Americans. In this podcast, Dr. Benjamin D. Brotemarkle talks about the rise, fall, and restoration of this historic landmark. Type Sound/Podcast Source Original 18-minute and 1-second podcast by Geoffrey Cravero, September 14, 2012: "RICHES Podcast Documentaries, Episode 38: The Wells Built Hotel." <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a>, Orlando, Florida. Is Part Of <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a>, Orlando, Florida. <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/70" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries Collection</a>, RICHES of Central Florida. Coverage Wells Built Hotel, Parramore, Orlando, Florida Wells' Built Museum of African American History and Culture, Parramore, Orlando, Florida Creator Cravero, Geoffrey Publisher <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> Contributor Brotemarkle, Benjamin D. Date Created ca. 2012-09-14 Format audio/mp3 Extent 16.5 MB Medium 18-minute and 1-second podcast Language eng Mediator History Teacher Economics Teacher Geography Teacher Provenance Originally created by Geoffrey Cravero and published by <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a>. Rights Holder <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> Accrual Method Item Creation Contributing Project <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a> Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Source Repository <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> External Reference "<a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/items/show/2491" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries, Episode 38: The Wells Built Hotel</a>." RICHES of Central Florida. https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/items/show/2491. Brotemarkle, Benjamin D. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/62523287" target="_blank">Crossing Division Street: An Oral History of the African-American Community in Orlando</a>. Cocoa, FL: Florida Historical Society Press, 2005. Brotemarkle, Benjamin D., and Ulen Hodges. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/50728485" target="_blank">The Well's Built Hotel A New Guest Checks In</a>. Orlando: Community Communications, 1999. Parcher, Susanne. "<a href="http://www.blackrefer.com/br-history3.html" target="_blank">Hello From Orlando: An Orlando Jewel, The Wells Built Museum Of African American History And Culture</a>." Blackrefer. http://www.blackrefer.com/br-history3.html. Click to View (Movie, Podcast, or Website) <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/items/show/2491" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries, Episode 38: The Wells Built Hotel</a> Date Copyrighted 2012-09-14 Date Issued 2012-09-14 African American African-American Heritage Trail Association to Preserve African American Society, History and Tradition, Inc. Bethune, Mary Jane McLeod Beyond the Theme Parks: Exploring Central Florida Brevard County Brotemarkle, Benjamin D. Caldwell, Erkskine Preston Calloway, Cab Calloway, Cabell "Cab" Campanella, Roy casino Charles, Ray Chitlin' Circuit civil rights Coleman, Bessie Coleman, Elizabeth "Bessie" community center Cravero, Geoffrey Crossing Division Street: An Oral History of the African-American Community in Orlando cultural heritage tourism dance Daytona Beach doctor documentary Earhart, Amelia Mary Eatonville entertainer FHS Florida Frontiers Florida Historical Society Groveland Groveland 4 Groveland Boys Trial Groveland Four historic preservation historic restoration historic site HOTEL Hurston, Zora Neale King, B.B. King, Riley B. Larson, Peter L. Marshall, Thurgood Moore, Harry Tyson museum musician National Register of Historic Places orlando Parramore PAST Perkins, Paul C. physician podcast preservation restoration RICHES Podcast Documentaries Robinson, Jack "Jackie" Roosevelt Robinson, Jackie Robison, Ray Charles segregation South Street South Street Casino The Wells' Built Hotel: A New Guest Checks In Thompson, Gerladine F. tourism tourist attraction Trust for Public Land voter registration voter registration movement voting voting rights Wells, William Monroe Wells' Built Museum of African American History and Culture WMFE https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka/files/original/cdc9ce5582aeebc453c1f9882ed82f03.mp3 ff97de15b86583d006311c20b102090f Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title RICHES Podcast Documentaries Collection Alternative Title RICHES Podcast Collection Subject Podcasts Documentaries Description RICHES Podcast Documentaries are short form narrative documentaries that explore Central Florida history and are locally produced. These podcasts can involve the participation or cooperation of local area partners. Contributor <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a> Cassanello, Robert Language eng Type Collection Coverage Altoona, Florida Apopka, Florida Astor, Florida Barberville, Florida Brevard County, Florida Bushnell, Florida Clermont, Florida Cocoa, Florida Cocoa Beach, Florida College Park, Orlando, Florida Coral Gables, Florida Daytona Beach, Florida DeLand, Florida Disston City, Florida Eatonville, Florida Eau Gallie, Melbourne, Florida Fort King, Florida Fort Lauderdale, Florida Geneva, Florida Goldenrod, Florida Groveland, Florida Hannibal Square, Winter Park, Florida Holly Hill, Florida Hontoon Island, DeLand, Florida Indian River, Florida Jacksonville, Florida Key Biscayne, Florida Key West, Florida Kissimmee, Florida Lake Apopka, Florida Lake Buena Vista, Florida Lake County, Florida Lake Mary, Florida Marion County, Florida Merritt Island, Florida Mims, Florida Mount Dora, Florida Newnans Lake, Gainesville, Florida New Smyrna, Florida New Smyrna Beach, Florida Ocala, Florida Ocklawaha River, Florida Ocoee, Florida Orlando, Florida Ormond Beach, Florida Osceola County, Florida Oviedo, Florida Parramore, Orlando, Florida Reedy Creek, Florida Sanford, Florida Silver Springs, Florida St. Augustine, Florida St. Cloud, Florida St. Johns River, Florida St. Petersburg, Florida Tampa, Florida Titusville, Florida Vero Beach, Florida Weirsdale, Florida Winter Garden, Florida Winter Park, Florida Ybor City, Tampa, Florida Contributing Project <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a> Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Source Repository <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a> External Reference "<a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a>." RICHES of Central Florida. http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php. Has Part <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/137" target="_blank">A History of Central Florida Collection</a>, RICHES Podcast Documentaries Collection, RICHES of Central Florida. Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/" target="_blank">RICHES</a>. Rights Holder <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES </a> Sound/Podcast A resource whose content is primarily intended to be rendered as audio. Original Format 1 audio podcast Duration 12 minutes and 26 seconds Bit Rate/Frequency 128kbps Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title RICHES Podcast Documentaries, Episode 37: An Interview with Nick Wynne Alternative Title Interview with Nick Wynne Podcast Subject Podcasts Documentaries Florida Historical Society Public history--United States Historical societies Description Episode 37 of RICHES Podcast Documentaries: An Interview with Nick Wynne. RICHES Podcast Documentaries are short form narrative documentaries that explore Central Florida history and are locally produced. These podcasts can involve the participation or cooperation of local area partners. Episode 37 features an interview with Nick Wynne, director-emeritus of the Florida Historical Society, about how and why the society moved from the University of South Florida in Tampa, Florida, to a former New Deal Federal Post Office building in Cocoa. Wynne discusses the impact that the move has had on the society's operations, as well as for the city of Cocoa itself. Abstract In this podcast, Heather Bollinger interviews Nick Wynne, director-emeritus of the Florida Historical Society, about how and why the society moved from the University of South Florida in Tampa, Florida to a former New Deal federal building in Cocoa, Florida. He also discusses the impact that the move has had on the society’s operations, as well as for the city of Cocoa itself. Type Sound/Podcast Source Original 12-minute and 26-second podcast by Heather Bollinger, August 27, 2012: "RICHES Podcast Documentaries, Episode 37: An Interview with Nick Wynne." <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a>, Orlando, Florida. Is Part Of <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a>, Orlando, Florida. <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/70" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries Collection</a>, RICHES of Central Florida. Coverage Post Office, Cocoa, Florida Florida Historical Society, Cocoa, Florida Creator Bollinger, Heather Publisher <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> Contributor Wynne, Nick Date Created ca. 2012-08-27 Format audio/mp3 Extent 11.4 MB Medium 12-minute and 26-second podcast Language eng Mediator History Teacher Geography Teacher Provenance Originally created by Heather Bollinger and published by <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a>. Rights Holder <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> Accrual Method Sound/Podcast Contributing Project <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a> Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Source Repository <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> External Reference "<a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/items/show/2490" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries, Episode 37: An Interview with Nick Wynne</a>." RICHES of Central Florida. https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/items/show/2490. "<a href="http://myfloridahistory.org/society" target="_blank">Brief History</a>." RICHES of Central Florida. http://myfloridahistory.org/society. Florida Historical Society. