Skip navigation

NARA expects to digitally release the 1950 population census schedules for researcher use on April 1, 2022, which is 72 years after the official 1950 census day.  This is the 37th in a series of blog posts on the 1950 census.


Enumeration of persons living in locations under the control of other federal agencies required the Bureau of the Census to establish communication and cooperation with those agencies, partly out of courtesy, partly to ensure complete enumeration, and partly due to access restrictions for security reasons.


In 1950, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) had about 1,500 separate operational units, including vessels, lighthouses, lightships, and stations of various kinds.  This post describes the arrangements made with the USCG for the enumeration of its personnel.  Many U.S. Coast Guard establishments (including lighthouses) were designated as enumeration districts separate from the surrounding countryside, such as Alcatraz Light Station in California, shown in the photo below.


Alcatraz Light Station, California, which was California ED 38-5 in 1950, NAID 205573642


Commanding officers of USCG vessels would receive sufficient numbers of Form P4, Crews of Vessels Report (shown below), for their crew.  Forms for personnel who were on leave or absent on temporary additional duty would be filled out by the commanding officer as much as possible.  The commanding officer would then mail all the completed forms to the Chief of the Population, Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce, Washington 25, DC.  Passengers (if any) on vessels would not be enumerated with special forms; they would be enumerated under standard 1950 census procedures (at their home address or under T-night procedures if away from home at a hotel).


Form P4, Crews of Vessels Report, front and reverse sides
Form P4, Crews of Vessels Report (front side)
Form P4, Crews of Vessels Report (reverse side)


USCG uniformed and civilian personnel residing in barracks, bachelor officer’s quarters, women’s officer’s quarters, and other “barrack-type” quarters in the continental U.S. would fill out a Form P2, Individual Census Report.  A Census Bureau representative would provide the commanding officer of these facilities sufficient numbers of forms before April 1.  The commanding officer would collect the forms and mail them to the Bureau of the Census.  However, uniformed and civilian USCG personnel who lived with their dependents at the facility would be visited by a “regular sworn Census representative.”  Personnel and their families who lived off base would be enumerated in the standard fashion by a regular census enumerator.


Personnel living at lighthouses and similar facilities would fill out Form P2, Individual Census Report.  Sufficient numbers of forms were sent to the facility and then, after they were completed, were to be mailed back to the Bureau of the Census by the officer in charge.


USCG personnel at consulates, Merchant Marine Details, Loran Transmitting Stations, and other overseas facilities would complete Form P5, Overseas Census Report, and the facility’s commanding officer would return them to the Census Bureau.  However, personnel attached to embassies and legations would be “enumerated by the State Department Enumeration System.”  No census forms for these overseas individuals were retained; therefore, they will not be part of the 1950 census release.  (See Census Enumeration of U.S. Civilians and Military Personnel Overseas, 1790–1950.)


The Census Bureau wanted Coast Guard facilities to have all the forms completed by their personnel by April 15, 1950, but crew lists for some unknown number of USCG vessels had not been received at the Census Bureau by July 3, 1950.


The USCG may also have assisted in conducting the 1950 census of Alaska in remote locations.  Navassa Island, Quita Sueno Bank, Roncador Cay, and Serrana Bank – which the Census Bureau believed were uninhabited – were all under the administration of the USCG.


When the 1950 census is released on April 1, 2022, researchers will find Form P2, Individual Census Report, and Form P4, Crews of Vessels Report, for persons residing at these special facilities.


The Census Bureau made similar arrangements with another federal agency that had vessels, the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, which had 17 ships and approximately 700 men that were expected to be stationed on April 1, 1950, at Norfolk, Virginia; Portland, Oregon; Saint Petersburg, Florida; Washington; San Francisco, California; and Seattle, Washington.


Information about the USCG’s and U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey’s cooperation with the Census Bureau are intermixed in three files: 


(1) “Binder 36-I – Light Ships, Light Houses, and Coast Guard” (NAID 205683295).  This file includes the USCG Standard Distribution List, October 1, 1949, that provides that mailing addresses for all of its “activities ashore and afloat.”


