Census

Census, a type of statistical observation consisting of a one-time count of all units included in the collective being enumerated; each unit is described according to a predetermined set of summary characteristics that determine the state of the collective at a specific moment. The representation of phenomena obtained through census is conventionally compared to an instantaneous photograph. However, in addition to establishing the one-time state of the object, the task of research may also be to study those phenomena and processes that occur in this object and under the influence of which its state changes. In this case, observation must be conducted at moments corresponding to the occurring changes, or, as they say, observation is conducted through current registration. Sometimes even with a C. questions are posed aimed at illuminating processes that have taken place during a certain period; such methods are resorted to only in cases when the need for missing current data forces one to disregard the inaccuracy resulting from delayed registration of past phenomena (e.g., studying mortality in the censuses of the USA; questions about births and deaths in the spring agricultural surveys conducted several years ago; these questions were asked in areas with inadequate registration in the civil registry organs). Analysis of census data makes it possible to outline the processes that determined the state and composition of the collective at the time of the census. Comparison of the results of two or more censuses makes it possible to determine the results of those processes that took place during the intercensal period, while establishing the picture of the development or course of the process is best achieved through current registration. In the area of phenomena of public order, the most striking example of the application of both types of statistical observation mentioned is population. To determine the size and composition of the population, the census method is used. It is known that the size and composition of the population of each locality, country, and the earth as a whole are constantly changing. These changes are very different in their origin, content, and magnitude. Changes also include the redistribution of population between various sectors of the national economy in connection with socio-economic shifts occurring in the life and activity of individual countries. Changes are also expressed in the constant migration of population under the influence of the most diverse economic, everyday, social, and other kinds of stimuli. Changes in population also arise as the immediate consequence of a number of pathophysiological processes—diseases, deaths, births, growth, and other processes. All these changes, mutually intertwined, are summarized in the constant change of the total population size, the size of individual territorial, age-sex, socio-professional, family, and other groups, in the form of constant changes in the level of physical and mental development of the population, and in a number of other forms. In this case, the quantitative aspect of all changes—their magnitude—is inextricably linked with qualitative transformations and vice versa. Similar changes also occur in other social and national economic phenomena (agriculture, industry, etc.) and in all phenomena in general, since 'matter without motion is just as unthinkable as motion without matter' (F. Engels). In order to research and know all these changes and in particular to know changes in the size and composition of the population, it is obviously necessary to set up observation so that it accompanies and appropriately records each case that has occurred. For studying a number of processes from among those just mentioned—population migration, mortality, birth rate, morbidity, etc.—systematic observation and registration of each individual case of moving, death, birth, illness is established. For a number of largely technical reasons, it is often impossible to track all individual movements of each member of the collective being studied. However, this is not required for studying many processes that are sufficiently illuminated through the study of the movement of basic elements. For studying changes that cannot be accounted for in the current order, one has to resort to indirect methods: to judge them by the shifts that have resulted from these changes. To reveal these shifts or, in the words of Prof. Yu. Yanson, 'to observe the state of a continuing but changing phenomenon'... censuses serve in particular. The boundary outlined between the areas of application of census and current records in practice does not always turn out to be sufficiently clear. This happens because the choice of one or another type of statistical observation cannot be made independently of the goal that is set when studying a given object. In deciding which of the two types of statistical observation mentioned is advisable to adopt in a given specific case of research—census or current registration—one should proceed from two points: first, from the nature of the properties subject to observation and study in this phenomenon, and second, from the purpose of the research, taking into account those statistical-technical conditions under which the research itself is conducted. The most effective study of phenomena is achieved in the case when both census and current registration are constructed as links in a single system of research, which determines the use of one or another method of observation in accordance with the object, goals, and conditions of study. To ensure the possibility of combining census and current registration data, it is necessary to coordinate the program of each type of observation. Scientifically substantiated methods of census and the conditions ensuring their successful application have been developed on the basis of experience, mainly of population censuses conducted in the last 100-150 years in various states of the world. Records and censuses of population were also conducted earlier; such operations took place even