1
100
6
-
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
<span>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:</span>
<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><span>This resources is provided here by </span><a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a><span> for educational purposes only. For more information on copyright, please refer to </span><a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#105" target="_blank">Section 5</a><span> of </span><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><span>.</span>
Source Repository
<a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a>
External Reference
<span>United States. <a href="https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf" target="_blank"><em>Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970</em></a></span><span>. Washington: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1975. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/histstats-colonial-1970.pdf.</span>
<span>United States, and Carroll D. Wright. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/166662" target="_blank"><em>The History and Growth of the United States Census</em></a></span><span>. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1900. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf.</span>
"<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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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"><em>Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970</em></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"><em>The History and Growth of the United States Census</em></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/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
<span>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:</span>
<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><span>This resources is provided here by </span><a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a><span> for educational purposes only. For more information on copyright, please refer to </span><a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#105" target="_blank">Section 5</a><span> of </span><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><span>.</span>
Source Repository
<a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a>
External Reference
<span>United States. <a href="https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf" target="_blank"><em>Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970</em></a></span><span>. Washington: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1975. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/histstats-colonial-1970.pdf.</span>
<span>United States, and Carroll D. Wright. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/166662" target="_blank"><em>The History and Growth of the United States Census</em></a></span><span>. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1900. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf.</span>
"<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.<br /><br />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"><em>Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970</em></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"><em>The History and Growth of the United States Census</em></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/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
<span>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:</span>
<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><span>This resources is provided here by </span><a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a><span> for educational purposes only. For more information on copyright, please refer to </span><a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#105" target="_blank">Section 5</a><span> of </span><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><span>.</span>
Source Repository
<a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a>
External Reference
<span>United States. <a href="https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf" target="_blank"><em>Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970</em></a></span><span>. Washington: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1975. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/histstats-colonial-1970.pdf.</span>
<span>United States, and Carroll D. Wright. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/166662" target="_blank"><em>The History and Growth of the United States Census</em></a></span><span>. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1900. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf.</span>
"<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.<br /><br />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"><em>Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970</em></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"><em>The History and Growth of the United States Census</em></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/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
<span>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:</span>
<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><span>This resources is provided here by </span><a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a><span> for educational purposes only. For more information on copyright, please refer to </span><a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#105" target="_blank">Section 5</a><span> of </span><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><span>.</span>
Source Repository
<a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES of Central Florida</a>
External Reference
<span>United States. <a href="https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf" target="_blank"><em>Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970</em></a></span><span>. Washington: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1975. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/histstats-colonial-1970.pdf.</span>
<span>United States, and Carroll D. Wright. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/166662" target="_blank"><em>The History and Growth of the United States Census</em></a></span><span>. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1900. https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/wright-hunt.pdf.</span>
"<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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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"><em>Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970</em></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"><em>The History and Growth of the United States Census</em></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"><em>The 1950 Censuses How They Were Taken</em></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/3da2cef58471c6e942834f73448816cb.mp3
4e82a1f35c2e960aedcffe0ff393d822
https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka/files/original/c082f79011d3bb6dc365c694170b623e.pdf
cd9bc9537642de3a8bd248b0ed3a2661
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
Jared Muha Collection
Subject
Lake Apopka (Fla.)
Agriculture--Florida
Migrant labor
Apopka (Fla.)
Description
A collection of oral history interviews conducted by Jared Muha.
Creator
Muha, Jared
Publisher
<a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank"> RICHES</a>
Rights Holder
<a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank"> RICHES</a>
Curator
Cravero, Geoffrey
Digital Collection
<a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank"> RICHES MI</a>
Oral History
A resource containing historical information obtained in interviews with persons having firsthand knowledge.
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 Memoirs of Jeannie Economos
Alternative Title
Oral History, Economos
Subject
Lake Apopka (Fla.)
Apopka (Fla.)
Migrant labor
Agriculture--Florida
Description
An oral history interview of Jeannie Economos, the Pesticide Safety and Environmental Health Project Coordinator at the Farmworker Association of Florida (FAF), who also worked as Lake Apopka Project Coordinator for the FAF, as well as for non-profit organizations such as the Audubon Society and Save the Manatee Club. The interview was conducted by Jared Muha at the FAF in Apopka on December 10, 2014. Topics discussed in the interview include a summary of her career, the Lake Apopka Project versus the Lake Apopka Restoration Act of 1996, the Farmworker Association of Florida, pesticide health and safety, common environmental challenges facing farmworkers, the necessity of farmworkers, the evolution of farmworkers, African-American farmworkers in Apopka, the shutdown of Lake Apopka, effects of the shutdown on African-American farmworkers, the influx of Hispanic farmworkers, and the future of farm labor in the United States.
Table Of Contents
0:00:00 Introduction<br /> 0:01:16 Lake Apopka Project and the Lake Apopka Restoration Act of 1996<br /> 0:02:52 Farmworker Association of Florida<br /> 0:04:57 Pesticide health and safety<br /> 0:06:01 Common environmental challenges facing farmworkers<br /> 0:08:48 Necessity and evolution of the FAF<br /> 0:13:15 Ethnic makeup and race relations among farmworkers in Apopka<br /> 0:24:47 Shutdown of Lake Apopka<br /> 0:32:18 Replacing African-American workers with Hispanic workers<br /> 0:38:32 Remembering farmworkers<br /> 0:46:45 The future of farm labor<br /> 0:50:59 Closing remarks
Abstract
Oral history interview of Jeannie Economos. Interview conducted by Jared Muha in Apopka, Florida, on December 10, 2014.
Type
Sound
Source
Economos, Jeannie. Interviewed by Jared Muha, December 10, 2014. Audio record available. <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank">RICHES</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="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/omeka/collections/show/53" target="_blank">Apopka Collection</a>, Orange County Collection, RICHES.
Has Format
Digital transcript of original 54-minute and 55-second oral history: Economos, Jeannie. Interviewed by Jared Muha. Audio record available. <a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank"> RICHES</a>, Orlando, Florida.
Coverage
Farmworker Association of Florida, Apopka, Florida
Hawthorne Village, Apopka, Florida
Lake Apopka, Florida
Creator
Economos, Jeannie
Muha, Jared
Publisher
<a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank"> RICHES</a>
Contributor
Cravero, Geoffrey
Date Created
2014-12-10
Date Copyrighted
2014-12-10
Format
audio/mp3
application/pdf
Extent
50.2 MB
Medium
54-minute and 55-second audio recording
24-page digital transcript
Language
eng
Mediator
History Teacher
Civics/ Government Teacher
Economics Teacher
Provenance
Originally created by Jeannie Economos and Jared Muha, and transcribed by Geoffrey Cravero.