(2) “Binder 36-F – U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Ships” (NAID 205683292)


(3) "Binder 36-E - Penal Institutions" (NAID 205683291)

NARA expects to digitally release the 1950 population census schedules for researcher use on April 1, 2022, which is 72 years after the official 1950 census day.  This is the 36th in a series of blog posts on the 1950 census.


Every 10 years, the Census Bureau faced the monumental task of hiring, training, and supervising hundreds of thousands of qualified temporary employees, including enumerators, clerks, coders, keypunch operators, and supervisors.  Of these, the people on the front line – the enumerators – were arguably the most important since the accuracy and completeness of the information they collected would inevitably influence the statistics generated from the later work of the coders, keypunch operators, and career statisticians.


An earlier post, 1950 Census:  A Message to Job Applicants!, discussed the requirements and desired skills for qualified census enumerators:  A U.S. citizen with a high school education or better, who can (1) write legibly, (2) do simple arithmetic quickly and accurately, and (3) interact with, and gain the cooperation of, all kinds of human personalities.  How do you find and hire people like these?  Can you name one large group of laborers in 1950 who had these qualifications?


Answer:  School teachers.


School teachers were mostly U.S. citizens, educated, could do arithmetic, and (hopefully) wrote legibly.  Daily they exercised skills in interacting with, and obtaining the cooperation of, students and parents.  They were known and generally respected in their communities.  Their membership in national, state, or local education associations meant that it would be efficient to get information to them about the census and the need for their skills.  Thus, the Census Bureau devoted resources to a “Teacher Participation Program” to recruit school teachers to be 1950 census enumerators.  This post will be our “first look” at the program based on some of the 1950 census teacher participation program records that have been digitized thus far.


The bulk of the Teacher Participation Program work was carried out by Curtis E. Warren, who signed his letters either as “Educational Consultant, Bureau of the Census” or “Consultant to the Field Division, Bureau of the Census.”  Dr. Warren was a former high school principal and former superintendent of the public schools in Marysville, Burbank, Santa Barbara, and San Francisco, California.


Dr. Warren began his project by contacting Charles H. Lake, a consultant to the Cleveland, Ohio, Board of Education, who may also have been a personal friend.  On December 1, 1948, Warren wrote to Charley Lake to inform him that he had travelled 25,000 miles, and had visited all the states west of the Mississippi River as well as Kentucky, West Virginia, and Maine.  Thus, he said, “I have now covered 24 states and the cities of Chicago, Omaha, Lincoln, Denver, San Francisco, Oakland, San Diego, Los Angeles, Detroit, and Salt Lake City.”  More importantly, he noted that “I have had an unusually fine response, by and large, and so far the superintendents in the big cities have been very willing to cooperate.” (Curtis E. Warren to Charles H. Lake, December 1, 1948, image 6 in “Binder 35 – Ohio Section – Correspondence with Public School Officials, Ohio” (NAID 205683270).


The opportunity to earn money was an inducement to some teachers to participate.  May Ruth, a teacher at New Martinsville, West Virginia, and former Census Bureau employee, wrote in November 1948, that she was “very much interested” and “the wages would supplement their regular income, which is often too low.”  (May Ruth to Census Bureau, Nov. 1948, images 8-11 in “Binder 35 – West Virginia Section – Correspondence with Public School Officials, West Virginia” (NAID 205683284)).


Discussion of the Teacher Participation Program in Annual Report of the Bureau of the Census, July 1, 1947-June 30, 1948, page 2.First page of letter from May Ruth, New Martinsville, West Virginia, November 1948 from NAID 205683284.


Nebraska school leaders seemed eager to cooperate.  For example, George P. Moore, Supervising Principal of the public schools in Oaklyn, Nebraska, reported to Director of the Census J. C. Capt on January 4, 1949, that “All of our teachers have expressed their willingness to participate in this project one hundred percent.  As of this date you may depend upon 31 volunteers from the Oaklyn Schools.”  (George P. Moore to Director of Census, January 4, 1949, image 12 in “Binder 34 – Nebraska Section – Correspondence with Public School Officials, Nebraska” (NAID 205683262)).