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/429208201" target="_blank">Publications of the Florida Historical Society Quarterly</a>. [S.l.]: Florida Historical Society, 2000. Click to View (Movie, Podcast, or Website) <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/files/original/cdc9ce5582aeebc453c1f9882ed82f03.mp3" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries, Episode 37: An Interview with Nick Wynne</a> Date Copyrighted 2012-08-27 Date Issued 2012-08-27 American Civil War Bollinger, Heather Brevard Arts Alliance Brevard County Civil War Cocoa Cocoa Main Street Cocoa Post Office FHS Florida Frontiers Florida Historical Quarterly Florida Historical Society Florida Historical Society Press Florida Public Archaeology Network Gainesville Historic Rossetter House Museum and Gardens historical society Larson, Peter L. library Mosquito Beaters Nelson Poynter Memorial Library post office public history public radio radio Reconstruction RICHES Podcast Documentaries St. Augustine St. Petersburg Tampa U.S. Post Office UCF University of Central Florida University of South Florida University of South Florida-St. Petersburg USF Winter Park Works Progress Administration WPA Wynne, Nick https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka/files/original/c03ca76cd3795044e808735320bcbee6.mp3 f4165c50473ef8bb38ea4bd5042e4259 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title RICHES Podcast Documentaries Collection Alternative Title RICHES Podcast Collection Subject Podcasts Documentaries Description RICHES Podcast Documentaries are short form narrative documentaries that explore Central Florida history and are locally produced. These podcasts can involve the participation or cooperation of local area partners. Contributor <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a> Cassanello, Robert Language eng Type Collection Coverage Altoona, Florida Apopka, Florida Astor, Florida Barberville, Florida Brevard County, Florida Bushnell, Florida Clermont, Florida Cocoa, Florida Cocoa Beach, Florida College Park, Orlando, Florida Coral Gables, Florida Daytona Beach, Florida DeLand, Florida Disston City, Florida Eatonville, Florida Eau Gallie, Melbourne, Florida Fort King, Florida Fort Lauderdale, Florida Geneva, Florida Goldenrod, Florida Groveland, Florida Hannibal Square, Winter Park, Florida Holly Hill, Florida Hontoon Island, DeLand, Florida Indian River, Florida Jacksonville, Florida Key Biscayne, Florida Key West, Florida Kissimmee, Florida Lake Apopka, Florida Lake Buena Vista, Florida Lake County, Florida Lake Mary, Florida Marion County, Florida Merritt Island, Florida Mims, Florida Mount Dora, Florida Newnans Lake, Gainesville, Florida New Smyrna, Florida New Smyrna Beach, Florida Ocala, Florida Ocklawaha River, Florida Ocoee, Florida Orlando, Florida Ormond Beach, Florida Osceola County, Florida Oviedo, Florida Parramore, Orlando, Florida Reedy Creek, Florida Sanford, Florida Silver Springs, Florida St. Augustine, Florida St. Cloud, Florida St. Johns River, Florida St. Petersburg, Florida Tampa, Florida Titusville, Florida Vero Beach, Florida Weirsdale, Florida Winter Garden, Florida Winter Park, Florida Ybor City, Tampa, Florida Contributing Project <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a> Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Source Repository <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a> External Reference "<a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a>." RICHES of Central Florida. http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php. Has Part <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/137" target="_blank">A History of Central Florida Collection</a>, RICHES Podcast Documentaries Collection, RICHES of Central Florida. Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/" target="_blank">RICHES</a>. Rights Holder <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES </a> Sound/Podcast A resource whose content is primarily intended to be rendered as audio. Original Format 1 audio podcast Duration 17 minutes and 39 seconds Bit Rate/Frequency 128kbps Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title RICHES Podcast Documentaries, Episode 36: Harry T. Moore, Part 2 Alternative Title Harry T. Moore Podcast Subject Podcasts Documentaries Moore, Harry T., 1905-1951 Civil rights--Florida Civil rights activists Museums--Florida Description Episode 36, Part 2 of RICHES Podcast Documentaries: Harry T. Moore. RICHES Podcast Documentaries are short form narrative documentaries that explore Central Florida history and are locally produced. These podcasts can involve the participation or cooperation of local area partners. Episode 36 focuses on the preservation efforts of the late 1990s and early 2000s, as well as the establishment of the Harry T. and Harriette V. Moore Cultural Complex. Harry Tyson Moore was a pioneer of the Civil Rights Movement in Florida and founder of the first Brevard County branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). He and his wife, Harriette Vyda Simms Moore, were assassinated by a Ku Klux Klan bomb on December 25, 1951. The Moores are the first NAACP members to be murdered for their activism and Harry T. Moore is sometimes called the first martyr of the 1950s-era civil rights movement. Abstract This podcast highlights the major preservation efforts that were initiated during the late 1990s and early 2000s. Along with other experts, representatives from the Moore Complex lend audiences a better understanding of the local preservation initiatives in Central Florida to preserve and commemorate the life and legacy of Harry T. and Harriette V. Moore. Type Sound/Podcast Source Original 17-minute and 39-second podcast, July 30, 2012: "RICHES Podcast Documentaries, Episode 36: Harry T. Moore, Part 2." <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a>, Orlando, Florida. Is Part Of <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a>, Orlando, Florida. <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/70" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries Collection</a>, RICHES of Central Florida. Coverage Harry T. & Harriette V. Moore House, Mims, Florida Harry T. & Harriette V. Moore Cultural Complex, Mims, Florida Publisher <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> Contributor Clark, Jim Green, Ben Barton, Juanita Gary, Bill Dickson, Oscar Barnes, Althemese Date Created ca. 2012-07-30 Format audio/mp3 Extent 16 MB Medium 17-minute and 39-second podcast Language eng Mediator History Teacher Civics/Government Teacher Geography Teacher Provenance Originally created and published by <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a>. Rights Holder <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> Accrual Method Item Creation Contributing Project <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a> Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Source Repository <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> External Reference "<a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/items/show/2489" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries, Episode 36: Harry T. Moore, Part 2</a>." RICHES of Central Florida. https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/items/show/2489. "<a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/items/show/2488" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries, Episode 35: Harry T. Moore, Part 1</a>." RICHES of Central Florida. https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/items/show/2488. "<a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/items/show/2463" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries, Episode 11: Harry T. Moore: An Interview with Dr. Jim Clark</a>." RICHES of Central Florida. https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/items/show/2463. Green, Ben. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/40403600" target="_blank">Before His Time: The Untold Story of Harry T. Moore, America's First Civil Rights Martyr</a>. New York, NY: Free Press, 1999. "<a href="http://www.pbs.org/harrymoore/harry/mbio.html" target="_blank">The Legacy of Harry T. Moore</a>." PBS. http://www.pbs.org/harrymoore/harry/mbio.html. Newton, Michael. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/47136480" target="_blank">The Invisible Empire: The Ku Klux Klan in Florida</a>. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2001. "<a href="http://www.harryharriettemoore.org/" target="_blank">Who Were Harry T. and Harriette V. Moore?</a>" Harry T. and Harriette V. Moore Cultural Complex, Inc. http://www.harryharriettemoore.org/. Winsboro, Irvin D. S. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/797855859" target="_blank">Old South, New South, or Down South? Florida and the Modern Civil Rights Movement</a>. Morgantown, W. Va: West Virginia University Press, 2009. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10561071. Date Copyrighted 2012-07-30 Date Issued 2012-07-30 Has Part "<a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/items/show/2488" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries, Episode 35: Harry T. Moore, Part 1</a>." RICHES of Central Florida. https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/items/show/2488. Requires Multimedia software, such as <a href="http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/" target="_blank">QuickTime</a>. African American assassination Barnes, Althemese Barton, Juanita Beiler, Rosalind J. block voting bomb Brevard County Brevard County NAACP Brevard County National Association for the Advancement of Colored People citrus citrus industry civil rights civil rights activist Civil Rights Movement Clark, Jim Dickson, Oscar documentary educator equal pay Evers, Medgar Wiley FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation Florida African-American Heritage Preservation Network Florida State Attorney's Office Gary, Bill Green, Ben Harry T. and Harriette V. Moore Cultural Complex historic preservation homesite development committee Jacksonville John Gilmore Riley Research Center King, Martin Luther, Jr. KKK Ku Klux Klan labor Lake County law enforcement lynching martyr McCall, Willis Virgil Moore Cultural Complex, Inc. Moore Festival Moore, Angela Moore, Harriette Vyda Simms Moore, Harry Tyson murder museum NAACP National Association for the Advancement of Colored People open records law orange orange county orange industry orlando park podcast police police brutality Poole, T. H. preservation principal public history public record race relations racism RICHES Podcast Documentaries Sanford segregation Simms, Harriette Vyda teacher terrorism terrorist The Orlando Sentinel UCF University of Central Florida voter registration voting voting rights wages white supremacy Wolfinger, Norm Wolfinger, Norman "Norm" Robert https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka/files/original/e30dced815e9d6384d136932631bf3d0.mp3 9875ce965178f8156d5f43a2b3358ce7 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title RICHES Podcast Documentaries Collection Alternative Title RICHES Podcast Collection Subject Podcasts Documentaries Description RICHES Podcast Documentaries are short form narrative documentaries that explore Central Florida history and are locally produced. These podcasts can involve the participation or cooperation of local area partners. Contributor <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a> Cassanello, Robert