Rights Holder
<a href="http://riches.cah.ucf.edu/" target="_blank"> RICHES</a>
Accrual Method
Donation
Curator
Cravero, Geoffrey
Digital Collection
<a href="https://richesmi.cah.ucf.edu/map/" target="_blank"> RICHES MI</a>
External Reference
Palm, Matthew P. "<a href="http://www.orlandosentinel.com/health/os-last-harvest-crealde-school-20140819-story.html" target="_blank">Crealde School's 'Last Harvest' exhibit in Winter Garden</a>." <em>The Orlando Sentinel</em>, August 20, 2014. Accessed June 13, 2016. http://www.orlandosentinel.com/health/os-last-harvest-crealde-school-20140819-story.html.
Ailworth, Erin. "<a href="http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2007-01-18/news/MHAWTHORNE18_1_lonnie-jackson-hawthorne-south-apopka" target="_blank">Displaced from Hawthorne Village, families struggle to weave new lives</a>." <em>The Orlando Sentinel</em>, January 18, 2007. Accessed June 13, 2016. http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2007-01-18/news/MHAWTHORNE18_1_lonnie-jackson-hawthorne-south-apopka.
Wilson, Becky. "<a href="http://www.gainesvilleiguana.org/2015/articles/linda-lee-a-voice-for-lake-apopka-farmworkers/" target="_blank">Linda Lee: A Voice for Lake Apopka Farmworkers</a>." <em>The Gainesville Iguana</em>, October 15, 2015. Accessed June 13, 2016.
Slongwhite, Dale Finley, and Jeannie Economos. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/857802909" target="_blank"><em>Fed Up: The High Costs of Cheap Food</em></a>. 2014.
Comas, Martin E. "<a href="http://www.orlandosentinel.com/health/os-apopka-farmworkers-lupus-20150918-story.html" target="_blank">Sick Apopka farmworkers hope for major study of their illnesses</a>." <em>The Orlando Sentinel</em>, September 19, 2015. Accessed May 25 ,2016. http://www.orlandosentinel.com/health/os-apopka-farmworkers-lupus-20150918-story.html.
Giagnoni, Silvia. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/715188868" target="_blank"><em>Fields of Resistance The Struggle of Florida's Farmworkers for Justice</em></a>. Chicago, Ill: Haymarket Books, 2011.
Rothenberg, Daniel. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/38475492" target="_blank"><em>With These Hands: The Hidden World of Migrant Farmworkers Today</em></a>. New York: Harcourt Brace & Co, 1998.
McCauley, Linda A., Michael R. Lasarev, Gregory Higgins, Joan Rothlein, Juan Muniz, Caren Ebbert, and Jackie Phillips. "<a href="http://resolver.flvc.org/ucf?sid=google&auinit=LA&aulast=McCauley&atitle=Work+characteristics+and+pesticide+exposures+among+migrant+agricultural+families:+a+community-based+research+approach.&id=pmid:11401767" target="_blank">Work Characteristics and Pesticide Exposures among Migrant Agricultural Families: A Community-Based Research Approach</a>." <em>Environmental Health Perspectives</em>, Vol. 109, No. 5. (May, 2001): 533-538.
Das, Rupali, Andrea Steege, Sherry Baron, John Beckman, and Robert Harrison. "<a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/107735201800339272" target="_blank">Pesticide-related Illness among Migrant Farm Workers in the United States</a>." <em>International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health</em>, Vol. 7, Issue 4 (2001): 303-312.
Transcript
Muha
This is Jared Muha on December 10th, 2014, with Jeannie Economos at the Farmworker Association of Florida. So, Jeannie, uh, do you wanna start by, uh, telling us who you are and a little bit about yourself?
Economos
Sure, my name is Jeannie Economos. I, um, am the Pesticide Safety and Environmental Health Project Coordinator here at the Farmworker Association of Florida. I’ve been in this position since 2007. Um, I came back to work at the Farmworker Association in 2006, um, and in 2006, I was working on immigration issues, um, but prior to that, from, um, 1996 until 2001, I worked at the farmworker association as the Lake Apopka Project Coordinator, um, and prior to that, um, I’ve spent the last—since—well, the last 30 years, um, working for non-profit organizations on everything from the Audubon Society and Save the Manatee Club, um, to the farmworker association and the botanical gardens, but my passion is environmental justice and social justice, and I—and I worked on Indian rights issues, uh, for a while also, as a volunteer.
Muha
Great, thank you.
Economos
Mmhmm.
Muha
Um, I—I heard you mention the Lake Apopka w—w—can you say that one more time? The Lake Apopka Project?
Economos
Well, um, it—we didn’t have an official name, but, um, when I began in 1996—um, that was before the farms closed on Lake Apopka—when the State of Florida passed the, uh, Lake Apopka Restoration Act of 1996, which was, um, the, um—the legislation that gave the [St. Johns River] Water Management District the authority to buy out the farms on the north shore of Lake Apopka. So the farmworker association began work on trying to address the issues of the farmworkers related to this proposed buyout. Initially, we actually tried to stop the State [of Florida] from—before the legislation was passed, we tried to stop the state from buying the farmland, and tried to, um, get a coalition of groups together to, uh, support sustainable agriculture instead. That didn’t work. Um, the state bought out the farms, um, and so, from ‘96 to ‘98, we tried to get programs for the farmworkers, um, and then after the farms closed, we were doing, um, disaster control—trying to get housing and food for people—before we learned about the serious contamination and health issues. Um, so—um, so—yeah—so I was the Lake Apopka Project Coordinator from ’96 to 2001.
Muha
Great, thank you.
Economos
Mmhmm.
Muha
Okay, um, so I’d like to start by just asking about, um, farmworker association much more broadly.
Economos
Mmhmm.
Muha
Um, so can you just tell us broadly what the Farmworker Association of Florida is and what it does?
Economos
Well, it would take a long time to tell you everything that we do. Um, we were founded in 1983, uh, incorporated in 1986, expanded statewide in 1992. Um, we do a lot of things. I guess our two main focuses over the past, um, 30 years, um, have been immigrants’ rights and, um, pesticide health and safety. Um, we do lots of other things, too, which would take a long time to say, including things like wage theft, disaster, um, education and response, um, civic participation, um, housing. We did housing for a while, but, basically, I think the best way to describe our organization is that we are very grassroots. Um, our Board of Directors are[sic] almost all current or former farmworkers. The head of the organization is a former farmworker. We have leadership committees of farmworkers in each of the areas where we have an office, and we’re—we really feel that we are run by the grassroots. We are not top-down, we’re bottom-up. Um, even though we work on, uh, individual, local, state, regional, national, and international issues, we’re really driven by our base, which is—are—which are the farmworkers in each of the areas, and I think that’s the beauty of our organization. That’s why—one of the things that I feel so strongly about is that we are a really, um, you know—we—we—we offer services to farmworkers, like we help people fill out food stamp applications and unemployment. So we do help people on an individual level, but we’re not a service organization. Our—our—our goals are to change policy and empower farmworkers to become agents of social change.