However, some teachers were unenthusiastic or opposed to being an enumerator because it would interfere with their much-needed spring break week or their after-school tasks like grading homework and tests.  In Connecticut, local education associations showed “a disappointing lack of enthusiasm for the project, particularly in the larger communities.” (Lyndon U. Pratt, Executive Secretary, Connecticut Education Association, to Mr. Warren, Census Bureau, April 14, 1949, image 3 in “Binder 33 – Connecticut Section – Correspondence with Public School Officials, Connecticut” (NAID 205683241)). 


In Eau Claire, Wisconsin, public school teachers had conducted city-wide censuses every year since 1944 to help the school district's planning efforts.  Blank city census forms and recent statistical data were sent to Dr. Warren for his information.  (“Binder 35 – Wisconsin Section – Correspondence with Public School Officials, Wisconsin” (NAID 205683285)).  No specific information in the file is given regarding their level of interest in the federal census, however.


Perhaps the greatest teacher involvement occurred in Fort Worth, Texas, where teacher participation allowed many standard Enumeration Districts (EDs), such as ED 261-284, to be subdivided into multiple pieces, such as 261-284A, 261-284B, 261-284C, 261-84D, 261-284E, 261-284F, and 261-284G, with each piece handled by a different enumerator.  (Please note that subdivision of EDs into A, B, C, etc., subparts – which happened in many places across the United States – does not necessarily imply that teachers were the enumerators of those subparts.  Subdivision of an ED often occurred when an on-site supervisor of the census found that the “planned” ED had a larger population than was expected and therefore needed more enumerators to get it completed.)


Cover of Brochure, "The 1950 Census Plan for Fort Worth:  A Message to School Teachers"In Fort Worth, the teachers began census enumeration work on Friday, April 7, 1950, and continued until the job was completed.  They were expected to work “at least eight hours a day” and, “with the exception of a few call-backs” should be able to complete the assignment by Thursday or Friday evening.” The piece-pay rate was “designed to produce earnings of $8 to $10 per day for diligent workers” and total $50 to $60 for their time training and enumerating.  Teachers would be assigned an area as near their residence as possible but not within the district of the school to which the teacher was presently assigned.  (Brochure, “The 1950 Census Plan for Fort Worth:  A Message to School Teachers” in “Binder 71-A – 1950 Census Brochures” (NAID 206240475)).


Did the Teacher Participation Program work?  How many school teachers became 1950 census enumerators? How successful were the Census Bureau’s efforts?  Answers to these questions will require further research.


A future blog post will take a second look at the Teacher Participation Program.  In the meantime, we invite you to explore digitized records relating to the 1950 Census Teacher Participation Program.  Perhaps you will find a record relating to a school district, teacher, principal, superintendent, or other educational leader in which you are interested.

NARA expects to digitally release the 1950 population census schedules for researcher use on April 1, 2022, which is 72 years after the official 1950 census day.  This is the 35th in a series of blog posts on the 1950 censusAuthor’s Note:  This and all 1950 census posts are subject to revision if further research determines that our understanding of the topic was in error.


Every 10 years, “The Big Count” kept getting bigger and more challenging to successfully complete.  Thus, the 1950 Census was the last time enumerators personally visited most households with large multi-family census sheets.  During subsequent censuses, households received enumeration forms in the mail and often mailed them back to the Census Bureau.


With an eye toward the future, the Census Bureau in 1950 tested self-enumeration with household forms in Ingham and Livingston Counties, Michigan, and Franklin County, Ohio. Household forms were also tested in selected Enumeration Districts (EDs) in Genesee County, Michigan, and in Coshocton, Defiance, Delaware, Fulton, Henry, Knox, Licking, Lucas, Ottawa, Paulding, Putnam, Richland, Van Wert, and Williams Counties, Ohio, but the enumerators completed the forms for households in those areas.