Language eng Type Collection Coverage Altoona, Florida Apopka, Florida Astor, Florida Barberville, Florida Brevard County, Florida Bushnell, Florida Clermont, Florida Cocoa, Florida Cocoa Beach, Florida College Park, Orlando, Florida Coral Gables, Florida Daytona Beach, Florida DeLand, Florida Disston City, Florida Eatonville, Florida Eau Gallie, Melbourne, Florida Fort King, Florida Fort Lauderdale, Florida Geneva, Florida Goldenrod, Florida Groveland, Florida Hannibal Square, Winter Park, Florida Holly Hill, Florida Hontoon Island, DeLand, Florida Indian River, Florida Jacksonville, Florida Key Biscayne, Florida Key West, Florida Kissimmee, Florida Lake Apopka, Florida Lake Buena Vista, Florida Lake County, Florida Lake Mary, Florida Marion County, Florida Merritt Island, Florida Mims, Florida Mount Dora, Florida Newnans Lake, Gainesville, Florida New Smyrna, Florida New Smyrna Beach, Florida Ocala, Florida Ocklawaha River, Florida Ocoee, Florida Orlando, Florida Ormond Beach, Florida Osceola County, Florida Oviedo, Florida Parramore, Orlando, Florida Reedy Creek, Florida Sanford, Florida Silver Springs, Florida St. Augustine, Florida St. Cloud, Florida St. Johns River, Florida St. Petersburg, Florida Tampa, Florida Titusville, Florida Vero Beach, Florida Weirsdale, Florida Winter Garden, Florida Winter Park, Florida Ybor City, Tampa, Florida Contributing Project <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a> Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Source Repository <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a> External Reference "<a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a>." RICHES of Central Florida. http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php. Has Part <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/137" target="_blank">A History of Central Florida Collection</a>, RICHES Podcast Documentaries Collection, RICHES of Central Florida. Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/" target="_blank">RICHES</a>. Rights Holder <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES </a> Sound/Podcast A resource whose content is primarily intended to be rendered as audio. Original Format 1 audio podcast Duration 15 minutes and 30 seconds Bit Rate/Frequency 128kbps Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title RICHES Podcast Documentaries, Episode 35: Harry T. Moore, Part 1 Alternative Title Harry T. Moore Podcast Subject Podcasts Documentaries Moore, Harry T., 1905-1951 Civil rights--Florida Ku Klux Klan (1915- )--Florida Civil rights activists Bombings--United States Description Episode 35, Part 1 of RICHES Podcast Documentaries: Harry T. Moore. RICHES Podcast Documentaries are short form narrative documentaries that explore Central Florida history and are locally produced. These podcasts can involve the participation or cooperation of local area partners. Episode 35 focuses on the background of Harry Tyson Moore and his wife Harriette Vyda Simms Moore, how Moore became a major civil rights leader, the movement for equality that he led in Central Florida, and the historical framework for the racism and social tensions that plagued Florida during the 1940s and 1950s. Harry Tyson Moore was a pioneer of the Civil Rights Movement in Florida and founder of the first Brevard County branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). He and his wife were assassinated by a Ku Klux Klan bomb on December 25, 1951. The Moores are the first NAACP members to be murdered for their activism and Harry T. Moore is sometimes called the first martyr of the 1950s-era civil rights movement. Abstract In this podcast, Dr. Jim Clark and author Ben Green give a detailed background of Harry T. and Harriette V. Moore. This podcast gives audiences a better understanding of who Harry T. Moore was and how he became a major civil rights leader, and the movement for equality that he led in Central Florida. Both contributors give their expertise on Moore and a historical framework for the racism and social tensions that plagued Florida during the 1940s and 50s. Type Sound/Podcast Source Original 15-minute and 30-second podcast, July 30, 2012: "RICHES Podcast Documentaries, Episode 35: Harry T. Moore, Part 1." <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a>, Orlando, Florida. Is Part Of <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a>, Orlando, Florida. <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/70" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries Collection</a>, RICHES of Central Florida. Coverage Harry T. & Harriette V. Moore House, Mims, Florida Publisher <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> Contributor Clark, Jim Green, Ben Date Created ca. 2012-07-30 Format audio/mp3 Extent 14.4 MB Medium 15-minute and 30-second podcast Language eng Mediator History Teacher Civics/Government Teacher Geography Teacher Provenance Originally created and published by <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a>. Rights Holder <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> Accrual Method Item Creation Contributing Project <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a> Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Source Repository <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> External Reference "<a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/items/show/2488" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries, Episode 35: Harry T. Moore, Part 1</a>." RICHES of Central Florida. https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/items/show/2488. "<a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/items/show/2489" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries, Episode 36: Harry T. Moore, Part 2</a>." RICHES of Central Florida. https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/items/show/2489. "<a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/items/show/2463" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries, Episode 11: Harry T. Moore: An Interview with Dr. Jim Clark</a>." RICHES of Central Florida. https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/items/show/2463. Green, Ben. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/40403600" target="_blank">Before His Time: The Untold Story of Harry T. Moore, America's First Civil Rights Martyr</a>. New York, NY: Free Press, 1999. "<a href="http://www.pbs.org/harrymoore/harry/mbio.html" target="_blank">The Legacy of Harry T. Moore</a>." PBS. http://www.pbs.org/harrymoore/harry/mbio.html. Newton, Michael. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/47136480" target="_blank">The Invisible Empire: The Ku Klux Klan in Florida</a>. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2001. "<a href="http://www.harryharriettemoore.org/" target="_blank">Who Were Harry T. and Harriette V. Moore?</a>" Harry T. and Harriette V. Moore Cultural Complex, Inc. http://www.harryharriettemoore.org/. Winsboro, Irvin D. S. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/797855859" target="_blank">Old South, New South, or Down South? Florida and the Modern Civil Rights Movement</a>. Morgantown, W. Va: West Virginia University Press, 2009. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10561071. Date Copyrighted 2012-07-30 Date Issued 2012-07-30 Requires Multimedia software, such as <a href="http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/" target="_blank"> QuickTime</a>. Has Part "<a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/items/show/2489" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries, Episode 36: Harry T. Moore, Part 2</a>." RICHES of Central Florida. https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/items/show/2489. African American Apopka Apopka KKK Apopka Ku Klux Klan assassination bomb Brevard County Brevard County NAACP Brevard County National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka citrus citrus industry civil rights civil rights activist Civil Rights Movement Clark, James C. Clark, Jim C. court court case Democrat Democratic Party documentary educator efore His Time: The Untold Story of Harry T. Moore, America's First Civil Rights Martyr El-Shabazz, El-Hajj Malik FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation Florida State Attorney Green, Ben Jacksonville King, Martin Luther, Jr. KKK Ku Klux Klan Lake County Library of Congress Little, Malcolm Live Oak LOC lynching martyr McCall, Willis Virgil Moore, Angela Moore, Evangeline Moore, Harriette Vyda Simms Moore, Harry Tyson murder NAACP National Association for the Advancement of Colored People orange orange county Orange County Sheriff's Office orange industry podcast principal racism RICHES Podcast Documentaries Simms, Harriette Vyda Suwannee County teacher terrorism terrorist The Orlando Sentinel tourism voter registration voting X, Malcolm https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka/files/original/0c29cb694408a79354e6e5c80cb78141.mp3 974fec08d212a27139a27eb6926f80dc Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title RICHES Podcast Documentaries Collection Alternative Title RICHES Podcast Collection Subject Podcasts Documentaries Description RICHES Podcast Documentaries are short form narrative documentaries that explore Central Florida history and are locally produced. These podcasts can involve the participation or cooperation of local area partners. Contributor <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a> Cassanello, Robert Language eng Type Collection Coverage Altoona, Florida Apopka, Florida Astor, Florida Barberville, Florida Brevard County, Florida Bushnell, Florida Clermont, Florida Cocoa, Florida Cocoa Beach, Florida College Park, Orlando, Florida Coral Gables, Florida Daytona Beach, Florida DeLand, Florida Disston City, Florida Eatonville, Florida Eau Gallie, Melbourne, Florida Fort King, Florida Fort Lauderdale, Florida Geneva, Florida Goldenrod, Florida Groveland, Florida Hannibal Square, Winter Park, Florida Holly Hill, Florida Hontoon Island, DeLand, Florida Indian River, Florida Jacksonville, Florida Key Biscayne, Florida Key West, Florida Kissimmee, Florida Lake Apopka, Florida Lake Buena Vista, Florida Lake County, Florida Lake Mary, Florida Marion County, Florida Merritt Island, Florida Mims, Florida Mount Dora, Florida Newnans Lake, Gainesville, Florida New Smyrna, Florida New Smyrna Beach, Florida Ocala, Florida Ocklawaha River, Florida Ocoee, Florida Orlando, Florida Ormond Beach, Florida Osceola County, Florida Oviedo, Florida Parramore, Orlando, Florida Reedy Creek, Florida Sanford, Florida Silver Springs, Florida St. Augustine, Florida St. Cloud, Florida St. Johns River, Florida St. Petersburg, Florida Tampa, Florida Titusville, Florida Vero Beach, Florida Weirsdale, Florida Winter Garden, Florida Winter Park, Florida Ybor City, Tampa, Florida Contributing Project <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a> Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Source Repository <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a> External Reference "<a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a>." RICHES of Central Florida. http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php. Has Part <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/137" target="_blank">A History of Central Florida Collection</a>, RICHES Podcast Documentaries Collection, RICHES of Central Florida. Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/" target="_blank">RICHES</a>. Rights Holder <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES </a> Sound/Podcast A resource whose content is primarily intended to be rendered as audio. Original Format 1 audio podcast Duration 15 minutes and 31 seconds Bit Rate/Frequency 128kbps Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title RICHES Podcast Documentaries, Episode 27: Central Florida without a Theme Park: An Interview with Dr. Benjamin Brotemarkle Alternative Title Central Florida without a Theme Park Podcast Subject Podcasts Documentaries Festivals--Southern States Eatonville (Fla.) Barberville (Fla.) Winter Park (Fla.) Winter Park Bach Festival Cattle industry Tourism--Florida Description Episode 27 of RICHES Podcast Documentaries: Central Florida without a Theme Park: An Interview with Dr. Benjamin Brotemarkle. RICHES Podcast Documentaries are short form narrative documentaries that explore Central Florida history and are locally produced. These podcasts can involve the participation or cooperation of local area partners. Episode 27 explores Central Florida's rich history before Walt Disney World opened and includes an interview with Dr. Benjamin Brotemarkle, author of Beyond the Theme Parks: Exploring Central Florida. Dr. Brotemarkle discusses Eatonville's Zora Neale Hurston Festival of the Arts and Humanities, the Barberville Pioneer Festival, and the Winter Park Bach Festival. Abstract Although it is often associated with being the home of Walt Disney World and other theme park destinations, Central Florida possesses a rich history that predates any of the aforementioned arrivals. In this podcast, we explore that rich history by speaking with Dr. Benjamin Brotemarkle, author of Beyond the Theme Parks: Exploring Central Florida. By gaining Dr. Brotemarkle’s insight, we can better understand the conditions that existed within Central Florida before Disney’s arrival, and therefore more fully comprehend our region’s complex and intriguing past. Type Sound/Podcast Source Original 15-minute and 31-second podcast, March 30, 2012: "RICHES Podcast Documentaries, Episode 27: Central Florida without a Theme Park: An Interview with Dr. Benjamin Brotemarkle." <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a>, Orlando, Florida. Is Part Of <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a>, Orlando, Florida. <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/70" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries Collection</a>, RICHES of Central Florida. Coverage Eatonville, Florida Pioneer Settlement for the Creative Arts, Barberville, Florida Winter Park, Florida Publisher <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> Contributor Brotemarkle, Benjamin D. Date Created ca. 2012-03-30 Format audio/mp3 Extent 14.2 MB Medium 15-minute and 31-second podcast Language eng Mediator History Teacher Economics Teacher Geography Teacher Humanities Teacher Visual Arts Teacher Music Teacher Provenance Originally published by <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a>. Rights Holder <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> Accrual Method Item Creation Contributing Project <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a> Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Source Repository <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> External Reference "<a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/items/show/2480" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries, Episode 27: An Interview with Dr. Benjamin Brotemarkle</a>." RICHES of Central Florida. https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/items/show/2480. "<a href="http://www.bachfestivalflorida.org/about/history" target="_blank">History of the Bach Festival Society</a>." Bach Festival Society of Winter Park. http://www.bachfestivalflorida.org/about/history. Revels, Tracy J. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/666240031" target="_blank">Sunshine Paradise: A History of Florida Tourism</a>. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2011. "<a href="http://zorafestival.org/" target="_blank">ZORA! Festiva</a>l." ZORA! Festival. http://zorafestival.org/. Brotemarkle, Benjamin D. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/40200611" target="_blank">Beyond the Theme Parks: Exploring Central Florida</a>. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida, 1999. Click to View (Movie, Podcast, or Website) <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/files/original/0c29cb694408a79354e6e5c80cb78141.mp3" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries, Episode 27: Central Florida without a Theme Park: An Interview with Dr. Benjamin Brotemarkle</a> Date Copyrighted 2012-03-30 Date Issued 2012-03-30 Requires Multimedia software, such as <a href="http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/" target="_blank"> QuickTime</a>. African American African-American community art Association to Preserve the Eatonville Community Bach, Johann Sebastian Barberville Barberville Pioneer Festival Beyond the Theme Parks: Exploring Central Florida Brevard County Brotemarkle, Benjamin D. burial cattle cattle industry Channel 24 Christmas composer Crawford, Janie Cypress Gardens documentary Eatonville festival Flagler, Henry Morrison Fort Christmas Historical Park Harlem Renaissance historic site humanities Hurston, Zora Neale Kennedy Boulevard local history mermaid Murphree, Daniel S. music musician Nathiri, N. Y. orange county orlando PEC pioneer Pioneer Settlement for the Creative Arts podcast radio radio magazine railroad RICHES Podcast Documentaries roadside attraction Rollins College Spaniards Spanish Stetson University television Their Eyes Were Watching God Titusville tourism tourist University Press of Florida Vanderjagt, Steve Walt Disney World Weeki Wachee Windover Archaeological Site Windover Farm Winter Park Winter Park Bach Festival WMFE Zora Neale Hurston Festival of the Arts and Humanities https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka/files/original/67e36d1cbaa0493ccc143364e8eb22b9.mp3 1ef98c426e16ef99f509881381e1ad0e Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title RICHES Podcast Documentaries Collection Alternative Title RICHES Podcast Collection Subject Podcasts Documentaries Description RICHES Podcast Documentaries are short form narrative documentaries that explore Central Florida history and are locally produced. These podcasts can involve the participation or cooperation of local area partners. Contributor <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a> Cassanello, Robert Language eng Type Collection Coverage Altoona, Florida Apopka, Florida Astor, Florida Barberville, Florida Brevard County, Florida Bushnell, Florida Clermont, Florida Cocoa, Florida Cocoa Beach, Florida College Park, Orlando, Florida Coral Gables, Florida Daytona Beach, Florida DeLand, Florida Disston City, Florida Eatonville, Florida Eau Gallie, Melbourne, Florida Fort King, Florida Fort Lauderdale, Florida Geneva, Florida Goldenrod, Florida Groveland, Florida Hannibal Square, Winter Park, Florida Holly Hill, Florida Hontoon Island, DeLand, Florida Indian River, Florida Jacksonville, Florida Key Biscayne, Florida Key West, Florida Kissimmee, Florida Lake Apopka, Florida Lake Buena Vista, Florida Lake County, Florida Lake Mary, Florida Marion County, Florida Merritt Island, Florida Mims, Florida Mount Dora, Florida Newnans Lake, Gainesville, Florida New Smyrna, Florida New Smyrna Beach, Florida Ocala, Florida Ocklawaha River, Florida Ocoee, Florida Orlando, Florida Ormond Beach, Florida Osceola County, Florida Oviedo, Florida Parramore, Orlando, Florida Reedy Creek, Florida Sanford, Florida Silver Springs, Florida St. Augustine, Florida St. Cloud, Florida St. Johns River, Florida St. Petersburg, Florida Tampa, Florida Titusville, Florida Vero Beach, Florida Weirsdale, Florida Winter Garden, Florida Winter Park, Florida Ybor City, Tampa, Florida Contributing Project <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a> Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Source Repository <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a> External Reference "<a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a>." RICHES of Central Florida. http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php. Has Part <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/137" target="_blank">A History of Central Florida Collection</a>, RICHES Podcast Documentaries Collection, RICHES of Central Florida. Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/" target="_blank">RICHES</a>. Rights Holder <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES </a> Sound/Podcast A resource whose content is primarily intended to be rendered as audio. Original Format 1 audio podcast Duration 13 minutes Bit Rate/Frequency 128kbps Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title RICHES Podcast Documentaries, Episode 11: Harry T. Moore: An Interview with Dr. Jim Clark Alternative Title Harry T. Moore Podcast Subject Podcasts Documentaries Moore, Harry T., 1905-1951 Civil rights--Florida Ku Klux Klan (1915- )--Florida Civil rights activists Bombings--United States Description Episode 11 of RICHES Podcast Documentaries: Harry T. Moore: An Interview with Dr. Jim Clark. RICHES Podcast Documentaries are short form narrative documentaries that explore Central Florida history and are locally produced. These podcasts can involve the participation or cooperation of local area partners. Episode 11 focuses on Dr. Jim Clark's contribution to revitalizing the Moores legacy during the 1980s and early 1990s. During his time at The Orlando Sentinel, Dr. Clark began publishing articles on the Moores and their untimely deaths. Those publications resulted in a resurgence of interest in the Moores and local initiatives to preserve their legacy. Harry Tyson Moore was a pioneer of the Civil Rights Movement in Florida and founder of the first Brevard County branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). He and his wife, Harriette Vyda Simms Moore, were assassinated with a Ku Klux Klan bomb on December 25, 1951. The Moores are the first