Muha
Oh[?].
Economos
Mmhmm.
Muha
And—and you mentioned earlier that your role has been in pesticide health and safety.
Economos
Yes, yes.
Muha
Mmhmm.
Economos
Um, and so that entails a lot…
Muha
[clears throat].
Economos
Of different things. Um, it—we—we have a training for farmworkers to train them about pesticide health and safety, um, and we train a minimum of 500 farmworkers every year in Florida, um, and that—we have five offices in the state, so that’s about a hundred workers in each area. Um, we also train healthcare providers on how to identify, treat, diagnose, and report pesticide-related illnesses. We file complaints when there are violations of regulations in the workplace, um, and we work on pesticide policy issues. We try and[sic] change pesticide policy at the state level and at the national level, and—and we work internationally too with Pesticide Action Network. Um, so I could go on, but that’s [laughs]—gives you a little overview of it.
Muha
Great. Well, thank you.
Economos
Mmhmm.
Muha
Um, so—and—and I know this—this might be a challenging one to—to do briefly, but do it in whatever length you’d like. Um, so can you speak to, um, you know, environmental harms that farmworkers are—are commonly exposed, uh, to and—and—and why that’s important?
Economos
Um, a lot of farmworker organizations—well, first of all, there aren’t many farmworker organizations, but the ones that do exist, um, are often times focused on wages, um, because farmworkers are low on the totem pole. They get very poor wages, um, and some of them are focused on other kinds [sic]—kinds of abuse, like labor camps and things like that, um, but, uh, um, pesticides are really harmful to farmworkers’ health, and scientific studies over the past seven to eight years have increasingly showed[sic] that pesticide exposure can harm the second generation and the third generation of farmworkers, and they can also have—in the past, um, farmworker organizations were focused on acute effects of pesticide exposure, like, um, you know, farmworkers in the field vomiting or—or passing out or whatever from pesticides, but we know more and more now about long term effects of pesticide exposure, um, and farmworkers standards. Um, they’re, um—they are, um, under the [Agricultural] Worker Protection Standard of the Environmental Protection Agency, and those standards are lower—less than the OSHA regulations that protect workers from chemicals[sic] exposures in other kinds of industries. So, um, it’s vitally important, because these people are making money for the owners of the industry. Whether they’re a small grower or a large grower, industry could not operate without the workers, and yet, the workers are risking their health and their lives and that of their families by being exposed to pesticides on a regular basis, and we should all care because we’re all human, but we should also all care because it affects our food and our environment, and what happens to the least of us happens to the—to all of us. So it’s, uh, critically important, um, and I could go on, but I won’t [laughs].
are the invisible ones. They are, um, treated like workhorses, not like people, um, andthey are not afforded the same protections—health and safety protections—that other workers are protected under OSHA1 standards. Um, they’re, um—they are, um,under the [Agricultural]Worker Protection Standard of the Environmental Protection Agency,and those standards are lower—less than the OSHA regulations that protect workers from chemicals[sic]exposures in other kinds of industries. So, um, it’s vitally important,because these people are making money for the owners of the industry. Whether they’re a small grower or a large grower, industry could not operate without the workers,and yet, the workers are risking their health and their lives and that of their families by being exposed to pesticides on a regular basis, and we should all care because we’re all human, but we should also all care because it affects our food and our environment, and what happens to the least of us happens to the—to all of us. So it’s, uh, critically important, um, and I could go on, but I won’t [laughs].
Muha
Good, thank you.
Um, so why do you think there’s a need for an organization like Farmworkers Association of Florida?
Economos
Um, well,let me just give you a little example. We do pesticide trainings, as I mentioned earlier, and we have five offices in the state, so we tend to work with farmworkers in the counties in the areas where we have offices. A few years ago,we ended—started going to different areas, like Wimauma and Wahneta and Winter Haven, where there’s farmworker populations—migrants—and there is no farmworker organization there as a support for them, and when we have gone and done pesticide trainings in those areas,we’ve seen a huge difference. The level of education of the—of—or—or knowledge—not education—the level of knowledge of the workers of their rights and about pesticide exposure is much less, and we have gone and done trainings in areas where there was no farmworker organization presence,and the people have begged us—after an hour and a half or two hour training, they’ve begged us not to leave. They’ve begged us to come back, and, to me, that says it all, because even if we don’t touch farmworkers directly—for example, here in the Apopka area—even if we don’t touch them directly, what we are doing here, by osmosis, gets out into the broader community, and it raises people’s level of understanding of their rights, it raises their understanding of the risks in their workplace, um, and people know that they can come here for things like help with wage theft and things like that.So, um, not only do I feel that, you know—I see what—what we do here every day, but also, having gone to these other areas and seen the difference in the level of, um, information that the people have. It’s really been a stark contrast. So that to me justis—says it all.
Muha
Well, thank you.
Economos
Mmhmm.
Muha
So you mentioned that, um, Farmworkers Association was founded in—in 1983. Uh, can you speak to—and I know you’ve—you’ve been involved since the ‘90s—but can you speak to how you think it’s changed since its founding?
Economos
Yeah, um…
Muha
[clears throat].
Economos
I mean, we have expanded, um, statewide. I think one of the biggest things—I mean, we—lots of things have changed, but I think one of the biggest things that, um, I’ve seen change is our, um, deeper connection to, understanding of, and action on a global level—an international level. So, um, while we continue to be very grassroots, we work in coalition with groups like Pesticide Action Network International, La Via Campesina, uh, Domestic Fair Trade Association, and other organizations like that, um, that, um, make us, um, connect what we’re doing at the local level to much bigger, broader global, um, trends, policies, um, actions, um, multinational corporations and how they’re affecting things at the local level. So I think we’re much more involved in that, and I think that helps, uh, eh, reinforce what we’re doing locally, but also, um, moves us to a different level where we can, eh, rather than just trying to get a—a particular nursery or farm to pay their workers better or to, you know, um, stop using or—or exposing their workers, we’re looking at it on a much more global level. That it’s systemic—not just systemic in the United States, but systemic globally, because of transnational corporations and how they’re affecting governments, and, you know, international trade agreements. So I think that that’s really significant and that helps inform the work that we do locally by having that big, broad national perspective and working in coalitions, uh, nationally and internationally.
Muha
Okay, great. Thank you. Um, so having spoken now for, uh, about 13 and half minutes, um, I haven’t yet, uh, heard about, um, farmworkers’ role in—in black community—and bl—black farmworkers. So I’d like to ask about that if you don’t mind.
Economos
Mmhmm.
Muha
Um, so what has been your role, um, in the lives of former black farmworkers in Apopka?