There were actually five different enumeration procedures used during the 1950 census, with Procedures II, III, IV, and V used in the experimental Michigan and Ohio areas:


  • Procedure I – The regular census procedure used throughout most of the United States, with households recorded by an enumerator on the standard Form P1, 1950 Census of Population and Housing, that had space for 40 persons per page.
  • Procedure II – Enumeration on a household schedule, Form P10, and Form P11. If the household was not at home or the enumerator was unable to complete the interview on the P11, the enumerator was to leave the form with an explanatory letter (Form P11A) at the household and pick it up later.
  • Procedure III – Enumeration on a household schedule, Form P12A or Form P13A, which the enumerator left at the dwelling unit for later pick up by the enumerator.  Form P12A instructed the recipient:  “A Census Enumerator called at your house but did not find anyone at home.  Accordingly, you are requested to fill out this form.  The enumerator will return to pick it up within 3 days.”
  • Procedure IV – Enumeration on a household schedule, Form P12B or Form P13B, which was “left to be filled out by the head of the household and mailed to the District Office if no one was at home to give the required information to the enumerator on his first visit.”
  • Procedure V – Self-enumeration on a household schedule, Form P12C or P13C.  These were distributed by persons called “listers” shortly before the April 1 census date, with instructions for the household itself to fill out its schedule and mail it to the District Office.  This procedure will be described in more detail below.  The Bureau found that public response to Procedure V was “highly gratifying” and that “over 95 percent of the schedules left were filled out and returned by the respondents.”  This procedure was conducted solely in Ingham and Livingston Counties, Michigan, and Franklin County, Ohio.


The Census Bureau concluded that household schedules had several advantages over large multi-household “line schedules” such as: 

  • It was more convenient for the enumerator in the field. It was a better interviewing tool because the enumerator could show the wording of the questions to people without violating the confidential answers of others.
  • It was more convenient for the clerks in Washington, DC, who collated family statistics.
  • It could be left for self-enumeration.


On the other hand, household schedules were more costly to print, handle, and process.  This problem was likely also experienced 60 years earlier by the temporary 11th Census Office while handling, compiling, and analyzing the household forms used nationwide during the 1890 census. 


Self-enumeration had been done in “many countries” and the Bureau’s own “small-scale pretests” prior to 1950 had indicated that were some cost savings to be achieved by the use of self-enumeration.  However, the Bureau’s not determined whether the quality of data collected by self-enumeration outweighed the extra printing, shipping, and handling costs.  Therefore, in 1950 the Bureau conducted “large scale” experiments with the five different procedures.


Procedure V, self-enumeration, was summarized by the Bureau as follows:


(1)  Each lister was assigned to canvass and list one or more Enumeration Districts (EDs) – and to complete this process by March 31, 1950.


(2)  Training for each lister required about half the time necessary for training the standard census procedure (Procedure I) to regular enumerators because the lister was not trained on the nuances of definitions and concepts involved in the various questions on the schedule. However, he or she was instructed on:


(a) Whom to report to and obtain answers from for any questions asked by respondents.

(b) Definition of a dwelling unit.

(c) Definition of places for which an agricultural questionnaire was required. [Questionnaires for individual farms are not extant.]

(d) Specified housing items to be entered by him [her], such as dilapidation.

(e) Circumstances calling for special forms, such as Individual Census Report (ICR), Infant Card, or New Occupant Card.

(f)  Mechanics of listing procedure and entries to be made on the various forms.


(3)  The lister visited every dwelling in the Enumeration District to accomplish these tasks:

(a)  The lister Identified dwelling units and left a schedule at each.  If the household was assigned a sample schedule, the lister left Individual Census Reports (Form P2) for any unrelated persons and asked the respondent to also list these persons on the schedule for the household.  Whenever necessary, Infant Cards (Form P3) were also provided.  At each vacant unit, a New Occupant Card was left.  If no one was at home, the lister obtained needed information from neighbors and left the schedules.  A letter printed on the schedule itself requested the respondent to mail it in.


(b)  The lister identified non-dwelling unit quarters.  For places on the “T-Night” list, institutions, and other special types of living quarters, the lister returned a schedule marked “Void” to the District Office.  This group of schedules served as a list of special living quarters for follow-up by enumerators.  For other non-dwelling unit quarters, the lister wrote the names of all residents on the schedule before leaving it with Individual Census Reports (ICRs – Form P2).