NAACP members to be murdered for their activism and Harry T. Moore is sometimes called the first martyr of the 1950s-era civil rights movement. Abstract This podcast focuses on Dr. Jim Clark’s contribution to revitalizing the Moore’s legacy during the 1980s and early 1990s. During his time at the Orlando Sentinel, Dr. Clark began publishing articles on the Moores and their untimely deaths. Those publications resulted in a resurgence of interest in the Moores and local initiatives to preserve their legacy. This episode highlights Dr. Clark’s discovery of the Moores’ story and the popularization of a forgotten civil rights pioneer. Type Sound/Podcast Source Original 13-minute podcast, July 27, 2011: "RICHES Podcast Documentaries, Episode 11: Harry T. Moore: An Interview with Dr. Jim Clark." <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a>, Orlando, Florida. Requires Multimedia software, such as <a href="http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/" target="_blank"> QuickTime</a>. Is Part Of <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a>, Orlando, Florida. <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/70" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries Collection</a>, RICHES of Central Florida. Coverage Mims, Florida Publisher <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> Contributor Clark, Jim Date Created ca. 2011-07-27 Format audio/mp3 Extent 12 MB Medium 13-minute podcast Language eng Mediator History Teacher Civics/Government Teacher Provenance Originally published by <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a>. Rights Holder <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> Accrual Method Item Creation Contributing Project <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a> Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Source Repository <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> External Reference "<a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/items/show/2463" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries, Episode 11: Harry T. Moore: An Interview with Dr. Jim Clark</a>." RICHES of Central Florida. https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/items/show/2463. "<a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/items/show/2488" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries, Episode 35: Harry T. Moore, Part 1</a>." RICHES of Central Florida. https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/items/show/2488. "<a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/items/show/2489" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries, Episode 36: Harry T. Moore, Part 2</a>." RICHES of Central Florida. https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/items/show/2489. Clark, James C. 1994. "<a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/5544019776" target="_blank">Civil Rights Leader Harry T. Moore and the Ku Klux Klan in Florida</a>." The Florida Historical Quarterly. 73, no. 2: 166-183. Green, Ben. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/40403600" target="_blank">Before His Time: The Untold Story of Harry T. Moore, America's First Civil Rights Martyr</a>. New York, NY: Free Press, 1999. "<a href="http://www.nbbd.com/godo/moore/" target="_blank">Harry T. Moore Homesite</a>." Harry T. and Harriette V. Moore Memorial Park. http://www.nbbd.com/godo/moore/. "<a href="http://www.pbs.org/harrymoore/harry/mbio.html" target="_blank">The Legacy of Harry T. Moore</a>." PBS. http://www.pbs.org/harrymoore/harry/mbio.html. Newton, Michael. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/47136480" target="_blank">The Invisible Empire: The Ku Klux Klan in Florida</a>. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2001. "<a href="http://www.harryharriettemoore.org/" target="_blank">Who Were Harry T. and Harriette V. Moore?</a>" Harry T. and Harriette V. Moore Cultural Complex, Inc. http://www.harryharriettemoore.org/. Winsboro, Irvin D. S. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/797855859" target="_blank">Old South, New South, or Down South? Florida and the Modern Civil Rights Movement</a>. Morgantown, W. Va: West Virginia University Press, 2009. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10561071. Date Copyrighted 2011-07-27 Date Issued 2011-07-27 Apopka Apopka KKK Apopka Ku Klux Klan assassination baseball bomb Brevard County Brevard County NAACP Brevard County National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Brooklyn, Earl J. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka citrus citrus industry civil rights civil rights activist Civil Rights Leader Harry T. Moore and the Ku Klux Klan in Florida Civil Rights Movement Clark, Jim desegregation documentary FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation Florida State Attorney hate group historic preservation integration investigative journalism journalism journalist King, Martin Luther, Jr. KKK klansman Ku Klux Klan labor laborer Lake County McCall, Willis V. Moore, Harriette Vyda Simms Moore, Harry Tyson murder NAACP National Association for the Advancement of Colored People newspaper newspaper editor newspaper publisher open records law orange county Orange County Sheriff Orange County Sheriff's Office orlando Orlando Magazine podcast Powell, Angelea preservation public records law RICHES Podcast Documentaries Robinson, Jack "Jackie" Roosevelt Sacher, John Sanford segregation sheriff Simms, Harriette Vyda Star, Dave The Orlando Sentinel tourism tourist UCF UF University of Central Florida University of Florida Winter Park Magazine Wolfinger, Norman "Norm" Robert https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka/files/original/cc5271c76ff5ef3cb72d96a89c0f8d48.mp3 fe0b6ad0a64d12105d76e85eb750cc30 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title RICHES Podcast Documentaries Collection Alternative Title RICHES Podcast Collection Subject Podcasts Documentaries Description RICHES Podcast Documentaries are short form narrative documentaries that explore Central Florida history and are locally produced. These podcasts can involve the participation or cooperation of local area partners. Contributor <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a> Cassanello, Robert Language eng Type Collection Coverage Altoona, Florida Apopka, Florida Astor, Florida Barberville, Florida Brevard County, Florida Bushnell, Florida Clermont, Florida Cocoa, Florida Cocoa Beach, Florida College Park, Orlando, Florida Coral Gables, Florida Daytona Beach, Florida DeLand, Florida Disston City, Florida Eatonville, Florida Eau Gallie, Melbourne, Florida Fort King, Florida Fort Lauderdale, Florida Geneva, Florida Goldenrod, Florida Groveland, Florida Hannibal Square, Winter Park, Florida Holly Hill, Florida Hontoon Island, DeLand, Florida Indian River, Florida Jacksonville, Florida Key Biscayne, Florida Key West, Florida Kissimmee, Florida Lake Apopka, Florida Lake Buena Vista, Florida Lake County, Florida Lake Mary, Florida Marion County, Florida Merritt Island, Florida Mims, Florida Mount Dora, Florida Newnans Lake, Gainesville, Florida New Smyrna, Florida New Smyrna Beach, Florida Ocala, Florida Ocklawaha River, Florida Ocoee, Florida Orlando, Florida Ormond Beach, Florida Osceola County, Florida Oviedo, Florida Parramore, Orlando, Florida Reedy Creek, Florida Sanford, Florida Silver Springs, Florida St. Augustine, Florida St. Cloud, Florida St. Johns River, Florida St. Petersburg, Florida Tampa, Florida Titusville, Florida Vero Beach, Florida Weirsdale, Florida Winter Garden, Florida Winter Park, Florida Ybor City, Tampa, Florida Contributing Project <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a> Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Source Repository <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a> External Reference "<a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a>." RICHES of Central Florida. http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php. Has Part <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/137" target="_blank">A History of Central Florida Collection</a>, RICHES Podcast Documentaries Collection, RICHES of Central Florida. Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/" target="_blank">RICHES</a>. Rights Holder <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES </a> Sound/Podcast A resource whose content is primarily intended to be rendered as audio. Original Format 1 audio podcast Duration 18 minutes and 51 seconds Bit Rate/Frequency 128kbps Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title RICHES Podcast Documentaries, Episode 9: Volusia County Railroad History: An Interview with Seth Bramson Alternative Title Volusia County Railroad History Podcast Subject Podcasts Documentaries Volusia County (Fla.) Titusville (Fla.) Florida East Coast Railway Flagler, Henry Morrison, 1830-1913 Labor unions--Florida Jacksonville (Fla.) Description Episode 9 of RICHES Podcast Documentaries: Volusia County Railroad History: An Interview with Seth Bramson. RICHES Podcast Documentaries are short form narrative documentaries that explore Central Florida history and are locally produced. These podcasts can involve the participation or cooperation of local area partners. Episode 9 features an interview with author Seth Bramson and focuses on passenger rail transportation in Volusia County, but also delves into the effects of rail service changes on the region. In addition, this podcast covers attempts to return passenger traffic to Eastern Volusia on the Florida East Coast Railway (FEC). The FEC, a project of Henry Morrison Flagler, was built primarily in the late 19th and early 20th century. From 1963 to 1977, the company and some of its employees were engaged in one of the longest and most violent labor union battles of the 20th century, which had to be resolved with Federal intervention. Abstract This podcast features a discussion with Seth Bramson, the author of Speedway to Sunshine: The Story of the Florida East Coast Railway. The discussion focuses on passenger rail transportation in Volusia County, but also delves into the effects of rail service changes on the region. In addition, it covers attempts to return passenger traffic to Eastern Volusia on the F.E.C. Type Sound/Podcast Source Original 18-minute and 51-second podcast by Kim Hasbrouck, June 30, 2011: "RICHES Podcast Documentaries, Episode 9: Volusia County Railroad History: An Interview with Seth Bramson." <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a>, Orlando, Florida. Is Part Of <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a>, Orlando, Florida. <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/70" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries Collection</a>, RICHES of Central Florida. Coverage Jacksonville, Florida Titusville, Florida Key West, Florida Palatka, Florida Sanford, Florida Yelvington, Florida Tampa, Florida Lake Harbor, Florida Lake Harney, Florida Maytown, Florida Miami, Florida Okeechobee, Florida Orange City, Florida Bunnell, Florida Fort Pierce, Florida St. Augustine, Florida Daytona Beach, Florida Creator Hasbrouck, Kim Publisher <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> Contributor Bramson, Seth Date Created ca. 2011-06-30 Format audio/mp3 Extent 17.3 MB Medium 18-minute and 51-second podcast Language eng Mediator History Teacher Civics/Government Teacher Economics Teacher Geography Teacher Provenance Originally created by Kim Hasbrouck and published by <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a>. Rights Holder <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> Accrual Method Item Creation Contributing Project <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a> Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Source Repository <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> External Reference "<a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/items/show/2461" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries, Episode 9: Volusia County Railroad History: An Interview with Seth Bramson</a>." RICHES of Central Florida. https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/items/show/2461. Florida East Coast Railway. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1721778" target="_blank">A Brief History of the Florida East Coast Railway and Associated Enterprises</a>. 1956. Florida East Coast Railway. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1721778" target="_blank">A Brief History of the Florida East Coast Railway and Associated Enterprises</a>. 1956. Florida East Coast Railway. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1321410" target="_blank">The Story of a Pioneer: A Brief History of the Florida East Coast Railway and Its Part in the Remarkable Development of the Florida East Coast</a>. St. Augustine, Fla: Florida East Coast Railway, 1946. "<a href="http://www.fecrwy.com/about/history" target="_blank">History</a>." Florida East Coast Railway. http://www.fecrwy.com/about/history. Mulligan, Michael. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/225874809" target="_blank">Railroad Depots of Central Florida</a>. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Pub, 2008. Murdock, R. Ken. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/38291666" target="_blank">Outline History of Central Florida Railroads</a>. Winter Garden, Fla: Central Florida Chapter, National Railway Historical Society, 1997. Turner, Gregg M. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/184906141" target="_blank">A Journey into Florida Railroad History</a>. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2008. Click to View (Movie, Podcast, or Website) <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/files/original/cc5271c76ff5ef3cb72d96a89c0f8d48.mp3" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries, Episode 9: Volusia County Railroad History: An Interview with Seth Bramson</a> Date Copyrighted 2011-06-30 Date Issued 2011-06-30 Requires Multimedia software, such as <a href="http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/" target="_blank"> QuickTime</a>. Alcazar Hotel Amtrak Atlantic Coast St. Johns and Indian River Railroad Ball, Edward bankruptcy Blue Spring Blue Spring, Orange City and Atlantic Railroad Bramson, Seth Branch Line Brevard County Bunnell bus-truck service collection Daytona Daytona Beach documentary du Pont, Alfred Irénée FEC Flagler Museum Flagler, Henry Morrison Florida East Coast Railway Florida land boom Fort Pierce Great Depression Halifax and Indian River Railway Halifax River Hasbrouck, Kim High, Robert King historian Indian River Jacksonville Jacksonville, St. Augustine and Halifax River Railway Company Jacksonville, St. Augustine, and Indian River Railway Jacksonville, Tampa and Key West Railway Key West labor labor strike labor union Lake Harbor Lake Harney land boom land bust Maytown Miami Museum of Florida History Okeechobee Orange City Orange City Branch Palatka Piñeda, Yovanna podcast Ponce de León Hotel railroad RICHES Podcast Documentaries Roy Sanford Speedway to Sunshine: The Story of the Florida East Coast Railway Spuds St. Augustine St. Johns and Indian River Railroad strike Thornton, Winfred L. Titusville transportation Union Volusia County wages Weinkauf, Ray Yelvington https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka/files/original/a0acfce7d844a0ddaf1873725458d31f.mp3 2ddf847fb5a9231c2342e1a440047812 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title RICHES Podcast Documentaries Collection Alternative Title RICHES Podcast Collection Subject Podcasts Documentaries Description RICHES Podcast Documentaries are short form narrative documentaries that explore Central Florida history and are locally produced. These podcasts can involve the participation or cooperation of local area partners. Contributor <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a> Cassanello, Robert Language eng Type Collection Coverage Altoona, Florida Apopka, Florida Astor, Florida Barberville, Florida Brevard County, Florida Bushnell, Florida Clermont, Florida Cocoa, Florida Cocoa Beach, Florida College Park, Orlando, Florida Coral Gables, Florida Daytona Beach, Florida DeLand, Florida Disston City, Florida Eatonville, Florida Eau Gallie, Melbourne, Florida Fort King, Florida Fort Lauderdale, Florida Geneva, Florida Goldenrod, Florida Groveland, Florida Hannibal Square, Winter Park, Florida Holly Hill, Florida Hontoon Island, DeLand, Florida Indian River, Florida Jacksonville, Florida Key Biscayne, Florida Key West, Florida Kissimmee, Florida Lake Apopka, Florida Lake Buena Vista, Florida Lake County, Florida Lake Mary, Florida Marion County, Florida Merritt Island, Florida Mims, Florida Mount Dora, Florida Newnans Lake, Gainesville, Florida New Smyrna, Florida New Smyrna Beach, Florida Ocala, Florida Ocklawaha River, Florida Ocoee, Florida Orlando, Florida Ormond Beach, Florida Osceola County, Florida Oviedo, Florida Parramore, Orlando, Florida Reedy Creek, Florida Sanford, Florida Silver Springs, Florida St. Augustine, Florida St. Cloud, Florida St. Johns River, Florida St. Petersburg, Florida Tampa, Florida Titusville, Florida Vero Beach, Florida Weirsdale, Florida Winter Garden, Florida Winter Park, Florida Ybor City, Tampa, Florida Contributing Project <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a> Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Source Repository <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a> External Reference "<a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a>." RICHES of Central Florida. http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php. Has Part <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/137" target="_blank">A History of Central Florida Collection</a>, RICHES Podcast Documentaries Collection, RICHES of Central Florida. Is Part Of <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/" target="_blank">RICHES</a>. Rights Holder <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES </a> Sound/Podcast A resource whose content is primarily intended to be rendered as audio. Original Format 1 audio podcast Duration 16 minutes and 32 seconds Bit Rate/Frequency 128kbps Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title RICHES Podcast Documentaries, Episode 6: Space, the Cocoa Beach Frontier Alternative Title Space, the Cocoa Beach Frontier Podcast Subject Podcasts Documentaries Cocoa Beach (Fla.) National Aeronautics and Space Administration (U.S.) Kennedy Space Center Cape Canaveral (Fla.) Merritt Island (Fla.) Titusville (Fla.) Description Episode 6 of RICHES Podcast Documentaries: Space, the Cocoa Beach Frontier. RICHES Podcast Documentaries are short form narrative documentaries that explore Central Florida history and are locally produced. These podcasts can involve the participation or cooperation of local area partners. Episode 6 examines the history of the U.S. Space Program in Florida and how the program affected Cocoa Beach. This podcast includes an interview with Lori C. Walters, a professor of history at the University of Central Florida. In the late 1950s, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) began constructing launch pads and towers on Florida's east coast as the "Missile Firing Laboratory." On July 1, 1962, NASA activated the Launch Operations Center, which was renamed the John F. Kennedy Space Center (KSC) in 1963. KSC has been the United States' launch site for every human space flight since 1968. In 2011, the Space Shuttle program ended, which resulted in the KSC workforce downsizing significantly. Abstract In this podcast, Dr. Lori Walters from the University of Central Florida history department discusses interesting tidbits about the city of Cocoa Beach and the ways in which it was affected by the missile and space races from the 1950s onward. Type Sound/Podcast Source Original 16-minute and 32-second podcast by Mark Hermanstorfer, May 15, 2011: "RICHES Podcast Documentaries, Episode 6: Space, the Cocoa Beach Frontier." <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a>, Orlando, Florida. Is Part Of <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a>, Orlando, Florida. <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/70" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries Collection</a>, RICHES of Central Florida. Coverage Launch Operations Center, Titusville, Florida John F. Kennedy Space Center, Titusville, Florida Cocoa Beach, Florida Cape Canaveral, Florida Merritt Island, Florida Patrick Air Force Base, Cocoa Beach, Florida Creator Hermanstorfer, Mark Publisher <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> Contributor Walters, Lori C. Date Created ca. 2011-05-15 Format audio/mp3 Extent 8.10 MB Medium 16-minute and 32-second podcast Language eng Mediator History Teacher Civics/Government Teacher Economics Teacher Geography Teacher Provenance Originally created by Mark Hermanstorfer and published by <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a>. Rights Holder <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> Accrual Method Item Creation Contributing Project <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a> Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Source Repository <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> External Reference Duggins, Pat. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/122701571" target="_blank">Final Countdown: NASA and the End of the Space Shuttle Program</a>. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida, 2007. "<a href="http://deimos.apple.com/WebObjects/Core.woa/Browse/ucf.edu.2577623765.02577623773.7817163546?i=1962351866" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries, Episode 6: Space, the Cocoa Beach Frontier</a>." RICHES of Central Florida. "<a href="http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/history/index.html" target="_blank">Kennedy's Rich History.</a>" NASA. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/history/index.html. Lipartito, Kenneth, and Orville R. Butler. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/78893096" target="_blank">A History of the Kennedy Space Center</a>. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2007. Marcum, Dianne. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/154707400" target="_blank">Cape Canaveral, Cocoa Beach & Florida's Space Coast Great Destinations: A Complete Guide</a>. Vermont: Countryman Press, 2008. Reynolds, David West. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/68815566" target="_blank">Kennedy Space Center: Gateway to Space</a>. Richmond Hill, Ont: Firefly Books, 2006. "<a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries</a>." RICHES of Central Florida. http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/podcastsblog.php. Sinise, Gary, et al. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/232161899" target="_blank">When We Left Earth: The NASA Missions</a>. Silver Spring, MD: Discovery Communications, 2008. Walters, Lori C. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/45701524" target="_blank">Missileland, USA: Cocoa Beach and America's Space Program</a>. Thesis (M.A.)--Florida Atlantic University, 1990, 1990. Click to View (Movie, Podcast, or Website) <a href="http://youtu.be/LhiInUFS7pA" target="_blank">RICHES Podcast Documentaries, Episode 6: Space, the Cocoa Beach Frontier</a> Date Copyrighted 2011-05-15 Date Issued 2011-05-15 Requires Multimedia software, such as <a href="http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/" target="_blank"> QuickTime</a>. 1964-1965 New York World's Fair Apollo Program Archer, Donna architecture archive astronaut Brevard County Brinkley, David McClure building permit Cape Canaveral Cape Colony Motel city clerk city hall City of Cocoa Beach Cocoa Beach Cocoa Beach City Hall construction documentary federal government Florida State Road 520 Florida State Road A1A Glenn, John Hershel, Jr. Googie architecture heritage Hermanstorfer, Mark Holiday Inn Hurricane David Institute for Simulation and Training John F. Kennedy Space Center Kenney, Thomas "Tom" S. KPC Launch Operations Center launch pad Lester, Connie L. mayor Mayor of Cocoa Beach Mercury Seven Merritt Island missile Missile Firing Laboratory missile program missile race NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration New York World's Fair Patrick AFB Patrick Air Force Base podcast Project Apollo Project Mercury property value Ramada Inn real estate real estate industry real estate value Research Parkway RICHES Podcast Documentaries Sea Missile Motel space Space Age architecture space flight space industry space program space race Space Shuttle Program Sputnik Sputnik 1 SR 520 SR A1A The Satellite The Starlight Titusville traffic UCF UGM-27 Polaris University of Central Florida virtual heritage Walters, Lori C. WEZY WEZY Wagon William, Red https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka/files/original/1d6d701a0c70307cf2c78408e93e16f8.pdf 61b8771b302f88aa39cab100fac8a911 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title Thomas Cook Collection Alternative Title Cook Collection Subject Orlando (Fla.) Orange County (Fla.) Longwood (Fla.) Cape Canaveral (Fla.) Lake Wales (Fla.) Silver Springs (Fla.) Weeki Wachee (Fla.) Winter Haven (Fla.) Osceola County (Fla.) Winter Park (Fla.) Description Collection of digital images, postcards, documents, and other records from the private collection of Thomas Cook. Series descriptions are based on special topics, the majority of which students focused their metadata entries around. Contributor Cook, Thomas Language eng Type Collection Coverage Cape Canaveral, Florida Lake Wales, Florida Longwood, Florida Orange County, Florida Orlando, Florida Osceola County, Florida Winter Haven, Florida Winter Park, Florida Rights Holder All items in the <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/102" target="_blank">Thomas Cook Collection</a> are provided here by <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> for educational purposes only. Curator Cepero, Laura Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Source Repository Private Collection of Thomas Cook Has Part <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/103" target="_blank">Postcard Collection</a>, Thomas Cook Collection, RICHES of Central Florida. External Reference Antequino, Stephanie Gaub, and Tana Mosier Porter. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/783150094" target="_blank">Lost Orlando</a> Charleston, S.C.: Arcadia Pub, 2012. "<a href="http://sanfordhistory.tripod.com/Links/wtour.pdf">Downtown Orlando Historic District Walking Tour</a>." City of Orlando. http://sanfordhistory.tripod.com/Links/wtour.pdf. Rajtar, Steve. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/70911136" target="_blank">A Guide to Historic Orlando</a>. Charleston, SC: History Press, 2006. Osborne, Ray. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/253374549" target="_blank">Cape Canaveral</a>. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Pub, 2008. Smith, Margaret. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/51888803" target="_blank">The Edward Bok Legacy: A History of Bok Tower Gardens: The First Fifty Years</a>. Lake Wales, Fla: Bok Tower Gardens Foundation, 2002. Pelland, Maryan, and Dan Pelland. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/67516850" target="_blank">Weeki Wachee Springs</a>. Charleston, SC: Arcadia, 2005. Flekke, Mary M., Sarah E. MacDonald, and Randall M. MacDonald. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/85451307" target="_blank">Cypress Gardens</a>. Charleston, SC: Arcadia, 2006. Document A resource containing textual data. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre text. Original Format 72 page booklet Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title What To Do and See in the Cape Canaveral Area Alternative Title Cape Canaveral Booklet Subject Cape Canaveral (Fla.) Cocoa (Fla.) Cocoa Beach (Fla.) Merritt Island (Fla.) Eau Gallie (Fla.) Melbourne (Fla.) Titusville (Fla.) Vero Beach (Fla.) Satellite Beach (Fla.) Indialantic (Fla.) Melbourne Beach (Fla.) Palm Bay (Fla.) Description Booklet on tourism in the Cape Canaveral area including Cocoa, Cocoa Beach, Merritt Island, Eau Gallie, Melbourne, and Titusville. The cover shows Mercury Astronaut Leroy Gordon Cooper. The booklet is an aid for people vacationing or moving to the area. It details activities, restaurants, events, sports, television listings, schools, real estate information, and more. Source Original booklet, 1963: What To Do and See in the Cape Canaveral Area (Cocoa Beach, Florida: Brownell Associates, 1963): Private Collection of Thomas Cook. Publisher Brownell Associates Date Created 1963 Is Format Of Digital reproduction of original booklet, 1963: What To Do and See in the Cape Canaveral Area (Cocoa Beach, Florida: Brownell Associates, 1963). Is Part Of Private Collection of Thomas Cook. <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka2/collections/show/102" target="_blank">Thomas Cook Collection</a>, RICHES of Central Florida. Requires <a href='http://www.adobe.com/reader.html' target='_blank'>Adobe Acrobat Reader</a> Format application/pdf Extent 14.5 MB Medium 72 page booklet Language eng Type Text Coverage Cape Canaveral, Florida Cocoa, Florida Cocoa Beach, Florida Merritt Island, Florida Eau Gallie, Melbourne, Florida Melbourne, Florida Titusville, Florida Vero Beach, Florida Satellite Beach, Florida Indialantic, Florida Melbourne Beach, Florida Palm Bay, Florida Spatial Coverage 28.388456, -80.603614 28.38687, -80.742016 28.320098, -80.607576 28.358172, -80.685081 28.129191, -80.630327 28.083491, -80.608463 28.612555, -80.807934 27.63898, -80.39712 28.176063, -80.589967 28.089473, -80.565627 28.068383, -80.560391 28.033804, -80.588951 Temporal Coverage 1963-01-01/1963-12-31 Accrual Method Donation Mediator History Teacher Economics Teacher Geography Teacher Provenance Originally published by Brownell Associates. Rights Holder Copyright to this resource is held by W. P. Browenll, Jr. and is provided here by <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a> for educational purposes only. Contributing Project <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/buildingblocks.php" target="_blank">Building Blocks</a> Curator Cook, Thomas Digital Collection <a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank">RICHES MI</a> Source Repository Private Collection of Thomas Cook External Reference "The History of Cape Canaveral." Spaceline. http://www.spaceline.org/capehistory.html; Osborne, Ray. Cape Canaveral. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Pub, 2008. Osborne, Ray. Cape Canaveral. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Pub, 2008. External Reference Title <a href="http://www.spaceline.org/capehistory.html" target="_blank">"The History of Cape Canaveral"</a> <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/253374549" target="_blank">Cape Canaveral</a> Transcript WHAT TO DO AND SEE in the Cape Canaveral area WINTER 1963 Complete Visitors Handbook To: COCOA, COCOA BEACH, MERRITT ISLAND, EAU GALLIE, MELBOURNE, TITUSVILLE & AREA Employment opportunities with PAN AM Pan American, as prime contractor to the U. S. Air Force, has fulfilled the responsibility for planning, engineering, operating and maintaining Cape Canaveral and the Atlantic Missile Range since 1953. Pan American scientists and engineers have participated intimately in all stages of the national programs since early V-2 tests though Project Mercury's series of manned space flights. With Pan American, technically respected people have freedom to choose career positions with unlimited opportunities for professional development. In addition to normal company benefits, Pan Am offers the unique advantage of a 90% world-wide air-travel discount. You are invited to send your resume in confidence to David D. Bruner, Personnel Manager, Guided Missiles Range Division, Pan American World Airways, Inc., P. O. Box 4336, Patrick Air Force Base, Florida. Scientific Advisory Staff Advanced Planning Range Instrumentation Planning & systems Design Program Management Operations Facilities Planning Facilities Engineering What to Do & See in the Cape Canaveral Area WINTER 1963 VACATIONING?