210 



National Resources Committee 



lation to require the information and which satisfied 

 the Bureau, through field tests conducted by its investi- 

 gators, that registration was at least 90 percent com- 

 plete. The six New England States, together with 

 New York, New Jersey, Indiana, Michigan, and the 

 District of Columbia, some of wliich had been collecting 

 vital statistics for many years, were admitted to the 

 death registration area at once, but it was not until 

 1915 tliat a birth registration area could be established. 



The long, hard, often discouraging campaign which 

 was fought to bring States, one by one, into the fold 

 constitutes one of the proudest chapters in the history 

 of the Bureau of the Census. Like Grant before Rich- 

 mond, the progress was slow, but the Bureau kept 

 stubbornly pounding away until in 1933 the two regis- 

 tration areas included the entire Nation. The Bureau, 

 of course, did not make the fight single-handed. Its 

 consumers were loyal allies. Committees of the Ameri- 

 can Public Health Association, American Statistical 

 Association, and American Medical Association, the 

 National Tuberculosis Association, and rej^resentatives 

 of the leading life insurance companies were in the 

 forefront of the battles. In some States the boards 

 of health had to be educated to the need, before citizens 

 of that State could approach the legislature. In others, 

 the legislatures were apathetic, in spite of strong pres- 

 sures. After the required legislation was passed, there 

 remained the problem of bringing a State up to the 

 minimum quota. Each State had to educate its physic- 

 ians and undertakers as to their duties, as well as an 

 army of local registrars. The Bureau aided the State 

 registrars in preparing promotional publicity and facil- 

 itated the exchange of ideas as to the most effective 

 ways of presenting public health data to the general 

 public. 



In order to keep up an esprit de corps in the States, 

 an Association of State Registrars was formed, and the 

 Vital Statistics section of the American Public Health 

 Association provided an annual forum for the discus- 

 sion of practical and scientific problems. 



The Division of Vital Statistics had its own advisoi-y 

 committee, comprising representatives of the American 

 Public Health Association. There were frequent con- 

 tacts with life insurance companies, particularly the 

 Metropolitan, with the United States Public Health 

 Service, and with private research organizations like 

 the Milbank Fund. 



The most rajjid progress in completing the registra- 

 tion ai-ea was in the 1920's. It was in this period that 

 most of the Southern and many of the Western States 

 came in. It is now known that many of the later 

 States which were admitted were well below the mini- 

 mum standard in reporting births and also, probably, 

 infant deaths. The desire to complete the registration 



areas as rapidly as possible is understandable. It was 

 not until P. K. Whelpton of the Scripps Foundation 

 published a study in 1934 that the probable magnitude 

 of the errors became appreciated.^^ 



With the acquisition of a new Chief Statistician, Dr. 

 Halbert Dunn, in 1935, the work of building up the 

 reporting in the States was accelerated. He and his 

 assistant chief went from State to State, analyzing the 

 difficulties, listening to the experiences of the State 

 registrars, and offering suggestions. A fund of in- 

 formation was collected in these contacts. In order to 

 facilitate exchange of ideas a sprightly periodical 

 called The Registrar was edited in the Bureau, with 

 many contributions from the State Registrars. 



The relationship between the Division and other agen- 

 cies which use the data of the Division, such as the Chil- 

 dren's Bureau and the Social Security Board, as well 

 as life insurance and other private research organiza- 

 tions, is cordial. There is a free interchange of ideas. 



In ccBisulting with advisers, the Bureau is frank 

 about its problems. They are not all solved. The 

 birth reporting in some States still may be less than 

 90 percent complete. There are still many troubles in 

 the way of allocating births and deaths to place of 

 residence. Post census estimates of populations are so 

 uncertain as to introduce large eri-ors into rates. The 

 ideal base population to which to relate deaths from 

 automobile accidents has not yet been found. Causes 

 of death are still badly reported — especially those 

 from noninfectious diseases. There is still too long a 

 time elapsing between the birth or death and the pub- 

 lished tables. There are tricks in tabulation and ways 

 of using micro-photography which need further 

 development. 



It took 33 years to establish, through Federal-State 

 cooperation, registration areas which nominally in- 

 cluded the entire country. It may take 10 more years 

 before a reasonably complete reporting system is estab- 

 lished. The experience of the Division of Vital Sta- 

 tistics indicates the difficulties in the way of State- 

 Federal cooperation. The success was due to some 

 general initial recognition of the need for vital sta- 

 tistics, to aggressive leadership from AVashington, to 

 the Avillingness of national committees of social 

 scientists and public health research men to take time 

 to i^romote an educational campaign, and to the will- 

 igness of local people in each of the 48 States to take 

 time to steer bills through their legislatures. The man- 

 hours of self-sacrificing energy which went into the 

 l)romotional work are enough to make one pause before 



'^ r. K. Whelpton, "The Completeness of Birth Registration In the 

 United States," Journnl of llie American Statistical Association, volume 

 XXX, June 1034. Further research has conflrmed WUelpton's general 

 conclusions, thoush not all of the details. 