(c)  The lister determined whether to leave an agricultural questionnaire by filling out section I of the Form A1, Agriculture Questionnaire (in both urban and rural areas) for every farm or ranch, every place of three or more acres, and every place with specialized agricultural operations.  A special letter was left with each agriculture questionnaire, requesting the respondent to fill it out and mail it to the local Census Office.  [Questionnaires for individual farms are not extant.]


(d)  The lister filled out a line on a listing sheet for each listing unit (dwelling unit, non-dwelling unit quarters, “T-Night” place, institution, or other special type of living quarters, and place for which an Agriculture Questionnaire was required but not tied to a household in the Enumeration District (such as when the farm owner lived in a different Enumeration District).  The information entered on the listing sheet served as a control on the completeness of listing and on the sampling.


(e)  The lister prepared a map for the Enumeration District that corresponded to his or her work in the ED as follows:

    • The lister divided the Enumeration District into blocks, street segments, or road segments.
    • If the Enumeration District could not be divided into blocks he or she identified the location of the units listed by entering serial numbers for each street or road segment or for each unit.
    • He made the entry “No D.U.” on his map for each block or street or road segment for which he had no dwelling units listed.


(4)  The lister worked with pads consisting of 50 Population and Housing schedules and a listing sheet.  There was a one-to-one correspondence between the schedules in the pad and the lines to be filled in on the listing sheet.  The 50 schedules consisted of 10 sets of 5 schedules:  4 non-sample and 1 sample form.  The pad system constituted a major control of the sampling operations.


(5)  The lister also addressed a follow-up letter for each dwelling unit at which schedules were left.  These letters were turned in to the District office with his or her portfolio.  The listers were paid on a piece price basis for each listing and for each follow-up letter addressed.  In addition, a mileage allowance was paid in rural areas.


(6)  Schedules received in the District Office were checked in and the follow-up letters corresponding to schedules received were discarded.  About a week after April 1, the the remaining follow-up letters were counted and mailed out.  Simultaneously, the schedules received in the District Office were edited (checked) for completeness.  All office personnel for editing and other operations were selected from among the listers and paid an hourly rate. Whenever possible, incompleteness in a schedule was cleared up by making a telephone call to the respondent.  Starting April 10, however, callbacks were also made by enumerators working out of the District office for:

(a) Schedules not received

(b) Incomplete schedules that could not be completed by a telephone call


Enumerators for this follow-up operation were selected from among the listers and given the standard Census enumerator training.  They were paid on an hourly rate basis plus mileage allowance.  The number of enumerators used for the follow-up operation was about one-fifth the number of listers.


The “T-Night” and “missed persons” procedures were the same as in the standard Census procedure (Procedure I).  Institutions and other special living quarters were covered by a separate centralized follow-up operation.


Public response to Procedure V was “highly gratifying” and that “over 95 percent of the schedules left were filled out and returned by the respondents.”  However, “a detailed evaluation of the success of the procedure from a technical point of view” had to “wait on the analysis of the time and cost records—and on the results of the special post-enumeration survey being conducted to obtain information on the quality of the data furnished by the respondents who filled out their own schedules.”




Main sources of information for this post:


(1)  “Binder 98-A – Memorandums Concerning Procedures II and III, 1950 Census” (NAID 208134154), in “Reference Materials, 1948-1950” (NAID 2990119), Record Group (RG) 29, Records of the Bureau of the Census, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC.  Materials in this file describe the differences in all five procedures and outlines Procedure V.


(2) “Binder 106-A – Memorandums Concerning Procedure V, 1950 Census” (NAID 208134180), in “Reference Materials, 1948-1950” (NAID 2990119), Record Group (RG) 29. Bureau staff member Charles Merzel served as “Washington trainer and technical adviser” for the Procedure V census operation in Franklin County, Ohio, during March and April 1950.  His 10-page memorandum and related materials provide much insight into the personnel, logistical, and enumeration procedures and problems faced in implementing Procedure V.  In addition, it includes lists of forms used in Procedures II, III, IV, and V.