----------- THEN USE THIS AS YOUR COMPLETE GUIDE TO ATTRACTIONS, RESTAURANTS, ENTERTAINMENT, AND ALL THINGS TO DO AND SEE Spaceport, U.S.A. ................................................6-17 Directory of Missile Companies ......................11 Missiles ....................................................................15 Sightseeing in the Area ......................................18-25 Restaurants ............................................................26-34 After Dark ................................................................34-42 Fishing ......................................................................44-45 Sports .......................................................................45 Churches ..................................................................46-47 Shopping .................................................................24-25 Television Schedule ..............................................23 PLANNING ON LIVING HERE? THEN YOU'LL WANT TO KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT THE AREA: Climate, Living Conditions, Living Costs, Schools, Taxes, Homes, Furniture, Higher Education .............48-72 How to Buy a Home ...........................................53 Real Estate & Home Finder Map ....................54-55 Home Buyers Check List ...................................61 Published four times yearly by Brownell Associates, 107 Beach Plaza Building, Cocoa Beach, Florida. Tel. SU 3-3176. Distributed free to all motels and hotels in the area. Advertising rates on request. Published with the approval of the Gallie and South Brevard Beaches Cham-Cocoa, Cocoa Beach, Titusville, Eauber of Commerces. Staff: W. P. Brownell, Jr., E. A. Brownell, Harry Brackett, James Smith, Craig McCauley, W. P. Brownell, Brennan Ryland, Betty Woolfe. Copyright 1963, W. P. Brownell Jr. Reproduction without written consent prohibited. COVER PHOTO: Project Mercury Astronaut Leroy Cooper. NASA Photograph. Date Copyrighted 1963 Contributor Martin Company <a href="http://www.af.mil/" target="_blank">U.S. Air Force</a> Cook, Thomas A-C Spark Plug ABC Adams, Pat Advanced Realty Aerojet Aeronutronic Aerospace Corporation Air Florida, Inc. Air Force Missile Test Center amberjacks angelfish Antigua Apollo applied mathematics Arma Division Aruban Ascension Island Atlantic Avenue Atlantic Missle Range Atlantic Ocean Atlas Atlas-Able Atlas-Agena A Atlas-Centaur Atlas-Mercury auger shell Autonetics AVCO Avis Rent-A-Car B.O.P. Furntiure Bahamas Banana River Barry Built Homes Bell Telephone Lab, Inc. Benbow, K. C. Bennett, Gary Bernard's Surf bird watching Black Knight Blair, Jeb Blair, Orin Blue-Streak bluefish blueggils Boeing Company Bolan, Johnny bonito fish Borum, R. L. Boyd, John Brackett, Harry Brazil Brevard County Brevard Engineering College Brevard Junior College Brevard State Bank brown cockle Brownell Associates Brownell, E. A. Brownell, W. P., Jr. Brownll, W. P. Bruner, David D. Bryant, J. J. Budget Rent-A-Car bull whiting fish Burroughs Corporation Byrd Shopping Plaza C-5 cabbage palm Cady, Winthrop Canaveral Aviation Corporation Canaveral Harbor Capadano, Harry Cape Canaveral Fishing and Amusement Pier Cape Canaveral Home Buyers and Real Estate Guide Cape Canaveral Limousine Service Cape Canaveral Press Club Cape Colony Inn Cape Colony Inn Gift Shop Cape Housing Center Cape, Inc. Capri Captain's Table Restaurant Car-Truck Rental Caribbean Islands Caribbean Sea Carlton Groves Cass-Dale Builders Castro, Ralph Cathedral of Palms CBS celestrial mechanics channell bass Chase, N. B. Cherniak, George S. Chevrolet Christ Luterhan Church Christian Science Services Chrysler Corporation Church of Christ Church of God Church of our Saviour Clark, L. P., Jr. cobia fish Cocoa Beach Chamber of Commerece Cocoa Beach Church of Christ Cocoa Beach Community Church Cocoa Beach Downtown Shopping Center Cocoa Beach News Center Cocoa Beach State Bank Cocoa Causeway Cocoa Chamber of Commerece coconut palm Colonial Lounge Congress Inn Dining Room Continental Cocktail Loung, Inc. Continental Restaurant Continental Supper Club Continental Trio Cook, Thomas Cooper, Leroy Gordon copperhead break coquina Country Squire crappie Cresthaven Homes croakers fish Daniel, W. H. Daye, Bonnie Deac, W. P. Dean, Paul Debus, Kurt H. deep sea fishing DeNike Realty Diplomat Apartments Discover Dixie Highway Dixion Boulevard Baptist Church dolphin Dominica Dominican Republic Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc. drum fish Dryden, J. E. Dyna-Soar Earl, R. C., Jr. Eastern Airlines Eastminster Presbyterian Church Eastview Homes Eau Gallie Beach Eau Gallie Chamber of Commerece Eau Gallie River electrical engineering Eleuthera Endsley, Bob Exec IV explorer Fat Boy's Barbeque Favata's Italian Restaurant Federal Homes Adminsitration Fern De Noronha fighting conch First Baptist Church First Baptist Church of Cocoa First Baptist Church of Cocoa Beach First Baptist Church of Eau Gallie First Baptist Church of Indialantic First Baptist Church of Melbourne First Baptist Church of Merritt Island First Baptist Church of Palm Bay First Baptist Church of Titusville First Christian Church First Christian Church of Cocoa First Christian Church of Cocoa Beach First Christian Church of Eau Gallie First Christian Church of Melbourne First Church of Christ, Scientist First Federal Building First Methodist Church First Methodist Church of Cocoa First Methodist Church of Cocoa Beach First Methodist Church of Titusville Fischer's Florida Coast Real Estate Company, Inc. Fortest, Jack F. Franz Men's Shop fresh water fishing Fullbright scholar Gardendale Gary Bennet's Bait and Tacklet General Development Corporation General Dynamics Astronautics General Electrical Company giant groupers Glass, R. H. Glessner, J. M. Grace Community Church Grand Bahama Grand Turk Graves, D. E. Grine, Ken groupers Guy Haggard, K. M. Hall, Ernest M. Hampton Homes Hanson, G. F. Harrison, Joe health belt helicopters Henriksen, O. M. Hensel's Red Rooster Hercules Powder Company Herndon Airport Hertz Hett, John M. Holiday Inn Holt, Dan Holy Apostles Episcopal Church Holy Trinity Episcopal Church Hour Glass Grill Hub's Inn Hughes, W. J. Humphreys, Oley Hursey, Ben Hutchins, R. B. Imperial Indian Harbor Beach Indian River Inland Waterway Instrument Corporation of Florida International Business Machine Corporation Island Beach Outdoor Church Isner, R. J. Ivanhoe Jerry's Pizza Palace Jewfish Junez Construction Comapny Junez Homes Juno II Jupite C Kano Keg Room Kiddie Corral King King Mackerel King Street Baptist Church King, Jack Ko-Ko Motel Koko Motel Dining Room Kulchin, D. Kurlan, Laura Kurlan, Nort Lake Poinsett Lake Winder Lamm, E. C. Landwirth, Henri large cockle largemouth black bass Lark Lee's Charcoal Putt left-handed welk LIFE Magazine Little Joe-Mercury Lockheed Missiles and Space Company Luterhan Church of the Redeemer Luterhan Mission Church Lynns Answering and Secretarial Service macaw MacNabb, B. G. Mark Wayne Quartet martin company Martinique Maxwell, Charles a. Mayaguana Mayaguez Mayfair Cafeteria McCauley, Craig McCoy Airport McDonnell Air Craft McKee Jungle Gardens Meals, Jim Melbourne Airport Melbourne Beach Steak House Melbourne Country Club Melbourne-Eau Gallie High School Melbourne-Indialantic Causeway Melgaard, J. L. Messiah Lutheran Church Mihm, G. J. Minuteman Group Miss Charleston Miss Cocoa Beach Missile Industrial Park, Inc. Missile Test Project's Recreation Association Mitchell, R. S. Mitchell, Ralph Moon Base Moore, Howard Mora, Don Mora, Frank mullet Myrt's Rest NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration National Airlines National Car Rentals NBC Nigeria Nipper Regatta Nock-A-Bouts Nova offshore fishing olive shell orchid shows Orlando Airport Orlando Avenue Our Lady of Lordes Catholic Church PAFB Pageant Homes Palm Bay Methodist Church Pan American Pan American Airways Pan American World Airways Patrick Air Force Base Pep-Tones Pershing Park Pershing Park Homes pickerel fish Pirates Den Cocktail Loung Poinsett Lodge Polaris Polaris and Space Motor Group Polaris Motel pompano fish Pooh Bah Lounge Port Canaveral Port Malabar Principe, P. M. Project Mercury Prokect Score queen palm Radiation Incporated Radio Corporation of America Ramon's Restaurant Ranger Raphael, Ross RCA RCA Missile Test Project RCA Service Company, Inc. Redstone-Mercury Reitter, Roy Richardson, U. Wendell Ridge Road Riding Stable River Road River View Restaurant Riverside Presbyterian Church Riviera Lounge Roberts, Dorothy rocket rocket boosters Rocketdyne Field Engineering Rockledge Estates Rockledge Estates Country Club Rockledge Presbyterian Church Roden, W. S. rough scallop royal palm royal palm trees Ryland, Brennan s Restaurant and Cocktail Lounge sailfish salt water fishing salt water trout Salt Water Trout Capital of the World Samoa Restaurant Samoa Steel Drum Band San Salvadore sand fleas Sara n' Pat Satellite Villa Saturn Saturn C-5 Saturn Launch Complex Scearce, Jim Schrafft scout Scrafft's Carriage House sea bream fish Sea Dunes Sea Dunes Restort Motel Seacoast Shores Season, G. O. Sebastian Inlet Seventh Day Adventist Church of Cocoa Beach sheepshead fish Shoemaker, W. R. shrimp Silk, R. Sizemore, E. N. Skyroom Restaurant Smith, B. R. Smith, James Smythe, H. S. Soraban Engineering company Soroban Engineering, Inc. South Brevard Beaches Chamber of Commerece South Patricl Apartments Southern Gulf Homes sow snappers space space program space technology Space Technology Labs, Inc. Space-Age Homes Spaceport U.S.A. Spanish fish speckled perch spiny periwinkle Sptiznogle, J. O. St. David's By the Sea Episcopal Church St. Gabriel's Episcopal Church St. John's Episcopal Church St. Johns River St. Joseph's Catholic Church St. Lucia St. Luke's Episcopal Church St. Mark's Episcopal Church St. Mark's Methodist Church St. Mary's Catholic Church St. Paul's Methodist Church St. Theresa's Roman Catholic Church storms Storz, H. D. Super Land Palms surf fishing Surfland Palms Surfside Estates Surfside Homes Susor, John Sykes Creek Tahoe tarpon fish Taylor-Made Homes Taylor, Bob Temple Beth Sholom Terra-luna Terrace Shores Homes The Gateway to the Moon The Neptune The Pelican Thiokol Chemical Corporation Thor-Able Star Thor-Agena A Thor-Delta Thorn, Peter S. Tibbs, O. E. Tidelands Motor Inn Tital ICBM Titusville Chamber of Commerece Town Restaurant Trade Winds Cafeteria Tradewinds Hotel Dining Room traveler's palm triple-tail fish Tropicana Tunesters U. S. Air Force U.S. Army U.S. Navy U.S. News and World Report U.S.-1 U.S.-A1A United Presbyterian Church of the Good Shepherd V-2 Vanguard Vanguard Lounge Vanguard Motel Varney, T. L. Vero Beach Veterans Administration Veterans Affairs Vetter Isles Estates Walker, R. F. warmouth perch washington palm Waterway Homes Waves Beauty Salon Wayne, Mark WDBO-TV WESH-TV Whispering Hills Country Club Whispering Pines Stables White Caps Steak House whiting fish Wilkinson, Robert Wilson, J. E. WLOF-TV Wong, Gee Woolfe, Betty World Airways, Inc. Yardley, J. F. Yum Yum Room