Economos
Well, um, we, eh—we used to have, um, an African-American, um, organizer with the farmworker association, um, and for two reasons—one, we no longer had funding for the Lake Apopka Project, um, and also, the African-American
organizer that we had became very sick. We don’t have an African-American organizer in our organization right now, um, but because I’ve been working with the farmworker community on Lake Apopka since 1996, even though I was gone for a few years and came back, um, you know, I—and since Lake Apopka is my passion, I have become the African-American farmworker organizer for the farmworker association, and, um, th—uh, the people know me and we have a long-term relationship and the African Americans in this community, um, know that—they trust me I hope—I think. I like to believe that they do, um, and, um—and they know that, um, I really care about them on an individual level, but I care about the cause too.
Maybe I should start by saying that, um, when the farms on Lake Apopka were operating, um, there were, um, mostly Haitian, Hispanic, and African-American farmworkers. I know I might be jumping ahead on your questions, but, um—but, um—and, uh—when—by the time the farms closed in 1998, the majority of farmworkers on Lake Apopka, at that time, were Hispanic. Uh, the Haitians that worked on Lake Apopka were mostly migrants that would come up from South Florida, harvest corn, and then travel the seasons. Um, there were some Haitians that were more permanent, or seasonal residents here, but a lot of the Haitians that worked on the farms were migrant. Um, a lot of the Hispanics were seasonal, so they were here eight, nine, ten months out of the year. Some of them were here permanently all year-round, because Lake Apopka had such a long growing season, okay? Um, the African- American community was older, uh, in general, um, on Lake Apopka and smaller, um, in—in—in—in terms of numbers, um, and because a lot of them were older, a lot of them worked in the packing houses. Um, even though some of them still worked out in the fields, a lot of the older women worked in the packing houses, so they could sit during the day and help grade—you know, grade the—the product as it came through.
Um, so when the farms closed on Lake Apopka, a lot of the Hispanics were absorbed—were younger, uh, in general. This is, you know, a generalization. Um, a lot of them were either able to move to other areas to work or they were absorbed in other kinds of industries, like the nursery industry or construction or laying sod, but the African Americans, because they were older, um, because they didn’t know anything else but farm work, um, they pretty much, um, got left behind, and so, um, when I came back, um, after being gone for several years, um, I wanted to make sure that the Lake Apopka story didn’t get lost, and so I began working with mostly the African-American farmworker community to keep the Lake Apopka story alive. Most of the Hispanics, um, again, were not, um, um, as interested in continuing the Lake Apop—there were a few. Um, uh, a couple of them moved away, um, but the African Americans really feel like their story needs to be told, because today, if you talk to people about farmworkers, you know—there’s other farmworker organization that seem to be all focused on Hispanic farmworkers. If you talked—if you talk to people about farmworkers, they think, Oh, Hispanics, Mexicans, okay? Well the African Americans feel upset about that, okay? Because they say, “Wait a minute. We’re farmworkers. We were farmworkers here before the Hispanics were here,” and this is not to be, you know—to—to, uh—to pit—to pit the races against each other by any means. It’s just that that that history needs to be captured and not lost, and I know that the farm—the African-American farmworkers that I work with feel very strongly about that, um. Because I feel like I work for them, I feel very strongly about that, um, and because what I have read, not that I’m the most well-read person in the world, but, um, I haven’t seen anything in Florida history. I’ve seen like—like, um, peripheral references in other books, like you’ll read books about, you know, uh, discrimination against blacks in Florida…
Muha
[clears throat].
Economos
And there might be a reference to, um, oh, um, “It—it happened in an orange grove,” or, oh, um, “and he was an orange picker,” but I have not seen anything that has really talked about, specifically, the role of African-American farmworkers in Florida history. I haven’t seen it anywhere. I don’t know. Did I answer your question? I kind of…
Muha
Absolutely.
Economos
Okay.
Muha
Not a problem. Well, so you said a few things that I—I want to pick up on later, if you don’t mind, um—or expand on later, um, and I’ll—I’ll ask about that, um, but I—I would like to, um—to—to return to—to your role, um, within black farmworker communities, um, and then I’ll—I’ll—I’ll come back to—to s—a few things you mentioned, uh, about memorialization of—of, um, black farm labor in Florida and, um, some perspectives and what have you. Um, so, um, you mentioned that you’re currently the person that acts as like, um, a liaison between the farmworker association and—and former black farmworkers. Um, so I’d like to know—I mean, it—is—is that—well, so—so is your work then centered around, um, their lives as it pertains to employment or their role in the community? Or, like, what—what do—what do you do, um, with them?
Economos
Well first of all, I wouldn’t use the word “liaison.”
Muha
Oh.
Economos
Because, um, we actually—it can—we have, um, what we call “leadership committees,” and so, um, because our—our office in Apopka has a Hispanic, a Haitian…
Muha
[clears throat].
Economos
And a[sic] African-American leadership committee, s o I call the—the African Americans that I work with mostly, um, are key people—are leadership committee. So they’re actually part of the organization.
Muha
Okay.
Economos
Um, so, um, um, yeah, so I—I would put it in—in those kinds of terms. Um, uh—initially, um—well, we have tried everything over the years, in terms of the Lake Apopka farmworkers, um, and initially, it was not just African Americans, it was all the farmworkers. I—you know, we—we talked about trying to get class-action lawsuits to address the health issues of the farmworkers. That didn’t work. Um, we tried to get, um, funding, uh, from the National Institutes of Health to do, um, a[sic] scientific studies where we can actually test the blood of farmworkers, and that wasn’t just His—uh, African-American, but all Lake Apopka farmworkers—to look at, uh, levels of pesticides in their body to see if, you know—to—to identify that as a problem. That didn’t work. We’ve tried—we did a health survey, um, actually Geraldine [Matthew], an African-American farmworker who was a staff member here, did a survey in 2005 of about 150 mostly African-American farmworkers, ‘cause they were still here. That didn’t get any traction. So basically, what my position in—in—has evolved into, I guess, since everything else has not gotten anywhere, is to keep the legacy alive…
Economos
And to tell their stories.
Muha
[inaudible].
Economos
Because I feel like that’s what they want, that’s what I want to see happen, that’s what they deserve.
Muha
Mmhmm.
Economos
So that’s kind of what my role has evolved into. Um, the book, Fed Up [: The High Costs of Cheap Food], that was published as way to keep those stories alive. Talking to you [laughs] is a way to do that too. Um, the quilts is[sic] a way to try and do that. Um, you know, um, hopefully, we’re gonna have an iTunes film, um, so those are some things that we’ve done, but kind of an answer to your question, um— most of the people that I work with are too old and too sick. They’re—I shouldn’t say “too old,” because Geraldine [Matthew] and Linda [Lee] are my age, you know, and I’m still working, but most of the people I work with are on disability [benefits].
Muha
Mmhmm.