NARA expects to digitally release the 1950 population census schedules for researcher use on April 1, 2022, which is 72 years after the official 1950 census day.  This is the 34th in a series of blog posts on the 1950 census.


Forma P93, Censo de Población y Viviendas:  1950, Puerto Rico (Form P93, Census of Population and Housing:  1950, Puerto Rico) was the form used by enumerators in that U.S. possession.  Written entirely in Spanish, its basic population and demographic questions for 40 persons on each sheet were similar to those asked in the Continental United States.  There were no questions for “sample” persons.  Questions concerning the characteristics of housing were asked on the reverse side.

Front side of Forma 93, Censo de Poblacion y Viviendas:  1950, Puerto Rico (Form 93, 1950 Census of Population and Housing, Puerto Rico)

Image:  Front side, Forma P93, Censo de Población y Viviendas: 1950,  Puerto Rico


“Heading Items” at the top of the form identify where the enumeration took place, adjusted to reflect the political subdivisions used in that possession:

  • Item a.  Municipio
  • Item b.  Barrio
  • Item c.  Enumeration District (D. de E.) number
  • Item d.  Hotel, Case de Huéspedes, Institución, Puesto Militar, etc., with name, type, and line numbers
  • Item e.  La enumeración de esta hoja empezó el (date sheet started)
  • Item f.  Firma del enumerador (enumerator’s signature)
  • Item h.  Examinado por (jefe de grupo) on (date) (Checked by (crew leader's name) on (date)).
  • Hoja Numero (Sheet Number)


“Para Jefe de Familia" (For Head of Household) items in columns 1 to 3 ask questions about the household’s dwelling place:

  • Item 1.  Nombre de la calle, avenida, carretera o camino  ("Name of street, avenue, or road")
  • Item 2.  Número de la casa (y del apartamiento) ("House (and apartment) number")
  • Item 3.  Número de la vivienda en orden de la visita (“Serial number of dwelling unit” was assigned by the enumerator in order of visitation)


“Para Toda Persona" (Questions for All Persons) Items in columns 4 to 15 are similar to those on the Form P1, discussed previously at 1950 Census:  Form P1, Population and Housing Schedule “Questions for All Persons” except for different birthplace options in item 9 and "single" as an additional marital status option in item 10.  In addition, questions concerning educational attainment were asked of all persons in Puerto Rico; in the Continental U.S., the same or similar questions were asked only of persons on sample lines on the Form P1, as discussed in 1950 Census:  Form P1, Population and Housing Schedule Questions 21 to 28 for All Persons on “Sample” Lines

  • Item 4.  Cuál es el nombre del jefe de la familia?  Cuáles son los nombres de todas las otras personas que viven aquí?  A note en el orden siguiente:  Jefe, su esposa, hijos solteros (en el orden de edad), hijos casados y sus familias, otros parientes, otras personas, tales como alojados, sirvientes que viven en la casa, y sus parientes (Apellido paterno y materno (si la persona lo usa) y nombre de pila)
  • Item 5.  Relación.  A note el parentesco, vinculo, o relación de la persona con el jefe de familia, como Jefe, esposa, hija, nieto, suegro, alojado, esposa del alojado, sirvienta, paciente, etc.
  • Item 6.  Color o raza - "B" for Blanco, "Col" for de color, negro o mulato, and Otra raza - especifique
  • Item 7.  Sexo. "M" for masculino o "F" for feminino
  • Item 8.  ¿Qué edad tenía en su último cumpleaños? (Si menos de un año, anote el mes en el cual nació, como abril, mayo, dec., etc.)
  • Item 9.  ¿En qué municipio nació?  Si nació fuera de Puerto Rico, anote el país
  • Item 10.  Estado Civil con "C" for casado, "UC" for en unión consensual, "V" for Viudo, "D" for Divorciado, and "S" for soltero
  • Item 11.  ¿Sabe esta persona leer y escribir?  (Si o No)
  • Item 12.  Cuál es el grado más alto que esta persona ha asistido en la escuela? (Vea clave al pie de la hoja)
  • Item 13.  ¿Fué aprobado este grado?  (Si o No)
  • Item 14.  ¿Ha asistido a la escuela en cualquier período después de febrero 1?
  • Item 15.  ¿Sabe esta persona hablar inglés?  (Si o No)