in deep antiquity. The difference from modern censuses lies mainly in the fact that they were in most cases lists by which groups of population were recorded that were of interest to the state from the fiscal, military, police, estate, legal, etc. points of view. The most important elements for a modern census are the census program, which must be expressed in precisely and clearly formulated questionnaires, compiled in full accordance with the program for processing the data collected during the census operation, which determines its purpose. To become acquainted with the content of population census, the volumes of the last all-union population census of 1926 can serve. The basic form in the 1926 census was the 'personal sheet', compiled for every single person without exception. In addition, in cities and urban settlements, 'family cards' and 'property statements' were also compiled, which provided material for processing data on the structure of the urban family, housing conditions, urban real estate, and the housing stock in cities and urban settlements. Family census is the latest method of population statistics. The family card, with the same questions as in the personal sheet, has the advantage over the latter that it gives a characterization not only of each member of the family but of the entire family as a whole. Processing the 'personal sheet' presents in its results for those characteristics (or their combinations) that are recorded by the census, a summary characterization of the population. Family census makes it possible to establish the same picture in accordance with those combinations in the population that are determined by the composition of families. As an example, we can point out that the ratio between active and inactive can be established by the 'personal' census in the form of the general or average burden of active persons of a particular nationality or social group; family census makes it possible to examine within each such group the burden of inactive persons in families of different structure depending, for example, on the age of the head of the family, duration of marriage, etc. Family census makes it possible to illuminate a number of questions related to the problem of population reproduction, the study of housing conditions, budgets, and other questions. The results of processing the 1926 census data on urban families are printed in volumes LV, LVI (3 issues) and LIV (housing conditions). The upcoming winter of 1933-1934 will see family card census cover not only urban but also rural population. It should also be noted that the compactness of the family card presents considerable convenience and economy in conditions of machine processing. We will list here the questions of the 'personal sheet' of 1926.

(typical for the population), which for the entire (urban and rural) population of the USSR was to give, according to a resolution of the CEC and Sovnarkom USSR, "an accounting of the population's size, its national, social, and professional composition": 1) surname, name, and patronymic, 2) sex, 3) age, 4) nationality, 5) native language, 6) place of birth, 7) duration of permanent residence or a mark of temporary residence, 8) marital status, 9) literacy, 10) marks for physical defects or severe injuries, 11) mark for mentally ill persons, 12) occupation—main and secondary—with sub-questions regarding each to indicate: a) the name of the craft, work, position or specialty in them, b) position in the occupation, c) for owners, marks on hiring workers or working with family members, d) the name of the institution, establishment or enterprise with indication of the type of production, as well as the address, 13) duration of unemployment and previous occupation for the unemployed (with sub-questions a), b) and c) of question 12), 14) if without occupation and living on one's own means, then on what exactly, 15) if without occupation and living on others' means, then on whose exactly; the occupation of the breadwinner is also indicated. In connection with question 7 of the "personal sheet", it should be noted that the traditional program-organizational question of population census is whether to count the population on the principle of present or permanent population. Present population is defined as that which spent the night on the "critical" day of the census in a given apartment. Even with certain reservations regarding the application of this widely recognized principle, it turned out in practice that in some areas, due to temporary concentrations of individual population groups on the census day, not only the composition but also the total population size is distorted. Statistical thought is now working on establishing corrections that eliminate certain deficiencies in counting the present population. There are radical proposals to switch to the principle of permanent or, by other definitions—usually resident in this place—population. A number of censuses establish at least in part the total size of both present and permanent population. In the all-union census of 1926, "personal sheets" were compiled for the present population, and "family cards" for the permanent population. The census program (despite all the complexity of its development) should be formulated as simply and clearly as possible in the census form questions, so that these questions can be correctly and uniformly understood and filled out by the census personnel. Instructions to census forms, explaining the purpose of the census, as well as the purpose and procedure for filling out individual questions, should also be clear, simple, and brief. In population censuses in multinational states, such as the USSR, it is necessary to conduct the census (and print forms) in the languages of the individual nationalities. As a second factor determining the success of the census, the enormous importance of clear organization of the census production should be emphasized, which must be uniformly carried out throughout the entire territory of the country without any deviations from the program and