QUESTION TEXT:
Concerning the 1940 Census. The instructions to Census enumerators reference both Population Schedules and Individual Census Forms. Is my inference correct that a census taker filled out an Individual Census Form at each household and afterwards transcribed the answers to the summary Population Schedule?

Were the Individual Census Forms also preserved? I want to know because my research into the Heinlein family revealed that the relevant Population Schedule listed the correct address and last name, but all the other names and info were clearly wrong. (Heinlein is a famous author and the subject of a detailed biography.)

So I wondered if there was an original source record — Individual Census Form — that could be compared to the Population Schedule to see if the enumerator in 1940 made a transcription error.

Today I received this answer:

Dear Mr. Glyer,

The Individual Census Forms were to be left for absent households to fill out for the census taker. If the household was at home, they were unnecessary, and the census taker filled out the regular population schedule. If the household was not at home, he/she left an Individual Census Form. Information on the Individual form was supposed to be transcribed into the regular population schedule, although I have seen at least one which was just inserted at the end of the ED. Since the information was transcribed onto the regular schedule, the Individual Forms were not kept permanently (with the exception of at least that one I have seen).

It is entirely possible that the errors you’ve found were the result of someone transcribing the data from an Individual Census Form. However, there’s no way to verify what happened, as the Individual Forms no longer exist.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us again.

Sincerely,

Katherine Vollen
Archives Specialist
Research Services
National Archives Building

To sum up — if somebody was home when the census taker called, the answers went straight onto the Population Schedule, which is the summary document now available online. An Individual Census Form was only left if no one was home.

While we still can’t conclusively answer the mistake-or-prank question from this information, I’ve learned there was a lot less transcription involved in the census process than I originally thought.

After we’d made three good-faith attempts to find one of our subjects face-to-face or ascertain if a residence was inhabited, we would then pursue what information could be gleaned from neighbors, landlords, city records.

I thought my fellow enumerators were honest and hard-working — as with 1940, 2010 was a lean year for jobs and the Census had a plethora of highly-educated workers.

But that doesn’t mean that Heinlein’s 1940 enumerator couldn’t have just declined to make the climb and “made it up” or there was a transcription error. Or someone who answered the door at the Heinlein’s decided to play a practical joke that day…

Back to the census and the gummint in general: Robert Heinlein mentioned several times to me and Charles Brown of Locus that periodically the IRS would send someone out to audit his taxes, and he would insist on proper procedure which definitely included a prearranged appointment, and might have included a warrant. He found them tedious and distracting, and felt no obligation at all to make their lives easier.

Yes, I looked at the Internet Movie Database, too. Seems like another place where it helps if you already know exactly what you’re looking for. If there is a movie industry artist named Richard who fills the bill, perhaps a reader here knows how to drill into the IMDB more efficiently than simply returning a list of everybody named Richard who ever had a credit.

I have written to the National Archive asking if the Individual Census Forms were preserved, on the remote chance it might be possible to compare the source document with the Population Schedule.

I’ve heard from several people who have dug up Isaac Asimov’s 1940 information and when they post something I will point to it.

The transcription error theory is attractive, but how did Bill [Patterson]convince you?

As I said, Leslyn was very active in politics, and presumably had made use of voter-registration lists in campaigns, so had a notion of the value of accurate census data. The same can be said of Robert.

Evidence is not conclusive either way, but this argument inclines me to believe the mistake theory where, earlier, I’d been ready to believe the prank theory.

“…however what matters here is Leslyn’s attitude.” Agreed. And I have nothing further to contribute that can rule out either theory. We may never know.

Mr. Harrell covered some houses near the Heinleins on 25 April 1940, and returned to visit others on 26 April. Perhaps the chances of error were increased in compiling data taken on different days.

Carl Fields: “However, I wonder if the occupation information could have been for a job SHE had at the time, and was just written on the wrong line on the form.”

She did have a movie job at the time Robert Heinlein met her, years before– in the music department at Columbia Pictures. However, just a few months after the 26 April census visit, Leslyn attended a General Semantics conference. In his book, Bill Patterson reports that on her application form she claimed her occupation as “Housewife; secretary to husband’s writings; general hand[y]man in political campaigns.” So I don’t believe she had an outside job at this time.

Note that many of the neighbors along Lookout Mountain Avenue worked in the “motion picture production” industry– you can find some of them in IMDB– so it’s a plausible occupation for the mysterious Richard if he is an overlooked neighbor.

I followed your info to examine this page. Film actor Dean Jagger (whose age is listed as 32 in 1940) appears on the same page as the Heinleins.

I didn’t try to check Leslyn’s biographical information in Patterson’s book (or in an old article about her that I remember from someplace — The Heinlein Journal, perhaps). However, I wonder if the occupation information could have been for a job SHE had at the time, and was just written on the wrong line on the form.

Another off-the-wall theory is that she could have used the visit from a census taker to practice a German accent. Maybe she was taking an acting class — or was rehearsing a part in an amateur theater production.

Theory “zero” should be that the census taker was too lazy to walk uphill to that section of Lookout Mountain Ave. so he decided to make up the answers. Sort of like H.L. Mencken and the other reporters from Baltimore papers did when they were assigned to cover a murder in an especially dangerous part of town.