Para Toda Personal de 14 Anos o Mas de Edad (Questions for Persons 14 years of Age and Over) in columns 16 to 25 asked basic employment questions that were similar to those asked on the Form P1 in the continental United States discussed in 1950 Census:  Form P1, Population and Housing Schedule "Questions for Persons Age 14 Years and Over"  Part I.  In addition, males were asked about their military service, and women were asked how many children they had given birth to, and and all persons were asked about their income.

  • Item 16.  ¿Qué estaba haciendo esta persona la semana pasada?  (Vea clave al pie de la hoja)
  • Item 17.  Además durante la semana pasada, ¿hizo algún trabajo por parga o ganancia? (o algún trabajo sin paga para un familiar) (Si o No)
  • Item 18.  ¿Buscó trabajo la semana pasada?  (Si o No)
  • Item 19.  ¿Tenia un empleo o negocio en el cual no trabajó la semana pasada?  (Si o No)
  • Item 20.  Si "T" en la 16 or "Si" en la 17, ¿Cuantas horas trabajo la semana pasada?  (Incluya trabajo sin paga para un familiar)
  • Item 21.  ¿Cuantás semanas trabajó en 1949?  (Haga esta pregunta a toda persona de 14 años o más de edad) (Anote número) o "O")
  • Items 23a, 23b, and 23c, were to be asked of those who answered "T" in item 16; "Si" (yes) in items 17, 18, or 19; or worked at least one week in 1949 (item 21).
    • Item 22a.  ¿Cuál fué su ocupación? [Same as Form P1 Item 20a].
    • Item 22b.  ¿En qué negocio o industria trabajó?  [Same as Form P1 Item 20b].
    • Item 22c.  Clase de trabajador  (Class of Worker) indicated broad employment categories, with “J” por un patrone parivado (private employers); “G” por el gobierno (government employers); “S” por cuenta propia (persons who owned their own business); and "F" por familiar sin paga (persons who worked without pay on a family farm or business).  [Same as Form P1 Item 20c].
  • Items 23a, 23b, and 23c asked about income in 1949:
    • Item 23a.  ¿Cuánto dinero ganó en jornales o sueldos el año pasado? 
    • Item 23b.  ¿Cuánto dinero ganó en su propio negocio, profesión, o finca el año pasado?
    • Item 23c.  ¿Cuánto dinero recibió en intereses, dividendos, asignaciones de veteranos, pensiones, rentas u otros ingresos el año pasado?
  • Item 24.  Para cada hombre, ¿Ha servido en las Fuerzas Armadas de los Estados Unidos durante (24a) II Guerra Mundial, (24b) I Guerra Mundial, and (24c) Otro servicio (Incluye servicio actual)?  [Same as Form P1 Items 33a, 33b, and 33c]. (Military service).
  • Item 25.  ¿Para cada mujer, número de hijos nacidos vivos due ha tenido?  (Number of children born to a woman.)


Housing Questions on the reverse side of the form asked about the characteristics of dwelling units occupied by up to 12 households on the front of the form, including condition, whether it included a business unit, exterior materials, decade of construction, ownership, rental value, number of rooms, and type of water supply, toilet, bathtub or shower, refrigerator, and lighting.  The reverse side was not microfilmed by the Bureau of the Census when the front side (population) was filmed.  Therefore, information about specific dwelling units is not available.  Compiled data was published as Census of Housing:  1950 (Washington:  Government Printing Office, 1953), Volumes 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, and other publications.

Reverse side of Forma 93, Censo de Poblacion y Viviendas:  1950, Puerto Rico (Form 93, 1950 Census of Population and Housing, Puerto Rico)

Image:  Reverse side, Forma P93, Censo de Población y Viviendas: 1950,  Puerto Rico



This is the final post in our overseas journey examining forms used in U.S. territories and possessions.  Previous posts discussed: