IPUMS recently released final versions of full count census data for the United States 1900-1930. The information contained in these files is the product of three broad work stages: historical census enumeration, digitization, and IPUMS processing. The data were produced within an evolving institutional context and subjected to subsequent processes that had important ramifications on the final product. This paper documents these histories and processes and their implications for research. Because of the datasets' sheer size and scale, the development of these files necessitated applying different methods and approaches to assess data quality and correct the data. We document cases where data quality was affected not only by choices made by the Census historically, but also by data transcription errors in the modern day. Finally, we describe our approaches to processing the data, and we note some of the implications for research these various decisions have. As with any dataset, researchers should use this resource critically for their particular research questions and consider the data creation process from respondent to digital dataset. Despite some limitations and liabilities, the IPUMS full count data provide a powerful and valuable resource to study demographic effects on a variety of health and socioeconomic questions.

IPUMS has finalized databases for each of the United States population censuses from 1850 to 1880. These data are the result of collaborations between FamilySearch and Ancestry.com, which provided the raw data, and IPUMS, which enhanced the data with editing, standardized coding, inter-census harmonization, and documentation. We discuss the data capture process conducted by the nineteenth-century United States Census Office, construction of the modern datasets, and variable availability. We conclude by briefly discussing the potential and limitations of these data for social science research. The public data are distributed by IPUMS and available for researchers to use free of charge.

IPUMS at the University of Minnesota has created the world's largest accessible database of census and survey microdata. The IPUMS suite of products contains nine harmonized data products. The largest of these projects, IPUMS International (IPUMS-I) has supported the curation and preservation of ancillary materials received during data acquisition efforts. Archival staff have preserved thousands of unique pieces of census and survey documentation, creating bibliographic records using an extended Dublin Core profile that supports the use of controlled vocabularies to enhance findability. The goal of this curation work was to create a searchable, and downloadable document access system for our internal use and to support IPUMS researchers. This paper describes our experience constructing a tool that supports exploration and dissemination of these archived materials. During this development, we gained valuable insight about stewarding our resources that are applicable to research organizations responsible for curating, preserving, and disseminating similar archival materials.

The U.S. Census has grappled with public concerns about privacy since the first enumeration in 1790. Beginning in the mid-nineteenth century, census officials began responding to concerns about privacy with promises of confidentiality. In recent years, escalating concerns about confidentiality have threatened to reduce the usability of publicly accessible population data. This paper traces the history of privacy and disclosure control since 1790. We argue that controlling public access to census information has never been an effective response to public concerns about government intrusion. We conclude that the Census Bureau should weigh the costs of curtailing access to reliable data against realistic measures of the benefit of new approaches to disclosure control.

<p>The Institute for Social Research and Data Innovation (ISRDI) at the University of Minnesota submitted an application for approval to the Core Trust Seal (CTS) in June 2022.  In the course of the protracted process to prepare ISRDI materials for the application, we learned five lessons that expanded our perspective on the role of the archive within our organization and committed our institute to building a sustainable metadata culture. By taking the time to review the specialized nature of ISRDI as it developed over time, clarify and document the processes that developed as the intitute matured and expanded, and applying the standards and guidelines supported by the CTS, ISDRI is now in a position to more easily identify areas of future process development and address outstanding needs in terms of our documentation and preservation of our work. These lessons are applicable to research organizations that include the responsibility to preserve a record of their work in the mid- and long-term.</p>

A census is a political construct that reflects the ideological orientation of its creators. Legislators, intellectuals, and the public have contested the content and purposes of the U.S. census for 230 years. In each period, the meaning and uses of the census reflected the politics and priorities of the moment. In the 1850s, census planners suppressed information about slavery at the behest of southern legislators; in the 1880s, the census director promoted nativist theories of race suicide; and in the 1940s, census officials helped plan Japanese internment. The census is inherently political: its original purpose was reapportionment of political representation, and in virtually every decade, winners and losers of the demographic contest have debated the legitimacy of the results. In one case-the census of 1920-the results were ignored altogether and no reapportionment took place, as rural legislators feared losing power to the cities. 1 Political considerations shaped not only the content and applications of the census but also the mechanics of census taking. This essay traces the history of U.S. census data capture and processing, which we define as the methods and technologies used to transform raw census responses into statistical tables. By focusing on federal responses to specific technical challenges over a very long span, our narrative illuminates the long-run effects of shifting societal preoccupations on bureaucratic decision making. More broadly, the case study of the census reveals the critical and shifting role of state and political forces in the development of technology.

The use of quantitative methods in leading historical journals increased dramatically in the 1960s and declined sharply after the mid-1980s. The JIH is an invaluable source for analysis of the boom and bust in the use of quantitative methods in history; the journal remained under the same editors for almost fifty years and made no attempt to change editorial policies during that period. Shifting patterns of content and authorship in the JIH from the 1980s to the early 2000s reveal how the journal responded to a dramatic decline in quantitative submissions by U.S.-based historians. Recent years have seen a revival of quantification both in the JIH and in mainstream historical journals, especially among historians located at institutions outside the United States.

There are three sources of information about undercounts in nineteenthcentury U.S. censuses: demographic analyses of net undercounts by age, sex, and race at the national level; record-linkage studies of gross undercounts for local communities; and contemporary testimony of the types and bases of underenumeration. This article reviews the strengths and limitations of each of these sources, assesses the extent of their agreement, and discusses the bases of their disagreement. Our main conclusions, in brief, are as follows. Each of the three sources offers valuable, albeit different, insights into historical undercounts. Demographic analyses are the best guide to the overall level of the undercount; community-centered linkage studies provide additional information (beyond age, sex, and race) about the persons the enumerators missed; and contemporary testimony both confirms the general conclusions from linkage studies and suggests why some social groups were disproportionatelyundercounted.

Examines the procedures that the US Census Bureau has used to collect census data since 1850. From 1850 to 1870, federal marshals were charged with appointing assistants to collect census data. Because the primary duties of marshals concerned law enforcement, census taking became burdensome, and the assistants they chose were usually ill-trained political appointees. This changed in 1880 when the Department of Interior appointed administrators of the census who could be more closely supervised. Census administrators then selected their own enumerators. This system served as a model for later censuses, and refinements were introduced in order to improve the quality of the enumerators. Such reforms included written exams, the use of street books to insure more accurate counts, and training seminars. The 1960 and 1970 censuses ushered in the age of self-enumeration whereby census questionnaires were mailed to each household, and the data was then processed with electronic equipment. These reforms dramatically reduced census undercounts.