especially from the census instructions; reflection of local features that do not fit into the general formulations of questions should be provided for by additional instructions approved by the body directing the census production. For such guidance, a special census bureau (census bureau in the USA) or a department of the central statistical agency (all-union population census of 1926) is usually created, the task of which is to carry out not only the production, but also the processing and publication of the census results. Local statistical bodies were involved in the guidance in 1926. A fairly large number of people are involved in the census production according to the size of the population (for the all-union population census of 1926, about 200,000 people). The main mass is recruited for enumerating the population (so-called registrars or enumerators, counters). The work of registrars is paid in some countries (e.g., in the USSR in 1926), in others it is mostly performed free of charge as an honorary public duty. Registrars are mostly recruited from students, teachers; by agreement with enterprises and institutions, their personnel, primarily engaged in accounting and statistical work, are seconded to the census. It is very important that registrars consist of local residents who know their area and are trusted by the population. The task of the registrar is to exhaustively cover all population within the enumeration area, and no deviations from instructions and guidelines are permitted. Registrars work under the guidance and control of instructors and controllers available to each census area and district. In some countries, the population census is conducted in what is called the self-enumeration method, i.e., the population fills out the census forms itself. In this case, the role of registrars is reduced to supplying the population with forms, providing instructional guidance on filling out the forms, receiving filled forms from the population, and checking them. The duration of the census production in 1926 was 7 days in urban settlements and 14 days in rural areas (with exceptions in hard-to-reach areas of the extreme north, etc.). From the point of view of best reflecting the state of the population, it is necessary to conduct the census in the shortest possible period of time (e.g., in one day). For practical reasons, it is often necessary to abandon a one-day census production (e.g., in the 1926 census), but even in these cases, the population count is tied to one specific day, the same for the entire territory of the country, called the "critical day" (in the 1926 census—December 17). The time for conducting the census is mostly chosen in winter, when the population is in relatively least motion. In a number of countries, the census is organized in such a way that the filling out of survey forms is done before the "critical day"; on the "critical day" a secondary visit to the population and final determination of its size takes place. This method is especially convenient under conditions of "self-enumeration" of the population. Another tradition regarding population census should be mentioned: the requirement for uniform duration of intercensal periods and regular observation of shifts occurring in the population over time. In defense of this condition, it was argued that equal time intervals smooth out the difference in the sum of operating causes, which may be attributed to the accidental difference in the duration of time. However, the usually observed differences in the results of two or several adjacent censuses can only to a very limited extent be reduced to differences in the sums of "accidentally" operating causes (during intercensal periods of different durations). The essence of these differences always lies in the nature and volume of shifts that have taken place in the development of national economic phenomena. To a large extent, the requirement for uniform duration of intercensal periods is caused by the interests and convenience for population calculations, which are created under conditions of equal periods. One of the conditions for the successful conduct of a demographic census is the preparation of the population. A special agitation campaign should be conducted, explaining to the population the tasks of the census, the procedure and timing of its conduct. The agitation should not be conducted as a narrowly departmental initiative, but as a public campaign in which the press (radio) and all public organizations (the party, Komsomol, trade unions, Soviet activists) are mobilized. The success of the agitation can be judged by the trust with which the population answers the census questions—and of course, complete trust and activity of the population are one of the essential conditions for the success of the entire census. To conclude the consideration of issues related to the organization of the census production, it should be noted that a number of preparatory works are required for the successful conduct of the census, and first of all, the precise establishment of the territory of the census. In the population census, so-called census districting is carried out, the lowest unit of which is the area enumerated by one registrar (counter). To ensure exhaustive coverage of all census objects, cartographic material (maps, lists) from the previous census or other similar operation is prepared before the census, allowing the registrar to best orient themselves and master their area (lists of properties, farms, industrial and commercial establishments, institutions, etc.; lists of populated places for rural areas, etc.); during the census, the lists are checked and supplemented. The census production concludes with a simple program count of the population; usually in the order of "preliminary results" the total population is counted by registrators, sometimes with breakdown by sex. The summarized results are sent by telegram from the lower census units to the higher ones, so that after a short period of time the country has census data on the size of the population.

With regard to the processing, which provides numerical documentation of the material collected during the C., it should be noted that it can be done manually and on machines. It should be noted that the population C. of 1933/34, currently being prepared (1932), is planned to be processed entirely on machines. Management of mass C. must be maximally centralized to ensure uniform compliance with instructions and guides for processing. The speed of processing, while ensuring its high quality, has enormous importance from the standpoint of providing the results of the C. to the consumer as soon as possible. Here the speed (duration) of publication is of decisive importance. It is necessary to emphasize that publication should not be limited only to volumes of numerical tables (with one notes or another), as is usually the case, and whose significance is self-evident. In addition to numerical tables, it is necessary to publish at least for the most important topics special monographs containing an analytical review (textual) of both census material and current statistical and accounting material attracted to its illumination. Speaking of population C., one cannot fail to mention population accounting. Population accounting represents such cooperation, in which the description of units of the collective being accounted for serves primarily for practical operational use, and not only for obtaining a numerical characteristic of the entire collective. For example, compiling lists of infants subject to vaccination, or children subject to compulsory schooling, has as its direct purpose to ensure the possibility of personal control over which children have been vaccinated or which children have entered school, and who exactly of the children remained outside of vaccination or school. Personal accounting, of course, also allows for numerical accounting, and its organization can and should be built in accordance with the requirements of the latter. Population accounting also refers to those operations by which only the size of the population is established. At the present time (1932), before the organs of national economic accounting, the question has arisen of organizing such a source of population accounting, which, ensuring the daily needs of local governing bodies (village soviet, district executive committee, city soviet), would at the same time provide a statistical database of data on the size and composition of the population. With regard to population C. in our country, it should be noted that the first general population C. in Russia was carried out in 1897 (9/11 by new style). Lenin gave an interesting processing of its data on the class composition of the population in the book "The Development of Capitalism in Russia." Before that, C. were conducted in a number of cities, and they were periodically carried out in Moscow and Leningrad. During the war, a number of urban C. were conducted, connected with the need to obtain data on housing and food supply issues. For accounting for the rural population during the war, the results of agricultural C. of 1916 and 1917 can be used. In 1917, an all-Russian urban C. was conducted. The first Soviet population C. was carried out in 1920 (Aug.) with significant support from V. I. Lenin. The unfinished external and civil wars at that time led to undercounting of the population in areas close to military operations. The data of the 1920 census were processed (not completely) and published in the works of the former Central Statistical Administration. In 1923, an all-Russian urban C. was conducted, published by the Central Statistical Administration. In 1926, an all-Union population C. was conducted, completely processed and published. In 1931, the accounting conducted by the consumer cooperation organs when issuing ration books for supply was used for the C. of the urban population. Since 1931, work has begun on using the results of the unified agricultural tax accounting, conducted through the People's Commissariat of Finance, to determine the size of the rural population. By decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR of 23/IV 1932, it was decided to conduct a general population C. and a housing census in December 1933. In addition to population accounting, C. are widely applied to the study of agriculture and industry. Agricultural C. were carried out by zemstvo statisticians in a number of provinces and districts of pre-revolutionary Russia. A critical evaluation of the data of zemstvo statistics, and in particular of household C., can be found in the classical work of V. I. Lenin "The Development of Capitalism in Russia." On the scale of the entire country, land C. were carried out by the Central Statistical Committee of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in 1877/78, 1887 and 1905. During the war, all-Russian agricultural C. were conducted in 1916 and after the February Revolution, an all-Russian agricultural and land C. of 1917 (simultaneously with the all-Russian urban C.). The C. of 1916 and 1917 had the task of clarifying a number of points related to the construction of the food supply plan, and the second also of the agrarian reform plan. Under Soviet power, the Central Statistical Administration conducted a number of agricultural C. A complete agricultural C. in 1920 (simultaneously with the demographic-professional and industrial) covered farms, rural population, livestock, sown areas (field and farmyard), dead inventory and trades. The following forms were used for the C.: a) household card (the basic form, compiled for all without exception farms in rural areas, regardless of whether the given farm had land, crops, livestock), b) settlement form (compiled also for groups of farms by land use, as well as for collectives: society, commune, artel, partnership, etc.) and c) forms for describing Soviet farms. In addition, auxiliary forms were compiled: 1) list of populated localities, 2) list of household heads of the populated locality and 3) list of household heads, connecting the 1920 C. with the 1917 C. for clusters designated for dynamic research. Annual sample C. of agriculture covered: spring-up to 10% (from 1926) peasant farms, autumn (mainly aimed at determining crop yields)-about 3%. Dynamic cluster C. of agriculture covered about 1,500 (3%) peasant farms in selected typical clusters in various districts of the USSR. Their purpose was to establish on the basis of studying the same villages and courtyards the socio-economic shifts and class differentiation occurring in the village under the influence of the planned impact of the socialist restructuring of agriculture. Soviet agricultural statistics also knows the type of C. of collective farms and state farms. The first C. of collective farms was carried out by the Central Statistical Administration in 1918, then it should be noted the C. of collective farms in 1927 together with the spring survey of agriculture. In 1928, a C. of collective farms was carried out according to a broad program, and in the same year a C. of state farms. Collective farms were surveyed according to a somewhat narrower program in 1929. In 1930, for the first time, report-forms submitted by collective farms to the XVI Party Congress were used to obtain complete data on collective farms. In 1931, collective farms submitted report-forms on the results of the second collective farm spring (results of spring sowing, implementation of the decisions of the VI Congress of Soviets of the USSR and on the economic condition of the collective farm). Annual reports are used to obtain data on collective farms. In 1932, an all-Union livestock census was conducted in February. Industrial C. usually establish for enterprises of a certain census data on the size of output, the amount of raw materials processed and fuel consumed, the condition of equipment; accounting of labor force, working time and wages is also carried out. The task is set to determine net output. In pre-revolutionary Russia, such C. were conducted in 1900 and 1908 ("Varzarovsky") and in 1912. After the revolution, industry was censused in 1918, in 1920, in 1923 and in 1932. The most complete in program was the 1918 C. Description was carried out according to the following 12 forms: 1) general questions (name, type of production, year of foundation, etc.), 2) organization and management of the enterprise, 3) workers (their composition by gender and age groups), 4) finances of the enterprise, 5) land and communications, 6) power installations, 7) auxiliary machines and mechanisms, 8) consumption of fuel and lubricating materials, 9) production machines and apparatus, 10) consumption of raw materials, 11) output of products, 12) processing of customers' raw materials. The 1920 industrial C. was carried out together with the population C. In program it was already broader than the first C., it covered not only large and medium industry, but also all small industrial establishments. In addition, it was also distinguished by the fact that the data collected by it had a static character (in the 1918 C. they covered the period 1913-18). The 1923 C. was also conducted in cities simultaneously with the urban population C. Its program was somewhat broader than the 1920 C. by including accounting of output and production machines and tools. From 1922, monthly form L and semi-annual form were introduced for studying the condition and work of industrial enterprises; from 1925/26, annual form B. In 1932, a C. of industrial equipment and a C. of construction industry were conducted according to a very broad program and a large number of specialized forms.

Censuses of small (non-taxed) and cottage-industry handicrafts were conducted in the USSR in 1925 (in 1926 the data from the population census were subjected to detailed analysis), in 1928/29, and an investigation was conducted in 1932. In addition to studying national economic phenomena in the USSR, censuses have been widely used in the study of questions of public education. Among pre-revolutionary censuses, it is necessary to mention, in addition to zemstvo censuses, the all-Russian census of primary schools in January 1911, conducted under the direction of V. I. Pokrovsky. The first census of educational institutions of all types, teachers, and students was conducted in 1920. After that, annual surveys were conducted on a specific date (first January 1, later December 1-November 1) of the number of educational institutions of all departments and all types (technical and general education), teaching staff, students, and some data on the organization of institutions. The main survey, similar to the 1920 survey, was repeated on December 15, 1927. In recent years, a series of censuses have been conducted on an all-union scale to account for the number and composition of trade union organizations. In the field of healthcare, censuses have been used by local and republican organizations to account for medical personnel (census in the RSFSR in 1920), medical-prophylactic institutions, and hospital patients (census of patients in Moscow and Leningrad). The first all-union census of medical-prophylactic institutions and medical personnel was conducted in April 1930. According to a resolution of the Union government, this census had as its task the accounting of the entire network of healthcare institutions by their types with the establishment of: 1) the content, volume, and scale of their activities, 2) the system and methods of work, 3) the structure and size of the staff, 4) characteristics of the material and financial base, 5) characteristics of the state of the capital stock of institutions and its correspondence to their tasks, 6) characteristics of the degree of correspondence of healthcare institutions to the needs of the population, and 7) characteristics of the degree of satisfaction of needs in various types of preventive and medical care. All these questions were to be studied in a district, production, socio-class, and national breakdown. The immediate impetus for the organization and conduct of this census was the need to obtain comprehensive information for the construction of a state plan for healthcare. The census was carried out in the center by the forces of the social statistics sector of the former Central Statistical Administration of the USSR with the involvement of a number of sanitary statisticians and practical workers in the organization of healthcare to develop its plan and programs, and in the localities by specially organized groups for health statistics (at provincial and regional statistical departments) and by the forces of the medical personnel of medical-prophylactic institutions with the participation of trade union and public organizations. All types of medical-prophylactic institutions of all departments (People's Commissariat of Health, Societies of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, VSU of the RKKA, etc.), junior, middle, and senior medical personnel, and bodies managing healthcare affairs were subject to description. At the same time, a one-day census of patients in hospital beds (not a complete census) was conducted. To accomplish all the tasks set before this census, 29 forms were established. Each form was used to describe a series of medical-prophylactic institutions similar in nature and purpose. Forms for medical-prophylactic institutions included the following sections: 1) general information, 2) characteristics of the served area (district), 3) composition of the medical institution, 4) description of the yard, building, and equipment of the medical institution, 5) staff, 6) activities (from October 1, 1928, to September 30, 1929), 7) budget (for 1928/29 and 1929/30) and 8) supply of the medical institution (medicines, food, linen, and fuel). The personal physician's form contained 48 questions; its extensiveness was explained by the fact that it had to satisfy the requirements of the simultaneously conducted census of specialists (conducted by the Central Bureau of Labor Statistics, former Central Statistical Administration, All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions, and People's Commissariat of Labor). Patients were recorded on a special form (in the form of a list). The main purpose of their census was to determine the socio-class composition of the population served by outpatient and inpatient medical-prophylactic institutions. The results of the census have not yet been published. The main features of this census were, first, the wide range of tasks set before it, and second, the great variety of objects to be described, often with a small number of them. Statistical surveys, very close in their organizational and methodological premises to censuses, have been repeatedly used in studying the state of social health. From the past, it is necessary to mention the censuses of the mentally ill, conducted in a number of former provinces by the forces and means of local public organizations. Their methodology deserves attention even at the present time. The most indicative in this sense is the census of the mentally ill in the Moscow Province, conducted in 1893 under the direction of V. I. Yakovenko. The census was organized as follows. First, information was collected about each mentally ill person in the province, containing the name, surname, place of residence, age, and rank of the patient. Such brief information was received from rural elders, district and city doctors, city administrations, administrative authorities, and other bodies. By comparing them with each other, this information was verified, and on its basis a list of the mentally ill was compiled. Further, by means of a tour of all villages and cities by specially invited psychiatrist doctors and on-site examination of patients, a detailed description of each patient was made. As individual volosts and districts were toured, the completed forms filled out by psychiatrists were delivered to the psychiatric bureau, where they were reviewed. If any omissions or special interpretations of questions were found that deviated from the previously established rules at a meeting preceding the tour, this was reported to the relevant doctor for correction and in order to prevent errors in subsequent work. The number of patients not fully satisfactorily identified was only 4%. Regarding the anamnesis, it was found that the rural environment—the presence of the patient's family, neighbors-fellow villagers—more than the clinical environment, ensured the possibility of obtaining the necessary information by inquiry. Surveys, very similar in their methodology to the one just described, have been conducted repeatedly in recent years, especially widely by some major anti-tuberculosis organizations (Moscow, Ukrainian, etc.). Their immediate goal was to determine the size and nature of the tuberculosis infection of the population and its individual groups (mainly production groups). They were conducted either by sending special detachments to the places and a complete examination of the entire population by specialists on the spot with the use of necessary diagnostic means, or by conducting all examinees or those selected during a preliminary on-site examination ('two-moment' examination) through special institutions. In several surveys, the matter was not limited to a single examination: examinations were repeated after certain intervals of time. In a significant number of surveys, only a single examination was conducted, which significantly diminished their value. A concurrent count of the mentally ill and disabled (blind, deaf-mutes, armless, legless, and persons with paralysis of the extremities) was conducted during the last general all-union population census of 1926. Questions about the disabled and mentally ill were included in the 'personal form' of the 1926 census; thus, the disabled and mentally ill were counted according to the entire program of the personal form. The results concerning the disabled and mentally ill were published in a fairly detailed program in Section III of the volumes of the 1926 census (XXXIV-LI). Doctors were involved in the processing; explanations of the program and methods of processing are given in Volume XXXV. The census gives not only the distribution of the disabled and mentally ill (foci), but also a characteristic of each type of disabled person by nationality, causes of disability, place of birth, age, literacy, marital status, and sources of livelihood. The survey received particularly broad dimensions in the conduct of the so-called dispensarization, first of factory workers, and later of the rural child population. In its initial phase, dispensarization represented a true census of the physical development and health of these population groups. As a form for describing the working life and professional activity of each examinee, his heredity, physical constitution, pathological changes, and general assessment of health status, the personal health journal developed by Dr. S. M. Bogoslavsky was used (see Dispensarization). Finally, in the same series should be placed sanitary-hygienic surveys from general and special points of view (tuberculosis, syphilis, trachoma, etc.), conducted by a number of scientific institutes among various national minorities. Some of them had the character of complete surveys, others had a partial character.