Economos
They’re not even—some of them are over 65, but a lot of them aren’t over 65, but they’re sick. So they—so it’s not in terms of trying to get anybody any jobs because they can’t work, and that says a lot to me, um, but, um—so it’s not in terms of getting jobs. um, it’s mostly to keep the legacy alive, but at the same time, you know, they’ve become friends. I’m close to ‘em. It’s personal, you know? So I do things like take food to Geraldine when she’s on dialysis and she doesn’t have anything to eat and she has nobody to help her, or I’ll—Um, so it’s a, you know—it’s a commitment, and it’s become personal. I care about ‘em.
Linda has a problem with her—this county trying to—code enforcement trying to cite her house because of her roof. So we’re trying to help her, uh, get the right paperwork to get her roof fixed. So, um, I mean,it ends up, um, you know, for our community, and that’s what it’s all about is really feeling like a community, and that’s how you build trust, you know? Um, they call me on the weekends to see how I’m doing. I call them, you know? Its, uh—um, we took a field trip to St.Augustine because they had a—an exhibit on 500 years of African-American history in the United States. We were gonna take a field trip this weekend to the Harry T. Moore museum.2 Um, so it’s a, you know—it’s a commitment, and it’s become personal. I care about ‘em.
Muha
Thank you. Appreciate that.
Economos
Mmhmm.
Muha
[clears throat] So—and, again, I—I do—a lot of what you said I do want to ask about later. Um, but, um, just to—so I’m clear, um, most farmworkers, uh, or former farmworkers from your observation, if I understand correctly, um, you know, after—after the shutdown of Lake Apopka, what did they do?I mean,from your observation, it seems like you’re saying most of them didn’t return to—to any jobs or…
Economos
Well, so that’s a long story too.Right after the farms closed it’s a—I’ll try to do this short—um, th—there was a thing called the Jobs and Education Partnership and they set up this outreach thing for—I think it lasted a year and a half maybe—to try and do retraining of farmworkers, to try and offer them classes, to try and get them other jobs. Um, it was real mess. It was for all f—not just for African Americans. I mean, like—like part of it was English classes for Hispanics. Um, it was pretty unsuccessful. Some farmworkers, like Linda Lee’s sister,Margie, got a job at a nursery. This was before the [Great] Recession happened in the, you know—a few years ago.3 This was at the boom of building and construction and nurseries and stuff, So some of them did get other jobs for a period of time, but most of the African Americans—again, most of the Hispanics and Haitians were absorbed, so, um, they eventually settled out into something—most of them—a lot of them.
Muha
Mmhmm.
Economos
Most of the African Americans got left behind.Geraldine always talks about how, um, “I don’t know what happened, but after the farms closed, people started getting[phone rings]sick and started dying.”
[phone rings]
Economos
And I know from I own experience, sometimes, you know, when you’re, you know…
[phone rings]
Economos
If you’re not active, you know, you—you start to get depressed and you, you know—and people had this—they had to go to work every day and they probably didn’t have time to even think about their healthcare, but a—after the farms closed, a lot of people did start getting sick. A lot of them were sick beforehand, um, like Linda Lee had, you know, a kidney transplant beforehand. Some of them were absorbed for a little while in other jobs, but most of them were older and not in the best of health and didn’t last very long.
Muha
Hm.
Economos
Um, but some of them were already on disability.
Muha
Mmhmm.
Economos
Um, so, um, I don’t know of many that got jobs in farm work. Um, Magaline[sp] was smart. She got out early, before the farms closed, and got a job as a janitor in a school, and worked there up until about a year ago, um, but the ones that stayed in farm work, most of them, um, didn’t know anything else, um, didn’t really get plugged into anything else in terms of a job and/or, you know, were sick and really couldn’t—couldn’t get out there in the world, but had serious health problems. So, yeah.
Muha
Thank you. Um, so, okay—so what I’d like to ask, um—right. Okay, so I’d like to ask, um—and this might be a—a difficult question to—to answer, but, I mean, so, since the—the shutdown of m—most Lake Apopka farms, w—what has been the most dramatic change that you’ve noticed in the lives of—of the former farmworkers who are black?
Economos
Um, I think—well, uh, I think that there’s been a little bit of—there’s been a little bit of dissolution of community. So, um—for example, um, the African-American community in this area are [sic] not what you would traditionally think of, because they are very settled here. Um, there might be two or three or four generations. A lot of them might have come here—their parents or grandparents might have come here in the ’30s and ‘40s. Well, probably I should say ‘40s, because that’s when the farms started on Lake Apopka, okay? And so, w—they—whereas the Hispanics came later, like in the ‘60s and then again a wave in the ‘80s, um, the African Americans were here much longer. Um, there was some public housing, subsidized housing, USDA4 housing for farmworkers. It was called Hawthorne Village. When the farms closed on Lake Apopka—you could only live there if you had so much of your income from farm work. That included nurseries, okay? When the farms closed on Lake Apopka, the African Americans that lived in Hawthorne Village, like Louisee [sp] and other people, uh, Angela Tanner, they were no longer working in farms, so they couldn’t, um, record that…
Muha
[clears throat].
Economos
“I get this much money from farm work.” They couldn’t live there anymore. They had to go find someplace else to live. Some of them had to go find rental housing, and it wasn’t subsidized, so it was too much money for ‘em. Um, some of them had to go live with family members. Then they finally closed down Hawthorne Village completely. They tore it down, ‘cause [sic] it was in bad shape. Those African-American f—farm—former farmworkers ended up having to go to Lake City, so, some—so, it—it did affect some of the—a little bit—there’s still quite a bit of community cohesion, okay? ‘Cause [sic] some people like Linda and Geraldine and Betty and Irma are, you know—own their own homes, okay? But it did separate some families because of that. So some families had to leave the area, um, because of the housing issues. Some of the younger ones—because there was no more work here—did have to leave and find work other places. So it did affect the community, in that sense, and then, it also affected the community because I think when people weren’t working, again, you have issues of, you know, people being depressed because they can’t work, financial problems because they’re not working. Um, some people were sick, but they just kept working, and then they had to try to get on disability, and if they were under 60, they had to wait two or three years. Oh, it was terrible. Some of them had to wait—uh, you know, in the meantime, while you’re waiting to get on disability, even though you’re on, you know—you have all kinds of health problems. Um, how do you survive in the meantime, you know? You’re not old enough to get Social Security, you know, you’re not well enough to work, so you’re in this limbo. How—so it did cause a lot of financial problems for people. Like I said, when the farms first closed on Lake Apopka, we weren’t thinking about health then. We were just thinking about trying to get people, you know, housing and jobs and food and furniture and a place, you know, uh—just real immediate needs.
Muha
Yeah.
Economos
Um, so, yeah, but long term, I think, uh, the health issue is the biggest—biggest thing.
Muha
Okay, thank you.
Economos
Mmhmm.
Muha
Appreciate that.
Economos
Mmhmm.
Muha
Um, okay, and so—so—and—okay. So next one I’d like to ask—I mean, you mentioned a couple times a difference between, um
[phone rings]
Muha
How the shutdown affected…
[phone rings]
Muha
Hispanic farmworkers and how it affected black farmworkers in—in Florida. So I’d like to ask
[phone rings]
Muha
A little bit about, I guess, a shift that occurred, um, on farms in—in Florida and—and specifically in Apopka, um, and—and what you mentioned, you said that there were, uh, waves of—of Hispanic immigrants in the ‘60s and ‘80s, as…
Economos
Mmhmm.
Muha
As you perceived it.
Economos
Right. Mmhmm, mmhmm.
Muha
Um, so the thing[?] that I’d like to ask—so why do you—why do you think that—that that shift took place, eh, eh, from—in our opinion. Um, was it growers’ preferencing [sic] Hispanic farmworkers? What do you think…
Economos
Well, I think…
Muha
The reason…
Economos
It was several things. Um, one is I think the Civil Rights Act—the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 was one influence, because, um, after that, um, blacks had more opportunities to, um, get out of farm work and get into other kinds of jobs, um, and the younger generation of, uh, African Americans—this next generation—wasn’t, um, subject to the same Jim Crow—not that it didn’t still happen, especially in Apopka, um—but, legally, it wasn’t supposed to happen. So the second generation, um—whereas for example—I’m jumping around—but, like, um, Linda’s parents—Linda’s grandparents were farmworkers, Linda’s parents were farmworkers, and she was a farmworker. Well, her kids didn’t have to be farmworkers. They were born after the Civil Rights Act was passed, okay? Same thing with Geraldine, same thing with Betty, you know? Their next generation, um, didn’t have to—they had more options than, um, the previous generation. So the Civil Rights Act was one thing.
The end of the Bracero Program was another thing, okay? Um, so when the Bracero Program ended, um—well, that was mostly in—that was here too, but the end of the Bracero Program, um—which brought, um, Hispanics into the United States—okay, it ended, but then the growers had an opportunity to go and get, uh, thr—without the Bracero Program to go and get cheaper labor from, you know, Mexico and bring them here to work, okay? And then, I think conditions in Mexico, um—people, you know—workers coming from Mexico, I think, um, you know, the—well, in the ‘90s, NAFTA5 made a big difference too. There was an influx of, um, farmworkers from Mexico after NAFTA, but in the ‘60s and the ‘80s, it was conditions in Mexico, it was the end of the Bracero Program, but I think it was just, you know, demographic changes. A lot of African-American farmworkers were getting older and moving out, and Linda will tell you a story about how, you know, it was mostly African-American farmworkers. She remembers one day going out to the orange groves. They would get up every morning, go to the orange groves, pick oranges, and then take the bus—you know, the crew bus back home. She said one day, they went out to the grove and there was a—as she says, a Mexican f—family there that had slept there all night long, okay? Well, the African-American farmworkers were upset, because the Hispanics that were there—and this is, you know—this is how the industry ends up causing racial divide. The Hispanics that were there all night long could pick earlier in the morning. They could stay and pick later at night, and when you’re being paid by the piece, you know, you’re not getting paid by the hour, they were able to make more money, okay?
So, um, you know, people from Mexico saw econom—economic opportunity here and they started coming here, and they kind of, you know—the—the—it—there became that clash of—and the Hispanics would work cheaper, and—and sometimes they would work faster, and part of that was because a lot—some of the African Americans were beginning to know what their rights were, um, and some of them would stand up for their rights. Whereas, the—a lot of time the Hispanics didn’t know they even had any rights, and they would put up with more abuse, and that’s—again, that’s kind of a generalization, you know? Um, but, um, G— Geral—Geraldine would s—says sometimes, you know, “Oh, I felt sorry for the Hispanics, because they would come here—s—some stuff that we wouldn’t put up with, you know, they would come and they would—they would take it.” So I think there’s [sic] lots of different factors, but I think those are some of them.
Muha
Mmhmm.
Economos
Yeah.
Muha
And then, from your observation, uh, what do you think the perception on that question of—of black farmworkers is? What do you think—do you think they would say the same?
Economos
Well that’s—like I said, a lot of that’s stuff that I’ve heard. In terms of the Civil Rights Act, that’s my perception and th—things I’ve read too, um, but in terms of some of the other things, I mean, I—I hear that directly from them, you know? That they—they have said that. That, you know—that, um, the Hispanic workers would work longer hours, they would put up with more abuse, um, sometimes they would work faster. Again, if you have—especially after the 1960s, um, if you have an aging African-American population, they might not harvest as fast. Whereas, the Hispanics coming in are younger, um, you know, and they would work faster. If you see the—and now it’s not even Mexicans as much as it is Gua—uh, you know, Guatemalans and Salvadorans. the training that we here—had here last night for the farmworker women, they were all young and they were from Guatemala, um, and they were all—I would say—20s, um, early 30s. They were young and they were all farmworkers. So, you know, I think that had a—is a factor too.
Muha
[clears throat].
Muha
Great, um, and—and then, um—following that question, um, in your experiences with former farmworkers in Apopka today, I mean, what—what stands out, uh, to you about their perspec—perspectives on farm labor? Um, given that most of them are now former farmworkers. Most of their children aren’t farmworkers. Um, what do you notice about their perspectives?
Economos
Well, I think they’re all very proud of it. Um, there are some, like Mary Tinsley, who will say, uh, “Oh, I—I used to pick oranges when I was a teenager and I never, ever wanted to do it again, so I decided to go to college and never do it again,” you know, um, but, um, her mom is proud of the work she did, you know? Betty Woods, who died last year, um, said that she loved it. She loved being a farmworker. Geraldine—she’ll say, “We fed the world.” Um, I love Geraldine. She’s so powerful, um, and they’re—they’re proud of what they did, um, and they should be. They deserve to be proud of what they did, um, and, um—and I think the ones that I—I work with, of course, probably have a higher consciousness about all of these issues, because they have been working on this, and, you know, um…
[phone rings]
Economos And have been connected with the farmworker association. We, you know, do do consciousness raising stuff, but even…
[phone rings]
Economos
When we go down to Indiantown, and the farmworkers there—the African Americans there—I think they’re proud of what they’ve done…
[phone rings]
Economos
And their contribution. Um, some of them love it. Geraldine’s really proud that she was the fastest corn packer [laughs], you know, and it was kind of competitive. Um, Linda’s proud that her father was a crew leader and he was a good crew leader…
Muha
Mmhmm.
Economos
And he treated his people well and—and, um, they have all kinds of stories. You could listen to them for hours and days and months and never get all the stories that they have, and it’s a very rich, uh, history, which is why I think it’s so important to capture that, because it’s just very, very rich, both in terms of good and bad. Um, you know, it’s—we—we talk about the discrimination against the blacks in Florida, the country, um, but…
[phone rings]
Economos
What was it like to be black and a farmworker? Kind of the—the…
[phone rings]
Economos
And I hate to put it like this, but how society looks at it is like the…
[phone rings]
Economos
Lowest rung on the totem pole in terms of, you know, the type of job that you do. Um…
[phone rings]
Economos
So I think that that’s a really super rich history, and, um…
[phone rings]
Economos
They have stories talking about being on the mule train and them laughing and…
[phone rings]
Economos
And singing slave songs to get them through the day, um, and it’s just very, very, uh, rich, cultural history, um, and they talk about their interactions with the Hispanics and the Haitians, um, and some of it’s good and some of it’s bad, you know? Um, and—and, uh, um, so, yeah—I forgot what the original question was [laughs].
Muha
No, you did great. Well, the original question was about farm—farmworker perspecti—or black farmworker perspectives…
Economos
Oh, yeah.
Muha
Today and what stands out to you.
Economos
Yeah, yeah.
Muha
So if there’s anything else you wanted to add…
Economos
Um, well, I—I, a—again, what stands out to me, because of the people I work with is that they feel very strongly that they want to be remembered. Yeah.
Muha
Well, I wanted to ask you about that because, uh, throughout this—this interview, a few times you’ve mentioned the importance of, um—of history and—and being remembered, um, so—so, yeah, I mean, and—and you’ve mentioned, uh, the quilt, which—which was Linda’s project…
Economos
Hm, yeah.
Muha
Um…
Economos
Well, every—it—Linda did the most of it…
Muha
Okay.
Economos
It was everybo—I don’t want to—yeah.
Muha
Okay.
Economos
Yeah, it was everybody’s pro—it was a project of the farmworker association. Linda was the one that really did most of the quilt squares, but everybody was involved…
Muha
Great.
Economos
So…
Muha
Well, if I understand, she was l—like the—I—I don’t—I…
Economos
[laughs].
Muha
Perhaps the leader of it? Or…
Economos
She and Sara [Downs]—Sara.
Muha
Okay.
Economos
Together were—yeah. If it weren’t for—they—they were the two that really drove it forward. So, yeah.
Muha Okay.
Economos
Yeah.
Muha
Well, so…
Economos
Mmhmm.
Muha
But I—I wanted to ask you, I mean, you know, it seems i—if I—if I understand correct[sic] I, uh—I mean, has—do you think the history of—of black farm labor has been remembered in Apopka?
Economos No, I don’t. I don’t. I—no. If you go to the, uh, uh, Museum of the Apopkans over here, um, there’s almost nothing in there about African Americans at all, much less African-American farmworkers. They finally did—actually, I need to—they finally did invite us to bring the quilts there during, uh, Black History Month. That was nice of ‘em, um, finally, um, but, um, uh, there’s almost nothing about bla—the, um—if you go to Winter Garden—because I don’t want it to sound like it’s just Apopka, ‘cause[sic] it’s the whole—Lake Apopka is really big, so there’s farmworkers f—that worked on Lake Apopka that were from Zellwood and Eustis and Mount Dora and Astatula and, um, Winter Garden. Winter Garden—there’s a big African-American community there. Linda’s sister lived in Winter Garden. Um, I used to go ride my bike in Winter Garden, and they have a big mural on the side of one of the main buildings in Winter Garden of citrus, and it’s a white guy picking oranges, um, and I’m like, No. [laughs] It probably wasn’t a white guy picking oranges, and, um, you know, and you go to Winter Garden and there’s almost nothing about, um—I think it’s a little bit better over the last couple of years. Um, Winter Garden just had “The Last Harvest[: A History and Tribute to the Life and Work of the Farmworkers on Lake Apopka”] exhibit there and I didn’t even get to go see it, um, but, uh, it’s virtually—no. It’s—it‘s—it’s hidden. It’s deliberate. If you go to, um, Oakland Nature Preserve, um, that was started by Friends of Lake Apopka, there is nothing there about farmworkers at all. If you go to Magnolia Park and the boat ramp and you see the sign there about the history of Lake Apopka, there is nothing there about farmworkers or African Americans in the community. So, no, I think it’s not there and I think it’s deliberate. Yeah.
Muha
And—and you’ve noticed that you—you—you think it’s important to the farmworkers in Apopka and—and those who worked on Lake Apopka that they be remembered.
Economos
Absolutely, and—and they have talked about—I mean, the quilts are great, and the book is great, and we’re—I think everybody’s happy to have both of those things, um, have happened, but, um, I think—some of them have told me that they would like to see a memorial in the city of—that—that—sanctioned by—because the book and the quilt and “The Last Harvest”—that was the farmworker association doing that. Nobody outside—I mean, Dale [Finley Slongwhite] is outside the fa—you know, but nobody outside the farmworker association. What are they doing? It’s all been driven by, you know, the farmworker association. Who else out there has made a concerted effort…
Muha
Mmhmm.
Economos
To do anything to remember the farmworker association? You are, but, I mean, who else is really doing anything to recognize farmworkers at all here—much less African-American farmworkers in this community? So no, I don’t think it’s remembered, um, and I think it’s deliberate.
Muha
Well, thank you, um, and then, as—as my last question, I—I wanted to ask you, um, if you had any thoughts on, uh, the future of farm labor in—in Florida, and perhaps, uh, more broadly in the United States or the South.
Economos That’s a really good question, because, um—that’s a really big question, because, um, you know, there’s continuing competition from globalization, um, the recession has affected the…
Muha
[clears throat].
Economos
Nursery industry in Florida, um, imports of tomatoes from Mexico has a—affected the tomato industry in Florida, the drought is affecting the nut industry in California, as well as other kinds of crops. Um, so lots of different factors are affecting, um, agriculture in the United States. Um, subsidies for commodity crops, like, um, corn, soy, and wheat are affecting—they, eh—it just blows my mind that they call fruits and vegetables “specialty crops.” That just is mind-boggling to me, you know? tomatoes are a specialty crop. Corn is not a specialty crop. Gen—genetically-modified corn is not a specialty crop, but, you know, your healthy carrots are. Um, so specialty crops are at risk, um, because of the huge agribusiness farms. Um, so I think that there is a real danger of, um—or threat to agriculture in the United States. The global, you know—forces of globalization around the world, um—I do take hope from the food movement, um, where a lot of, um, people are, um, wanting healthy, organic, local, sustainable food, even though it might not be fair trade food, um, for workers, but a lot of, um, small, independent farms are starting up at a very small scale, but poor people can’t afford to buy that. I can’t afford [laughs] to buy that, um, produce. Um, so you’re still going to have your big grocery store chains, you’re still going to have, um, you know, your, um, need for cheap food. So I do think it’s a really big concern where—and I think farmers know that. The writing is on the wall for some of them.
Um, tomatoes, you know, the—tomatoes are a big issue in Florida. Um, the tomato industry in Florida wants to continue growing tomatoes the way they’re growing them, which is picking them early and—and, um, then treating them with methyl bromide to ripen them, whereas Mexico is growing vine-ripe tomatoes and that they’re shipping here, and people want those more. So, um, if agriculture, um, diminishes—and we’ve already seen that on a small scale in Apopka. The recession, um, put a lot of farmworkers out of work in Florida. Um, nurseries went under. Miguel estimated about 50 percent of the nurseries. I don’t know if that’s accurate or not, but quite a few nurseries, um, closed, which put a lot of workers out of work. Immigration policies have affected agriculture. A lot of workers, um, are afraid to travel, um, the seasons like they used to, because of immigration policies in other states, um, like Georgia and Alabama that might be really horrible. Um, immigration policies have affected migration into the United States, which has affected how many people come here to be farmworkers. So, um, there’s lots of different forces at play here, and, uh, I’m not real[sic] good at forecasting the future, but I think we have some real issues that—that are gonna come up, um, and I think we’re gonna end up seeing a lot more imported food and a loss—lot less work for farmworkers. So…
Muha
Good, okay. Well, um, as far as my questions, that’s all. Um, was there anything you wanted to add or say before I stop the recording?
Economos
Um, I just want to say that I think—I think there’s a real place and a real need in Florida history to document the role of African-American farmworkers. I mean, I—I kind of said that already several times, but, um, I want to say it kind of in a different way now, because I think it’s important to put African-American farmworkers—not just to remember that they were here and they had lives, but to really look at that in terms of the economic development of Florida. That—you know, we hear about, um, [Henry] Flagler and the railroad and other people in, you know, uh, uh, major, uh—who I can’t think of right now—major people in Florida history who, you know, created the development of Florida, but none of that could happen, okay? A lot of that was based on—a lot of the economy in Florida was driven by agriculture, okay? And the railroad and all these other things—where part of it was to move agricultural products, part of it was to bring people down here to start orange groves and vegetable fields, and none of that could have happened without African-American farmworkers, and I think it’s really crucial not only to remember the lives of the farmworkers here, but to put them in some kind of really profound historical context, um, in the—in Florida’s history, you know?
Even, um, Patrick [D.] Smith, who wrote that book, Angel City [: A Novel], okay? The main characters in that book where white farmworkers that came down from Tennessee or Kentucky or something like that, um, and the peripheral characters in the book were African American, okay? I—it’s really vitally important to see how—there’s even more about, um, the Indians—the native Indians in Florida and what happened to them then there are[sic] about African Americans historically in Florida as part of the development and what caused the economy to grow in the state, and I also think—one more thing I think is crucially important is to—to demonstrate or to understand that African-American farmworkers, in Florida and other parts of the South, have a direct line to slavery, and I think that that thread needs to be pulled through, um, because the conditions that farmworkers experienced and continue to experience, but, again, it was—e—e—even before Lake Apopka, you go back into the ‘20s and ‘30s and ‘40s before Lake Apopka, you know, that—it was still the legacy of slavery. So I think somehow that thread needs to be woven through all of this, um, because I don’t think you can look at—at—at it in a—in a vacuum without bringing—bringing that in, and how the conditions on the farms were related to, um—how con—plantation conditions and slavery in the United States. So…
Muha
Okay. Well, thank you so much. Um, this…
Economos
Thank you.
Muha
Has been—oh, absolutely [laughs]. This has been Jared Muha with Jeannie Economos of the Farmworker Association [of Florida] on December 10th, 2014.
agribusiness farms
agricultural labor
Agricultural Worker Protection Standard
agriculture
Angel City: A Novel
Angela Tanner
Apopka
Astatula
Audubon Society
AWPS
Betty Woods
Bracero Program
bromomethane
carrots
Central Americans
citrus
Civil Rights Act of 1964
commodity crops
corn
Dale Finley Slongwhite
DI
disability benefits
disability income insurance
disability insurance
disaster education
disaster responses
Domestic Fair Trade Association
economic development
educational programs
environmental advocacy
environmental justice
Environmental Protection Agency
EPA
Eustis
fair trade
Farmworker Association of Florida
farmworkers
farmworkers' rights
Fed Up: The High Costs of Cheap Food
FOLA
food movements
Friends of Lake Apopka
Geraldine Matthew
Geraldine Shannon
globalization
Great Recession
Guatemalans
Haitians
Harry and Harriette Moore Memorial Park
Harry T. & Harriette V. Moore Cultural Complex
Hawthorne Village
Henry Flagler
Henry Morrison Flagler
Hispanic Americans
Hispanics
immigrants
immigrants’ rights
immigration
income protection
Indiantown
Jared Muha
Jobs and Education Partnership
La Via Campesina
Lake Apopka
Lake Apopka Farmworker Memorial Quilts Project
Lake Apopka Project
Lake Apopka Restoration Act of 1996
Lake City
Latin Americans
Latinas
Latinos
Linda Lee
Magnolia Park
Mary Tinsley
methyl bromide
Mexican Americans
Mexicans
Mexico
migrant farms
migrant farmworkers
migrant labor
migrant laborers
migrant workers
Mount Dora
Museum of the Apopkans
NAFTA
National Institutes Of Health
NIH
non-profit
North American Free Trade Agreement
not-for[profit
nurseries
nursery
nuts
Oakland Nature Preserve
OASDI
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance
oranges
OSHA
Patrick D. Smith
Pesticide Action Network International
pesticide exposure
pesticide health and safety
Pesticide Safety and Environmental Health Project Coordinator
pesticides
public housing
race relations
railroads
railways
retraining
Salvadorans
Sara Downs
Save the Manatee Club
slavery
slaves
Social Security
Social Security Disability Insurance
soy
specialty crops
SSD
SSDI
St. Augustine
St. Johns River Water Management District
The Last Harvest: A History and Tribute to the Life and Work of the Farmworkers on Lake Apopka
tomato
tomato industry
tomatoes
U.S. Department of Agriculture
unfree labor
USDA
wage theft
Wahneta
wheat
Wimauma
Winter Garden
Winter Haven
Worker Protection Standard
Zellwood
-
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/.
<span>Knotts, Bob. </span><a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/49672975" target="_blank"><em>Florida History</em></a><span>. Chicago: Heinemann Library, 2003.</span>
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. <em>Map of Florida Showing the Land Grant of the Florida South Railway</em>. 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. <em>Map of Florida Showing the Land Grant of the Florida South Railway</em>. 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"><em>Railroad Depots of Central Florida</em></a>. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Pub, 2008.
Murdock, R. Ken. <a href="http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/38291666" target="_blank"><em>Outline History of Central Florida Railroads</em></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"><em>A Journey into Florida Railroad History</em></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